Unworthy of Life

It is a good idea because it excludes the right to hurt others by either impeding their harmless actions or violence, or that is my estimation anyway. What do you think? Do you think people should be allowed to be violent? Do you think people should be able to mess up other people's affairs, when those affairs do not negatively impact anyone else?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I saw a quote which I think sums up the contrast between socialism and capitalism nicely. It goes like this:


“The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings. The inherent virtue of Socialism is the equal sharing of miseries,” said Winston Churchill, to the House of Commons, on October 22nd, 1945. I would say that this applies just as well to the contrast between communism and capitalism.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I see. I guess from what you just wrote that it did though...

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Then, in summary, abortion seems like a pretty good idea. Not the back yard kind, the proper kind.

 

Then abortion seems like a pretty good idea. Does it generally work, to dump them on random doorsteps?

 

Okay. Unless they start to populate other planets.

 

start a thread of your own design in conspiracy's area
im sure many will come & have a read & post in it

i will

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Okay. Thanks.

 

People are allowed to be violent in libertarian dogma - to defend themselves or others. A more society-framed system allows police to be violent to protect others from crimes.

Nope. (However, taxation does not count as "messing up people's affairs.")

And yet most successful capitalist companies rely on socialism.

Not quite. The opposite of libertarianism is communism; socialism is communism's little brother. All three are primarily economic systems, with some bleedover to governance.

Monarchy, democracies and republics are all systems of government. So there is something of an orthogonal axis there.

 

Yes. It is probably a good idea to use violence to the smallest extent required to defend oneself or others. That is the only exception to this. not doing so would probably involve a greater degree of violence overall as a result.

 

Why do you use the word dogma here?

 

Well how?

 

I'm pretty sure taxation messes up a lot of a lot of peoples affairs.
I don't know. They might like it. They might need it. I very much doubt this however. What was the case for taxation? That the government used those taxes to provide vital services for the people? How about we just let the people choose how to use their money.

 

If you don't want people messing up one another's affairs, then maybe you should become a libertarian too. I agree with everything else you said. I think that I missed your last message.

 

Because it is something that is central to libertarianism.

Amazon and Fedex rely on publicly funded roads. Oil companies rely on protection from the US military. United Launch Alliance relies on NASA and the military.

The literal answer is that it is called out in the US Constitution to "provide for the common welfare."

The more philosophical reason is that the common good is most sensibly funded by common funds (i.e. taxes.)

Google "the tragedy of the commons."

 

It is not. It might be central to the way libertarians tend to express their views. However, I would say that most people tend to express personal views in a dogmatic manner.

 

I think libertarianism is great. Everyone should read Ayn Rand in college. It's just an incomplete philosophy; it doesn't work on its own.

The reason the US has been as successful as it has been is not that it's a pure democracy (it's not) or that it uses pure capitalism (it doesn't.) It's that it uses the best parts of all the competing philosophies and discards the rest. It thus avoids the excesses of any monolithic ideology.

 

Okay. I don't think it would work alone either. What do you propose to support it?

 

The idea that violence is OK in defense of one's life, liberty and property is indeed central to libertarianism. Many libertarians advocate violent revolution to achieve the goals of their agenda.

 

Google "the tragedy of the commons."[/QUOTE]

So there are some nutters out there. The problem is with them, not my philosophy, despite the implication.