Advertisement
by Greed and Death » Sat Nov 07, 2009 5:38 pm
by Saint Jade IV » Sat Nov 07, 2009 5:43 pm
by Natapoc » Sat Nov 07, 2009 5:57 pm
Saint Jade IV wrote:I don't see how Al Gore is a hypocrite any more than your average person. At least he did something to raise awareness of the problem.
Using comments by a nutjob like Glenn Beck to bolster sad attempts to make people change their diets just shows how little the vegan cause really has going for them. They have to misrepresent the positions of people they should hate in attempts to have someone support their cause.
by Saint Jade IV » Sat Nov 07, 2009 6:11 pm
Natapoc wrote:Saint Jade IV wrote:I don't see how Al Gore is a hypocrite any more than your average person. At least he did something to raise awareness of the problem.
Using comments by a nutjob like Glenn Beck to bolster sad attempts to make people change their diets just shows how little the vegan cause really has going for them. They have to misrepresent the positions of people they should hate in attempts to have someone support their cause.
Not really. I said that I don't agree with beck on anything except this point and that he would probably have me executed even because he so hates my policies. Pretending that I'm saying I support anything else that beck says is dishonest of you.
I personally think it is really funny that beck and peta agree on something. Although it is only on what someone else should do.
As I've shown previously the single greatest thing you can do as an individual to reduce your environmental impact is to not eat animal products. This is amazingly good news because it does not require complex credit schemes or anything like that. Just taking personal responsibility for your diet and it's effects on others.
by Skeptikosia » Sat Nov 07, 2009 6:13 pm
Natapoc wrote:Rikker DAnconia wrote:Natapoc wrote:Sure. Here are some introductions on libertarian-communism:
Ow. My head hurts from reading those. You understand that the concept of "libertarian" and "communism" are mutually exclusive, by definition, right?
What is the basis for determining trade (which doesn't exist... you just take it?), rights (who has rights, and who can overrule those rights?) or... well... any interaction between people? Is there an objective system in ANY of that?
I WAS legitimately interested in what facts you might have to offer. Now...
Oh, man, I'm going out drinking after this.
Sorry to hear it is a confusion. It sounds like you mean libertarian in the way that the US libertarian party uses it.
There was a discussion on it a couple days ago. I suggest you have a look at this thread: viewtopic.php?f=20&t=23141
The OP could really use some comments on his side since the majority seems to feel that left-libertarianism is valid.
This thread is not about my politics though so I don't really want to waste space on it. I was simply mentioning it in the OP to contrast mine to Glenn becks as a way of reiterating that I don't actually agree with him on most things.
See what I mean? I'm sorry for your headache. They hurt
Edit: I am starting to think this is what Skeptikosia was trying to say above expecting me to know that is why he had a problem with me. Skeptikosia, if that is the case please let me know. And read the link above for the discussion on the topic.
by Non Aligned States » Sat Nov 07, 2009 6:46 pm
Natapoc wrote:I did not. I linked you to farm sanctuaries that care for "farm animals" even now without a profit motive.
Natapoc wrote:The animals are "in the way of profit" the sanctuaries could be turned into profitable farmland but they are not because people care about them.
by Seperates » Sat Nov 07, 2009 7:03 pm
by Rikker DAnconia » Sat Nov 07, 2009 8:27 pm
Natapoc wrote:Rikker DAnconia wrote:Natapoc wrote:Sure. Here are some introductions on libertarian-communism:
http://flag.blackened.net/liberty/libcom.html
http://libcom.org/
http://wiki.infoshop.org/Anarchist_communism
http://infoshop.org
Ow. My head hurts from reading those. You understand that the concept of "libertarian" and "communism" are mutually exclusive, by definition, right?
What is the basis for determining trade (which doesn't exist... you just take it?), rights (who has rights, and who can overrule those rights?) or... well... any interaction between people? Is there an objective system in ANY of that?
I WAS legitimately interested in what facts you might have to offer. Now...
Oh, man, I'm going out drinking after this.
