Nice flash animation about freedom

[Tony]

Yes, Tony. I am. I don't believe parents should have the right to do anything with their child. There are limits, because their child is not their property: it owns itself and its self-ownership should be protected.

Yeah the limits are murder, and severe abuse.


Raising your child in the culture you want is your right.

 

[Grammatron]

Grammatron:It is perfectly reasonable to allow the vast majority of individuals to make such decisions of themselves. It is the exceptions that I worry about: how is a baby in an incubator able to make such a choice? Or someone in a coma? In the real world, society does make choices for people. It makes definitions of 'healthy' and what constitutes a 'healthy life'.

I can imagine other situations in which people should not make such decisions for themselves, for instance if religious beliefs prohibit them treatment necessary for surival. I realize that this is a more controversial idea, and don't claim my idea is a definitive answer. What is your opinion on people who refuse to immunize their children because of religious beliefs? No matter how you cut that, whether society forces immunization on these children or the parents force the kids to have a risk of getting ill, even becoming a health risk to others... someone is forcing an important decision on someone else.

Unless the parents are unfit to raise children (substance abuse problems, arrest records, abuse of children, etc.) I will leave that choice up to them, because if you think about it, babies don't really have a lot to say on many things. What if the baby is a vegetarian, shouldn't it have a right to say what food it being fed? Trumping on people's beliefs in the name of "we know what's better for you" never leads to anything good.

 

[Mahatma Kane Jeeves]

It's funny, but things like that already exist. Musicians have to sign 5 year contracts where they have to put out albums, promote them, go on tours, record videos, make appearances. Yeah I know there is some difference, but they are still giving away part of their life so someone else can make a huge profit.

There is also "some difference" between my low-flush toilet and Niagra Falls.

 

[Grammatron]

There is also "some difference" between my low-flush toilet and Niagra Falls.

I sure hope so

 

[Malachi151]

I finally watched this.

The great thing about that clip is that it ultimately says nothing and is full of truisms and emotional appeals so that everyone who watches it will agree with it and think that they are a good person".

Honestly the thing it reminds me of most is Communist propaganda, that is real Communist propaganda from the mid 1800s.

In practice though how does one really define liberty and what constitutes infringing on someone else's liberty?

One can easily argue, as the communists did, that ownership of property is an infringement on liberty, that was the whole basis of their ideology, which I do not agree with.

Say for example that I buy the property on each side of your house and on MY property I build giant penis sculptures 50 feet high and I dump oil in my yard and I walk around naked and have sex with dogs in my front yard.

How does that fit in with an ideology that says no one can tell anyone else what to do? How do you define where I infringe on your rights and you on mine? In reality of human existence is that these things are determined by force or consensus. Either someone will kick your ass, or enough people will band together to take action against you, or your community will accept your actions. However your community is not obliged to accept your actions.

So, what is interesting about it is that anyone can agree with that clip even of totally opposing ideologies, so it really get's you nowhere. The only part that was really good was where it said that officials have no more rights than anyone else, yes that definitely needs to be understood and is something that essentially stands on its own.

Take it to an economic level. Suppose that you develop a career producing some product. Now someone else invents a way to make that product for half the price. You now go out of business and have to sell your house because you do not have access to the new system.

Right or wrong here is not the issue, but what has to be recognized is that the actions of other people affect people other then themselves in profound ways, even if only indirectly. Because of that, that is why other people have the RIGHT to GOVERN the actions of other people.

Engels, 1846:

The French Revolution was the rise of democracy in Europe. Democracy is, as I take all forms of government to be, a contradiction in itself, an untruth, nothing but hypocrisy (theology, as we Germans call it), at the bottom. Political liberty is sham-liberty, the worst possible slavery; the appearance of liberty, and therefore the reality of servitude. Political equality is the same; therefore democracy, as well as every other form of government, must ultimately break to pieces: hypocrisy cannot subsist, the contradiction hidden in it must come out; we must have either a regular slavery — that is, an undisguised despotism, or real liberty, and real equality — that is, Communism.

