Anarchists and libertarians - Please click here

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Freedom is a rather abstract concept. Freedom from what?

Usually most equate freedom with doing whatever the hell they want to do.

However, take a person who is a slave who may undergo a conversion to Christ and perhaps they may view themselves as free, free from the shackles of sin that once held them captive.

I'd say some of the most tortured human beings that have roamed this earth have been people with a great deal of power over others but can't seem to conquer their inner demons that hold them captive in their own minds.

It is true that freedom can often be a state of mind, or as Janice said in that annoying song Bobby McGee, "freedom is just another word for nothing left to lose."

"Individual Liberty" is similar to "freedom" but takes on another meaning all together when discussing human or natural rights. It tangentially relates to religion, but is not dependent on it.

I grew up very religions, but have since concluded that it had to be a tradition started by the 160 IQ caveman pulling a scam on the 80 IQ caveman. Religious practices did nothing for me but cause pain and cost money. Thus, I have no use for religion. I certainly respect the right to religious beliefs and practices that do not intrude on the liberty of others. I certainly don't feel tortured or enslaved by any sin, as I believe there is no such thing as an offence against god, or whatever. I only experience remorse or regret is when I have not been fair with someone or if I have unnecessarily intruded on their individual liberty.

Individual liberty is naturally bestowed. Remove all laws or obligations of society or government, return people to a wild state, and all natural rights become evident. Society or government should ONLY exist to promote and protect those natural rights as they may interfere with the natural rights of others, or as they me be intruded upon by the natural rights of others. It becomes a compromise on the scope and nature of those natural rights for the benefits society and/or government provides.

Those natural rights are partially yielded BY CONSENT, for the benefits a society provides or the protections government provides, but yielding does not mean permanent revocation and forfeiture of those natural rights.

So, yes, in the natural state, I have the right to do whatever the fuck I want. Anything goes. But, in a society, I agree with others in my society to yield part of those natural rights to allow a mutual benefit derived from society or within government.

As an example, I have a natural right to use whatever resources my surroundings provide. However, in a consented society, I yield part of that right to limit the resources I am allowed to use in exchange for others in society doing the same, by agreeing that X portion of land and resources on it are mine, and Y portion of land/resources are yours, etc.

The best way to preserve as much of those natural rights as possible while reaping the benefits of a society or a government, is to approach all arrangements with the purpose of infringing on those natural rights as little as possible while still maintaining the benefits a society or a government can provide.

I, like a wolf, bear, or lion, have a natural right to kill any other human or animal competing with me for resources. Any competitor has a natural right to do the same. But, as humans are equipped with logic/reason, we found that such an arrangement is both deadly and inefficient.

Humans have been more successful by calling a "truce" and agreeing to not exercise the full extent of our natural rights.

Society or government goes awry when the agreement to yield natural rights is taken for granted or taken as permanent waiver or complete forfeiture.

Sometimes, people within societies or governments need to be reminded that this arrangement is revocable. They need to be reminded that consent can be withdrawn.

For that reason, all society decisions or government actions must be carefully constructed to respect natural rights and infringe on those rights to the least extent possible to maintain consent.

Statists love to ignore the fact that their beloved State exists at our consent, and that laws exist for our mutual, individual benefit, not to benefit the State, of which this thread is full of examples.

 

[Brian Blackwell]

...I love freedom, as does everyone else, but there are issues with freedom which leads me away from being labeled Libertarian

1. Collectivists build armies to crush others around them. This is why Libertarians have never had a voice and will never have a voice. How can you fight these collectivist thugs without forming your own collectivist movement to defeat them both militarily and politically?

2. Freedom is only worthy of a moral society. If we were all amoral convicts behind bars, would you still want to give us our freedom? The question then begs, how do you ensure that society has a moral fiber worthy of freedom while still letting them have their freedom? As Ben Franklin aptly pointed out, the Constitution will only last until society will become so corrupt that they will need a despot to contain them.

Unfortunately, the general attitude in the GOP is, morality is not big deal, it's just about the dollars and cents and a really big army is all we need.

