 
|
This board is closed to new users and new posts. Thank you to all our great mods and users over the years. Details here.
|
|
The Free Talk Live BBS
Profile of lucidhawk
Show Posts Topics
Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Pages: [1] 2
1
General / Changing delegate minds.. Questions..
« on: February 09, 2012, 08:12:34 AM »
If there is anyone who knows this please explain.. The states which have primary delegates that are not binded to vote a particular presidential candidate; what is to stop supporters from focusing on changing the minds of just the delegates before their final vote?
In other words : What is stopping Ron Paul supporters from stealing the whole show by finding out who the other candidates delegates are and focusing on these few people (instead of the millions of masses) and convincing them to vote for Ron??
In other words : What is stopping Ron Paul supporters from stealing the whole show by finding out who the other candidates delegates are and focusing on these few people (instead of the millions of masses) and convincing them to vote for Ron??
2
General / Converting Democrats - Blue Republicans
« on: January 28, 2012, 10:01:16 PM »
Speech by Robin Koerner:
Blue Republican
Worth spreading to liberals etc. I've been following this guy's stuff since he converted from a serious 'bleeding heart liberal' to Ron Paul libertarian. He has advanced in understanding very fast, it's only taken him about 7 months to get this far along. ..I'll forgive him for a little minarchist Constitution humping..
Blue Republican
Worth spreading to liberals etc. I've been following this guy's stuff since he converted from a serious 'bleeding heart liberal' to Ron Paul libertarian. He has advanced in understanding very fast, it's only taken him about 7 months to get this far along. ..I'll forgive him for a little minarchist Constitution humping..
3
General / Mother Jones article on Free State Project
« on: October 12, 2011, 10:31:50 PM »
http://motherjones.com/politics/2011/10/new-hampshire-libertarian-movement
Article doesn't start out too bad..
Article doesn't start out too bad..
4
General / Taking a serious stand against war within your own immediate sphere of influence
« on: June 29, 2011, 07:06:47 AM »
[youtube] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TCdAEVelLBk [/youtube]
5
General / A short analysis of why "rights" discussions fall apart at the seams..
« on: May 24, 2011, 10:36:05 AM »
Natural right philosophers describe the three natural rights as "life","liberty" and "property".
As a libertarian; if I put forth that we have the "right" to these what am I saying?
Am I saying that others are required to protect my life, liberty and property? Or that others are required to give me life, liberty and property?
No
I'm saying I have the right to have and protect my own life, liberty and property and others have their right to do the same.
SO what is functionally different between these and a "right" to health care?
Well actually nothing..
That's the problem.. Conversations break down because the "natural rights" are framed differently than all other rights.
Because unless you change the terminology, you do have a right to health care as long as you don't initiate aggression, fraud or theft.
A "right" to health care should be seen and expressed in the same way as the other rights.
Just as you can't ethically say that people are required to give you property because you have a right to property; the same goes for health care no one is required to give you health care.
Thoughts? Counter points?
As a libertarian; if I put forth that we have the "right" to these what am I saying?
Am I saying that others are required to protect my life, liberty and property? Or that others are required to give me life, liberty and property?
No
I'm saying I have the right to have and protect my own life, liberty and property and others have their right to do the same.
SO what is functionally different between these and a "right" to health care?
Well actually nothing..
That's the problem.. Conversations break down because the "natural rights" are framed differently than all other rights.
Because unless you change the terminology, you do have a right to health care as long as you don't initiate aggression, fraud or theft.
A "right" to health care should be seen and expressed in the same way as the other rights.
Just as you can't ethically say that people are required to give you property because you have a right to property; the same goes for health care no one is required to give you health care.
Thoughts? Counter points?
6
General / No more lame internet debates with this people! Throw the book at Commies!
« on: May 22, 2011, 08:01:31 AM »
The massive number of anarcho-communists and anarcho-syndicalists I've seen on the internet over the past year disturbs to me..
Yeah we can say it's all fine and dandy if they are committed to the nonaggression principle. But attempts at communism always seem to devolve into the worst forms of statism.
Lets not forget that Marx himself said communism was without rulers.