You see this is what people today don't get because they try to pigeon hole everything, but the early Communists were anarchists, they also wanted the abolition of government. Its all fairy tales though. The real issue at hand is that THERE IS NO SOLUTION, hence there will always be strife.

Individuals, by nature, will always be at odds, and always be in competition, and will always tread on each other's liberties because there is no other way. Humans are animals, we are all part of a natural system created by evolutionary processes and thus we will always be part of the evolutionary process, it is inescapable. The evolutionary process works through the suppression of liberty among individuals. Competition itself is a form of infringement on liberties, and out of that struggle the "most fit" survive. The same is true of everything and always will be, hence the Communism, and the fulfillment of individual liberty for each person are both, one and the same, unattainable.

Included among them is freedom of conscience, the right to practice any religion one chooses. The privilege of faith is expressly recognized either as a right of man or as the consequence of a right of man, that of liberty.

Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen, 1791, Article 10:

"No one is to be subjected to annoyance because of his opinions, even religious opinions."

"The freedom of every man to practice the religion of which he is an adherent."

Declaration of the Rights of Man, etc., 1793, includes among the rights of man, Article 7: "The free exercise of religion." Indeed, in regard to man's right to express his thoughts and opinions, to hold meetings, and to exercise his religion, it is even stated: "The necessity of proclaiming these rights presupposes either the existence or the recent memory of despotism." Compare the Constitution of 1795, Section XIV, Article 354. Constitution of Pennsylvania, Article 9, S 3:

"All men have received from nature the imprescriptible right to worship the Almighty according to the dictates of their conscience, and no one can be legally compelled to follow, establish, or support against his will any religion or religious ministry. No human authority can, in any circumstances, intervene in a matter of conscience or control the forces of the soul."

Constitution of New Hampshire, Article 5 and 6:

"Among these natural rights some are by nature inalienable since nothing can replace them. The rights of conscience are among them." (Beaumont, op. cit., pp.213,214)

Incompatibility between religion and the rights of man is to such a degree absent from the concept of the rights of man that, on the contrary, a man's right to be religious, is expressly included among the rights of man. The privilege of faith is a universal right of man.

...

i.e., the rights of egoistic man, of man separated from other men and from the community. Let us hear what the most radical Constitution, the Constitution of 1793, has to say: Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen. Article 2. "These rights, etc., (the natural and imprescriptible rights) are: equality, liberty, security, property." What constitutes liberty?

Article 6. "Liberty is the power which man has to do everything that does not harm the rights of others", or, according to the Declaration of the Rights of Man of 1791: "Liberty consists in being able to do everything which does not harm others."

Liberty, therefore, is the right to do everything that harms no one else. The limits within which anyone can act without harming someone else are defined by law, just as the boundary between two fields is determined by a boundary post. It is a question of the liberty of man as an isolated monad, withdrawn into himself.

...

But, the right of man to liberty is based not on the association of man with man, but on the separation of man from man. It is the right of this separation, the right of the restricted individual, withdrawn into himself.

The practical application of man's right to liberty is man's right to private property.

What constitutes man's right to private property?

Article 16. (Constitution of 1793): "The right of property is that which every citizen has of enjoying and of disposing at his discretion of his goods and income, of the fruits of his labor and industry."

The right of man to private property is, therefore, the right to enjoy one's property and to dispose of it at one's discretion (a son gre), without regard to other men, independently of society, the right of self-interest. This individual liberty and its application form the basis of civil society. It makes every man see in other men not the realization of his own freedom, but the barrier to it. But, above all, it proclaims the right of man "of enjoying and of disposing at his discretion of his goods and income, of the fruits of his labor and industry."

There remains the other rights of man: equality and security.

Equality, used here in its non-political sense, is nothing but the equality of the liberty described above -- namely: each man is to the same extent regarded as such a self-sufficient monad. The Constitution of 1795 defines the concept of this equality, in accordance with this significance, as follows:

Article 3 (Constitution of 1795): "Equality consists in the law being the same for all, whether it protects or punishes."

