Minister of Truth
Practically Perfect
BTW, Marie was referring to the stores of coveted, white bread, on hold for the wealthy. Not actual dessert cake.
Natural rights and libertarianism
- Thread starter FUCK THE POLICE
- Start date
FUCK THE POLICE
911 EVERY DAY
Well the post was a huge exaggeration, but it felt good to write. I exaggerate the rights of single people everywhere.
USFREEDOM911
MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN
It has evolved to be a discussion of what you understand because it's obvious you don't understand.
In msg 36 you wrote, “According to apple, it's OK to kill someone else if you're starving and someone else has more then you think they "need".
I neither said nor implied that. What I did write was, "A mother or father faced with their children starving to death have the "natural right" to obtain food even if it means killing someone else in order to get it."
It is a "natural right" that all species adhere to. An innate reaction. And it's quite different than saying one has the natural right to kill if they are starving.
In msg. 17 I wrote, “It is natural (nature's way) to take from others if it's a question of survival. It is also natural and OK , as well, to take from others in order to survive if the taking does not interfere in the other's survival" which shows I further clarified my statement prior to your msg.# 36.
Perhaps you should take your eye off the bell and keep it on the ball.
You said what I said you did and you have no defense for it.
The only reason your backpedaling, at this time, is because you know that there is a large possiblity that you're going to be chastized for it.
Your comment is not a natural right and if people attempt what you suggest, then they won't have to worry about hunger; because they'll be dead.
Odd that you want to discuss comments made later then when you first proposed this and you seem to be running away from Post #10.
SmarterthanYou
rebel
excuse me, but could you explain just what the difference is in regards to any natural rights?
I think that is changing. You aren't marked or looked at quite as curiously these days when you announce you don't want children or don't want to marry. It is becoming much more acceptable.
Adoring my children and grandchildren, I don't understand it, but I have several friends who have decided to remain childless and it is fine by me! I have told them my children will take care of them when they are old!
Just like biscuits aren't biscuits in England.
Thanks for the trivia, you do know a lot of historical facts.
Mott the Hoople
Sweet Jane
I've embarrased a number of people who have made snide comments about my wife and I being childless. They assume if you don't have kids shorlty after your married that you've decided not to have them.
I don't understand why people feel the need to make it their business. It is a personal decision and one that is not made lightly.
You are an old soul, I assumed you were older by the way you write here.
But some of the reason given are really stupid. That is, people that claim to be doing it for some altruistic reason are full of crap, just as those that claim to have kids for altruistic reasons are full of crap. IMO, it is ignorant to base the decision, to have or not, on anything but your own selfish personal reasons.
I can fully understand and appreciate someone saying they don't want the burden or want to wait until they are in a better position. We should avoid having children unless we are fully willing and able to commit to it. And having kids because it will benefit society is idiotic as well. You should do it for the great joy they will bring you.
The reasons my friends have chosen not to have children is one claims to be selfish and doesn't have time to raise them. The other claims they would be a terrible parent and the third says that she would have to do it alone, without any help from her husband and she opted not do bare the burden by herself!
Water, why do you believe Natural Rights must necessarily be tied to some higher power? Why can't they just be the product of our nature as determined by evolution. Natural rights don't need to depend on God. I don't see why you believe that? But they can be defended if you think our nature is determined by God or evolution. It does not matter what sets our nature, our nature demands certain rights be respected or civilized society is impossible and breaks down.
Self determination!
As far as property, we have not evolved past the need for it. We have not evolved past our jealous and selfish tendencies. Mankind cannot be turned into automotons that blindly follow your economic dictates anymore than we can be turned into robots that follow usfreedumb's demands that no on smoke mj. I don't see much reason to believe that will change. If it does it will be by appeal to reason and compassion, not through force. Property rights are as necessary today as they ever were.
Minister of Truth
Practically Perfect
I'm sorry to hear that. The idea of child rearing remains daunting to me thus far. I feel like the pressures from the outside world to screw them up would overwhelm my ability to set them right. Even when I overcome all of the other fears, that one will stand out.
FUCK THE POLICE
911 EVERY DAY
Why should we respect something just because it's in our nature? That's the naturalistic fallacy. And there are many communal impulses in our nature anyway that libertarianism entirely ignores in subservience to blind individualism.
FUCK THE POLICE
911 EVERY DAY
If you will read my post again you will realize that I never called for the abolition of property.
Taxes have been ever a part of the human experience as property. It was just a matter of time until society became wealthy enough so social security schemes became practical.
You didn't
Okay then. It sure seemed like you did.
Property rights are more than just an evolutionary advantage to society. In the state of nature (i.e., outside of civilized society) man needs resources for survival. They are not provided to him on a silver platter. He must expend effort to procure them and doing so gives him a right to them.
Social security is not very practical. That's likely to become clear, soon. Some form of basic social safety net seems, to me at least, to be practical. And it can be had without much resistance or need for heavy handed force if it is held in check to the basics.
As far as medical care... You can't get medical care off a bananna tree. That is, in the state of nature you would be largely screwed and would have to find someone else to help. You would have no right to force them to help. Your need is not a claim on their life. You would have to convince them to help through trade or through appeal to their compassion.
The state cannot provide you with a right to medical care anymore that it can provide pmp with a right to be free from the idea that two queers might marry.
Further, there is no reason why the market cannot adequately provide it for most. Costs have been driven up by forcing government and market insurance programs that are designed to pay for ALL medical costs. It is failing and will continue to fail because human nature will result in people overusing medical care, just as government attempts to provide any good leads to shortages.
I am not so sure that taxing people to provide a system of catastarophic insurance is such a bad idea or that all government involvement should be avoided, but the idea that we have a right to have it provided to us is the reason for the problems not the solution.
Last edited:
apple0154
MEOW
If you don't know the difference between an individual starving and the children of an individual starving I don't see how we can discuss anything.
apple0154
MEOW
Following the word "natural" I wrote "nature's way" in brackets. It is inherent in all living species to protect and provide for their offspring. There is nothing more "natural".