The Thread for Non-Libertarians and Libertarians to Talk about Libertarianism

Nov 2013
1,529
433
El Paso, TX
Basically you are saying that you feel a theocracy is better than a democracy or republic, right? The Declaration of Independence was actually an anti-political document in my opinion. A document that declares the rejection of English monarchical politics and rule.

Tell me, what is your solution if you had the power to make things right?
I oppose theocracy.

The Declaration of Independence was a political document that wanted to replace English rule with something else.

John Adams explained the role of religion in society well in 1798:

"While our country remains untainted with the principles and manners which are now producing desolation in so many parts of the world; while she continues sincere, and incapable of insidious and impious policy, we shall have the strongest reason to rejoice in the local destination assigned us by Providence. But should the people of America once become capable of that deep simulation towards one another, and towards foreign nations, which assumes the language of justice and moderation, while it is practising iniquity and extravagance, and displays in the most captivating manner the charming pictures of candour, frankness, and sincerity, while it is rioting in rapine and insolence, this country will be the most miserable habitation in the world. Because we have no government, armed with power, capable of contending with human passions, unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge and licentiousness would break the strongest cords of our Constitution, as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."

No political leader has the power to make things right, which is my point in this thread. To make things right, teach Muslim children to think. Teach them history from original sources. Teach them math based on understanding, not formulas. Teach them the history of science so they can see how science really developed. And have them play games like Go or chess for mental exercise to develop their minds. In addition, encourage good Muslims to marry each other and to avoid marrying degenerates. This is needed to improve their gene pool. With these things in place, in a few generation they will be a position to reform Islam and create another culture comparable to the best of western culture.
 
Mar 2020
1,429
371
Land of Freedom
I will think about this and listen to your interview. Interestingly, you should mention, GO. I was a 2nd Dan player and still sometimes play in the morning (13x13 board) as a brain warm-up before the market bell rings.
 
Mar 2020
1,429
371
Land of Freedom
A member called Neil sent me a PM giving me his ideas about libertarian ism.
He said he sends PM since it's difficult to have a real discussion on here.
I can't remember the exact words.
He also said I could say his name otherwise I would never violate the privacy of a PM.

His explanation was that libertarians strike the right balance between the needs of the community and the individual.
Anarchy and socialism are the opposite ends of the spectrum, libertarian in the middle? If i understood correctly.

I get what he's saying, but libertarian ism seems pretty extreme to me.
Neil is a wise man and I have spoken to him too. He is sick of teaching here so just watches and laughs.

Princess, is there anything extreme about being free?

Many who think or claim they understand Libertarianism or claim to have rejected it are usually people who only know of it because they like any party that supports legalizing marijuana and other drugs. They do not know much more than that and their brains are too fried from the drugs to delve any deeper. They soon reject Libertarianism after they find out that though Libertarians support the legalization of drugs, they do not support the free distribution of anything through the coercion of government.

"No free weed dude? No way!"

They do not know what a free-market is or what negative and positive rights are. Those who are truly Libertarian (or who prefer to be called Classical Liberal) are already well versed in the Declaration, Constitution, The Bill of Rights & All Amendments (the Charters of Freedom) before even daring to approach such things as the Non-Aggression Principle (NAP) or Ludwig von Mises and Austrian economics.

Princess, I appreciate that you want to learn more and I am happy to share with you what I know but if you even show me one iota of aggression or disrespect as many of the left-wing, liberal members then I will cut you off. Deal?
 
Mar 2020
223
195
Woodlands, Texas
Sure free I'm not much for aggression anyway.
Here's my question: what are negative rights and positive rights and how would you protect both?
 
Mar 2020
1,429
371
Land of Freedom
Sure free I'm not much for aggression anyway.
Here's my question: what are negative rights and positive rights and how would you protect both?
Well, you are getting a bit ahead of yourself but sure. I'll try to make it simple as possible now.

Basically, negative rights are the right to be yourself and do what you can or cannot for yourself without infringing (messing with) the rights of others. They are the natural rights that you are born with. Other also cannot infringe on your right in the same manner.

Example: You have the right to provide yourself as long as you do not take from others and allow them to have the right to do the same. You have the right to accumulate as much wealth and happiness as you wish so long as you don't steal it from others or stop them from doing the same. You also have the right to do nothing for others if that is how you feel.

Positive rights are unnatural rights, fake rights that people impose on you or that you impose on others.

