Conquer Club

I want to get a gauge of the general socio-economic/political atmosphere on these board, and thought this would be a good way to get it.

I would like to know what you consider yourself would respectfully ask that you please avoid general terms like "Left", "Centrist", "Right", "Liberal", "Conservative", "Socialist", "Anarchist", etc. as they can be misleading and don't come down to your actual views, nevermind that on an international setting like CC not every term has the same definition (not to mention that some Left<-->Right scales don't all measure the same). I would like to avoid such ambiguity and cut straight to the chase, and ask that you give your views and support for them (summary or tl;dr, either/or is OK) on everything you can think of regarding politics and economics.

If it can be helped, please keep debate narrow, or take it to another thread. Don't just off and explode on one comment and threadjack.

I'll get the ball rolling....

-I believe that Capitalism is the most ethical and humane economic system available, on the grounds that it promotes the concept of self-ownership and its underlying philosophies.

-I believe that every person is entitled to their earned labor, and should not be coerced (including but not to limited fiscally, socially, physically, and psychologically coercion) into forfeiting their earnings.

-I believe that taxation is criminal against the human race on the grounds that it violates sovereign right over ones self and justly acquired property.

-I believe that the State is a pseudo-intellectually loaded concept that only serves as a method of limiting the rights of the individual.

-I believe that religion is an emotionally loaded and vacuous concept, but I would never deny ones right to worship with out fear of molestation.

-I believe that every Individual should be armed to the teeth, irrespective of whatever arbitrary social bracket they may be labeled as belonging too.

-Rothbard, Rand, Branden, and Von Mises all had the right idea. Except Rand. She's a bit nutty, with some good ideas.

i think you are a libretarian then

Jesse, Bad Boy wrote:-I believe that Capitalism is the most ethical and humane economic system available, on the grounds that it promotes the concept of self-ownership and its underlying philosophies.

I believe that capitalism is ultimately self-defeating, since eventually the economy overbalances as costs and prices outgrow wages, thus fueling inflation and thus collapsing the system into itself to start over. Unfortunately, no real alternative exists.

-I believe that every person is entitled to their earned labor, and should not be coerced (including but not to limited fiscally, socially, physically, and psychologically coercion) into forfeiting their earnings.

Agreed.

-I believe that taxation is criminal against the human race on the grounds that it violates sovereign right over ones self and justly acquired property.

Also agreed.

-I believe that the State is a pseudo-intellectually loaded concept that only serves as a method of limiting the rights of the individual.

I believe that the concept of "The State" need not be a limiter of individuality, but rather a group concept grown from meshed individuals finding a system (or group of systems) that fit their needs at a given time. The State must be ever-changing or else it will cease to be a group construct.

-I believe that religion is an emotionally loaded and vacuous concept, but I would never deny ones right to worship with out fear of molestation.

I believe that faith outweighs religion, and that individual faiths must not be pressured into conversion or conformity by banning their symbols. Whether these symbols be on jewelry, gravestones, tattoos, body modification, any combination thereof, or any other place that has not been mentioned.

-I believe that every Individual should be armed to the teeth, irrespective of whatever arbitrary social bracket they may be labeled as belonging too.

I believe also that every individual must be trained in the weapons they are given and can understand the difference between correct and incorrect times and methods of usage. Failure to live up to some basic standards will result in loss of your guns or an appointment of someone (at your expense) to protect you until you complete training.

-Rothbard, Rand, Branden, and Von Mises all had the right idea. Except Rand. She's a bit nutty, with some good ideas.

Rand is crazy. Any vestige of critical or supervisory authority is doomed to total corruption and the only recourse is direct action of the individual is the only conclusion I have drawn from her work. No one can have any kind of rank or status and so everyone is forced to be equally mediocre. That's not political theory, that's abject paranoia and distrust.

I'm not familiar with the rest however.

I am a follower of a fusion of the two theories of the social contract (Hobbes and Locke respectively), though tweaking is always welcome.

Hamlet wrote:i think you are a libretarian then

Small "l" libertarian, perhaps, but my ideas are a bit too radical (elimination of the State, etc., etc.,) to be considered a classical form of libertarianism. I am an Anarcho-Capitalist, so far to the Right that I end up on the Left.

Jesse, Bad Boy wrote:I am an Anarcho-Capitalist, so far to the Right that I end up on the Left.

You're not on the left. I too hate the terminology left-right (though not as much as this liberal-conservative bullshit), but sometimes its useful. You probably don't consider yourself a rightist, but you are. A frightening one at that.

btownmeggy wrote:

Jesse, Bad Boy wrote:I am an Anarcho-Capitalist, so far to the Right that I end up on the Left.

You're not on the left. I too hate the terminology left-right (though not as much as this liberal-conservative bullshit), but sometimes its useful. You probably don't consider yourself a rightist, but you are. A frightening one at that.

I agree. Left-Right is so vague and confusing. There are too many different issues just to lump people into a spot on a line. And dont get me started about liberal-conservative termanology

vtmarik wrote:I believe that capitalism is ultimately self-defeating, since eventually the economy overbalances as costs and prices outgrow wages, thus fueling inflation and thus collapsing the system into itself to start over. Unfortunately, no real alternative exists.

