Conservatism And Libertarianism Both Have No Dogma

[bripat9643]

Property rights are subject to the duly enacted laws of any society.

In the USA we are supposed to be a nation of laws.

We as the state can take away a man's freedom if laws are violated. We can take away a man's property if we use the laws enacted by society. Our laws say we can do this in the context of due process and just compensation. No whacky notion of 'natural law' trumps what a society itself chooses to do.

A society that uses laws to take away property is little more than a gang of savages who may dress in three piece suits but who still practice cannibalism.

 

[Bfgrn]

There should be ZERO financial incentive to lock someone up. Do you understand that concept? There should be ZERO chance of that EVER being a factor. Do you understand that concept??

What floors me about you folks who call yourself 'libertarians' is that you have little understanding of human foible and no use for the biggest defender of civil liberties in America...the ACLU.

The current incarceration rate deprives record numbers of individuals of their liberty, disproportionately affects people of color, and has at best a minimal effect on public safety. Meanwhile, the crippling cost of imprisoning increasing numbers of Americans saddles government budgets with rising debt and exacerbates the current fiscal crisis confronting states across the nation.

Private prison companies, however, essentially admit that their business model depends on locking up more and more people. For example, in a 2010 Annual Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, Corrections Corporation of America (CCA) stated: “The demand for our facilities and services could be adversely affected by . . . leniency in conviction or parole standards and sentencing practices . . . .” As incarceration rates skyrocket, the private prison industry expands at exponential rates, holding ever more people in its prisons and jails, and generating massive profits.

And while supporters of private prisons tout the idea that governments can save money through privatization, the evidence that private prisons save taxpayer money is mixed at best – in fact, private prisons may in some instances cost more than governmental ones. Private prisons have also been linked to numerous cases of violence and atrocious conditions.

more

You have every right to decide if people can smoke in your private home. Restaurants are PUBLIC facilities and PUBLIC workplaces. They fall under PUBLIC laws.

"Private" prisons would not exist in the absence of the government: True or false? Who would pay them if not the government? Don't make the mistake of thinking that I'm defending these prisons, I'm merely objecting to the idea that they have any relation to the free market. They are parasites who exist because of the state.

Restaurants are private property.

Non sequitur. Prisons are a necessary part of any civil society to protect the population. And government of We the People is the ONLY entity that should be involved in incarceration. There needs to be ZERO monetary incentive to incarcerate a human being. As a matter of fact, a monetary incentive NOT to incarcerate a human being is paramount to liberty and freedom. Prisons should only be filled with people who are a threat to society, not filled with people who do not pose that threat. Do we really need private entities lobbying for more people to fill their prisons Kevin? THINK man. You ARE defending this malfeasance of the marketplace.

Libertarians are NOT really interested in protecting liberty. That immediately goes out the window when laissez-faire principals come into play. They are more interested in protecting laissez-faire and corporations over We, the People. THAT is why you won't defend the ACLU.

Presidential candidate Gary Johnson talks guns, for-profit prisons

For-profit prison companies like Correction Corporation of America and GEO Group have been in the news for an array of negative issues, including running dangerous facilities and being accused of lobbying lawmakers to create legislation that would put more people behind bars, including having an influence on Arizona's controversial immigration law, which would put more immigrants in detention facilities.

As governor of New Mexico, Johnson was an avid supporter of private prisons. And although he acknowledges that they have problems, he also believes that the positives outweigh the negatives.


Restaurants are public places and fall under public laws that ensure protection of the general public and ensure workplace protection. Can a restaurant refuse to allow health inspectors on their premises?

So while you deride "private" prisons, you accept that government prisons are necessary. Yet, as I keep pointing out, "private" prisons are government prisons. All that has happened is that the government has contracted out the services to some corporatist entity.

The term privatization is used today as a confusion with the contracting out of government services. Governments do not fully privatize services such as prisons, as Tabarrok’s definition explains. They purchase contracts from private firms to provide the services which have grown too costly for them to produce them-selves. This model retains the government’s authority in regulation and authority over the industry.

https://mises.org/journals/jls/21_2/21_2_6.pdf

So if anybody is supporting this practice, it's you by assuming that the government should have this authority in the first place. I do not support government prisons, so I do not support the corporatist government contracted out prisons on the basis that they're the exact same thing.

