You do realize that libertarians are socially liberal but, fiscally conservative? Giving the most freedom possible
No one is going to voluntarily contribute to society. It might work that way for awhile but it's not a stable solution. That way leads to anarchy.
Government's do all of the above. There are plenty of mass-graves to testify to this fact.
You do realize that libertarians are socially liberal but, fiscally conservative? Giving the most freedom possible
What libertarians want to do is just hand over the power from the public sector to the private economic power base, thus giving the majority of the people less say over what happens in their lives.
Basically they want to replace publically accountable power with tyrannical private power.
You guys always have these funny definitions of freedom. Anarchy has the most "freedom" as you mean freedom. Should we shoot for that?
I have no doubt that there are some libertarians who are liberal on some social issues.
For me, the defining issue of the 21st century is a clear one: what will be the role of the government in the USA? Most libertarians, especially right libertarians, have a view of the role of government that would effectively take us back to the era of the Gilded Age 1800's.
I can think of far fewer ways to destroy American and its people that a course of that nature.
We should shoot for a social order in which everyone is free to act in any way he wishes as long as he doesn't harm others or their property. This ensures the maximum freedom not just for some, but for all.
Its a false question, you ARE yourself, that question is circular, its like asking is water wet?
The whole concept of ownership is depends on a seperation between the owner and the thing owned. The only way self-ownership works is if you seperate your ego or soul from your body, but given that for all intents and purposes we ARE our body, self-ownershiip is a confused and rediculous concept.
You ARE yourself.
Ownership: 1 the state, relation, or fact of being
2 a group or organization of owners
There are a lot in this one hah the most relevant though
Property: 2a something owned or possessed
Own: adjective 1 belonging to oneself or itself
Noun: to have or hold as property: possess
There are a lot of good ones in own but i only need the one.
Why should property be included in that, freedom just means the ability to do things you want, many times private capitalist property hinders freedom for most people.
Why should property be included in that, freedom just means the ability to do things you want, many times private capitalist property hinders freedom for most people.
I don't think most libertarians want to do this, but are naive enough to think it won't happen.
Tell me how? Also lets compare private and government hinderances to freedom
Do you wish for a social order in which people may take your property? How would you ensure your survival in such a situation with no resources to live on?
None of those definitions say anything against my argument, You still ARE yourself, making the question of self ownership logically invalid.
Well Capitalism prevents me from having a say in tons and tons of different economic things that affect me, I'd say the workers at Foxcon factories don't have too much freedom, most workers are forced to give up their freedom for most of the day so they can get a peice of the wealth they produce, most people who can't afford property are forced to give up some freedom in order to have a place to live.
If you got rid of private capitalist property, and evyerone had a say over economic issues that effected them, you'd have tons more freedom.
Let me give you an example.
Libertarian have no philisophical problems with a Pullman style town (the capitalist basically owns everything in the town, the stores the housind the main factory and so on), simple because its private property, even though it ends up being a tyranny, but make all that stuff democratic libertarians have a problem with it because it turns into "government." Even though the latter gives more freedom to more people.
I wish to live in a social order where private capitalist property (distinct from possession) is public, and things that effect the public are accountable to the public, and economic activity is done democratically (since economic activity is by definition social), if your claim to property ends up making things worse for the majority of people in an area, I want that property to be accountable to those people.
BTW private capitalist property hasn't always been around, you've had tons of societies without it.
So when i am enslaved by society i will no longer be myself? Thats not the argument now is it? Slaves can still be themselves but they are indeed prohibited! Do you understand if i own myself no one can own me, when protected by individual rights, or dare i say property rights, because i do indeed own my body not you, you have no right to tell me what i can do with my body, nor make me work for the common good! Are you slowly grasping this concept or will you continue to argue a flawed argument
I wish to live in a social order where private capitalist property (distinct from possession) is public, and things that effect the public are accountable to the public, and economic activity is done democratically (since economic activity is by definition social), if your claim to property ends up making things worse for the majority of people in an area, I want that property to be accountable to those people.
BTW private capitalist property hasn't always been around, you've had tons of societies without it.
So you're saying that you want to live in a society in which property (distinct from possession) is owned by the government?
What freedoms are they forced to give up, i hear ideological thoughts but no real examples
No ....
Where di I say that+
I wish to live in a social order where private capitalist property (distinct from possession) is public...
I'm using teh term public braodly, it could mean the community, it could mean the government, it could mean all the workers at a workplace, I basically mean accountable to the people that are effected by something.
What I'm saying is that property is not absolute and that it should be accountable to the community, if a group of robbers or vandals try and destory or take equipment, then yeah, you defend it, but that doesn't mean you need private capitalist property laws for that.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?