And security?

Article 8 (Constitution of 1793): "Security consists in the protection afforded by society to each of its members for the preservation of his person, his rights, and his property."

Security is the highest social concept of civil society, the concept of police, expressing the fact that the whole of society exists only in order to guarantee to each of its members the preservation of his person, his rights, and his property. It is in this sense that Hegel calls civil society "the state of need and reason".

The concept of security does not raise civil society above its egoism. On the contrary, security is the insurance of egoism.

None of the so-called rights of man, therefore, go beyond egoistic man, beyond man as a member of civil society -- that is, an individual withdrawn into himself, into the confines of his private interests and private caprice, and separated from the community. In the rights of man, he is far from being conceived as a species-being; on the contrary, species-like itself, society, appears as a framework external to the individuals, as a restriction of their original independence. The sole bound holding them together it natural necessity, need and private interest, the preservation of their property and their egoistic selves.

It is puzzling enough that a people which is just beginning to liberate itself, to tear down all the barriers between its various sections, and to establish a political community, that such a people solemnly proclaims (Declaration of 1791) the rights of egoistic man separated from his fellow men and from the community, and that indeed it repeats this proclamation at a moment when only the most heroic devotion can save the nation, and is therefore imperatively called for, at a moment when the sacrifice of all the interest of civil society must be the order of the day, and egoism must be punished as a crime. (Declaration of the Rights of Man, etc., of 1793.) This fact becomes still more puzzling when we see that the political emancipators go so far as to reduce citizenship, and the political community, to a mere means for maintaining these so-called rights of man, that, therefore, the citizen is declared to be the servant of egotistic man, that the sphere in which man acts as a communal being is degraded to a level below the sphere in which he acts as a partial being, and that, finally, it is not man as citizen, but man as private individual [ bourgeois ] who is considered to be the essential and true man.

"The aim of all political association is the preservation of the natural and imprescriptible rights of man." (Declaration of the Rights, etc., of 1791, Article 2.)

"Government is instituted in order to guarantee man the enjoyment of his natural and imprescriptible rights." (Declaration, etc., of 1793, Article 1.)

Hence, even in moments when its enthusiasm still has the freshness of youth and is intensified to an extreme degree by the force of circumstances, political life declares itself to be a mere means, whose purpose is the life of civil society. It is true that its revolutionary practice is in flagrant contradiction with its theory. Whereas, for example, security is declared one of the rights of man, violation of the privacy of correspondence is openly declared to be the order of the day. Whereas "unlimited freedom of the press" (Constitution of 1793, Article 122) is guaranteed as a consequence of the right of man to individual liberty, freedom of the press is totally destroyed, because "freedom of the press should not be permitted when it endangers public liberty". ("Robespierre jeune", Historie parlementaire de la Revolution francaise by Buchez and Roux, vol.28, p.159.) That is to say, therefore: The right of man to liberty ceases to be a right as soon as it comes into conflict with political life, whereas in theory political life is only the guarantee of human rights, the rights of the individual, and therefore must be abandoned as soon as it comes into contradiction with its aim, with these rights of man. But, practice is merely the exception, theory is the rule. But even if one were to regard revolutionary practice as the correct presentation of the relationship, there would still remain the puzzle of why the relationship is turned upside-down in the minds of the political emancipators and the aim appears as the means, while the means appears as the aim. This optical illusion of their consciousness would still remain a puzzle, although now a psychological, a theoretical puzzle.

- Karl Marx, 1843

And of course I'd like to comment on the issue of Fraud that was raised in the clip. Much of modern capitalist society, as all society has been, but now perhaps more so, is based on fraud. Religion is fraud. Most advertising is a type of fraud. Politics is fraud. Almost all of the foundations of our society are fraudulent.

Its also not exactly true that any free exchange of goods or values is beneficial to both parties. That can only be assumed in a supernatural and just universe or rational beings, and is not true in a material and unjust universe of irrational beings, i.e. reality.