Again, restaurants are private property. Period. They are open to the public but they still retain private ownership. Being open to the public changes nothing regarding the fact that they're privately owned. Can a restaurant refuse to allow health inspectors on their premises? No, but they should be able to, obviously. The same way they should be able to refuse to pay tribute to the mob, but do so regardless on the basis that they don't want aggression inflicted on them if they refuse.

This is exactly why libertarianism is nothing but anarchy laced with childishness.

So what you are saying is NO prisons...WTF is wrong with you?

Note how you're changing your complaint regarding my position, but failing to acknowledge that you got it completely wrong before. Regardless, I'm saying no state run or regulated prisons. We can't say exactly how the market would supply the equivalent of prisons, but Robert Murphy has some fairly interesting ideas on the subject that I think would certainly be a viable model. You can read about it for free in his essay in the book "Chaos Theory."

Robert P. Murphy Chaos Theory

It should also be pointed out that not all libertarians would agree that the state has no role in maintaining prisons.

I was wrong. I thought you were a person with a brain. You are not a libertarian, you are a full blown anarchist...

You have ZERO interest in human rights, you only care about property rights. That is the ULTIMATE far right wing state. A pure aristocracy. A feudal system.

Robert P. Murphy Chaos Theory
Anyone interested in exploring the farthest reaches of anarchist theory must come to terms with Murphy's account.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

"Private" prisons would not exist in the absence of the government: True or false? Who would pay them if not the government? Don't make the mistake of thinking that I'm defending these prisons, I'm merely objecting to the idea that they have any relation to the free market. They are parasites who exist because of the state.

Restaurants are private property.

Non sequitur. Prisons are a necessary part of any civil society to protect the population. And government of We the People is the ONLY entity that should be involved in incarceration. There needs to be ZERO monetary incentive to incarcerate a human being. As a matter of fact, a monetary incentive NOT to incarcerate a human being is paramount to liberty and freedom. Prisons should only be filled with people who are a threat to society, not filled with people who do not pose that threat. Do we really need private entities lobbying for more people to fill their prisons Kevin? THINK man. You ARE defending this malfeasance of the marketplace.

Libertarians are NOT really interested in protecting liberty. That immediately goes out the window when laissez-faire principals come into play. They are more interested in protecting laissez-faire and corporations over We, the People. THAT is why you won't defend the ACLU.

Presidential candidate Gary Johnson talks guns, for-profit prisons

For-profit prison companies like Correction Corporation of America and GEO Group have been in the news for an array of negative issues, including running dangerous facilities and being accused of lobbying lawmakers to create legislation that would put more people behind bars, including having an influence on Arizona's controversial immigration law, which would put more immigrants in detention facilities.

As governor of New Mexico, Johnson was an avid supporter of private prisons. And although he acknowledges that they have problems, he also believes that the positives outweigh the negatives.


Restaurants are public places and fall under public laws that ensure protection of the general public and ensure workplace protection. Can a restaurant refuse to allow health inspectors on their premises?

So while you deride "private" prisons, you accept that government prisons are necessary. Yet, as I keep pointing out, "private" prisons are government prisons. All that has happened is that the government has contracted out the services to some corporatist entity.

The term privatization is used today as a confusion with the contracting out of government services. Governments do not fully privatize services such as prisons, as Tabarrok’s definition explains. They purchase contracts from private firms to provide the services which have grown too costly for them to produce them-selves. This model retains the government’s authority in regulation and authority over the industry.

https://mises.org/journals/jls/21_2/21_2_6.pdf

So if anybody is supporting this practice, it's you by assuming that the government should have this authority in the first place. I do not support government prisons, so I do not support the corporatist government contracted out prisons on the basis that they're the exact same thing.

Again, restaurants are private property. Period. They are open to the public but they still retain private ownership. Being open to the public changes nothing regarding the fact that they're privately owned. Can a restaurant refuse to allow health inspectors on their premises? No, but they should be able to, obviously. The same way they should be able to refuse to pay tribute to the mob, but do so regardless on the basis that they don't want aggression inflicted on them if they refuse.

This is exactly why libertarianism is nothing but anarchy laced with childishness.

So what you are saying is NO prisons...WTF is wrong with you?

Note how you're changing your complaint regarding my position, but failing to acknowledge that you got it completely wrong before. Regardless, I'm saying no state run or regulated prisons. We can't say exactly how the market would supply the equivalent of prisons, but Robert Murphy has some fairly interesting ideas on the subject that I think would certainly be a viable model. You can read about it for free in his essay in the book "Chaos Theory."

Robert P. Murphy Chaos Theory

It should also be pointed out that not all libertarians would agree that the state has no role in maintaining prisons.

