I rarely, if ever, see a libertarian defending slavery... slavery ,again,is categorically rejected by libertarianism... I do not condone slavery whatsoever, it is only shadowed ,in being repugnant, by murder.
I do, however, find it common for libertarians to defend the south's decision and right to secede....i'm one of them myself.
some are able to separate the issues of secession and slavery.. others, not so much.
s
I wonder if y'all realize that by rejecting the concept of self ownership, you necessarily reject the concept of the Social Contract... ponder that for a moment.
so you too reject self ownership?... interesting.
2 professional agents of the state rejecting self ownership.. whodathunk it :lol:
I wonder if y'all realize that by rejecting the concept of self ownership, you necessarily reject the concept of the Social Contract... ponder that for a moment.
what "extremes" are you talking about in terms of libertarians?
What utter nonsense. Could you please present some objective survey data in which a majority of the US population voices affirmative support for the question
DO YOU OWN YOURSELF?
That is a pretty sweeping statement that denies any person can own another person. And that is the definition of slavery.
So which is it? If you admit the existence of slavery, that somebody can indeed own you and that renders your precious libertarian axiom to have less utilitarian value than a fifty pound bag of garden manure.
Perhaps if you call me some more third grade level names like you did in your recent post, the wisdom may come to you?
It hasnt escaped me at all. You claim people are not property. Do you derive that from some other principles or did you pull that out of your rump?The moral argument against slavery is that people are not property. Does that somehow escape you?
I called you a buffoon due the fact that you were acting ludicrous, in which seemed like an attempt to bait me.
Let me try to simplify it.
I tell someone they cant climb over the fence, the other person ask why, i respond saying its trespassing. Now in your argument your saying you can, well obviously it can and does happen, in the same sense as slavery exist. My belief is that another person cant own a person(becauses its morally wrong), in the same way as some cant trespass, or cant rob a bank. When you watch a movie and a character tells another character you cant kill them, well yea this is, of course, untrue. Still its a moral belief, doesnt me it cant happen. Ill make sure i choose the right words around you next time though mr. sheep.
It hasnt escaped me at all. You claim people are not property. Do you derive that from some other principles or did you pull that out of your rump?
Did I miss the part where you connected those dots on two different pages of two different coloring books?
Yup, Id love to see some factual data to back up that claim.
I see this conversation has broken down into talks of slavery and ownership of human beings...not exactly where I saw this going, but when you mention Lincoln...I suppose it is an inevitability.
I am going with the easy choice of FDR. He grew government to proportions that it was never meant to go. The New Deal was a big bureaucratic bust. World War II saved FDR's legacy as that is what people remember most about him along with being elected to four terms.
As far as the slavery conversation goes...I think we can all agree that it was wrong. Yes?
Okay..
As far a self-ownership goes...one should have the right to do to themselves as they wish as long as it doesn't infringe on other people. The second you start infringing on the rights of another person is when you are breaking a law. You cannot "own" yourself outright....matter of fact; I don't even like to term it in that way. Individuals don't own themselves, but have rights to themselves.
I see this conversation has broken down into talks of slavery and ownership of human beings...not exactly where I saw this going, but when you mention Lincoln...I suppose it is an inevitability.
I am going with the easy choice of FDR. He grew government to proportions that it was never meant to go. The New Deal was a big bureaucratic bust. World War II saved FDR's legacy as that is what people remember most about him along with being elected to four terms.
As far as the slavery conversation goes...I think we can all agree that it was wrong. Yes?
Okay..
As far a self-ownership goes...one should have the right to do to themselves as they wish as long as it doesn't infringe on other people. The second you start infringing on the rights of another person is when you are breaking a law. You cannot "own" yourself outright....matter of fact; I don't even like to term it in that way. Individuals don't own themselves, but have rights to themselves.
ownership is simply a claim to sovereignty... so yes, you can, and do, own yourself... you have supreme sovereignty over your person.
self ownership is the basis on which all individual rights are derived.
you might not like the terms utilized, but you do believe in self ownership... and that's good enough fer me
The extreme libertarian right would consider Lincoln a radical socialist because he dared interfere with the rights of the powerful to exploit others. If vulgar, far-right libertarianism is the model, then every President who ever used the power of federal government to change something would be a good candidate.
Stuff and nonsense.
You make statements then wilt and wither from them when shown to be absurd.
You call names because you were caught saying ridiculous stuff and shown up on it.
No libertarian says its bad he freed slaves, on the contrary, thats the ONLY good thing he did.
Yup, Id love to see some factual data to back up that claim.
I still stand by the statement, i just have to explain it to the slow individuals that cant grasp the concept of what im actually saying.
You have forgotten preserving the union.
it's doubtful there is a poll available for the question.... just as there is no poll for " do you breathe air?"
the concept of self ownership is widely accepted throughout society and our system.. it is the basis for all individual rights.. it is the basis for justice... and it is the basis for most laws.
that is not an objective "good thing".
If the individuals to whom you are attempting to explain this are "slow" perhaps it is the person doing the explaining that is the actual problem? Either that or he is attempting to "explain" something that is utter bunk to begin with.
why am I not allowed to kill you, or beat you, or enslave you?
Any rational creature requires moral principles to guide its actions. So you are either admitting that you are not rational or that you do follow certain principles but are afraid to name them. While it is tempting for me to assume the former, I am going to have to go with the latter. After all, you want law to follow some sort of principles, right? So dont play dumb. Now, you claim that people are not property. Yet I can sell you my labor. Why? Because my labor belongs to me. Hopefully you dont dispute that. Now answer the question as to why that labor belongs to me, and we will go from there.Principles? I do not know what those are. Perhaps you can explain them to me? I simply go by reality of the world we live in.
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?