Example: The forced garnishing of your wages to support welfare recipients who don't work, healthcare for those who are not related to you and are irrelevant to you, (if you are a business owner) paying a minimum wage to employees regardless of if they are worth that price or qualified.

Negative rights do not need to be protected since they are natural and everyone is born with them and cannot give them up or separated from them. Like the right to be yourself.

Positive rights also do not need to be protected since they are forced upon you with aggression, coercion with the threat of punishment such as being caged if you don't agree or submit to the rights. As long as there are people who want what you have then positive right will always be alive and strong. It should also be understood that it could be you that is the person who enforces positive rights on others or claim positive rights for yourself.

Negative and Positive rights are usually always in conflict with each other.

If we strip it down to the simplest definition:

Negative Rights: Live and let live.
Positive Rights: Feed, clothe, give shelter and help to others regardless of if you know them and regardless of if they are doing the same for you.

So now you know the basics, you can decide which kind of rights are right for you!

Thanks for the question, Princess.
 
Mar 2020
1,429
371
Land of Freedom
JFC!
Are fucking kidding?
"Owning yourself"?
I guess that's some shit libertarians understand but don't tell "statits" so you can laugh at what we don't know?
No wonder nobody likes you guys.
What's to like?
I will forgive your aggression and swearing since we hadn't made the deal yet when you posted this.

Owning yourself is firstly owning your thoughts and your opinions. So how do you know you own your opinions? You might be totally wrong about something or everything. Your assumptions might be based on something someone else told you that sounds good but lacks any basis in truth. If you really want to know then throw everything away and start over.

So let's start over starting right now, shall we?

I noticed that in some of your posts, you seem a bit confused or should I say rather new to all these different gender choices, sexual preferences and gender-based ideologies.

I cannot tell you what to chose or what is true but I do encourage you to go with your natural feelings and perhaps not to think about it since thinking is often not real and just something used to justify and event after it has happened. Most actions and choices are done naturally with no thinking involved. Let say you put your hand on the grill, of course, you yank it away in pain. Was there any thinking involved or was it a natural and thought-free reaction?

I believe that you and many people your age are confused about Femininity vs Feminism.

Femininity is natural and has existed as long as mammalian life on this earth has this is not my opinion, it is backed up by science. Anyone born a female is naturally feminine. If you are female then you cannot sperate yourself from your feminity, it won't go away even with indoctrination (a.k.a. brainwashing) medication, hormone injection or surgery. It is closer to you than your own skin.

Feminism as a word and ideology seems to be very new and only invented a few decades or a century ago and is not very well tested in society yet. Feminism seems to be an ideology or philosophy promoting sexual equality between males and females in all areas, mental, physical and intrinsic natures. Feminism seems to not be in congruency with femininity but actually seems to reject or suppress it.

Feminism aggressively tries to prove that women can do what men can do thus making women lose, not recognize or even abandon their natural uniqueness.

Feminity is the timeless evidence that women weren't created to do everything a man can do but that women were created to do everything that a man can't do.

So by not thinking too much or at all about it and going with what is in your heart, you will know what to naturally embrace, reject or even renounce.

And that is what it means to own yourself!
 
Mar 2020
1,429
371
Land of Freedom
Is that what you think I was saying? Goober, you do not know that since 1868 we have been under international maritime admiralty law none of us since then have been considered sovereigns?
 
Mar 2020
223
195
Woodlands, Texas
Well, you are getting a bit ahead of yourself but sure. I'll try to make it simple as possible now.

Basically, negative rights are the right to be yourself and do what you can or cannot for yourself without infringing (messing with) the rights of others. They are the natural rights that you are born with. Other also cannot infringe on your right in the same manner.

Example: You have the right to provide yourself as long as you do not take from others and allow them to have the right to do the same. You have the right to accumulate as much wealth and happiness as you wish so long as you don't steal it from others or stop them from doing the same. You also have the right to do nothing for others if that is how you feel.

Positive rights are unnatural rights, fake rights that people impose on you or that you impose on others.

Example: The forced garnishing of your wages to support welfare recipients who don't work, healthcare for those who are not related to you and are irrelevant to you, (if you are a business owner) paying a minimum wage to employees regardless of if they are worth that price or qualified.

Negative rights do not need to be protected since they are natural and everyone is born with them and cannot give them up or separated from them. Like the right to be yourself.