I was wrong. I thought you were a person with a brain. You are not a libertarian, you are a full blown anarchist...

You have ZERO interest in human rights, you only care about property rights. That is the ULTIMATE far right wing state. A pure aristocracy. A feudal system.

Robert P. Murphy Chaos Theory
Anyone interested in exploring the farthest reaches of anarchist theory must come to terms with Murphy's account.

Well, I have a brain, hence my ability to converse with you. Furthermore, there are minarchist libertarians, and there are anarchist libertarians. "Mr. Libertarian" Murray Rothbard, without whom there would arguably be no libertarianism, was an anarcho-capitalist. You shouldn't make pronouncements like that without understanding the ideology.

Property rights are human rights. In fact, human rights all boil down to property rights in the end. For example, there is no freedom of speech without private property rights.

 

[Bfgrn]

Non sequitur. Prisons are a necessary part of any civil society to protect the population. And government of We the People is the ONLY entity that should be involved in incarceration. There needs to be ZERO monetary incentive to incarcerate a human being. As a matter of fact, a monetary incentive NOT to incarcerate a human being is paramount to liberty and freedom. Prisons should only be filled with people who are a threat to society, not filled with people who do not pose that threat. Do we really need private entities lobbying for more people to fill their prisons Kevin? THINK man. You ARE defending this malfeasance of the marketplace.

Libertarians are NOT really interested in protecting liberty. That immediately goes out the window when laissez-faire principals come into play. They are more interested in protecting laissez-faire and corporations over We, the People. THAT is why you won't defend the ACLU.

Presidential candidate Gary Johnson talks guns, for-profit prisons

For-profit prison companies like Correction Corporation of America and GEO Group have been in the news for an array of negative issues, including running dangerous facilities and being accused of lobbying lawmakers to create legislation that would put more people behind bars, including having an influence on Arizona's controversial immigration law, which would put more immigrants in detention facilities.

As governor of New Mexico, Johnson was an avid supporter of private prisons. And although he acknowledges that they have problems, he also believes that the positives outweigh the negatives.


Restaurants are public places and fall under public laws that ensure protection of the general public and ensure workplace protection. Can a restaurant refuse to allow health inspectors on their premises?

So while you deride "private" prisons, you accept that government prisons are necessary. Yet, as I keep pointing out, "private" prisons are government prisons. All that has happened is that the government has contracted out the services to some corporatist entity.

The term privatization is used today as a confusion with the contracting out of government services. Governments do not fully privatize services such as prisons, as Tabarrok’s definition explains. They purchase contracts from private firms to provide the services which have grown too costly for them to produce them-selves. This model retains the government’s authority in regulation and authority over the industry.

https://mises.org/journals/jls/21_2/21_2_6.pdf

So if anybody is supporting this practice, it's you by assuming that the government should have this authority in the first place. I do not support government prisons, so I do not support the corporatist government contracted out prisons on the basis that they're the exact same thing.

Again, restaurants are private property. Period. They are open to the public but they still retain private ownership. Being open to the public changes nothing regarding the fact that they're privately owned. Can a restaurant refuse to allow health inspectors on their premises? No, but they should be able to, obviously. The same way they should be able to refuse to pay tribute to the mob, but do so regardless on the basis that they don't want aggression inflicted on them if they refuse.

This is exactly why libertarianism is nothing but anarchy laced with childishness.

So what you are saying is NO prisons...WTF is wrong with you?

Note how you're changing your complaint regarding my position, but failing to acknowledge that you got it completely wrong before. Regardless, I'm saying no state run or regulated prisons. We can't say exactly how the market would supply the equivalent of prisons, but Robert Murphy has some fairly interesting ideas on the subject that I think would certainly be a viable model. You can read about it for free in his essay in the book "Chaos Theory."

Robert P. Murphy Chaos Theory

It should also be pointed out that not all libertarians would agree that the state has no role in maintaining prisons.

I was wrong. I thought you were a person with a brain. You are not a libertarian, you are a full blown anarchist...

You have ZERO interest in human rights, you only care about property rights. That is the ULTIMATE far right wing state. A pure aristocracy. A feudal system.

Robert P. Murphy Chaos Theory
Anyone interested in exploring the farthest reaches of anarchist theory must come to terms with Murphy's account.

Well, I have a brain, hence my ability to converse with you. Furthermore, there are minarchist libertarians, and there are anarchist libertarians. "Mr. Libertarian" Murray Rothbard, without whom there would arguably be no libertarianism, was an anarcho-capitalist. You shouldn't make pronouncements like that without understanding the ideology.