..So these countries that attempted socialism in order to supposedly evolve to communism were attempting to evolve into stateless societies and look at how BAD that went.
For the sake of efficiency.. I want a single book I can refer them to and move on. ..There are plenty of theoretical works that completely decimate socialist paradigms through logic.
But these people don't listen to logic..
So I ask.. Where is a book solely on the history of attempts at communes and communism in the 20th century?
Where is this book? Why hasn't it been written? I can only find a few really crappy sounding books.
I seriously cannot find one even at Mises.org.
This book is demanding itself be written..
Am I going to have to perform necromancy to get Rothbard back from the dead to write this thing?
Yeah we can say it's all fine and dandy if they are committed to the nonaggression principle. But attempts at communism always seem to devolve into the worst forms of statism.
Lets not forget that Marx himself said communism was without rulers.
..So these countries that attempted socialism in order to supposedly evolve to communism were attempting to evolve into stateless societies and look at how BAD that went.
For the sake of efficiency.. I want a single book I can refer them to and move on. ..There are plenty of theoretical works that completely decimate socialist paradigms through logic.
But these people don't listen to logic..
So I ask.. Where is a book solely on the history of attempts at communes and communism in the 20th century?
Where is this book? Why hasn't it been written? I can only find a few really crappy sounding books.
I seriously cannot find one even at Mises.org.
This book is demanding itself be written..
Am I going to have to perform necromancy to get Rothbard back from the dead to write this thing?
7
General / An english word for the "desire to control others"
« on: May 12, 2011, 03:19:43 AM »We (the liberty minded) must take the conversation away from statists that libertarians are selfish and turn it toward the very real fact that most statists are driven by fear, envy and centrally the desire to control others through force.
...I was thinking about the power of language itself on culture and about the visceral impact of concepts when they are boiled down to single words such as : greed, selfishness, lust and envy etc.
And I realized.. I can't think of a good english word that exists for the 'desire to control others'.
The word "controlling" used in context of describing someones personality; implies this but only when used in context and the word clearly doesn't have quite a sharpness to it like "racist" or "greed".
What if we create this word (or find one. What is it??) and build into it a negative connotation (as it deserves).
Wouldn't this be helpful in framing conversations with statists?
Is it not a central topic of all human liberty to oppose the idea that it's OK/good to control everyone else.. and we don't even have a word for the idea/concept that we are against?
In a way, the relatively new word "statist" (coined by libertarians in the 1940s) has accomplished some of what I'm talking about..
But "statist" really just implies someone who believes in the virtue of the state and the average person does not automatically connect it to the desire to control others.
I believe when you have a good word for a something which there is no word, it's not difficult to get that word to spread..
If this topic is successful I'll add a poll.
8
The Rubber Room - Not Safe for Work / Top choice of straight or lesbian porn? (poll)
« on: May 06, 2011, 04:21:03 AM »
Nothing against gay males; but as a straight male I don't really care about making the poll twice as long and seeing guy-guy preferences.
9
General / Ron Paul won't beat Obama because Americans will get afraid
« on: May 05, 2011, 10:57:26 PM »
Afraid of REAL change.
However, I think Ron stands a much higher chance this time of winning the Republican nomination.
Aren't people generally wising up a little after the past 10 years?
I mean look at his closest competition.
Mitt Romney??!!
What an Asshat!
Obama in a standoff versus Ron Paul means A lot of people opened to the ideas of liberty.
Thoughts?
However, I think Ron stands a much higher chance this time of winning the Republican nomination.
Aren't people generally wising up a little after the past 10 years?
I mean look at his closest competition.
Mitt Romney??!!
What an Asshat!
Obama in a standoff versus Ron Paul means A lot of people opened to the ideas of liberty.
Thoughts?
11
General / Why a "Constitution" makes sense for a stateless voluntary society..
« on: April 28, 2011, 07:18:33 AM »
I use the term "Constitution" very loosely. To clarify perhaps a better term would be : market ethics standardization model.
I find it difficult to rationally accept the idea that everyone in a stateless society (no matter how sophisticated) would be able to agree entirely on what the nonaggression principle, and the rights of life, liberty and property in practice mean.