Desire can be promoted in the minds of others, in fact it is an every day occurrence. The mechanisms of this become more well understood as we examine the mind as a machine. Take the most simple example though of addictive chemical substances. We are all machines, over which we have no supernatural control. As an example of this any person may become addicted to a chemical substance, the effects of which are determined by the physical composition of the brain and body itself.

What really constitutes free will? Free will itself is a purely supernatural concept, the concept that there is some "will" of a human that transcends the physical and that that will is what we believe is to be served by liberty, yet that will does in fact not even exist. We are all biological machines performing in deterministic ways and reacting to an environment that is created by others, hence the actions of others by definition always have a defined impact on ourselves, and our actions a defined impact on others. It is ultimately no different than addictive substances. When someone is addicted to a chemical that addiction determines their actions, desires, and motivations, yet the only difference between the reaction to addictive substances and normal action is the object of the action and its finite definition.

In other words, its all the same, having a craving for an opium fix or making the decision to move your hand or type words on the keyboard are all things determined by chemical reactions over which there is no external supernatural will at work governing.

Thus, ultimately there is no such thing as free will and there is no such thing as liberty. So, my conclusion is that the very concept of freedom itself is flawed, there is ultimately no such thing at "true" or "ultimate" freedom, there are only degrees of freedom, and thus only degrees of liberty, which is why extremists trying to "solve the riddle of liberty" will never find a solution. All that can be hoped for is a moderation of infringement, but there will always be infringement on everyone's liberties, and power is the way in which people ensure that more often than not it is not their own liberties that are infringed on, and it is power, the insurance that that your liberties take priority over others, which is the driving force of social evolution. However no amount of humanly attainable power is enough to produce true freedom, because true freedom is impossible to attain in a natural, material, and determined universe, i.e. reality.

Hence religion, the illusion of power, and illusion of freedom and liberty.

 

[EvilYeti]

Of course, in Libertopia it wouldn't be called "slavery," it would be a "lifetime work contract."

Thanks for the link, I thought I was the only person that figured this out!

What many Libertarians don't seem to understand is that if a society doesn't prohibit certain behavior and said behavior is adventageous to the individual, people are going to do it. Regardless of any morality issues. If it gives an individual an avantage in the aquisition of more property (which is all Libertarians are interested in anyway) then others will soon follow suit.

Since Libertarians oppose the minimum wage and any regulation of labor contracts, there is nothing preventing someone from paying an employee in room, board and food in lieu of a salary. The work contract would be for the duration of the employee's life with corporal punishment or death for any breach of terms. Children born of employees are considered contractually bound to the same agreement.

Sounds just like slavery to me and nothing in the Libertarian philosophy prohibits it.

 

[Grammatron]

Malachi, please sum up your point because I lost it as I was reading through your post.

 

[Cain]

Quoting earthborn (quoting the silly flash):

"You have the right to protect your own life, liberty and justly acquired property from the forceful agression of others."

A serious problem arises in the indoctrination video when we shift from self-ownership to ownership over the external world. Any who studies libertarianism (a misnomer in popular American discourse) quickly realizes the market's most ardent defenders have no answer. How is land, for example, "justly acquired"? *

___________________________
* The exception here is utilitarianism, obviously. Private property increases overall happiness. That premise, however, often conflicts with libertarian rhetoric, especially ideologues who fanitically insist on couching the debate in terms of rights. More than a few libertarian minded folks are even inclined to deride utilitarianism as "collectivist," which it certainly is.

Why is Libertarianism discussed so frequently on this forum? Even creationism isn't as talked about on the science board.

 

[Earthborn]

How is land, for example, "justly acquired"?

I think the animation makes that perfectly clear: property is that part of nature which you put to valuable use. If there is a piece of land that belongs to no one, you can put it to valuable use by taking it, (clearing it of worthless natives) and doing something that gives you a means of living. That makes it 'justly acquired'.

In this view, there is supposed to be a clear distinction between nature, which belongs to no one, and property that belongs to someone. The only thing you are allowed to use for living is what belongs to no one and what belongs to yourself.