Property rights are human rights. In fact, human rights all boil down to property rights in the end. For example, there is no freedom of speech without private property rights.

You don't even understand what you promote. Let's break it down...anarcho-capitalism. What does that prefix represent Kevin?

You possess ZERO understanding of human rights. Property rights are NOT human rights. A society based on property rights is feudalism.


"Republicans care more about property, Democrats care more about people"
Ted Sorensen - President Kennedy's Special Counsel & Adviser, and primary speechwriter

 

[Bfgrn]

Libertarian serfdom for the masses.


Why Hate Monarchs?
Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr.

Widespread panic set in this summer when the party of King Simeon II won a majority in Bulgaria's recent elections. There were ominous warnings about this being the first East European state to take a step toward restoring monarchical figures to power. So many people associate democracy with freedom and monarchy with tyranny that any attempt to revisit pre-democratic systems of government is regarded as evil.

Sheer nonsense. Freedom was nurtured in Europe under the decentralized monarchies of feudalism, which served as the political basis of decentralized federalism in the US. Unlike our own presidents, who are experts in passing the buck, the monarch tends to take personal responsibility for the fate of his domain. Upending a personal tyranny is much easier because you know whom to blame and whom to overthrow. The classical-liberal tradition was never hostile to monarchs as such; it was government power they opposed, and where the monarch restrained the state, he won their favor.

more bullshit

 

[kaz]

This is exactly why "libertarianism" is nothing but anarchy laced with childishness.

So what you are saying is NO prisons...WTF is wrong with you?

He is an anarchist, moron. Most libertarians are not anarchists.

Liberals are so retarded, there are anarchists, and there are Republicans. There's nothing between, we have to pick one or another. Go pick your nose.

 

[kaz]

You possess ZERO understanding of human rights. Property rights are NOT human rights. A society based on property rights is feudalism.

Property rights are not human rights? That's just sick. Supporting my family, having a home, savings, a business, nope, not yours kaz, that all belongs to the government. You have the human rights to free birth control, an abortion and gay marriage. But property? It belongs to the government, other than what they decide to leave you. What they don't take is government spending, they can only afford so much.

The guy who votes for plunder and redistribution, the IRS and the war on drugs lectures anyone about human rights? You're a boob wrapped in an idiot.

 

[kaz]

Conservatism And Libertarianism Both Have No Dogma

I agree! They both have lots of dogs - but no dogma.

Neither Lakhota nor Dante seem to know what dogma is. Can either of them define what they are saying? I don't see how that we're not a religion like you are is a bad thing. Why would we want politics to be a religion?

 

[Bfgrn]

You possess ZERO understanding of human rights. Property rights are NOT human rights. A society based on property rights is feudalism.

Property rights are not human rights? That's just sick. Supporting my family, having a home, savings, a business, nope, not yours kaz, that all belongs to the government. You have the human rights to free birth control, an abortion and gay marriage. But property? It belongs to the government, other than what they decide to leave you. What they don't take is government spending, they can only afford so much.

The guy who votes for plunder and redistribution, the IRS and the war on drugs lectures anyone about human rights? You're a boob wrapped in an idiot.

What a fucking ignorant retard you are kaz. After you post this:

He is an anarchist, moron. Most libertarians are not anarchists.

Liberals are so retarded, there are anarchists, and there are Republicans. There's nothing between, we have to pick one or another. Go pick your nose.

Then you turn around and ignorantly categorize liberals with the same polarized garbage and do it without ANY understanding of the context of WHO I was arguing with...an ANARCHIST who wants to ELIMINATE government and base society SOLELY on property right! Liberals support property rights, it just CAN'T be the sole basis of how a nation is run.

Throughout history property rights have been used to violate one's individual sovereignty. Feudalism and slavery were both based around absolute property rights.

 

[kaz]

You possess ZERO understanding of human rights. Property rights are NOT human rights. A society based on property rights is feudalism.

Property rights are not human rights? That's just sick. Supporting my family, having a home, savings, a business, nope, not yours kaz, that all belongs to the government. You have the human rights to free birth control, an abortion and gay marriage. But property? It belongs to the government, other than what they decide to leave you. What they don't take is government spending, they can only afford so much.

The guy who votes for plunder and redistribution, the IRS and the war on drugs lectures anyone about human rights? You're a boob wrapped in an idiot.

