[Gnote]

CC,

You would only need to resort to personally directed comments if you felt your ideology unable to stand on its own merits.

Describe for us, if you please, the derivation of these mystical 'natural rights' that form the basis of libertarianism. How is the right to private property any different than the right to, say, health care, a minimum income, or any other right a society might choose to establish? From where do your preferred rights acquire their divinity?

Hint: Ron Paul is not the answer.

[BodyPolitic]

Describe for us, if you please, the derivation of these mystical 'natural rights' that form the basis of libertarianism. How is the right to private property any different than the right to, say, health care, a minimum income, or any other right a society might choose to establish? From where do your preferred rights acquire their divinity?

A chain is only as strong as its weakest link; the propriatary libertarian model hinges on an absolute right to private property combined with a perverted Kantianism - this link is simply NOT strong. Second- EVEN IF we granted it to them, it still does not lead necessarily to the position most libertarians defend, it can be shown to work just as well for a welfare argument, if not better. Check out James Sterba's response to libertarianism https://member.apaonline.org/V82_2_kantianproject.aspx

Ask about what a libertarian would do in a Rawlsian 'original position' with foreknowledge of the current concentration of capital in the US, a lack of healthcare, etc? I've been trying to get this in my thread 'Some Basic Questions'.

[canadiancapitalist]

You would only need to resort to personally directed comments if you felt your ideology unable to stand on its own merits.

That is quite untrue. When you are willing to have a serious discussion, I will be here to answer your questions. So long as your intent is to mock and humiliate, to lecture about things you do not understand and to intimidate and bully others, to plug your fingers in your ears and hum "nah nah nah nah I'm not listening" then I will answer your venom in kind.

[RonPaulalways]

Quote:
What libertarians totally oppose is the slippery slope argument of labeling every thing, like health care, education etc, as a "common good" that government must provide, in order to rationalize vast wealth redistribution schemes where the rich are taxed a far greater amount than they proportionally get in government services.


It's not a 'scheme,' it IS wealth redistribution. It is using the entirely unneeded resources of the obscenely rich to provide regular people with the things they actually NEED, like health care, shelter, food, and water.

It *IS* a scheme. You seem to want to argue every single word I use, even when it's entirely accurate. You just want to disagree for the sake of disagreeing. This is what makes discussions with you so unproductive.

As far as the rest of the rhetoric you spewed: it's just irrelevant emotional spam that doesn't address my point.

My point again, is that libertarians hold liberty as the highest political ideal, while statists see the coercive power of government as a useful tool to achieve any end.

If you want to go off on a tangent and argue whether wealth redistribution to take "entirely unneeded resources of the obscenely rich to provide regular people with things ... like health care, shelter, food, and water" is justifiable, start a new thread, don't distract and hijack this discussion.

I could say that welfare rights are negative rights because "in the absence of an enforcement of property rights, are enjoyed by those who possess them [the rights]". If nobody owns the goods, I can just take them, nobody has to help me.

Of course, libertarians believe that people have a natural right to their own property. This is self-evident to us. It's like saying a person has a right to not be murdered.

A society that operates under the assumption that people should have a right to keep that which they acquire through their own industry or through mutually voluntary trade incentivizes production and makes every one wealthier.

[Gnote]

Of course, libertarians believe that people have a natural right to their own property.

Exactly.

And this is all we need to know to declare libertarianism a dogmatic, fringe, irrelevant ideology.

[canadiancapitalist]

Because we believe in private property? If you do not believe in private property, mail me all of your clothes and money immediately.

[Gnote]

I do believe in an individual's right to private property, but I also believe in an individual's right to accessible health care (for example).

Furthermore, I believe that neither of these rights is 'natural', because both are societal constructs.

Without a solid argument that rationally explains the existence of some set of 'natural rights' that are distinguishable from societally constructed rights, libertarianism is not only based on fiction, but can scarcely be said to exist at all.

