Welcome to the Free Talk Live bulletin board system!
This board is closed to new users and new posts.  Thank you to all our great mods and users over the years.  Details here.
185859 Posts in 9829 Topics by 1371 Members
Latest Member: cjt26
Home Help
+  The Free Talk Live BBS
|-+  Free Talk Live
| |-+  The Polling Pit
| | |-+  The Fundamental Tenet of Libertarianism

Poll

What is the fundamental tenet of libertarianism?

Self-ownership
- 7 (19.4%)
Choice
- 2 (5.6%)
Both, you can't have one without the other
- 20 (55.6%)
Both, they have to be equally honored
- 5 (13.9%)
Neither
- 2 (5.6%)

Total Members Voted: 11


Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5   Go Down

Author Topic: The Fundamental Tenet of Libertarianism  (Read 15288 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

BenTucker

  • Guest
Re: The Fundamental Tenet of Libertarianism
« Reply #15 on: January 03, 2007, 07:50:52 PM »

Quote
Your ideal seems to be somewhere about when man started to plow the fields, way back thousands of years ago, in Sumeria or Babylon or somewhere.  It's not a very PROSPEROUS existence, Ben, by modern standards...by today's ethos, man must control more to be more powerful and to continue his life longer.

none of which is incompatible with my views as it all includes laboring on land as absolute property...

Now you're getting it Ben, they're YOUR views. Not absolute ones.

I think we're done here.

my point is that there is no dispute between what he wrote and what I advocate...I believe that is called a strawman.
Logged

gandhi2

  • Guest
Re: The Fundamental Tenet of Libertarianism
« Reply #16 on: January 03, 2007, 08:01:44 PM »

Quote
Is it wrong I found that sexy?
Hey, you can love Jesus in whatever fashion you feel best.

So, I haven't gotten everybody in here yet, but I think this is a large enough margin to make some statements.

We here agree to what "cat" defines.  Ben does not.  If Ben wants us to think cat when he says "cat," then he should say "cat" and not "dog."  To revise all his statements so that they make sense to us as well as him, whenever he talks about libertarianism, he should change the word to some other agreed upon definition, or to conform to what we call it...I'm not quite sure what it is, but maybe some form of far left libertarianism...social-libertarianism, or mutual-libertarianism, or the Tuckerist Liberty Party, or the Philosophy Which Negates Economic Dispossession, Because Exclusivity Negates the Self-ownership Tenet which is Fundamental to Universal Peace(for those who didn't catch it, that's PWNED,BENSTFUP)....anyways, once we've collectively decided what to call it, it is advisable that Ben conforms, otherwise, we cannot take him seriously when he speaks.  He has no authority over the naming of things, as he clearly calls a cat "dog."

Ah, the joys of human language.  At least THIS thing IS a social construct.
Logged

Bill Brasky

  • Guest
Re: The Fundamental Tenet of Libertarianism
« Reply #17 on: January 03, 2007, 08:07:31 PM »

Pound

Pound

Pound

Pound

Logged

aquabanianskakid

  • Guest
Re: The Fundamental Tenet of Libertarianism
« Reply #18 on: January 03, 2007, 08:15:15 PM »

Whack whack whack...
Logged

BenTucker

  • Guest
Re: The Fundamental Tenet of Libertarianism
« Reply #19 on: January 03, 2007, 08:20:52 PM »

Quote
whenever he talks about libertarianism, he should change the word to some other agreed upon definition, or to conform to what we call it...

it is obvious that the fundamental tenet of libertarianism is going to have to contain self-ownership and it will not change a thing - what difference will adding choice make to my argument?