What a fucking ignorant retard you are kaz. After you post this:

He is an anarchist, moron. Most libertarians are not anarchists.

Liberals are so retarded, there are anarchists, and there are Republicans. There's nothing between, we have to pick one or another. Go pick your nose.

Then you turn around and ignorantly categorize liberals with the same polarized garbage and do it without ANY understanding of the context of WHO I was arguing with...an ANARCHIST who wants to ELIMINATE government and base society SOLELY on property right! Liberals support property rights, it just CAN'T be the sole basis of how a nation is run.

Throughout history property rights have been used to violate one's individual sovereignty. Feudalism and slavery were both based around absolute property rights.

OMG that's funny. And in this thread. You don't even know what it means, do you Skippy?

Yeah, liberals are extremely dogmatic, I totally agree. What's funny is you agree with that without knowing what it means and then actually demonstrating that in a thread on that subject.

I couldn't make up what you people come up with and believe on your own if I tried. This is hilarious.

 

[Bfgrn]

Hey kaz...how ABSOLUTE are you beliefs in property rights? Do you support or oppose the rule of the commons? The air we breath, the water we drink and the soil we seed...can any of those be 'privatized'?

 

[Bfgrn]

You possess ZERO understanding of human rights. Property rights are NOT human rights. A society based on property rights is feudalism.

Property rights are not human rights? That's just sick. Supporting my family, having a home, savings, a business, nope, not yours kaz, that all belongs to the government. You have the human rights to free birth control, an abortion and gay marriage. But property? It belongs to the government, other than what they decide to leave you. What they don't take is government spending, they can only afford so much.

The guy who votes for plunder and redistribution, the IRS and the war on drugs lectures anyone about human rights? You're a boob wrapped in an idiot.

What a fucking ignorant retard you are kaz. After you post this:

He is an anarchist, moron. Most libertarians are not anarchists.

Liberals are so retarded, there are anarchists, and there are Republicans. There's nothing between, we have to pick one or another. Go pick your nose.

Then you turn around and ignorantly categorize liberals with the same polarized garbage and do it without ANY understanding of the context of WHO I was arguing with...an ANARCHIST who wants to ELIMINATE government and base society SOLELY on property right! Liberals support property rights, it just CAN'T be the sole basis of how a nation is run.

Throughout history property rights have been used to violate one's individual sovereignty. Feudalism and slavery were both based around absolute property rights.

OMG that's funny. And in this thread. You don't even know what it means, do you Skippy?

Yeah, liberals are extremely dogmatic, I totally agree. What's funny is you agree with that without knowing what it means and then actually demonstrating that in a thread on that subject.

I couldn't make up what you people come up with and believe on your own if I tried. This is hilarious.

Are you so confused that you post a reply to someone else's post here?

 

[kaz]

Hey kaz...how ABSOLUTE are you beliefs in property rights? Do you support or oppose the rule of the commons? The air we breath, the water we drink and the soil we seed...can any of those be 'privatized'?

Here you go.

What is a small government libertarian US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

 

[kaz]

You possess ZERO understanding of human rights. Property rights are NOT human rights. A society based on property rights is feudalism.

Property rights are not human rights? That's just sick. Supporting my family, having a home, savings, a business, nope, not yours kaz, that all belongs to the government. You have the human rights to free birth control, an abortion and gay marriage. But property? It belongs to the government, other than what they decide to leave you. What they don't take is government spending, they can only afford so much.

The guy who votes for plunder and redistribution, the IRS and the war on drugs lectures anyone about human rights? You're a boob wrapped in an idiot.

What a fucking ignorant retard you are kaz. After you post this:

He is an anarchist, moron. Most libertarians are not anarchists.

Liberals are so retarded, there are anarchists, and there are Republicans. There's nothing between, we have to pick one or another. Go pick your nose.

Then you turn around and ignorantly categorize liberals with the same polarized garbage and do it without ANY understanding of the context of WHO I was arguing with...an ANARCHIST who wants to ELIMINATE government and base society SOLELY on property right! Liberals support property rights, it just CAN'T be the sole basis of how a nation is run.

Throughout history property rights have been used to violate one's individual sovereignty. Feudalism and slavery were both based around absolute property rights.

OMG that's funny. And in this thread. You don't even know what it means, do you Skippy?

Yeah, liberals are extremely dogmatic, I totally agree. What's funny is you agree with that without knowing what it means and then actually demonstrating that in a thread on that subject.

