True or false: any personal freedom that brings harm to society in general should...

Go back and read.

However, you are the aberration pretending to be a cognitively ordered individual.
 
Go play on a thread that isn't so far over your head.

Maybe start one about Legos.
 
That is nonsense. Your entire life is built upon the shoulders of those who came before you. The words you type here are products of your society. The machine you type them on are a product of your society. Without society you are almost certainly dead. You are part of it, take advantage of it, suck off its teat, and it is not free.

The nonsense here is that you are giving society credit for the work of individuals.

Really. What individual invented english? You really should make an effort if you want to talk with the adults.

What society invented English?

I always make an effort when I talk with adults, let me know when you find one.
 
It's the appropriate response to a nonsense comment of yours.

Your libertarian philosophy is nothing more than a screen for "I don't want to pay taxes."

No respect for liberts, for sure.

944799_195595770589329_409009424_n.jpg

 
Sometimes it is difficult for people to admit/see that certain personal freedoms cause societal harm. Legalizing all drugs for instance, would be very detrimental to society.

Why? Please explain. Do you believe everyone would start using all illegal drugs if they were made legal?
 
Sometimes it is difficult for people to admit/see that certain personal freedoms cause societal harm. Legalizing all drugs for instance, would be very detrimental to society.

Why? Please explain. Do you believe everyone would start using all illegal drugs if they were made legal?

Maybe the only thing keeping him from being an addict is the fact that he is too stupid to get the drugs from the guy on the corner.
 
Sometimes it is difficult for people to admit/see that certain personal freedoms cause societal harm. Legalizing all drugs for instance, would be very detrimental to society.

Why? Please explain. Do you believe everyone would start using all illegal drugs if they were made legal?

I think it's a safe bet to say that MORE people would do drugs if they were made legal.
 
Last edited:
Sometimes it is difficult for people to admit/see that certain personal freedoms cause societal harm. Legalizing all drugs for instance, would be very detrimental to society.

Why? Please explain. Do you believe everyone would start using all illegal drugs if they were made legal?

No not everyone, but a lot more people. People who otherwise wouldn't be addicts, would become addicts. Also, one thing that hinders addicts right now is limited accessibility to the drug.

Hey I am not against doing meth, cocaine, or heroine every once in a while. It's the habitual use that is the problem.
 
Sometimes it is difficult for people to admit/see that certain personal freedoms cause societal harm. Legalizing all drugs for instance, would be very detrimental to society.

Why? Please explain. Do you believe everyone would start using all illegal drugs if they were made legal?

Maybe the only thing keeping him from being an addict is the fact that he is too stupid to get the drugs from the guy on the corner.

You always say the dumbest shit. Am I really supposed to take offense to that?
 
Saying there is no society, only individuals is rather like saying there are no automobiles, only a collection of parts.

Objectivist libertarianism is an idiotic philosophy precisely because its founding principle (there is no such thing as society) is demonstrably idiotic.
 
Saying there is no society, only individuals is rather like saying there are no automobiles, only a collection of parts.

Objectivist libertarianism is an idiotic philosophy precisely because its founding principle (there is no such thing as society) is demonstrably idiotic.

Remove a part and a car won't run. Not so with "society"
 
Saying there is no society, only individuals is rather like saying there are no automobiles, only a collection of parts.

Objectivist libertarianism is an idiotic philosophy precisely because its founding principle (there is no such thing as society) is demonstrably idiotic.

There isn't. Shall I demonstrate your idiocy?

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iYJKd0rkKss]Alone in the Wilderness - YouTube[/ame]

Statism makes slaves, serve your master. Why should I bother with you?
 
Saying there is no society, only individuals is rather like saying there are no automobiles, only a collection of parts.

Objectivist libertarianism is an idiotic philosophy precisely because its founding principle (there is no such thing as society) is demonstrably idiotic.

There isn't. Shall I demonstrate your idiocy?

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iYJKd0rkKss]Alone in the Wilderness - YouTube[/ame]

Statism makes slaves, serve your master. Why should I bother with you?

Mister Beal.

Your man alone in the wilderness in no way proves that society does not exist.

And one cannot help but wonder if your man in the wildnesss is surviving without the tools he brought with him from the society he abandoned?

Did he go into that wildnesss without tools, without education (he got while a member of society) ?

Even if he did (we both know he did not) that still would not refute the concept of society as something that truly exists.

That solitary hermit sprang from a society, and he took with him, many of the skills and talents he learned as a member of that society, too.
 
Last edited:
Saying there is no society, only individuals is rather like saying there are no automobiles, only a collection of parts.

Objectivist libertarianism is an idiotic philosophy precisely because its founding principle (there is no such thing as society) is demonstrably idiotic.