N-O-N-E
Logged

Bill Brasky

  • Guest
Re: The Fundamental Tenet of Libertarianism
« Reply #20 on: January 03, 2007, 08:24:57 PM »

I think you've got the better plan. 
Logged

BenTucker

  • Guest
Re: The Fundamental Tenet of Libertarianism
« Reply #21 on: January 03, 2007, 08:25:14 PM »

Quote
ever heard of James Bovard?
Whomever he is, it's irrelevant. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Bovard

Books

(2006) Attention Deficit Democracy. Palgrave Macmillan. ISBN 1-4039-7108-0.
(2004) The Bush Betrayal. Palgrave Macmillan. ISBN 1-4039-6851-9.
(2003) Terrorism and Tyranny: Trampling Freedom, Justice, and Peace to Rid the World of Evil. Palgrave Macmillan. ISBN 1-4039-6682-6.
(2001) Feeling Your Pain: The Explosion and Abuse of Government Power in the Clinton-Gore Years. Palgrave Macmillan. ISBN 0-312-24052-X.
(2000) Freedom in Chains: The Rise of the State and the Demise of the Citizen. Palgrave Macmillan. ISBN 0-312-22967-4.
(1996) Shakedown
(1995) Lost Rights: The Destruction of American Liberty. Palgrave Macmillan. ISBN 0-312-12333-7.
(1992) Fair Trade Fraud: How Congress Pillages the Consumer and Decimates American Competitiveness. Palgrave Macmillan. ISBN 03120834407.
Logged

BenTucker

  • Guest
Re: The Fundamental Tenet of Libertarianism
« Reply #22 on: January 03, 2007, 08:26:02 PM »

I think you've got the better plan. 

thanks
Logged

BenTucker

  • Guest
Re: The Fundamental Tenet of Libertarianism
« Reply #23 on: January 03, 2007, 08:31:09 PM »

Quote
whenever he talks about libertarianism, he should change the word to some other agreed upon definition, or to conform to what we call it...

it is obvious that the fundamental tenet of libertarianism is going to have to contain self-ownership and it will not change a thing - what difference will adding choice make to my argument?

N-O-N-E

I chose to see through your narrow minded perception of 'existence.' I chose to own my own property. I chose not to pay economic rent. I chose to defend my property with lethal force if necessary.

The exercising of choice renders your ideology inept.

yes your choice to act to exclude others from a particular location forces those you exclude to labor for what defines their very existence violating their absolute right of self-ownership.

now tell me what exactly has changed?
Logged

Jason Orr

  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 608
    • View Profile
Re: The Fundamental Tenet of Libertarianism
« Reply #24 on: January 03, 2007, 08:37:09 PM »

The fundamental tenet of libertarianism is happiness.  We must own ourselves and we must have choice to be happy.  To be happy we must be free to accept reality.  Behind every libertarian belief is the desire for happiness.
Logged
The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's money

--Alexis de Tocqueville

BenTucker

  • Guest
Re: The Fundamental Tenet of Libertarianism
« Reply #25 on: January 03, 2007, 09:10:53 PM »

Quote
Your defintion of self ownership compared with everyone elses.

really?

how is my definition of self-ownership different than anyone else's?
Logged

BenTucker

  • Guest
Re: The Fundamental Tenet of Libertarianism
« Reply #26 on: January 03, 2007, 09:50:39 PM »

Quote
Your defintion of self ownership compared with everyone elses.

really?

how is my definition of self-ownership different than anyone else's?

Well for one; to you taxation isn't a violation of self ownership as long as you slap 'economic rent' on the label and prattle on about how people owning land makes you incapable of existing.


not "incapable of existing" because they are not forcing you off of their land and directly into a path of an 18 wheeler...

the claim is that the exclusive use of land (beyond Locke's proviso) COMPELS (another word for FORCE) those you exclude to labor against their free will (choice) for something that defines their existence...to exist is to occupy 3D space.

Quote
I assure you, your consistant rambling has me well versed in Locke's philosophy, you don't need to parrot it here again.

I guess not - huh?
Logged

gandhi2

  • Guest
Re: The Fundamental Tenet of Libertarianism
« Reply #27 on: January 03, 2007, 10:46:06 PM »

Quote
it is obvious that the fundamental tenet of libertarianism is going to have to contain self-ownership and it will not change a thing - what difference will adding choice make to my argument?

N-O-N-E
Quite simple what a difference it makes.  Your definition of self in self-ownership is creating a paradox.  Paradoxes don't exist in nature.  Therefore your definition of self-ownership must be wrong.