Sorry to hear it is a confusion. It sounds like you mean libertarian in the way that the US libertarian party uses it.
There was a discussion on it a couple days ago. I suggest you have a look at this thread: viewtopic.php?f=20&t=23141
The OP could really use some comments on his side since the majority seems to feel that left-libertarianism is valid.
This thread is not about my politics though so I don't really want to waste space on it. I was simply mentioning it in the OP to contrast mine to Glenn becks as a way of reiterating that I don't actually agree with him on most things.
See what I mean? I'm sorry for your headache. They hurt
Edit: I am starting to think this is what Skeptikosia was trying to say above expecting me to know that is why he had a problem with me. Skeptikosia, if that is the case please let me know. And read the link above for the discussion on the topic.
by Free Soviets » Sat Nov 07, 2009 9:38 pm
Rikker DAnconia wrote:part of the "libertarian" or "classical liberal" ideal
Rikker DAnconia wrote:Long story short: "Left-Libertarianism" is not a valid stance while maintaining a desire for distribution of wealth (this constitutes use of force... generally not a libertarian thing... ) and once one moves into anarchy, it is no longer the "libertarian" part, as they wish to confine the role of the government, not eliminate it.
by Skeptikosia » Sat Nov 07, 2009 9:42 pm
Free Soviets wrote:Rikker DAnconia wrote:part of the "libertarian" or "classical liberal" ideal
even ignoring the illegitimately restrictive use of the word 'libertarian', these are not the same things. classical liberals were a big and diverse group, and regularly came up with ideas that right-libertarians now find abhorrent.
but more to the point, libertarianism covers a broad range of positions that are united by their professed love of liberty, and not individualism. that's why we have civil libertarians, for example, rather than civil individualists.Rikker DAnconia wrote:Long story short: "Left-Libertarianism" is not a valid stance while maintaining a desire for distribution of wealth (this constitutes use of force... generally not a libertarian thing... ) and once one moves into anarchy, it is no longer the "libertarian" part, as they wish to confine the role of the government, not eliminate it.
your use of libertarian is particularly weird and non-standard, since i can't see a reasonable way to claim that right-libertarians are the only legitimate libertarians and at the same time hold that anarcho-cappies are not libertarians.
in any case, forcefully redistributing resources from unjust distributions to just ones cannot be anti-liberty, unless we use a self-contradictory idea of liberty. otherwise, how would one handle theft under a libertarian system?
by Free Soviets » Sat Nov 07, 2009 9:55 pm
Skeptikosia wrote:Please explain the differentiation between liberty and individualism in the context above.
by Rikker DAnconia » Sun Nov 08, 2009 3:45 pm
Free Soviets wrote:Rikker DAnconia wrote:part of the "libertarian" or "classical liberal" ideal
even ignoring the illegitimately restrictive use of the word 'libertarian', these are not the same things. classical liberals were a big and diverse group, and regularly came up with ideas that right-libertarians now find abhorrent.
but more to the point, libertarianism covers a broad range of positions that are united by their professed love of liberty, and not individualism. that's why we have civil libertarians, for example, rather than civil individualists.Rikker DAnconia wrote:Long story short: "Left-Libertarianism" is not a valid stance while maintaining a desire for distribution of wealth (this constitutes use of force... generally not a libertarian thing... ) and once one moves into anarchy, it is no longer the "libertarian" part, as they wish to confine the role of the government, not eliminate it.
your use of libertarian is particularly weird and non-standard, since i can't see a reasonable way to claim that right-libertarians are the only legitimate libertarians and at the same time hold that anarcho-cappies are not libertarians.
in any case, forcefully redistributing resources from unjust distributions to just ones cannot be anti-liberty, unless we use a self-contradictory idea of liberty. otherwise, how would one handle theft under a libertarian system?
by SaintB » Sun Nov 08, 2009 7:48 pm
Natapoc wrote:Typically I don't agree with glenn beck on anything much at all. If he was in charge I'd probably be executed for being a libertarian-communist promoter of earth, animal, and human liberation.