There isn't. Shall I demonstrate your idiocy?

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iYJKd0rkKss]Alone in the Wilderness - YouTube[/ame]

Statism makes slaves, serve your master. Why should I bother with you?

Mister Beal.

Your man alone in the wilderness in no way proves that society does not exist.

And one cannot help but wonder if your man in the wildnesss is surviving without the tools he brought with him from the society he abandoned?

Did he go into that wildnesss without tools, without education (he got while a member of society) ?

Even if he did (we both know he did not) that still would not refute the concept of society as something that truly exists.

That solitary hermit sprang from a society, and he took with him, many of the skills and talents he learned as a member of that society, too.

although miles apart

those that live off the land

have established their own societies
 
Mister Beal.

Your man alone in the wilderness in no way proves that society does not exist.

And one cannot help but wonder if your man in the wildnesss is surviving without the tools he brought with him from the society he abandoned?

Did he go into that wildnesss without tools, without education (he got while a member of society) ?

Even if he did (we both know he did not) that still would not refute the concept of society as something that truly exists.

That solitary hermit sprang from a society, and he took with him, many of the skills and talents he learned as a member of that society, too.
Perhaps at this point it would be instructive here to go back to the original question then. . . .

True or false: any personal freedom that brings harm to society in general should...
...be outlawed.

True.

What society exists for this individual? That is the point being made here. You can't outlaw anything, or strip freedom from the individual if he does not consent. Does this man look like he is answerable to your "society?"

For such an individual, although, yes, you are correct, his family and his community did help him achieve his independence as an autonomous being, fully capable of independent action, but we are begging the question here. By definition we are a socialized species. Take an elementary class in anthropology at University. That is the nature of our species. We have reached a point of Reductio ad absurdum here. If you want to prove that society exists because the nature of the human species is that our evolution has depended on socialization to achieve it's success? Well then, yes, you score, congratulations, you win this round.

The point here is that you are not a well read political scientist. Let me recommend some reading for you, then get back to me. This is an American classic. You can't really consider yourself a true blooded American until you have read it. Take a gander then get back to us, tell us what you learned, then start talking about "society." The bonus? You can't even call yourself a good progressive or good liberal unless you've read it. . . .

http://www2.hn.psu.edu/faculty/jmanis/thoreau/thoreau-walden6x9.pdf

It's clear you haven't got the first clue what you are talking about.
 
However mean your life is, meet it and live it; do not shun it and
call it hard names. It is not so bad as you are. It looks poorest when
you are richest. The faultfinder will find faults even in paradise.
Love your life, poor as it is. You may perhaps have some pleasant,
thrilling, glorious hours, even in a poor-house. The setting sun is
reflected from the windows of the almshouse as brightly as from
the rich man’s abode; the snow melts before its door as early in the
spring. I do not see but a quiet mind may live as contentedly there,
and have as cheering thoughts, as in a palace. The town’s poor seem
to me often to live the most independent lives of any. Maybe they
are simply great enough to receive without misgiving. Most think
that they are above being supported by the town; but it oftener
happens that they are not above supporting themselves by dishonest
means, which should be more disreputable. Cultivate poverty
like a garden herb, like sage. Do not trouble yourself much to get
new things, whether clothes or friends. Turn the old; return to them.
Things do not change; we change. Sell your clothes and keep your
thoughts. God will see that you do not want society. If I were confined
to a corner of a garret all my days, like a spider, the world
would be just as large to me while I had my thoughts about me.
The philosopher said: “From an army of three divisions one can
take away its general, and put it in disorder; from the man the most
abject and vulgar one cannot take away his thought.” Do not seek
so anxiously to be developed, to subject yourself to many influences
to be played on; it is all dissipation. Humility like darkness
reveals the heavenly lights. The shadows of poverty and meanness
gather around us, “and lo! creation widens to our view.” We are
often reminded that if there were bestowed on us the wealth of
Croesus, our aims must still be the same, and our means essentially
the same. Moreover, if you are restricted in your range by poverty, if
you cannot buy books and newspapers, for instance, you are but
confined to the most significant and vital experiences; you are compelled
to deal with the material which yields the most sugar and the
most starch. It is life near the bone where it is sweetest. You are
defended from being a trifler. No man loses ever on a lower level by
magnanimity on a higher. Superfluous wealth can buy superfluities
only. Money is not required to buy one necessary of the soul.

10264.jpg
“Society is commonly too cheap. We meet at very short intervals, not having had time to acquire any new value for each other. We meet at meals three times a day, and give each other a new taste of that old musty cheese that we are.” ― Henry David Thoreau, Walden
 

Forum List

Back
Top