[RonPaulalways]

Gnote,

And this is all we need to know to declare libertarianism a dogmatic, fringe, irrelevant ideology.

Actually, libertarianism is logical, coherent and correct. It is your ideology that is ideological, spiteful and incoherent, e.g.:

I do believe in an individual's right to private property, but I also believe in an individual's right to accessible health care (for example).

In other words you believe in two contradictory rights.

[Gnote]

I don't believe in two contradictory rights, I simply live in the real world. The right to health care (to continue the example) is no more contradictory to the right to private property than is the right to, say, national defence or policing, to take two examples that are often cited as acceptable by Libertarians.

Practically speaking, as I noted previously in this thread, every person in a society cannot be absolutely "free" without necessitating that someone else be "restricted". You are not free to exist unharmed, for instance, unless I am restricted from harming you.

Your insistence that the line be drawn at "non-agression" is simply a value judgement, which leads us back to the discussion about the non-existence of natural rights. Since this thread is thus far completely void of any defence of natural rights, it stands to reason that one right only supercedes another when a society deems it that it should. It stands to reason, in turn, that pet libertarian rights are therefore no different than pet socialist or pet conservative rights. You think the line should be drawn in one place, I think it should be drawn in another.

Of course, I could be wrong. But that would mean that some adequate defence of natural rights would have to exist, and if it existed, you would think some devout libertarian would have posted it in this thread by now.

[RonPaulalways]

Make as many excuses as you want, your ideas don't make sense and are self-contradictory. Every one can't have a right to their own property whilst having a right to free health care. Health care costs 15% of GDP in the US, so you're going to have violate the right to private property on an extensive scale to provide people with a "right" to health care.

Health care costs are projected to increase by over 6.7% a year over the next 5 years too, so any attempt to give people a "right" to health care will get more expensive with time.

The right to health care (to continue the example) is no more contradictory to the right to private property than is the right to, say, national defence or policing, to take two examples that are often cited as acceptable by Libertarians.

The difference is that national defense and policing protect your right to your private property. Without taxing people to provide national defense and police, other coercive centers of power (warlords, mafias) will violate your private property rights at far higher levels. In other words, having national security and police maximizes the protection of your private property rights, while other government services like socialized health care decrease the protection of your private property rights (since they increase the level of taxation).

Your insistence that the line be drawn at "non-agression" is simply a value judgement, which leads us back to the discussion about the non-existence of natural rights.

Natural rights exist because they are advantageous to societies that believe in them. Societies that abandon the non-aggression principle are less productive and are destroyed by stronger, free-er societies. In the natural order of things, free societies emerge while despotic ones die.

[canadiancapitalist]

I do believe in an individual's right to private property

I guess that makes you a dogmatic, fringe, irrelevant individual then

[SpiderMonkey]

The debate in this thread can basically be summarized as follows:

Libertarians believe that some mystical higher power has created a set of 'rights' that somehow supercede all of the other socially established rights that a society may choose to establish. That this mysteriously derived set of rights corresponds completely with the foundations of libertarian ideology is, of course, completely coincidental.

But it goes further than that; because this set of rights superceeds any set of rights agreed on by a society - the libertarian can justify any and all means to force societies conception of rights to conform to their own. The example of the involvement of the Chicago boys with general Pinochet provides a prime example of course - as does their drooling over the government of Singapore - which is one of the worst oppressors of free speech on the planet, and has a per capita execution rate three times higher than that of Saudi Arabia. But hey! The taxes are low and you can start a business in 4 days! Go Freedom!

This is how RPA ended up having his utopia full of forced labour camps in this, my favourite conversation with him:

viewtopic.php?f=49&t=100871&start=25

(cue RPA calling me a dirty communist liar for citing his own words)

[canadiancapitalist]

I wish you people wouldn't post here, and by you people I mean SpiderMonkey and Gnote. You are not interested in honest debate, so you are just wasting our time countering your baseless attacks. Please go away. There are some who are actually interested in this subject and want to discuss it rationally, reasonably, calmly.