I don't expect the infighting to become particularly dangerous.. Just moderately counterproductive..
And in order to build cooperation and reduce this counter productivity ethic standard models would be developed.
Don't get me wrong, these are not government. And I don't believe governments are inevitable products of human nature or free market. They are a product of bad/ignorant ethics and culture.
In a similar way to which the market has come up with national and international standards that most technology companies follow; I expect the same thing to happen with ethics models in a modern stateless society.
This doesn't exactly mean "laws" that everyone must follow. It means groups would come up with competing ethical standard models (hopefully as simple and clear cut as possible) and these models would be accepted or rejected by certain groups. This is somewhat different and less dangerous than the concept of so called "voluntary governments" (which aim at grouping together services into singular organizations) and certainly preferable to governments IMO.
Opinions?
I find it difficult to rationally accept the idea that everyone in a stateless society (no matter how sophisticated) would be able to agree entirely on what the nonaggression principle, and the rights of life, liberty and property in practice mean.
I don't expect the infighting to become particularly dangerous.. Just moderately counterproductive..
And in order to build cooperation and reduce this counter productivity ethic standard models would be developed.
Don't get me wrong, these are not government. And I don't believe governments are inevitable products of human nature or free market. They are a product of bad/ignorant ethics and culture.
In a similar way to which the market has come up with national and international standards that most technology companies follow; I expect the same thing to happen with ethics models in a modern stateless society.
This doesn't exactly mean "laws" that everyone must follow. It means groups would come up with competing ethical standard models (hopefully as simple and clear cut as possible) and these models would be accepted or rejected by certain groups. This is somewhat different and less dangerous than the concept of so called "voluntary governments" (which aim at grouping together services into singular organizations) and certainly preferable to governments IMO.
Opinions?
12
General / Promoting liberty on the web.. (product reviews)
« on: April 27, 2011, 08:35:41 AM »
I have come to realize that I have overlooked a huge tool for promoting liberty ideas: product reviews.
Blogs, social sites, message boards and YouTube seem less useful to me now than merely reviewing products on a website like Amazon.
(Unless you are lucky/skilled enough to have a blog, site or YouTube channel that already gets thousands of views)
Some of these reviews get thousands of views and because people are generally interested if they should get the product or not; people actually seem to read what you have to say; as long as it's honest and well explained..
Of course reviewing products you haven't had personal experience with is disingenuous and makes you look stupid..
But there are likely hundreds of movies and books for us to review from a liberty perspective; which we have read/viewed at some point.
Blogs, social sites, message boards and YouTube seem less useful to me now than merely reviewing products on a website like Amazon.
(Unless you are lucky/skilled enough to have a blog, site or YouTube channel that already gets thousands of views)
Some of these reviews get thousands of views and because people are generally interested if they should get the product or not; people actually seem to read what you have to say; as long as it's honest and well explained..
Of course reviewing products you haven't had personal experience with is disingenuous and makes you look stupid..
But there are likely hundreds of movies and books for us to review from a liberty perspective; which we have read/viewed at some point.
13
General / The snake, the elephant and the Galactus?
« on: April 15, 2011, 09:36:34 AM »
The snake in the room = state and federal deficits.
http://www.usdebtclock.org/
The elephant in the room = unfunded liabilities.
http://www.usdebtclock.org/
The Galactus all over = the derivatives bubble.
Huge , powerful, scary but FICTIONAL?
Discuss..
http://www.usdebtclock.org/
The elephant in the room = unfunded liabilities.
http://www.usdebtclock.org/
The Galactus all over = the derivatives bubble.
Huge , powerful, scary but FICTIONAL?
Discuss..
14
General / Sucker Punch (movie)
« on: April 01, 2011, 12:45:40 AM »
I watched Sucker Punch.
It was a total nerd fantasy jumble. EXACTLY what it was obviously meant to be..
So I name it awesome.
9 out of 10, a high 9 would be an uncut version with a few of Baby Doll's missing dance scenes.
Yeah I said it.
It was a total nerd fantasy jumble. EXACTLY what it was obviously meant to be..
So I name it awesome.