First of all, there's the assumption here that you and I have anything to say about it. We don't "let" people have their freedom. People are free. We then choose whether to act immorally by infringing upon that freedom, or acting morally and logically by acknowledging the reality of their natural inherent freedom.

If humanity is immoral, how does it help to take a few from amidst that immoral throng, and clothe them in immense power? This only serves to magnify immorality, not mitigate it.

If thugs gang up and try to oppress you, then I suppose you have to fight them, as the revolutionaries did 250 years ago. But getting lost in speculations does not serve to help us determine what role we will play in all of this. We must decide if it's wise or prudent to justify our own immorality by citing the immorality of others; in which case, the next man can point to our immorality to justify his own. We must decide if we're going to be the change we want to see in the world, and try to persuade others to do the same, or if we're just going to "go along to get along" until the cattle cars come rolling in.

If you truly love freedom, it behooves you to care for it, protect it, provide fertile ground for its thriving. Love isn't just a feeling, it's also a behavior. What does it mean to say you love something, but then willingly beat it, subvert it, and stifle it? If you're not fully supporting freedom because you're afraid of what will happen if you do, then you don't love it, you just wish you were the kind of person who did.

The vast majority of people who have walked the Earth have been slaves to other men. So to then say that we were born "free" is inaccurate.

Naturally, if there were no people around, or just the cool ones that don't feel the need to control you and micromanage your life for their own benefit, they you would be 100% free of human tyranny.

And lastly, how do you fight a gang of thugs and should you play by their own game? As for the American Revolution, it was a perfect storm. You had an entire ocean separating the colonies from the British Empire, plus you had a group of well educated rich men who formed a cabal to give the movement purpose and direction. You also had the French helping the colonists who had a few lucky victories. Take any of these factors away and the rebels hang in futility.

Most don't have these options.

But the funny thing is, if you do have those options, you have an added conundrum. You tend to become what you are fighting. Case in point, the Founding Fathers inexplicably created the Alien and Sedition Acts immediately after the Revolution which made it illegal to speak out against the government. Thomas Jefferson was outraged at this and swore to fight those Acts off, which he did, but not before using them for his own advantage.

What was left of the Acts was used by FDR to lock away innocent Japanese Americans.

We cannot confuse the natural state of man with his circumstances at any given time. Man is free, but his citcumstances may not permit for a full expression of that freedom, and often don’t. Morality equates to coming into alignment with what is, which is why we use the term “sin” or “wrong” to indicate immorality as an error.

Most war victories can be traced back to key circumstantial factors in hindsight, but it’s irrelevant to weigh speculative probabilities when determining matters of morality. Unless you want to adopt the utilitarian position, which permits for mass extermination if it would benefit a majority. I happen to think that a standing army is not necessary to defend a nation, but my greater concern is what you and I are doing right now.

What are we supporting? Does it align with our core values? How are we influencing humanity’s future? Are we allowing fear and speculation to infringe upon our moral judgement? Everything is continually changing, so what change are we being right now?

Freedom is a rather abstract concept. Freedom from what?

Usually most equate freedom with doing whatever the hell they want to do.

However, take a person who is a slave who may undergo a conversion to Christ and perhaps they may view themselves as free, free from the shackles of sin that once held them captive.

I'd say some of the most tortured human beings that have roamed this earth have been people with a great deal of power over others but can't seem to conquer their inner demons that hold them captive in their own minds.

Freedom from unnatural impediments (meaning purposefully imposed). Freedom is rooted in natural autonomy - the ability to use one's mind and body without appealing to anyone else. It has natural limitations; most obviously physical limitations, but also logical limitations. It's been said that "your freedom to swing your fist ends where my nose begins". This exemplifies how freedom cannot impose upon itself (one individual expression of freedom cannot infringe upon another's expression of freedom, and still be deemed "freedom"). This dispels the notion of "doing whatever the hell you want to do".