The problem with libertarian philoshophy arises when using something that belongs to no one (such as air) is used in such a way that it hurts someone else who is also using it (pollution). Instead of trying to make sure collectively that it is protected so people can continue to use it as if it belongs to no one, it should be divided between the people who use it in some way, so all of them will have a personal incentive to protect it.

The dividing should of course not be done by the government. It should be done the same way land is acquired: by conquering it in competition with others. What possible incentive people might have of doing that, and not keep treating natue as something that belongs to no one, and you can use (pollute) as much as you like, is beyond me.

 

[Malachi151]

Malachi, please sum up your point because I lost it as I was reading through your post.

The clip was an idealistic load of crap.

 

[Cain]

I think the animation makes that perfectly clear: property is that part of nature which you put to valuable use. If there is a piece of land that belongs to no one, you can put it to valuable use by taking it, (clearing it of worthless natives) and doing something that gives you a means of living. That makes it 'justly acquired'.

I understand this (above) paragraph is tinged with sarcasm. Let me just say that's completely arbitrary; lacking substance. I viewed the video; I saw the river and tree picture getting converted into an automobile. The clear cut problem deals with what we value, as individuals and society. No economist denies the economic value of untouched expanes of wilderness.

In this view, there is supposed to be a clear distinction between nature, which belongs to no one, and property that belongs to someone. The only thing you are allowed to use for living is what belongs to no one and what belongs to yourself.

And this view is rather indefensible. Even Locke, who argued that a person justly acquires land by combining her labor with it, tacked on a provision requiring the person's actions leaves everyone "better off."

The problem with libertarian philoshophy arises when using something that belongs to no one (such as air) is used in such a way that it hurts someone else who is also using it (pollution). Instead of trying to make sure collectively that it is protected so people can continue to use it as if it belongs to no one, it should be divided between the people who use it in some way, so all of them will have a personal incentive to protect it.

This goes back to the "tragedy of the commons" (covered in many other threads).

 

[shanek]

What defines "healthy" should be up to the individual. The problem is that sometimes you don't have a choice of medication either through government (prevents you from buying a drug, for example) or the free market (cannot pay for the drug).

Well, the only other alternatives I can think of are to force people to produce the medicine at a loss or force other people to pay for it. Either way, it amounts to theft and/or slavery.

If given the choice, more individuals would choose to give up some freedom and be healthy rather than be free but unhealthy. And aren't we giving up our freedom of going wherever we want when we want by going to work everyday?

But that is a voluntary action; a choice that we make based on the things we want in return. That is not anywhere near the same as being forced to work, as in slavery. Freedom means we can make that choice. So no, it's not giving up freedom at all.

 

[shanek]

I will try to explain it really slow:
- People have a right to defend their rights
- People have the right to ask others to help them defend their rights
- People will likely ask more powerfull people to help defend their rights.
- In doing so, they always run the risk that the people they ask to help them will abuse the power they have.
- So if people are allowed to ask others to help them in their protection, they run the risk of supporting 'evil people'.
- This is why the 'solution' offered at the end of the animation is not a solution at all, as it limits the right of people asking others to help defend their rights.

What you're ignoring is the fact that Libertarianism promotes mechanisms to prevent people from having that power in the first place. They would only be able to use it for defense of others.

So he said 'essential liberties' because he meant 'all liberties' ?

He was emphasizing the fact that liberties are essential while safety is temporary. He never thought that there were some liberties that were essential and others that weren't. This is clear from the totality of his writings.

No it doesn't! It doesn't show any use of force. Protection is depicted as putting up a magical force field that [color]stops the force of others.[/color]

I think that's just so kooky it stands on its own...

It does not show taking back stolen property, and does not show putting people in jail for murder.Where did it do that? I didn't see it.

Do you really have to see it explicitly to understand that this is included in what it is referring to?

Well, duh! That is my point: in the absence of any information, they are supposed to act without consent, and it even is the moral thing to do.

"Consent" to what? Ordinarily, you would need "consent" to interfere or "consent" to let them die. The only question is, which one defaults. Remember the little animation talking about life being an essential freedom?