I couldn't make up what you people come up with and believe on your own if I tried. This is hilarious.

Are you so confused that you post a reply to someone else's post here?

You and I are the only posters in this quote. I do like your argument. Oh yeah, well, maybe I'm too stupid to know that there is anything between anarchists and Republicans, but you said no liberals do and that's not true.

No, you are all too stupid to know that. I have that argument all the time. The number of liberals who grasp it is zero. Name one.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

So while you deride "private" prisons, you accept that government prisons are necessary. Yet, as I keep pointing out, "private" prisons are government prisons. All that has happened is that the government has contracted out the services to some corporatist entity.

https://mises.org/journals/jls/21_2/21_2_6.pdf

So if anybody is supporting this practice, it's you by assuming that the government should have this authority in the first place. I do not support government prisons, so I do not support the corporatist government contracted out prisons on the basis that they're the exact same thing.

Again, restaurants are private property. Period. They are open to the public but they still retain private ownership. Being open to the public changes nothing regarding the fact that they're privately owned. Can a restaurant refuse to allow health inspectors on their premises? No, but they should be able to, obviously. The same way they should be able to refuse to pay tribute to the mob, but do so regardless on the basis that they don't want aggression inflicted on them if they refuse.

This is exactly why libertarianism is nothing but anarchy laced with childishness.

So what you are saying is NO prisons...WTF is wrong with you?

Note how you're changing your complaint regarding my position, but failing to acknowledge that you got it completely wrong before. Regardless, I'm saying no state run or regulated prisons. We can't say exactly how the market would supply the equivalent of prisons, but Robert Murphy has some fairly interesting ideas on the subject that I think would certainly be a viable model. You can read about it for free in his essay in the book "Chaos Theory."

Robert P. Murphy Chaos Theory

It should also be pointed out that not all libertarians would agree that the state has no role in maintaining prisons.

I was wrong. I thought you were a person with a brain. You are not a libertarian, you are a full blown anarchist...

You have ZERO interest in human rights, you only care about property rights. That is the ULTIMATE far right wing state. A pure aristocracy. A feudal system.

Robert P. Murphy Chaos Theory
Anyone interested in exploring the farthest reaches of anarchist theory must come to terms with Murphy's account.

Well, I have a brain, hence my ability to converse with you. Furthermore, there are minarchist libertarians, and there are anarchist libertarians. "Mr. Libertarian" Murray Rothbard, without whom there would arguably be no libertarianism, was an anarcho-capitalist. You shouldn't make pronouncements like that without understanding the ideology.

Property rights are human rights. In fact, human rights all boil down to property rights in the end. For example, there is no freedom of speech without private property rights.

You don't even understand what you promote. Let's break it down...anarcho-capitalism. What does that prefix represent Kevin?

You possess ZERO understanding of human rights. Property rights are NOT human rights. A society based on property rights is feudalism.


"Republicans care more about property, Democrats care more about people"
Ted Sorensen - President Kennedy's Special Counsel & Adviser, and primary speechwriter

Why don't you tell me what you think that prefix represents?

Again, property rights are the only human rights. Absent property rights no other rights exist. Going back to the example of free speech and using USMB to further the example. In your home you may say whatever you like, because you own your home. On USMB, however, somebody else is the owner, and they may decide at any point in time, well within their rights, to exclude whomever they like for whatever reason they like. So let's say the owner decides one day that they've had it with libertarians and no longer want to let them participate. So they ban me and anybody else who has ever claimed the mantle of libertarian for nothing more than talking about our positions on the issues. They have every right to do so, and our "freedom of speech" means nothing in this context because we have no property right in USMB. Give any human right you like and it will still only exist in the context of property rights.

Feudalism was a pre-industrial form of privilege granted by governments, and has nothing to do with private property or free market capitalism. Sorry, try again.

Not a Republican, and not a Democrat. Your quote means nothing.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Libertarian serfdom for the masses.


Why Hate Monarchs?
Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr.

Widespread panic set in this summer when the party of King Simeon II won a majority in Bulgaria's recent elections. There were ominous warnings about this being the first East European state to take a step toward restoring monarchical figures to power. So many people associate democracy with freedom and monarchy with tyranny that any attempt to revisit pre-democratic systems of government is regarded as evil.