Individual expressions of freedom are called rights. A right is any action that does not impede upon another's ability to express their natural freedom. Applying the term "freedom" to internal mental/emotional states is not wholly inappropriate. If I lie to you, I can be said to infringe upon your freedom by unnaturally limiting your ability to discern. An impediment to a full expression of your ability to think was imposed upon you as a result of my actions; no different than placing shackles upon your feet would impede full expression of your ability to walk,

I'm suggesting is that we cease living in denial of man's inherent freedom. It is akin to being in denial of gravity, or the need for food, or any other natural phenomenon. When you vote to have someone make law which will impede your neighbor's full expression of freedom, you are committing an act of aggression against him. This becomes immediately apparent if you imagine the scenario with you in place of the government official...

If you run your neighbor off the road and tell him to give you $65 dollars for driving 15 mph "too fast", and that if he fails to do so in a certain amount of time, you will drag him to a cage at gunpoint, you have initiated excessively aggressive behavior (as all such actions must either be aggressive or defensive, and he has harmed no one). This would hardly be deemed appropriate by anyone, and yet we support this sort of behavior everyday through sheer cultural habit. In principle, our blindness to the moral consequences is not unlike that of the Romans supporting Christians being mauled by lions.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Freedom from unnatural impediments (meaning purposefully imposed). Freedom is rooted in natural autonomy - the ability to use one's mind and body without appealing to anyone else. It has natural limitations; most obviously physical limitations, but also logical limitations. It's been said that "your freedom to swing your fist ends where my nose begins". This exemplifies how freedom cannot impose upon itself (one individual expression of freedom cannot infringe upon another's expression of freedom, and still be deemed "freedom"). This dispels the notion of "doing whatever the hell you want to do".

I agree. Freedom cannot/should not infringe on the freedom of others in a society (which is the very purpose of society). Such a give/take relationship is consensual for the mutual benefit of allowing humans to avoid the deadly, violent conflict other species experience in exercise of natural rights.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Individual expressions of freedom are called rights. A right is any action that does not impede upon another's ability to express their natural freedom. Applying the term "freedom" to internal mental/emotional states is not wholly inappropriate. If I lie to you, I can be said to infringe upon your freedom by unnaturally limiting your ability to discern. An impediment to a full expression of your ability to think was imposed upon you as a result of my actions; no different than placing shackles upon your feet would impede full expression of your ability to walk,

On this, I disagree.

A natural right is that which is bestowed on all species living in a natural, wild state of existence. Humans maintain those rights, but by consent, agree to exercise those right only to the extent that they do not infringe on the rights of others, because doing so allows humans to avoid the violent conflict other species experience in the struggle to survive.

 

[Brian Blackwell]

Individual expressions of freedom are called rights. A right is any action that does not impede upon another's ability to express their natural freedom. Applying the term "freedom" to internal mental/emotional states is not wholly inappropriate. If I lie to you, I can be said to infringe upon your freedom by unnaturally limiting your ability to discern. An impediment to a full expression of your ability to think was imposed upon you as a result of my actions; no different than placing shackles upon your feet would impede full expression of your ability to walk,

On this, I disagree.

A natural right is that which is bestowed on all species living in a natural, wild state of existence. Humans maintain those rights, but by consent, agree to exercise those right only to the extent that they do not infringe on the rights of others, because doing so allows humans to avoid the violent conflict other species experience in the struggle to survive.

Rights are a moral concept; they concern a “should” that implies an “in order to...” (in this case, man should observe certain behavioral parameters in order to acknowledge natural law and thus avoid undesirable consequences). The application of morality to beings without the capacity to consider such values is suspect.

It seems you’re suggesting that humans excercise restraint on rights, but that those rights naturally include anything within man’s power. I’m missing the distinction between rights and ability here. Natural “law” implies a difference between what man can do, and what he should do. By your concept, is there anything within man’s ability that he does not have a right to do?

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Individual expressions of freedom are called rights. A right is any action that does not impede upon another's ability to express their natural freedom. Applying the term "freedom" to internal mental/emotional states is not wholly inappropriate. If I lie to you, I can be said to infringe upon your freedom by unnaturally limiting your ability to discern. An impediment to a full expression of your ability to think was imposed upon you as a result of my actions; no different than placing shackles upon your feet would impede full expression of your ability to walk,

On this, I disagree.