If you want some tips on how to talk to people you disagree with, please read my posts in the socialism forum. I despise socialism and socialists, but the last few weeks I have been having mature, reasonable, rational discussions with the posters there. I might be a little sly or under handed, but only a very little and for the most part we simply discuss things openly and honestly and I have been learning a lot because of this. When you are willing to do this, come back, but until then, go somewhere else and waste the time of someone else.

[SpiderMonkey]

Post where? I the thread that I FUCKING CREATED?

You definition of 'honest' debate is one in which your unwarranted assumptions are automatically accepted; However myself and the rest of the thinking world considers your assumptions to be ridiculous.

If you were so interested in honest debate, why have you not addressed my points in this thread?

[Todd D.]

The debate in this thread can basically be summarized as follows:

Libertarians believe that some mystical higher power has created a set of 'rights' that somehow supercede all of the other socially established rights that a society may choose to establish. That this mysteriously derived set of rights corresponds completely with the foundations of libertarian ideology is, of course, completely coincidental.

Actually, it's quite the opposite. Divinity can actually be used to strip rights (God says that you are my subject). In the absence of divinity, who owns your body? The obvious answer is "yourself". Property rights flow from that. If you own yourself, then you own your labor. If you own your labor, you have a right to trade that labor for something that someone else has created with their labor or likewise traded. If someone interferes in that exchange, they have violated your self-ownership, and therefore your rights. No divinity, no mysticism. The only "dogmatic claim" that I've made is that as an individual, I own my body. I am more than comfortable with that assertion.

Do you believe that you own your own body, or do you believe that it is the property of "society"?

In the real world, the right to private property (to take a prominent example) is no more special than any other right a society decides to sponsor and defend. If a society decides that private property is important, they can defend the right to private property. If they decide the right to, say, health insurance is important, they can defend that right just the same. Hell, some crazy, lunatic society might even decide that both of those rights are important.

Rights are never based on popular sanction, that's just foolish. Again, by your definition, a slaves' right to self-ownership was not violated in the early 19th Century simply because "society" condoned owning African Americans as property?

Describe for us, if you please, the derivation of these mystical 'natural rights' that form the basis of libertarianism. How is the right to private property any different than the right to, say, health care, a minimum income, or any other right a society might choose to establish?

I've already described it: the right to free exchange requires absence of coercion, whereas the other privileges (not rights) you listed require intervention, coercion, and aggression. The right to property requires only that you be left alone in order to recognize (though the PROTECTION of said right requires action, of course). The privilege of minimum income, health care, etc. requires provision by a third party. That's the fundamental difference between the two: Action vs. Inaction.

Your insistence that the line be drawn at "non-agression" is simply a value judgement, which leads us back to the discussion about the non-existence of natural rights. Since this thread is thus far completely void of any defence of natural rights, it stands to reason that one right only supercedes another when a society deems it that it should. It stands to reason, in turn, that pet libertarian rights are therefore no different than pet socialist or pet conservative rights. You think the line should be drawn in one place, I think it should be drawn in another.

Aggression is not a value judgment, it's an infringement upon self-ownership.

All I've seen from you thus far validates the belief that you disagree with self-ownership. Is this true?

But it goes further than that; because this set of rights superceeds any set of rights agreed on by a society - the libertarian can justify any and all means to force societies conception of rights to conform to their own. The example of the involvement of the Chicago boys with general Pinochet provides a prime example of course - as does their drooling over the government of Singapore - which is one of the worst oppressors of free speech on the planet, and has a per capita execution rate three times higher than that of Saudi Arabia. But hey! The taxes are low and you can start a business in 4 days! Go Freedom!

Oh, hello Señor Strawman. Nice of you to join us.

You definition of 'honest' debate is one in which your unwarranted assumptions are automatically accepted; However myself and the rest of the thinking world considers your assumptions to be ridiculous.