But a couple days ago glenn said something that was very true. Everyone who believes in human caused climate change has an obligation to become vegan today!
According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, composed of many of the top climatologists in the world, the meat industry causes more of the human caused climate change then anything else including ALL the worlds transportation put together (cars, trains, airplanes, private jets, ect.)
Glenn beck blasts al gore for not being a vegetarian:
part 1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AiTUu92JhgE
Peta joins in:
part 2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CEs-PtMRooY
Don't be a hypocrite like al gore. Do as glenn beck and peta says and be vegan today It is the most easy thing you can (not) do to reduce human caused climate change.
FARM (not associated with peta or glenn beck or me) gives free vegetarian starter kits. You can order one here: http://www.vegkit.org/
What are your thoughts on this? I never thought I'd side with glenn beck on anything. Does it mean I'm turning into a conservative? Should I go read more ayn rand?
What does it mean that PETA and Glenn beck agree on something?
by Dakini » Sun Nov 08, 2009 8:21 pm
by Free Soviets » Sun Nov 08, 2009 8:23 pm
Rikker DAnconia wrote:Free Soviets wrote:in any case, forcefully redistributing resources from unjust distributions to just ones cannot be anti-liberty, unless we use a self-contradictory idea of liberty. otherwise, how would one handle theft under a libertarian system?
Excuse my Randism:
Unjust -according to whom?
no, i was offering a counter-example to the idea that libertarianism can't use force to redistribute stuff. and talking about initiation gets you nowhere, as theft typically occurs without force, and it certainly isn't aimed at the party that will be using force against the thief. you have to rely on some conception of justice.Rikker DAnconia wrote:Is it your position that owning property/money is equivalent to theft?
abridged, your sentence reads, "your sentence...makes perfect sense". this is why it is never a good idea to leave out parts of a sentence that add meaning to it.Rikker DAnconia wrote:Abridged, your sentence reads "Forcefully redistributing resources ... cannot be anti-liberty." ... Hmmmm... yes, I see how that makes perfect sense...
by Rikker DAnconia » Sun Nov 08, 2009 9:34 pm
Free Soviets wrote:Rikker DAnconia wrote:Free Soviets wrote:in any case, forcefully redistributing resources from unjust distributions to just ones cannot be anti-liberty, unless we use a self-contradictory idea of liberty. otherwise, how would one handle theft under a libertarian system?
Excuse my Randism:
Unjust -according to whom?
unjust according to some plausible system of justice and public reasons-based decision-making.no, i was offering a counter-example to the idea that libertarianism can't use force to redistribute stuff. and talking about initiation gets you nowhere, as theft typically occurs without force, and it certainly isn't aimed at the party that will be using force against the thief. you have to rely on some conception of justice.Rikker DAnconia wrote:Is it your position that owning property/money is equivalent to theft?abridged, your sentence reads, "your sentence...makes perfect sense". this is why it is never a good idea to leave out parts of a sentence that add meaning to it.Rikker DAnconia wrote:Abridged, your sentence reads "Forcefully redistributing resources ... cannot be anti-liberty." ... Hmmmm... yes, I see how that makes perfect sense...
by Natapoc » Sun Nov 08, 2009 9:36 pm
Rikker DAnconia wrote:Free Soviets wrote:Rikker DAnconia wrote:Free Soviets wrote:in any case, forcefully redistributing resources from unjust distributions to just ones cannot be anti-liberty, unless we use a self-contradictory idea of liberty. otherwise, how would one handle theft under a libertarian system?
Excuse my Randism:
Unjust -according to whom?
unjust according to some plausible system of justice and public reasons-based decision-making.no, i was offering a counter-example to the idea that libertarianism can't use force to redistribute stuff. and talking about initiation gets you nowhere, as theft typically occurs without force, and it certainly isn't aimed at the party that will be using force against the thief. you have to rely on some conception of justice.Rikker DAnconia wrote:Is it your position that owning property/money is equivalent to theft?abridged, your sentence reads, "your sentence...makes perfect sense". this is why it is never a good idea to leave out parts of a sentence that add meaning to it.Rikker DAnconia wrote:Abridged, your sentence reads "Forcefully redistributing resources ... cannot be anti-liberty." ... Hmmmm... yes, I see how that makes perfect sense...