You can't see any situation where it might be justified? For instance in case of insanity, or in case of people carrying infectious diseases, and giving people a free choice might result in a few people not getting treatment and staying a health hazard?

That has to do with the defense of others from a valid threat. You know this, as we've had this discussion before. Why do you constantly make me repeat points I have already made to you?

Is that the antithesis of freedom, or a caring society?

A caring society??? People who care do not initiate force against others!

You didn't, but it is implied in the animation.

Bull! It directly states otherwise. It specifically says that people have the right to enlist the help of others to respond to the initiation of force.

Amazing how you insist that this is "implied" in the animation when above you refused to consider implications in the animation, resorting to only what it said. How convenient for you.

How is this possible if all you see is a small picture?

If you think that the only information you can get about a product online is a "small picture" you must be willfully ignorant.

No, it isn't impossible. It should not be necessary.

Says who? You? You want to impose force on the rest of us just because you can't be bothered to fully check out a product before you buy it?

Even before you bought it?

Yes, even before you bought it. Even a poor dealer would be happy to let you do that.

You perhaps not. Others might, and they have just as much right to a good product as anyone else.

But that is THEIR RESPONSIBILITY. No one has any right to force a decision on me simply because they refuse to take responsibility for their actions.

 

[shanek]

So how do you solve the issue of people refusing immunization on their children on religious grounds, where in both possible stances someone's will is imposed on someone else?

Because the parents assume responsibility for the children, so it should be their decision. These vaccinations (particularly MMR) are quite possibly responsible for my son's autism, or at least the vaccinations were a contributing factor. There are also studies showing possible links between MMR and Cerebrak Palsy. Granted, this isn't known for sure, but as a parent shouldn't I have had the right to make that evaluation? As it is, the government is forcing possibly harmful vaccinations on our children.

 

[shanek]

What if the baby is a vegetarian, shouldn't it have a right to say what food it being fed?

If you've ever raised children, you know that they absolutely exercise that right to the frustration of the parents.

 

[shanek]

What many Libertarians don't seem to understand is that if a society doesn't prohibit certain behavior and said behavior is adventageous to the individual, people are going to do it.

We don't understand it because it's not true. For example, I don't do drugs. Any drugs. Not even caffeine. With the exception of medical uses, I don't take drugs at all. That has nothing at all whatsoever to do with what "society" prohibits. Alcohol and tobacco are legal, but I don't do them. I don't even do caffeine, and in many circles that actually makes me somewhat of an outcast. Evidence has shown that people don't change the speed at which they drive all that much just because the speed limit changes. Your point is complete balderdash.

If the only thing stopping you from killing a whole bunch of people is what "sociaty" prohibits, you need severe and immediate psychiatric help.

Regardless of any morality issues. If it gives an individual an avantage in the aquisition of more property (which is all Libertarians are interested in anyway)

Provide evidence that that is "all" that we are interested in. If you can't, then you confess yourself a bigot.

Since Libertarians oppose the minimum wage and any regulation of labor contracts, there is nothing preventing someone from paying an employee in room, board and food in lieu of a salary.

If the employee agrees to that arrangement, why not? I know people who would be much better off under such an arrangement.

The work contract would be for the duration of the employee's life with corporal punishment or death for any breach of terms.

How would they have any kind of authority to do that? They could terminate the contract, and seek restitution for any damages, but that's the extent of what they could do.

Children born of employees are considered contractually bound to the same agreement.

No, they couldn't. You're just talking crap again.

Sounds just like slavery to me and nothing in the Libertarian philosophy prohibits it.

That is absolutely untrue and you know it.

 

[shanek]

If there is a piece of land that belongs to no one, you can put it to valuable use by taking it, (clearing it of worthless natives)

Wouldn't the land in such a case belong to the natives? In many if not most cases, land was acquired either with the consent of the natives or was purchased from them. I know that fact flies in the face of the current politically-correct view of the situation, but that's still largely the way it happened from the very beginning. The very first attempt to establish a colony in the New World in the late 1500's was at Roanoke, and the very first thing they did was establish peaceful relations with the nearby Croatan tribe.