A natural right is that which is bestowed on all species living in a natural, wild state of existence. Humans maintain those rights, but by consent, agree to exercise those right only to the extent that they do not infringe on the rights of others, because doing so allows humans to avoid the violent conflict other species experience in the struggle to survive.

Rights are a moral concept; they concern a “should” that implies an “in order to...” (in this case, man should observe certain behavioral parameters in order to acknowledge natural law and thus avoid undesirable consequences). The application of morality to beings without the capacity to consider such values is suspect.

It seems you’re suggesting that humans excercise restraint on rights, but that those rights naturally include anything within man’s power. I’m missing the distinction between rights and ability here. Natural “law” implies a difference between what man can do, and what he should do. By your concept, is there anything within man’s ability that he does not have a right to do?

No, I am saying that, in his natural state in the wild, a man has a natural right to do whatever it takes to survive. It is not like John Locke's natural law. It is the natural state, like any other species.

Humans have the ability to overcome that natural state to avoid violence and death in exchange for agreed behavior of others for mutual benefit.

 

[kaz]

Im all about freedom and individual liberty but i dont consider myself either of those

Yes, i noticed his poll used the "Big L" libertarian as a choice, not "small l"

Yes he did, what else could "other libertarian" mean?

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Im all about freedom and individual liberty but i dont consider myself either of those

Yes, i noticed his poll used the "Big L" libertarian as a choice, not "small l"

Yes he did, what else could "other libertarian" mean?

That choice was added after the above comment was made, in response to the above comment.

 

[kaz]

Im all about freedom and individual liberty but i dont consider myself either of those

Interesting. How would you define your position (either by name, or description)?

I support pro liberty and freedom policies.
I support the federal govts power that was given to them by our Constitution. Nothing more.

The founding fathers were classic liberals, which means libertarian in today's terminology. What in your mind is the difference between a small government libertarian and the Constitution as written? I don't see one

 

[kaz]

An argument against a tax one does not prefer is a not an argument for a complete dissolution of taxation.

It absolutely is, when it is unconstrained. You can see examples in this very thread.

"Why should I pay for someone else's choices?"

Choices... like, voting for public education? Like, voting for gas tax to fund roads? It is completely unconstrained, and it is usually the quality of argument one gets against specific taxes.

It is much harder to delineate why we should pay for one thing, and not for another. there will be no "objective truth" to be found there, and it is the intellectually lazy who pretend to "defer to a code", like liberalism... when really they are only deferring to their own fetishes and neuroses.

What about objecting to being automatically enrolled in a failed Ponzi scheme set up 40 years before my birth? I had no choice in that decision, yet here I am, paying into it without a way to opt out. Make no mistake...it is a fucking tax.

I am paying for choices made decades before me. Should I be required to do so?

To adhere to the code of Liberty First or Maximizing Individual Liberty is not lazy. It requires reasoned decisions, asking the question, "what decision will maximize individual liberty?"

Call that a "fetish" if you want, but maximizing individual liberty first and foremost is universal and would lead to much better decisions.

One can easily delineate what taxes are appropriate by determining what will maximize individual liberty. That principle will likely yield as many different opinions as anything else, but at least we all know the objective.

Agreed, except that social security isn't a Ponzi scheme. It isn't fiscally sound enough to be a Ponzi scheme. There is no savings in Social Security at all. It is and always was spent as it came in. It's a pure tax and redistribute scheme like any other welfare program

 

[kaz]

Hi everybody. I'm just trying to get a sense for how many people here are truly freedom-minded. Please vote to indicate your position, and feel free to elaborate, or bring up anything you'd like (or just vent your inevitable frustrations) in this thread! Thanks so much!

*note that I've made a distinction between full-on anarchists/voluntaryists, Libertarian party supporters, and other libertarians who condone some form of minimal government.

Hate to break the love, but the BIG L libertarians only started to make election progress by sending the anarchists to the back of bus. Really doesn't have anything to do with Liberty, freedom. It has to do with the absurd proposition that voters should consider Anarchists to RUN this country..

Gotta decide if you're gonna be a purist wonk or get out and fix things working from the Constitution and where we are...