... I can't even respond to this. This is so far beyond the bounds of a logical argument, I can't even respond. I don't know where to start.
This is, in fact, the least logical argument I have seen since "God says so". Also, probably the least coherent, and shows the least grasp of the concepts actually involved.
My hat comes off to you sir, you win by default.
by Rikker DAnconia » Sun Nov 08, 2009 9:43 pm
Natapoc wrote:Rikker DAnconia wrote:Free Soviets wrote:Rikker DAnconia wrote:Free Soviets wrote:in any case, forcefully redistributing resources from unjust distributions to just ones cannot be anti-liberty, unless we use a self-contradictory idea of liberty. otherwise, how would one handle theft under a libertarian system?
Excuse my Randism:
Unjust -according to whom?
unjust according to some plausible system of justice and public reasons-based decision-making.no, i was offering a counter-example to the idea that libertarianism can't use force to redistribute stuff. and talking about initiation gets you nowhere, as theft typically occurs without force, and it certainly isn't aimed at the party that will be using force against the thief. you have to rely on some conception of justice.Rikker DAnconia wrote:Is it your position that owning property/money is equivalent to theft?abridged, your sentence reads, "your sentence...makes perfect sense". this is why it is never a good idea to leave out parts of a sentence that add meaning to it.Rikker DAnconia wrote:Abridged, your sentence reads "Forcefully redistributing resources ... cannot be anti-liberty." ... Hmmmm... yes, I see how that makes perfect sense...
... I can't even respond to this. This is so far beyond the bounds of a logical argument, I can't even respond. I don't know where to start.
This is, in fact, the least logical argument I have seen since "God says so". Also, probably the least coherent, and shows the least grasp of the concepts actually involved.
My hat comes off to you sir, you win by default.
Read this for why anarchists feel that property is theft: http://www.infoshop.org/faq/secB3.html
by Free Soviets » Sun Nov 08, 2009 9:47 pm
Rikker DAnconia wrote:... I can't even respond to this. This is so far beyond the bounds of a logical argument, I can't even respond. I don't know where to start.
This is, in fact, the least logical argument I have seen since "God says so". Also, probably the least coherent, and shows the least grasp of the concepts actually involved.
My hat comes off to you sir, you win by default.
by Natapoc » Sun Nov 08, 2009 9:53 pm
Rikker DAnconia wrote:You come in a close second. Explain to me how a right to possess something and a right to own property are different. I didn't see it addressed.
"The proprietor, the robber, the hero, the sovereign -- for all these titles are synonymous -- imposes his will as law, and suffers neither contradiction nor control; that is, he pretends to be the legislative and the executive power at once . . . [and so] property engenders despotism . . . That is so clearly the essence of property that, to be convinced of it, one need but remember what it is, and observe what happens around him. Property is the right to use and abuse . . . if goods are property, why should not the proprietors be kings, and despotic kings -- kings in proportion to their facultes bonitaires? And if each proprietor is sovereign lord within the sphere of his property, absolute king throughout his own domain, how could a government of proprietors be any thing but chaos and confusion?"
by Free Soviets » Sun Nov 08, 2009 9:57 pm
Rikker DAnconia wrote:Explain to me how a right to possess something and a right to own property are different. I didn't see it addressed.
by Rikker DAnconia » Sun Nov 08, 2009 9:59 pm
Natapoc wrote:Rikker DAnconia wrote:You come in a close second. Explain to me how a right to possess something and a right to own property are different. I didn't see it addressed.
The article addresses it. Did you read the article I linked?
First of all let me be clear what property does not mean when a libertarian socialist/communist/anarchist or whatever says it. We do not mean your toothbrush, your jacket, or that nice watch your grandfather gave you. Your exclusive right to these things which you use does not in any way impede on anyone else rights. It does not create hierarchy or exploitative authority.