Positive rights also do not need to be protected since they are forced upon you with aggression, coercion with the threat of punishment such as being caged if you don't agree or submit to the rights. As long as there are people who want what you have then positive right will always be alive and strong. It should also be understood that it could be you that is the person who enforces positive rights on others or claim positive rights for yourself.

Negative and Positive rights are usually always in conflict with each other.

If we strip it down to the simplest definition:

Negative Rights: Live and let live.
Positive Rights: Feed, clothe, give shelter and help to others regardless of if you know them and regardless of if they are doing the same for you.

So now you know the basics, you can decide which kind of rights are right for you!

Thanks for the question, Princess.
I will forgive your aggression and swearing since we hadn't made the deal yet when you posted this.

Owning yourself is firstly owning your thoughts and your opinions. So how do you know you own your opinions? You might be totally wrong about something or everything. Your assumptions might be based on something someone else told you that sounds good but lacks any basis in truth. If you really want to know then throw everything away and start over.

So let's start over starting right now, shall we?

I noticed that in some of your posts, you seem a bit confused or should I say rather new to all these different gender choices, sexual preferences and gender-based ideologies.

I cannot tell you what to chose or what is true but I do encourage you to go with your natural feelings and perhaps not to think about it since thinking is often not real and just something used to justify and event after it has happened. Most actions and choices are done naturally with no thinking involved. Let say you put your hand on the grill, of course, you yank it away in pain. Was there any thinking involved or was it a natural and thought-free reaction?

I believe that you and many people your age are confused about Femininity vs Feminism.

Femininity is natural and has existed as long as mammalian life on this earth has this is not my opinion, it is backed up by science. Anyone born a female is naturally feminine. If you are female then you cannot sperate yourself from your feminity, it won't go away even with indoctrination (a.k.a. brainwashing) medication, hormone injection or surgery. It is closer to you than your own skin.

Feminism as a word and ideology seems to be very new and only invented a few decades or a century ago and is not very well tested in society yet. Feminism seems to be an ideology or philosophy promoting sexual equality between males and females in all areas, mental, physical and intrinsic natures. Feminism seems to not be in congruency with femininity but actually seems to reject or suppress it.

Feminism aggressively tries to prove that women can do what men can do thus making women lose, not recognize or even abandon their natural uniqueness.

Feminity is the timeless evidence that women weren't created to do everything a man can do but that women were created to do everything that a man can't do.

So by not thinking too much or at all about it and going with what is in your heart, you will know what to naturally embrace, reject or even renounce.

And that is what it means to own yourself!
I'll take your second post first, the one about owning myself.
I dont' feel that the feminists want to own me and I certainly dont' think they do own me.
They have given me a different perspective than what I grew up with which was the old school dad wins the bacon, mom stays home and changes diapers

I keep hearing that evil librul feminists want to force women out of the home but I haven't seen that.
They just want to make sure that's not a woman's only choice.
If not for the feminist movement I would be constrained from pursuing my dream of becoming a local broadcast journalist.
So if I stayed at home while my husband worked in a coal mine instead that's fine because I own myself?

I do thank you kind sir for forgiving me for violating our agreement before we made it. :D

As to positive and negative rights, I have to say that makes a lot of sense it really does.
If you wanted to be kind of "pure" about respecting rights, you could say that I have no valid positive right to go to college for free and you have a negative right to keep your money instead of paying the taxes that let me do that.
The fact that you pay them anyway is a kind of enforced sharing that humans have done as long as we have been human and even before when we were ape-like animals living in a pack.

A man in a hunter-gatherer tribe who was a light sleeper could have woken up before the other men in the tribe, gone out and killed an elk on his own and kept it to himself and his woman and children.
He had a negative right to do that, yes?
But that's not what happened. The men hunted together and shared the meat among the tribe, including the children and the "old."
The positive right to share the food you say is less valid than the negative right of the individual to keep what he kills if I'm using the terms correctly?

But if humans had acted that way, if part of our evolution from lower animals had been this decision to work as individuals and not as a collective, humanity would likely not have survived.
The only "libertarians" would be the animals which do not live in groups, bears, wolverines, skunks, etc.

And yes, Porcupines.
What do those animals have in common?
The first two are dangerous predators who would tear apart any animal that approached them or die trying.
The second two are more passive, but they have natural defenses that make it very unpleasant for another animal to approach them.

Loners.
The overwhelming majority of people don't want to live like that. The few that do are welcome to really.
How much their negative rights are violated really depends on how much they want to participate in civilization, don't you agree?