Anarchists can run a country, they don't believe in governmental authority (i.e. an inequality of rights). That is the fundamental distinction between anarchists and everyone else - the former does not condone the use of immoral violence (force used outside the scope of defense), everyone else does, to some degree. If a government does not employ such violence, it is no longer government. This is its distinguishing characteristic - the "authority" to do things that would be wrong if any individual did them.

Been here before. As an official party delegate and on panels. You don't NEED violence to run a country by the consent of the governed. You just need more CHOICES on the ballot and more open debates.

Violence happens when govts are HIJACKED by parties. In reality, the LParty doesn't EXIST to be a party. And has no intention of using violence either in administering govt.

What about the court systems? Is that govt violence to you? Prisons?

The Libertarian Party is way too much party. It has endless litmus/purity tests like the Democrat party.

Sure, it's a better party than the other parties, but it's too much party

 

[flacaltenn]

Hi everybody. I'm just trying to get a sense for how many people here are truly freedom-minded. Please vote to indicate your position, and feel free to elaborate, or bring up anything you'd like (or just vent your inevitable frustrations) in this thread! Thanks so much!

*note that I've made a distinction between full-on anarchists/voluntaryists, Libertarian party supporters, and other libertarians who condone some form of minimal government.

Hate to break the love, but the BIG L libertarians only started to make election progress by sending the anarchists to the back of bus. Really doesn't have anything to do with Liberty, freedom. It has to do with the absurd proposition that voters should consider Anarchists to RUN this country..

Gotta decide if you're gonna be a purist wonk or get out and fix things working from the Constitution and where we are...

Anarchists can run a country, they don't believe in governmental authority (i.e. an inequality of rights). That is the fundamental distinction between anarchists and everyone else - the former does not condone the use of immoral violence (force used outside the scope of defense), everyone else does, to some degree. If a government does not employ such violence, it is no longer government. This is its distinguishing characteristic - the "authority" to do things that would be wrong if any individual did them.

Been here before. As an official party delegate and on panels. You don't NEED violence to run a country by the consent of the governed. You just need more CHOICES on the ballot and more open debates.

Violence happens when govts are HIJACKED by parties. In reality, the LParty doesn't EXIST to be a party. And has no intention of using violence either in administering govt.

What about the court systems? Is that govt violence to you? Prisons?

The Libertarian Party is way too much party. It has endless litmus/purity tests like the Democrat party.

Sure, it's a better party than the other parties, but it's too much party

When the LParty hits you up for funds or asks something of you -- it MAKES SENSE. It's a petition problem or getting space and desk chairs. It's not made up drama like the others. We do our OWN primaries. We don't badger members constantly with "polls" to fire them up.

And the litmus tests died when we started to recruit ACTUAL CANDIDATES and not purist wonks who thought marijuana was a platform. Last 15 years has been great actually.

Except for the strip tease acts at the conventions.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

When the LParty hits you up for funds or asks something of you -- it MAKES SENSE. It's a petition problem or getting space and desk chairs. It's not made up drama like the others. We do our OWN primaries. We don't badger members constantly with "polls" to fire them up.

And the litmus tests died when we started to recruit ACTUAL CANDIDATES and not purist wonks who thought marijuana was a platform. Last 15 years has been great actually.

Except for the strip tease acts at the conventions.

The Ls have been acting more like a functioning party, rather than a bunch of old frat buddies at a country club banquet.

If they can start nominating electable candidates on the regular, I might actually take them seriously and join with a nice donation.

 

[Brian Blackwell]

Individual expressions of freedom are called rights. A right is any action that does not impede upon another's ability to express their natural freedom. Applying the term "freedom" to internal mental/emotional states is not wholly inappropriate. If I lie to you, I can be said to infringe upon your freedom by unnaturally limiting your ability to discern. An impediment to a full expression of your ability to think was imposed upon you as a result of my actions; no different than placing shackles upon your feet would impede full expression of your ability to walk,

On this, I disagree.

A natural right is that which is bestowed on all species living in a natural, wild state of existence. Humans maintain those rights, but by consent, agree to exercise those right only to the extent that they do not infringe on the rights of others, because doing so allows humans to avoid the violent conflict other species experience in the struggle to survive.