We do however mean the toothbrush factory, the watch factory, and "your" seventeenth mansion. Read the article I linked again for the details of why. Basically your claim to property makes you a "ruler" or "sovereign" over the area you claim to own.
But your claim to ownership is a fraud. How can you claim to own land for example?
Here is another link to the classic work of proudhon:
http://www.marxists.org/reference/subje ... /index.htm
Do you know that the word libertarian was first used by a communist?
by Natapoc » Sun Nov 08, 2009 10:04 pm
Rikker DAnconia wrote:Natapoc wrote:Rikker DAnconia wrote:You come in a close second. Explain to me how a right to possess something and a right to own property are different. I didn't see it addressed.
The article addresses it. Did you read the article I linked?
First of all let me be clear what property does not mean when a libertarian socialist/communist/anarchist or whatever says it. We do not mean your toothbrush, your jacket, or that nice watch your grandfather gave you. Your exclusive right to these things which you use does not in any way impede on anyone else rights. It does not create hierarchy or exploitative authority.
We do however mean the toothbrush factory, the watch factory, and "your" seventeenth mansion. Read the article I linked again for the details of why. Basically your claim to property makes you a "ruler" or "sovereign" over the area you claim to own.
But your claim to ownership is a fraud. How can you claim to own land for example?
Here is another link to the classic work of proudhon:
http://www.marxists.org/reference/subje ... /index.htm
Do you know that the word libertarian was first used by a communist?
*facepalm* yes I read the article. However, it is very large and I may have missed something... but... I'm referring EXACTLY to those things like a watch, toothbrush, car, etc. Those things, theoretically, ALSO came (eventually) from something else that someone else does NOT own. How are they different, and how are your rights to them different? How can one claim to own a toothbrush?
The claim that it does not impede on anyone else's rights (and therefore is ok) is invalid unless it applies to all things, including toothbrush, etc. (well, actually it is invalid anyway, we should probably define rights from the ground up to put the semantics aside.)
by Rikker DAnconia » Sun Nov 08, 2009 10:11 pm
Natapoc wrote:Rikker DAnconia wrote:Natapoc wrote:Rikker DAnconia wrote:You come in a close second. Explain to me how a right to possess something and a right to own property are different. I didn't see it addressed.
The article addresses it. Did you read the article I linked?
First of all let me be clear what property does not mean when a libertarian socialist/communist/anarchist or whatever says it. We do not mean your toothbrush, your jacket, or that nice watch your grandfather gave you. Your exclusive right to these things which you use does not in any way impede on anyone else rights. It does not create hierarchy or exploitative authority.
We do however mean the toothbrush factory, the watch factory, and "your" seventeenth mansion. Read the article I linked again for the details of why. Basically your claim to property makes you a "ruler" or "sovereign" over the area you claim to own.
But your claim to ownership is a fraud. How can you claim to own land for example?
Here is another link to the classic work of proudhon:
http://www.marxists.org/reference/subje ... /index.htm
Do you know that the word libertarian was first used by a communist?
*facepalm* yes I read the article. However, it is very large and I may have missed something... but... I'm referring EXACTLY to those things like a watch, toothbrush, car, etc. Those things, theoretically, ALSO came (eventually) from something else that someone else does NOT own. How are they different, and how are your rights to them different? How can one claim to own a toothbrush?
The claim that it does not impede on anyone else's rights (and therefore is ok) is invalid unless it applies to all things, including toothbrush, etc. (well, actually it is invalid anyway, we should probably define rights from the ground up to put the semantics aside.)
Are you claiming that my right to my toothbrush makes me like a sovereign or king over someone else or that it somehow causes hierarchy for me to use my toothbrush? Honestly I'd share it with you but I think the germs would be bad.
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Aggicificicerous, Decapoleis, Nermias, Sarduri, Shazbotdom, Tungstan, Vrbo
Advertisement