Quote
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Bovard
Very informative.  Still completely irrelevant to our communally accepted definition of the fundamental tenet of libertarianism.

Quote
not "incapable of existing" because they are not forcing you off of their land and directly into a path of an 18 wheeler...
Hmmm...  Still doesn't add up.

Come on, birdie, say it ALL.

A rock can exist, even when I take it and put it in the ocean.  A loaf of bread can exist if I turn off the light, if I paint it red.  It doesn't matter.  The existence of self, and by design, self-ownership cannot by removed from a sentience.  Any more than you can make a rock less of a rock by changing it's surroundings, you can't make a man less of a man...even if you push him into the path of a semi.  He won't be a living man for long, to be sure, but all the qualities that define manhood, besides those tied to life, will still be present after death.

Now.  Lad.  Please, oh please, qualify ALL of your statements and generalizations with the words you REALLY mean when you speak, so that the people here might understand what it is you hope to communicate.  Stop calling the cat a "dog" so that we can have an exchange of ideas, ok?  You have to stomach your pride if you hope to discuss IDEAS instead of arguing over semantics.
Quote
how is my definition of self-ownership different than anyone else's?
Well I can tell you one area that it seems to differ from mine: self as in human mind/body vs. self as in sentient consciousness.  Not sure how many others agree with me here, but many seem to think that choice and self can't be extracted from each other, so I would say that its closer to my definition than yours.  The self in your instance can end rather quickly and brutally with death, is not present until some landmark point once life has begun, and those without a stable mind would never truly possess it.  If your definition were widely accepted there would be:

No debate over abortion, everyone would agree that it was acceptable, as the life extinguished doesn't fully have self-ownership
No debate over the unwanteds(such as killers, handicappeds and mentally unstables) of society, as their lack of self-ownership would allow any solution, however brutal.
No debate over parental rights, as children hadn't fully developed their self and couldn't be said to own it fully.
No debate over the right to self-defense that results in death, as the action taken is so severe to reject the fundamental tenet of libertarianism

And yet, people DO debate over these things, because people DO have differing opinions on what the "self" of "self-ownership" means.

You lose again, Ben.  Nice try.  Good bird, pretty bird.  No cracker, however, because you aren't saying what you mean.
« Last Edit: January 03, 2007, 10:48:07 PM by gandhi2 »
Logged

Bill Brasky

  • Guest
Re: The Fundamental Tenet of Libertarianism
« Reply #28 on: January 03, 2007, 10:58:34 PM »

I think you've got the better plan. 

thanks

Not you, silly.

The strapping young lad fondling his cock-n-balls. 
Logged

BenTucker

  • Guest
Re: The Fundamental Tenet of Libertarianism
« Reply #29 on: January 03, 2007, 11:02:53 PM »

Quote
The existence of self, and by design, self-ownership cannot by removed from a sentience.

it matters not a whit to my argument whether or not self-ownership includes sentience.

Quote
Not sure how many others agree with me here, but many seem to think that choice and self can't be extracted from each other, so I would say that its closer to my definition than yours.

it matters not a whit to my argument whether or not self-ownership includes choice.

Quote
No debate over abortion, everyone would agree that it was acceptable, as the life extinguished doesn't fully have self-ownership
No debate over the unwanteds(such as killers, handicappeds and mentally unstables) of society, as their lack of self-ownership would allow any solution, however brutal.
No debate over parental rights, as children hadn't fully developed their self and couldn't be said to own it fully.
No debate over the right to self-defense that results in death, as the action taken is so severe to reject the fundamental tenet of libertarianism

none of this has any relevance at all to my argument...

I have posted elsewhere that in my opinion personhood is established at higher brain function (feeling pleasure/pain and sentience) where we as a society deem that human being as deserving of protection of rights.
Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5   Go Up
+  The Free Talk Live BBS
|-+  Free Talk Live
| |-+  The Polling Pit
| | |-+  The Fundamental Tenet of Libertarianism

// ]]>

Page created in 0.023 seconds with 38 queries.