Libertarinism Ideology

[head of joaquin]

Nothing makes my comments any more "unsupported claims" than your comments. It's up to whoever is reading this thread to decide which comment sounds more rational and reasonable..

Thanks for admitting that natural rights are nonsense. So when do we have the gun fight?

Or, maybe we should forget about natural rights and hold elections about how we want to life. How's that for a concept!

 

[head of joaquin]

Your lauding of democracy is irrelevant to the fact that the rights we sometimes call "natural rights" have been consistently determined by societies throughout human history to exist -- especially life and property. The natural right we humans have devalued most is actually liberty, not property. There is scarce historical evidence that a society which devalues the concept of private property is working with a successful model.

Whoossh! Right over your head.

Keep pretending you can provide a theoretical basis for you libertarian claptrap (while not providing it) and I'll keep pretending to listen.

By the way, three cheers for property rights! Is that really an issue?

 

[head of joaquin]

health care can certainly be argued to be a right..I'm one of those people who see it intimately linked to the right to life (you know, one of those "nonexistent" natural rights)
I don't think folks, especially government, should stop you from seeking it out and/or receiving it.

healthcare insurance... not really a right
mandating that other people pay for your healthcare from the fruit of their labor... not a right.


another name for natural rights is fundamental rights... we have set up a system on how to determine fundamental rights..... first and foremost, there must be a historical tradition of the right being practiced.. the tradition must precede the formation of the US, the right in question must have a philosophical tradition, and it must exist , as such,at the individual level and it cannot be dependent on government
other names are God given rights.. Natural rights.. inalienable rights... and to an extent, human rights

authoritarians will settle such disputes by gunfight.. libertarians, not so much....authoritarians, as opposed to libertarians, have never really bothered themselves with philosophical backing or valid ethical considerations.. force/coercion/aggression is the authoritarian starting point in conflict management and governance.

There's a guy over there who disagrees and thinks health care insurance is a natural right and that property isn't. So much for natural rights.

I guess we could have a gun fight over it. But maybe we could simply forget about quasi-religious unprovable claims about what's natural and unnatural and instead, hold elections to determine what we want as a society. How's that for a concept! And we don't even have to shoot each other.

 

[Thrilla]

There's a guy over there who disagrees and thinks health care insurance is a natural right and that property isn't. So much for natural rights.

I guess we could have a gun fight over it. But maybe we could simply forget about quasi-religious unprovable claims about what's natural and unnatural and instead, hold elections to determine what we want as a society. How's that for a concept! And we don't even have to shoot each other.

oh look, another progressive who reject philosophy.

why should we try to understand anything, who needs wisdom? instead of analyzing our most basic beliefs and concepts rationally.... we can just hold elections and see what sticks!!

derp derp... brilliant :roll:


you don't want to have a gun fight with me... you don't want to have any kind of fight with me.

 

[Neomalthusian]

Thanks for admitting that natural rights are nonsense. So when do we have the gun fight?

Or, maybe we should forget about natural rights and hold elections about how we want to life. How's that for a concept!

Admitting natural rights are nonsense? I only asked you and haymarket to explain your idea of what natural means in the context of rights (since you were the ones that brought up natural rights), and as usual you respond with more of this childishness.

 

[Neomalthusian]

There's a guy over there who disagrees and thinks health care insurance is a natural right and that property isn't. So much for natural rights.

I guess we could have a gun fight over it. But maybe we could simply forget about quasi-religious unprovable claims about what's natural and unnatural and instead, hold elections to determine what we want as a society. How's that for a concept!

John Stuart Mill could tell you how it is for a concept:

The "people" who exercise the power are not always the same people with those over whom it is exercised; and the "self-government" spoken of is not the government of each by himself, but of each by all the rest. The will of the people, moreover, practically means the will of the most numerous or the most active part of the people; the majority, or those who succeed in making themselves accepted as the majority; the people, consequently, may desire to oppress a part of their number; and precautions are as much needed against this as against any other abuse of power.

Society can and does execute its own mandates: and if it issues wrong mandates instead of right, or any mandates at all in things with which it ought not to meddle, it practises a social tyranny more formidable than many kinds of political oppression, since, though not usually upheld by such extreme penalties, it leaves fewer means of escape, penetrating much more deeply into the details of life, and enslaving the soul itself. Protection, therefore, against the tyranny of the magistrate is not enough: there needs protection also against the tyranny of the prevailing opinion and feeling; against the tendency of society to impose, by other means than civil penalties, its own ideas and practices as rules of conduct on those who dissent from them; to fetter the development, and, if possible, prevent the formation, of any individuality not in harmony with its ways, and compel all characters to fashion themselves upon the model of its own. There is a limit to the legitimate interference of collective opinion with individual independence: and to find that limit, and maintain it against encroachment, is as indispensable to a good condition of human affairs, as protection against political despotism.​