Sheer nonsense. Freedom was nurtured in Europe under the decentralized monarchies of feudalism, which served as the political basis of decentralized federalism in the US. Unlike our own presidents, who are experts in passing the buck, the monarch tends to take personal responsibility for the fate of his domain. Upending a personal tyranny is much easier because you know whom to blame and whom to overthrow. The classical-liberal tradition was never hostile to monarchs as such; it was government power they opposed, and where the monarch restrained the state, he won their favor.

more bullshit

Except that Lew Rockwell is an anarcho-capitalist who does not favor monarchy. He's merely agreeing with Hans-Hermann Hoppe's argument that monarchy is superior to democracy, though inferior to anarchism, because the monarch has every reason to preserve their kingdom for the long haul, since they'll be ruling for a lifetime, whereas democratic politicians have every incentive to exploit the people as quickly as possible on the basis that they'll be out of power in a few years.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

You possess ZERO understanding of human rights. Property rights are NOT human rights. A society based on property rights is feudalism.

Property rights are not human rights? That's just sick. Supporting my family, having a home, savings, a business, nope, not yours kaz, that all belongs to the government. You have the human rights to free birth control, an abortion and gay marriage. But property? It belongs to the government, other than what they decide to leave you. What they don't take is government spending, they can only afford so much.

The guy who votes for plunder and redistribution, the IRS and the war on drugs lectures anyone about human rights? You're a boob wrapped in an idiot.

What a fucking ignorant retard you are kaz. After you post this:

He is an anarchist, moron. Most libertarians are not anarchists.

Liberals are so retarded, there are anarchists, and there are Republicans. There's nothing between, we have to pick one or another. Go pick your nose.

Then you turn around and ignorantly categorize liberals with the same polarized garbage and do it without ANY understanding of the context of WHO I was arguing with...an ANARCHIST who wants to ELIMINATE government and base society SOLELY on property right! Liberals support property rights, it just CAN'T be the sole basis of how a nation is run.

Throughout history property rights have been used to violate one's individual sovereignty. Feudalism and slavery were both based around absolute property rights.

Wrong. Feudalism and slavery both reject private property rights.

 

[kaz]

"Republicans care more about property, Democrats care more about people"
Ted Sorensen - President Kennedy's Special Counsel & Adviser, and primary speechwriter

Why don't you tell me what you think that prefix represents?

Again, property rights are the only human rights,,.

Not a Republican, and not a Democrat. Your quote means nothing.

Yes, the right to life, liberty and property boil down to property since life and liberty basically mean your body is your property.

I do like the argument that keeping what you earned is caring about property, taking what someone else earned is caring about life. So bank robbers are humanitarians! Then making them dependent on you continuing to do that is also caring about life.

 

[Bfgrn]

Hey kaz...how ABSOLUTE are you beliefs in property rights? Do you support or oppose the rule of the commons? The air we breath, the water we drink and the soil we seed...can any of those be 'privatized'?

Here you go.

What is a small government libertarian US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

This is exactly why libertarianism is nothing but anarchy laced with childishness.

So what you are saying is NO prisons...WTF is wrong with you?

Note how you're changing your complaint regarding my position, but failing to acknowledge that you got it completely wrong before. Regardless, I'm saying no state run or regulated prisons. We can't say exactly how the market would supply the equivalent of prisons, but Robert Murphy has some fairly interesting ideas on the subject that I think would certainly be a viable model. You can read about it for free in his essay in the book "Chaos Theory."

Robert P. Murphy Chaos Theory

It should also be pointed out that not all libertarians would agree that the state has no role in maintaining prisons.

I was wrong. I thought you were a person with a brain. You are not a libertarian, you are a full blown anarchist...

You have ZERO interest in human rights, you only care about property rights. That is the ULTIMATE far right wing state. A pure aristocracy. A feudal system.

Robert P. Murphy Chaos Theory
Anyone interested in exploring the farthest reaches of anarchist theory must come to terms with Murphy's account.

Well, I have a brain, hence my ability to converse with you. Furthermore, there are minarchist libertarians, and there are anarchist libertarians. "Mr. Libertarian" Murray Rothbard, without whom there would arguably be no libertarianism, was an anarcho-capitalist. You shouldn't make pronouncements like that without understanding the ideology.

Property rights are human rights. In fact, human rights all boil down to property rights in the end. For example, there is no freedom of speech without private property rights.

You don't even understand what you promote. Let's break it down...anarcho-capitalism. What does that prefix represent Kevin?

You possess ZERO understanding of human rights. Property rights are NOT human rights. A society based on property rights is feudalism.


"Republicans care more about property, Democrats care more about people"
Ted Sorensen - President Kennedy's Special Counsel & Adviser, and primary speechwriter

Why don't you tell me what you think that prefix represents?