Rights are a moral concept; they concern a “should” that implies an “in order to...” (in this case, man should observe certain behavioral parameters in order to acknowledge natural law and thus avoid undesirable consequences). The application of morality to beings without the capacity to consider such values is suspect.

It seems you’re suggesting that humans excercise restraint on rights, but that those rights naturally include anything within man’s power. I’m missing the distinction between rights and ability here. Natural “law” implies a difference between what man can do, and what he should do. By your concept, is there anything within man’s ability that he does not have a right to do?

No, I am saying that, in his natural state in the wild, a man has a natural right to do whatever it takes to survive. It is not like John Locke's natural law. It is the natural state, like any other species.

Humans have the ability to overcome that natural state to avoid violence and death in exchange for agreed behavior of others for mutual benefit.

Oh yes, thank you. You raise an interesting point about man in the wild. How does survival relate to morality? When confronted with a choice between conforming to moral principles or meeting one’s demise, what’s to be done?

To me, survival is not generally important enough to sacrifice principle (I would not kill an innocent man to save my own life), but would I punch an old lady to save the world? Probably. This is not to say that I deem it the best course; just that my knowledge is not sufficient to know for sure, and prudence dictates resorting to utilitarianism in times of categorical uncertainty.

Morality describes the cause-and-effect of human behavior. Religion often presents this as judgement - which is a servicable mythological model - but I prefer to think of it as akin to physical law. When we say man is obliged by morality, it’s simply to say that he is subject to the consequences of natural law.

But there is much left to learn about these laws, whether we’re talking about morality, physics, or anything else. For now, we know enough to say that initiating aggression against innocents is wrong, and that ignoring inherent rights has undesirable consequences. That seems to provide a sound basis from which to proceed with our investigation.

 

[flacaltenn]

When the LParty hits you up for funds or asks something of you -- it MAKES SENSE. It's a petition problem or getting space and desk chairs. It's not made up drama like the others. We do our OWN primaries. We don't badger members constantly with "polls" to fire them up.

And the litmus tests died when we started to recruit ACTUAL CANDIDATES and not purist wonks who thought marijuana was a platform. Last 15 years has been great actually.

Except for the strip tease acts at the conventions.

The Ls have been acting more like a functioning party, rather than a bunch of old frat buddies at a country club banquet.

If they can start nominating electable candidates on the regular, I might actually take them seriously and join with a nice donation.

I like that fact that party leaders don't RELY on the LP to do everything. The work at Cato, Reason and the Inst. Justice is FAR more important to libertarian issues than the party itself. And we NEED to keep the "braintrust" distributed like that. For instance --- Gary Johnson did not just walk away after 2016. He's NOW a "real libertarian" working on issues and outreach.

Check this out... Stop the Political Duopoly

 

[bripat9643]

Individual expressions of freedom are called rights. A right is any action that does not impede upon another's ability to express their natural freedom. Applying the term "freedom" to internal mental/emotional states is not wholly inappropriate. If I lie to you, I can be said to infringe upon your freedom by unnaturally limiting your ability to discern. An impediment to a full expression of your ability to think was imposed upon you as a result of my actions; no different than placing shackles upon your feet would impede full expression of your ability to walk,

On this, I disagree.

A natural right is that which is bestowed on all species living in a natural, wild state of existence. Humans maintain those rights, but by consent, agree to exercise those right only to the extent that they do not infringe on the rights of others, because doing so allows humans to avoid the violent conflict other species experience in the struggle to survive.

Rights are a moral concept; they concern a “should” that implies an “in order to...” (in this case, man should observe certain behavioral parameters in order to acknowledge natural law and thus avoid undesirable consequences). The application of morality to beings without the capacity to consider such values is suspect.

It seems you’re suggesting that humans excercise restraint on rights, but that those rights naturally include anything within man’s power. I’m missing the distinction between rights and ability here. Natural “law” implies a difference between what man can do, and what he should do. By your concept, is there anything within man’s ability that he does not have a right to do?

No, I am saying that, in his natural state in the wild, a man has a natural right to do whatever it takes to survive. It is not like John Locke's natural law. It is the natural state, like any other species.

