If you read one sentence beyond what you quoted you'd see the following text. "Any two different values can potentially come into conflict". So yes they can, and in some cases do, it’s not automatic though.
It could even increase the freedom of the same people who's freedom it restricted, though most likely in other areas. Ultimately however, almost any change in any existing social order will somehow limit someone’s freedom somewhat. I don’t think that in itself is a very powerful argument against it. So yes, government regulation limits people’s freedom, but so does revoking government regulation. I suspect you’re arguing on the basis of some thesis of natural rights or a natural state, but that is and remains a deeply flawed premise, since ultimately it collapses into an argument by assertion.
Well define X (freedom) then, after that we can discuss whether we can legitimatly deprive people of it, whether we call it "freedom", "Libertarian concept of freddom" or "XGSDXjhdg"
Sure there is. If some freedom fighters are trying to topple a dictator then the dictator is merely trying to protect his interests while the evil freedom fighters are trying to advance theirs at the cost of the poor innocent dictator's freedom and that of his clique. I don't think that's the point you're trying to make though.
People who are not libertarian value other things than libertarian concepts. Some think life, equality or puppydogs are more important than what libertarians define as 'liberty'.
If you criticize an ideology for failing to resolve a problem, then obviously you think that not solving the problem is a bad thing. And if you think that not solving the problem is a bad thing, then you must think that the problem is more important than everything that must be given up to solve the problem.
Then they are still having their freedom restricted.
If we cannot distinguish between natural freedom, and the freedom to, through government inteference, tell other people what to do, then our efforts at social justice are doomed.
Every political discussion eventually comes down to assertions. Completely rejecting all forms of natural rights results in a nihilist philosophy in which the concept of rights has no real meaning.
The freedom fighters already have an interest in freedom, and they are trying to protect it. The fact that the dictator has deprived them of freedom does not eliminate their interest. The dictator, on the other hand, does not have a legitimate interest in oppressing his citizens, not in the legal sense: "A right, claim, or legal share".
Well constructed principles should be based on all consequences. So when someone starts comparing consequences to principles, they are picking out particular consequences to focus on, and ignoring all the others. So it's the principle that should take precedence.
You posted
I'm saying that they don't need to follow everything in the platform.
Specifically, Badnarik.
Where, exactly, does he say "cops can walk away from a child-molestor"? Where?
I already answered the question, you just didn't like my answer.
We already know the answer to the question: there is nothing that I can name that you would accept as "entirely Libertarian". Pretending that this is even a valid question is disingenuous. Why don't you answer the question: what point does this have?
A renegade, by definition, does not represent the party. It is therefore completely invalid to criticize a party on the basis of something a renegade has done.
You most certainly are implying it.
What have I said that is wrong? Was his share not .48? Does .48 not round to zero? Do you have any defense for your claim that I am wrong?
Kerry's share was .48. What does that round to? You're simply picking an arbitrary level of precision, then pretending that it has some special significance.
Do you still beat your wife?
He thinks that cops shouldn't have to enforce something unless it's a law. You someone twisted that into to support for child abuse.
Cite?
Has anyone ever claimed that these laws are unconstitutional? Do you seriously think this is a likely occurrence?
You didn't say it. You just deliberately gave that impression.
There is nothing "logical" about your conclusions.
Not relevant? Whether it is based on reality is not relevant?
Unless the cops are claiming that laws against rape are unconstitutional, I don't see how that is relevant.
Cite?
True
Not really, it could reasonably be interpreted to mean that you think it’s more important than what you believe will have to be given up to solve the problem, but that doesn't mean it's more important than everything else whatsoever, under any circumstances, which is what you implied.
Considering that we're not discussing a specific problem it's dreadfully hard for me to prove anything at all about that problem. In general however any solution or lack of solution to any problem will be restricting somebody's options AKA their freedom.
Adn they'd also have their freedom restricted by failure to solve the problem.
Whenever you feel like it you can define natural rights and prove their existence. until then I’ll maintain that belief in god, natural rights or blue fairies on the moon, cannot be rationally justified. The only "rights" that might reasonably be called natural are Hobbesian rights, and personally I'll take the rights to, through government interference, tell other people they can't kill, rape and steal, over those "natural rights".
No it doesn't, it can equally well lead to a socially constructed view of rights, which incidentally has to advantage that it can be defended rationally. Something I was under the impression sceptics were supposed to strive for.
No they're trying to get it, AKA advance their interest.
Doesn't change the fact that he is defending rather than advancing his interests. Of course I'm not the one who's arguing that defending your interests, is somehow morally superior to advancing them.
Yeas well constructed principles "should" be based on all the consequences and the second you convince us that libertarian principles are well constructed I'll agree they take precedence.
You clearly aren't paying attention to the thread.
For what? Actually providing cites for your claims?
You asked what the purpose of a platform is. I told you what the purpose of a platform is. That's the very epitome of a sequitur. It's truly a testament to you complete lack of honesty that you can pretend otherwise.
I have already pointed out that this is a dishonest question, designed to misrepresent rather than elucidate. That you still insist on asking it is further proof of your dishonesty.
I never claimed it does. Liar.
And you are insisting that we only look at oranges, and are trying to pretend that oranges are all there is. Can you give ANY REASON WHATSOEVER why rounding to the nearest percentage, and ONLY rounding to the nearest percentage, is the valid form that a share should take?
Rounded to the nearest 100%, zero.
That wasn't the question. The question was "Do you still maintain that it rounds to 0%?" which dishonestly implied that I was making that claim.
We are talking about different meanings of "freedom".
Asking for a proof of the existence of natural rights is like asking what color the number five is.
"Natural rights" is redundant, as all rights are natural. "Socially constructed rights" is a contradication, since if they are socially constructed, they aren't rights. As such, it cannot be defended rationally.
You're not getting the point.
It seems to me that you assume that your definition of 'rights' is superior to everybody else's. I like to hear how you justify that belief.