Again, property rights are the only human rights. Absent property rights no other rights exist. Going back to the example of free speech and using USMB to further the example. In your home you may say whatever you like, because you own your home. On USMB, however, somebody else is the owner, and they may decide at any point in time, well within their rights, to exclude whomever they like for whatever reason they like. So let's say the owner decides one day that they've had it with libertarians and no longer want to let them participate. So they ban me and anybody else who has ever claimed the mantle of libertarian for nothing more than talking about our positions on the issues. They have every right to do so, and our "freedom of speech" means nothing in this context because we have no property right in USMB. Give any human right you like and it will still only exist in the context of property rights.

Feudalism was a pre-industrial form of privilege granted by governments, and has nothing to do with private property or free market capitalism. Sorry, try again.

Not a Republican, and not a Democrat. Your quote means nothing.

If you eliminate government, and base a society on property right, then you create a feudal society. A society of wealthy land barons and renters. YOU and your dogmatic ilk will be left out...you will be a renter who is a slave of the land barons. America would be a series of fiefdoms with no uniform rule of law.

You folks are the EXTREME of extremists. You make right wing authoritarians look like Gandhi...

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Hey kaz...how ABSOLUTE are you beliefs in property rights? Do you support or oppose the rule of the commons? The air we breath, the water we drink and the soil we seed...can any of those be 'privatized'?

Here you go.

What is a small government libertarian US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Note how you're changing your complaint regarding my position, but failing to acknowledge that you got it completely wrong before. Regardless, I'm saying no state run or regulated prisons. We can't say exactly how the market would supply the equivalent of prisons, but Robert Murphy has some fairly interesting ideas on the subject that I think would certainly be a viable model. You can read about it for free in his essay in the book "Chaos Theory."

Robert P. Murphy Chaos Theory

It should also be pointed out that not all libertarians would agree that the state has no role in maintaining prisons.

I was wrong. I thought you were a person with a brain. You are not a libertarian, you are a full blown anarchist...

You have ZERO interest in human rights, you only care about property rights. That is the ULTIMATE far right wing state. A pure aristocracy. A feudal system.

Robert P. Murphy Chaos Theory
Anyone interested in exploring the farthest reaches of anarchist theory must come to terms with Murphy's account.

Well, I have a brain, hence my ability to converse with you. Furthermore, there are minarchist libertarians, and there are anarchist libertarians. "Mr. Libertarian" Murray Rothbard, without whom there would arguably be no libertarianism, was an anarcho-capitalist. You shouldn't make pronouncements like that without understanding the ideology.

Property rights are human rights. In fact, human rights all boil down to property rights in the end. For example, there is no freedom of speech without private property rights.

You don't even understand what you promote. Let's break it down...anarcho-capitalism. What does that prefix represent Kevin?

You possess ZERO understanding of human rights. Property rights are NOT human rights. A society based on property rights is feudalism.


"Republicans care more about property, Democrats care more about people"
Ted Sorensen - President Kennedy's Special Counsel & Adviser, and primary speechwriter

Why don't you tell me what you think that prefix represents?

Again, property rights are the only human rights. Absent property rights no other rights exist. Going back to the example of free speech and using USMB to further the example. In your home you may say whatever you like, because you own your home. On USMB, however, somebody else is the owner, and they may decide at any point in time, well within their rights, to exclude whomever they like for whatever reason they like. So let's say the owner decides one day that they've had it with libertarians and no longer want to let them participate. So they ban me and anybody else who has ever claimed the mantle of libertarian for nothing more than talking about our positions on the issues. They have every right to do so, and our "freedom of speech" means nothing in this context because we have no property right in USMB. Give any human right you like and it will still only exist in the context of property rights.

Feudalism was a pre-industrial form of privilege granted by governments, and has nothing to do with private property or free market capitalism. Sorry, try again.

Not a Republican, and not a Democrat. Your quote means nothing.

If you eliminate government, and base a society on property right, then you create a feudal society. A society of wealthy land barons and renters. YOU and your dogmatic ilk will be left out...you will be a renter who is a slave of the land barons. America would be a series of fiefdoms with no uniform rule of law.

You folks are the EXTREME of extremists. You make right wing authoritarians look like Gandhi...

For starters, Kaz doesn't want to eliminate government. He's a minarchist, not an anarchist. As for the rest, you're just going to keep repeating yourself without actually responding to anything anybody else says so why should I bother?