Your assumption that Libertarians "drool" over General Pinochet is ridiculous, and you have been told as such numerous times over the 5 years you have been here, yet you continue to assert them over and over again. And you accuse others of being "dishonest"?

[Order]

@Todd D.
See my answer to your post at the top of the page.

[canadiancapitalist]

Post where? I the thread that I FUCKING CREATED?

Yes - which is located in the libertarianism forum. There are plenty of other places on pofo for you to foul, there is no need to spread your filth in my house.

[grassroots1]

Basing personal liberty on a property right to your own body is the crucial misdefinition to make equating theft with violence seem reasonable. Sometimes leads to the embarrassment of those libertarians who know that selling yourself into slavery should be illegal.

It just sounds weird. It makes me think of prostitution.

A chain is only as strong as its weakest link; the propriatary libertarian model hinges on an absolute right to private property combined with a perverted Kantianism - this link is simply NOT strong. Second- EVEN IF we granted it to them, it still does not lead necessarily to the position most libertarians defend, it can be shown to work just as well for a welfare argument, if not better.

Haha wow now we're getting somewhere.

My point again, is that libertarians hold liberty as the highest political ideal, while statists see the coercive power of government as a useful tool to achieve any end.

You hold your twisted conception of 'liberty' even above REAL measures of success like quality of life! You have placed yourself directly into the INSANE category in my book because of your unreasonable commitment to the defense of the libertarian position.

n the absence of divinity, who owns your body? The obvious answer is "yourself". Property rights flow from that.

That is utter bullshit. God never owned my body, he doesn't own my body, and neither do I. Does the Bible even assert that God is the OWNER of his subjects?

Aggression is not a value judgment, it's an infringement upon self-ownership.

All I've seen from you thus far validates the belief that you disagree with self-ownership. Is this true?

An act of theft is not aggression, and aggression must be used to stop it. That is how we can plainly see how property rights is defended by our society.

Your assumption that Libertarians "drool" over General Pinochet is ridiculous

I'm seeing quite a lot of that right now.

[Gnote]

Actually, it's quite the opposite. Divinity can actually be used to strip rights (God says that you are my subject).

I agree that divinity can be used to strip rights, but in this case it's being used to identify certain rights as superior to other rights.

In the absence of divinity, who owns your body? The obvious answer is "yourself". Property rights flow from that.

Except private property does not 'flow from that'. You are making a black box argument. First, your property is not a true reflection of your labour. For a whole host of reasons that are likely to send this discussion off on a tangent, the 'self made man' is as mythical as are natural rights. Secondly, this whole idea that you 'own your body' is indeed a societally constructed concept, just like the idea that everyone should have a right to health care, or a right to an education. It's important to note, here, that just because I think a right is societally constructed, does not necessarily mean I think it is unimportant. I just don't think there is any a priori reason to deem one right superior to another.

Do you believe that you own your own body, or do you believe that it is the property of "society"?

I own my own body, because the society I live in has decided to protect that right. I have a claim to a large percentage of the fruits of my labour, as does the rest of society, because the society I live in has been constructed as such.

Aggression is not a value judgment, it's an infringement upon self-ownership.

But the infringement on self-ownership is only undesirable if society has deemed it as such.

All I've seen from you thus far validates the belief that you disagree with self-ownership. Is this true?

You've arrived at an erroneous conclusion. Like I said above, I can deny the existence of natural rights without disagreeing with a particular societally constructed right. In other words, I can disagree that self ownership is a natural right, while at the same time believing it is a desirable socially constructed right.

[grassroots1]

But Gnote, if you disagree with self-ownership, you do not own yourself. Just because you choose to function in your society instead of ostracizing yourself from it does not mean you have to accept what you believe to be predominant beliefs. Even if you think it's desirable, it doesn't mean you believe the self-ownership exists, necessarily.