The problem with libertarian philoshophy arises when using something that belongs to no one (such as air) is used in such a way that it hurts someone else who is also using it (pollution).

This has been addressed so many times in this forum it's dishonest to keep presenting it as a problem that Libertarians have no answer for.

 

[Malachi151]

Because the parents assume responsibility for the children, so it should be their decision. These vaccinations (particularly MMR) are quite possibly responsible for my son's autism, or at least the vaccinations were a contributing factor. There are also studies showing possible links between MMR and Cerebrak Palsy. Granted, this isn't known for sure, but as a parent shouldn't I have had the right to make that evaluation? As it is, the government is forcing possibly harmful vaccinations on our children.

Anda parent... who may be a shoe salesman, if to make that decision, instead of a doctor?

Here is a better one. Let's say that there is an outbreak of a contagous disease and you decide that you don't want to have anyone in your family vacccinated against it, but by doing so you pose a risk to other people because you are then a possible carrier and spread of the disease.

So who's "liberties" take prioristy? Do you force the person to become vaccinated? Do you allow then not to become vaccinated but tell them they have to stay in solitary confinemnt? (in which case you are still forcing them to do something) or do you do nothing and then have then exist as a threat to the community?

Military draft is the same issue. 69% of all Americans that fought in WWII were drafted. Many did not want to fight, many thought that the Germans wee the good guys.

Now, in a situation like that if they choose not to fight then they put other people at risk. Do they have that choice?

To put it on more simple terms. A person is trapped under a car, it required 5 people to lift the car to save the person inside. 3 people are ready to help, the other 2 decide they don't want to. Do they have the "right" to allow someone else to die because they don't want to help them? War can be essentially the same situation. Were Americans in WWII improperly forced against their will to fight to save the world from fascist domination?

Libertarianism is a load of crap.

 

[Earthborn]

These vaccinations (particularly MMR) are quite possibly responsible for my son's autism, or at least the vaccinations were a contributing factor. There are also studies showing possible links between MMR and Cerebrak Palsy.

I believe that children should be protected against the latests health scrares and should be treated with the best care science has to offer.

Granted, this isn't known for sure, but as a parent shouldn't I have had the right to make that evaluation?

You are basically asking to do your own medical experiments on your children. If you are not an expert in these matters, and haven't researched the issue fully; no, I don't think you should have that right. Parents should stick to their area of expertise and not make decisions based on data they cannot evaluate, and they cannot assess the consequences of.

I wouldn't even want such a right for myself. I certianly don't want such a right for someone else.

As it is, the government is forcing possibly harmful vaccinations on our children.

Or is protecting children against possible health scares with good science. It is a matter of perspective.

Wouldn't the land in such a case belong to the natives?

Well, they will probably think so. But that does not necessarily mean that the colonists recognize that property, or even the humanity of the natives. It requires a government-like institute that covers both sides in order to even start to talk about property.

The very first attempt to establish a colony in the New World in the late 1500's was at Roanoke, and the very first thing they did was establish peaceful relations with the nearby Croatan tribe.

Of course, that's how all colonisation starts. But after a while and a lot of misunderstandings between the two sides, things can get really out of hand. One side may get the upper hand, stop recognizing the other as humans and start to clear pieces of land of them for their own benefit. If there is no government with laws defining that this is illegitemate, then what makes it illegimate?

Government defines what is property, what can be done with it and from what or who you can take it. The whole idea that 'property is that part of nature you put to valuable use' hinges on an arbitrary defintion of nature.

This has been addressed so many times in this forum it's dishonest to keep presenting it as a problem that Libertarians have no answer for.

Please repeat it if you will. You can't expect me to keep up with all your posts.

 

[Tony]

Libertarianism is a load of crap.

It is to commu-fascists like you, libertarianism and freedom stand in the way of people like you implementing your extreme authoritarian ideology.