9 out of 10, a high 9 would be an uncut version with a few of Baby Doll's missing dance scenes.
Yeah I said it.
15
General / Jesus promoted Anarchism
« on: March 30, 2011, 12:43:29 PM »
I typed this for Christians to think about or rebuttal. (*Not originally typed for FTL boards.)
As you should already know God promoted Anarchism in the Old Testament.
“In those days there was no king in Israel. As for everybody, what was right in his own eyes he was accustomed to do." (Judges 17:6, 21:25)
Later..
1 Samuel 8:5-18 :
5 They said to him, “You are old, and your sons do not follow your ways; now appoint a king to lead us, such as all the other nations have.”
6 But when they said, “Give us a king to lead us,” this displeased Samuel; so he prayed to the LORD. 7 And the LORD told him: “Listen to all that the people are saying to you; it is not you they have rejected, but they have rejected me as their king. 8 As they have done from the day I brought them up out of Egypt until this day, forsaking me and serving other gods, so they are doing to you. 9 Now listen to them; but warn them solemnly and let them know what the king who will reign over them will claim as his rights.”
10 Samuel told all the words of the LORD to the people who were asking him for a king. 11 He said, “This is what the king who will reign over you will claim as his rights: He will take your sons and make them serve with his chariots and horses, and they will run in front of his chariots. 12 Some he will assign to be commanders of thousands and commanders of fifties, and others to plow his ground and reap his harvest, and still others to make weapons of war and equipment for his chariots. 13 He will take your daughters to be perfumers and cooks and bakers. 14 He will take the best of your fields and vineyards and olive groves and give them to his attendants. 15 He will take a tenth of your grain and of your vintage and give it to his officials and attendants. 16 Your male and female servants and the best of your cattle and donkeys he will take for his own use. 17 He will take a tenth of your flocks, and you yourselves will become his slaves. 18 When that day comes, you will cry out for relief from the king you have chosen, but the LORD will not answer you in that day.”
Jesus also Promoted Anarchism
What did Jesus emphasize?
"For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged" "So in everything, do unto others what you would have them do unto you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets." -Matthew 7:12.
..So here and many other spots in the New Testament we can conclude it's only OK to judge when we are willing to be judged by the same standard. And more than that we should act in a way that we believe others should act toward us.
Nobody desires new regulations and laws to prevent or enforce themselves to act a certain way, unless they are deranged. People want rulers and laws to enforce how others behave.
Would you have others to come into your house and enforce their morality on you and take you away with guns? And would you say it's OK for you to go into other people's houses with guns and take them to jail because they are not obeying your morality? How is it virtuous for you to do this or to ask others to do it for you?
Does this mean it's wrong for everyone to believe in laws? No, it just means only to endorse those that you would have enforced against you. Some Christians have found that if they think critically about this principle they would not endorse laws to be enforced on themselves. They would rather learn responsibility on their own through church and family and to be judged by their God.
What about persons in society who choose to do things like murder but would ask to be treated as if nothing happened? Well think about it.. This is not a problem with "Golden rule politics"/"Christian Anarchism". These people who murder have rendered their own endorsement of policy or ethics that others should follow logically, morally and socially invalid. Because "they ask to be left alone" but they themselves don't care to leave others alone: they murder.
I don't think it's unfair to say the average person who does not murder, would in their own theoretical minds have themselves punished for murdering an innocent person. The person's after the fact mad rush away in fear wouldn't count as part of that theoretical model because they have then through murder rendered their 'after the fact' now weak or nonexistent endorsement of punishment logically, morally and socially invalid.
Only the fringe of the fringe would enforce (do unto) laws and statist punishments unto themselves, so don't ask that they be enforced on others..
The only political philosophies which are in line with the golden rule are essentially those which promote the nonaggression principle (Libertarianism, Voluntaryism)
Endorsing total freedom does not mean that you believe its morally right for people to "sin" or even that it's OK to "sin". Its sad to me how many Christians believe in a collective morality. (e.g. : "It's wrong to legalize prostitution because prostitution is morally wrong.") Anarchism just means you don't hold up one man or group of others to enforce another group of others to act good. And you don't hand off dispute resolution, protection and crime prosecution to a group which claims to to be the singular ultimate authority over others (Within a given land mass called a "state").