Humans have the ability to overcome that natural state to avoid violence and death in exchange for agreed behavior of others for mutual benefit.

Man does not have a right to commit murder, even in his natural state. Man's natural state is to live in social gruops, and killing one of your fellow group members has always been wrong. Rights are rules the define the difference between justice and injustice. Those rules haven't changed in 100,000 years.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Oh yes, thank you. You raise an interesting point about man in the wild. How does survival relate to morality? When confronted with a choice between conforming to moral principles or meeting one’s demise, what’s to be done?

To me, survival is not generally important enough to sacrifice principle (I would not kill an innocent man to save my own life), but would I punch an old lady to save the world? Probably. This is not to say that I deem it the best course; just that my knowledge is not sufficient to know for sure, and prudence dictates resorting to utilitarianism in times of categorical uncertainty.

Morality describes the cause-and-effect of human behavior. Religion often presents this as judgement - which is a servicable mythological model - but I prefer to think of it as akin to physical law. When we say man is obliged by morality, it’s simply to say that he is subject to the consequences of natural law.

But there is much left to learn about these laws, whether we’re talking about morality, physics, or anything else. For now, we know enough to say that initiating aggression against innocents is wrong, and that ignoring inherent rights has undesirable consequences. That seems to provide a sound basis from which to proceed with our investigation.

Well said.

I think concept of "morality" in human interaction is a simply a reflection of the human ability to empathize, reason, and compromise to avert risk. Somewhere along the line, that concept merged with the human need to explain or understand his/her own existence, which resulted in religion.

I have reached the conclusion that the organization of "society" is a constructive truce and agreement to competitavely cooperate within a set of non-violent rules, rather than continue in the more risky state of literally trying to beat the shit out of each other for resources and the prospect of a little nookie.

My theory is that we agree to this truce with the option to revert back to violence if the arrangement is no longer mutually beneficial, akin to the concepts expressed in the Declaration of Independence.

 

[bripat9643]

Im all about freedom and individual liberty but i dont consider myself either of those

Interesting. How would you define your position (either by name, or description)?

I support pro liberty and freedom policies.
I support the federal govts power that was given to them by our Constitution. Nothing more.

The founding fathers were classic liberals, which means libertarian in today's terminology. What in your mind is the difference between a small government libertarian and the Constitution as written? I don't see one

The interstate commerce clause, for one thing.

 

[toobfreak]

Hi everybody. I'm just trying to get a sense for how many people here are truly freedom-minded. Please vote to indicate your position, and feel free to elaborate, or bring up anything you'd like (or just vent your inevitable frustrations) in this thread! Thanks so much!

*note that I've made a distinction between full-on anarchists/voluntaryists, Libertarian party supporters, and other libertarians who condone some form of minimal government.

Comparing Anarchists and Libertarians is like comparing apples and oranges! One is for chaos, the other order, and despite the labels, anarchy brings a total LOSS of freedom, while libertarians make few absolute distinctions between constructive and destructive liberty.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Man does not have a right to commit murder, even in his natural state. Man's natural state is to live in social gruops, and killing one of your fellow group members has always been wrong. Rights are rules the define the difference between justice and injustice. Those rules haven't changed in 100,000 years

"Murder" implies the mutual concept of "justice" within an established society. Lions, tigers, bears, and other species kill each other and other species all the time. Is that murder?

The only reason "murder" and "justice" are human concepts is because humans have develpoed the ability to reason and empathize. From those uniquely human abilities came the concept of rights and justice, but that only developed as humans reasoned that their survival is more likely when they cooperate and stop trying to kill each other for food and fucking.

You are talking way far into the future on the human-development timeline than what I am disussing, and my purpose is to illustrate the proper purpose and function of government.

It is imprtant to keep it in the proper context.

Society is a concentual truce. When it is seen as a mandate, some people take advantage of others under the color of universally-bestowed authority.

If people in a society generally understand that the individuals therein are governed by their consent, which they have the power to revoke and end the truce, government behaves properly.

That's the point.

Govern ina tolerable manner or killing without consequence will resume.

That is also the reason no government should have the power to remove the ability to resume violence on any possible level.

I hope that makes sense.