As you should already know God promoted Anarchism in the Old Testament.
“In those days there was no king in Israel. As for everybody, what was right in his own eyes he was accustomed to do." (Judges 17:6, 21:25)
Later..
1 Samuel 8:5-18 :
5 They said to him, “You are old, and your sons do not follow your ways; now appoint a king to lead us, such as all the other nations have.”
6 But when they said, “Give us a king to lead us,” this displeased Samuel; so he prayed to the LORD. 7 And the LORD told him: “Listen to all that the people are saying to you; it is not you they have rejected, but they have rejected me as their king. 8 As they have done from the day I brought them up out of Egypt until this day, forsaking me and serving other gods, so they are doing to you. 9 Now listen to them; but warn them solemnly and let them know what the king who will reign over them will claim as his rights.”
10 Samuel told all the words of the LORD to the people who were asking him for a king. 11 He said, “This is what the king who will reign over you will claim as his rights: He will take your sons and make them serve with his chariots and horses, and they will run in front of his chariots. 12 Some he will assign to be commanders of thousands and commanders of fifties, and others to plow his ground and reap his harvest, and still others to make weapons of war and equipment for his chariots. 13 He will take your daughters to be perfumers and cooks and bakers. 14 He will take the best of your fields and vineyards and olive groves and give them to his attendants. 15 He will take a tenth of your grain and of your vintage and give it to his officials and attendants. 16 Your male and female servants and the best of your cattle and donkeys he will take for his own use. 17 He will take a tenth of your flocks, and you yourselves will become his slaves. 18 When that day comes, you will cry out for relief from the king you have chosen, but the LORD will not answer you in that day.”
Jesus also Promoted Anarchism
What did Jesus emphasize?
"For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged" "So in everything, do unto others what you would have them do unto you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets." -Matthew 7:12.
..So here and many other spots in the New Testament we can conclude it's only OK to judge when we are willing to be judged by the same standard. And more than that we should act in a way that we believe others should act toward us.
Nobody desires new regulations and laws to prevent or enforce themselves to act a certain way, unless they are deranged. People want rulers and laws to enforce how others behave.
Would you have others to come into your house and enforce their morality on you and take you away with guns? And would you say it's OK for you to go into other people's houses with guns and take them to jail because they are not obeying your morality? How is it virtuous for you to do this or to ask others to do it for you?
Does this mean it's wrong for everyone to believe in laws? No, it just means only to endorse those that you would have enforced against you. Some Christians have found that if they think critically about this principle they would not endorse laws to be enforced on themselves. They would rather learn responsibility on their own through church and family and to be judged by their God.
What about persons in society who choose to do things like murder but would ask to be treated as if nothing happened? Well think about it.. This is not a problem with "Golden rule politics"/"Christian Anarchism". These people who murder have rendered their own endorsement of policy or ethics that others should follow logically, morally and socially invalid. Because "they ask to be left alone" but they themselves don't care to leave others alone: they murder.
I don't think it's unfair to say the average person who does not murder, would in their own theoretical minds have themselves punished for murdering an innocent person. The person's after the fact mad rush away in fear wouldn't count as part of that theoretical model because they have then through murder rendered their 'after the fact' now weak or nonexistent endorsement of punishment logically, morally and socially invalid.
Only the fringe of the fringe would enforce (do unto) laws and statist punishments unto themselves, so don't ask that they be enforced on others..
The only political philosophies which are in line with the golden rule are essentially those which promote the nonaggression principle (Libertarianism, Voluntaryism)
Endorsing total freedom does not mean that you believe its morally right for people to "sin" or even that it's OK to "sin". Its sad to me how many Christians believe in a collective morality. (e.g. : "It's wrong to legalize prostitution because prostitution is morally wrong.") Anarchism just means you don't hold up one man or group of others to enforce another group of others to act good. And you don't hand off dispute resolution, protection and crime prosecution to a group which claims to to be the singular ultimate authority over others (Within a given land mass called a "state").
Pages: [1] 2