Only in a Mercantilist economy with "Protectionism" and State interference would such an overbalance occur. True Laissez Faire Capitalism would not face such strenuous and disastrous comings with the demands of the Market in ratio with the desired Goods.

vtmarik wrote:I believe that the concept of "The State" need not be a limiter of individuality, but rather a group concept grown from meshed individuals finding a system (or group of systems) that fit their needs at a given time. The State must be ever-changing or else it will cease to be a group construct.

The State at its most basic premise seeks to subjugate the population, which is not among its rights. The State is a group of individuals, and as such possesses the same rights as the Individuals that make up the State. For the State to assume that it has not only Authority but Claim over an Individual, is to only being its descent as a body that infringes on the Sovereign Rights of the Individual. The only Free State is a State that is entered into through mutual, binding, consensual contract.

vtmarik wrote:Rand is crazy. Any vestige of critical or supervisory authority is doomed to total corruption and the only recourse is direct action of the individual is the only conclusion I have drawn from her work. No one can have any kind of rank or status and so everyone is forced to be equally mediocre. That's not political theory, that's abject paranoia and distrust.

As I said, she was a bit nutty, but had some good ideas, most notably here ideas about the application of rationality, the denial of any special right to any collective, and the overall disdain for Property Rights violations. What I do not agree on are her arguments for the existence of a State, her insane arguments in support of the State enforced monopolies known as "Intellectual Property" and "Copyright", and her ridiculous notion that Homosexuality is irrational.

btownmeggy wrote:

Jesse, Bad Boy wrote:I am an Anarcho-Capitalist, so far to the Right that I end up on the Left.

You're not on the left. I too hate the terminology left-right (though not as much as this liberal-conservative bullshit), but sometimes its useful. You probably don't consider yourself a rightist, but you are. A frightening one at that.

I agree that Left and Right are not only vague, but completely lacking in reason and are based off a totally arbitrary method. It was merely a joke that my friends and I use, because Anarchism is classically considered a Leftist ideology. In general, though, I use the Objective-Rothbardian scale, that typifies "Left" as anything being more government (Fascism and Communism are ultimately the same, with petty differences) and "Right" as being anything with less government.

As for my frightening-ness, I would rather like to know why I am frightening.

Jesse, Bad Boy wrote:As for my frightening-ness, I would rather like to know why I am frightening.

Although I agree with some of your views, for me you are frightening because your "survival of the fittest" ideaology demonstrates a lack of compassion for your fellow human being. In most respects your philosophy is nothing if not sociopathic.

Or perhaps it is just this statement that I find deeply disturbing.

Jesse, Bad Boy wrote:-I believe that every Individual should be armed to the teeth, irrespective of whatever arbitrary social bracket they may be labeled as belonging too.

Bertros Bertros wrote:Although I agree with some of your views, for me you are frightening because your "survival of the fittest" ideaology demonstrates a lack of compassion for your fellow human being. In most respects your philosophy is nothing if not sociopathic.

I do not lack compassion, what I lack is the weak spine that leads others into suicidal altruism. I believe that charity should be given freely and if desired by the giver, but never should one be forced into giving to another person.

By forcing one Sovereign Individual to forfeit their property, you have denied the most basic premise of the Individual, Self-Ownership. Moreover, not only have you denied that they possess Self-Ownership, but you have also denied your own right to Self-Ownership, and have essentially implied that another Individual has a higher claim over your Life, Liberty, and justly acquired Property.

Bertros Bertros wrote:Or perhaps it is just this statement that I find deeply disturbing.
*insert quote*

I believe that every person should be given the right to defend their life and liberty from a tyrannical government or otherwise life and liberty infringing entities. To suggest that the government or any and every other individual is 100% looking out in your best interests is just naive.

Jesse, Bad Boy wrote:I believe that every person should be given the right to defend their life and liberty from a tyrannical government or otherwise life and liberty infringing entities. To suggest that the government or any and every other individual is 100% looking out in your best interests is just naive.

Fair enough, I wholeheartedly concur that it is foolish to consider every other individual to be looking out 100% for your best interests. I would like to think that we are all looking out for our best interests, but I am not naive enough to believe that is truly the case either.

But are you really suggesting, taking that comment with consideration of your previous statement that an individual should have the right to attack, with weapons, which implies harm or murder, any other individual or organisation which they consider to being infringing their personal liberty. I can't see that being much consolation to the family of the government representative murdered in the protection of your civil liberties, can you? What about their rights?

This is just childish ravings. Are you really going to gun down members of your tyrannical government in defense of your liberty? I suspect if you do you will see your liberty curtailed to a far greater extent for a much longer period of time, if not permanently.

Jesse, Bad Boy wrote:you have denied the most basic premise of the Individual, Self-Ownership

WTF is this supposed to mean? Who says the most basic right of the Individual (loving the capitalisation) is Self-Ownership? Which dogeared coffesshop revolutionary have you picked up this week?
What absolute bollocks.

Maybe 'anarcho-capitalist' is a label you enjoy dropping casually into conversations with other beret-wearing tosspots, but it's a nonsensical position. Capitalism is unsustainable - not in a tree-hugging, you-need-to-change way, but factually. Endless growth is an impossibility. And as for self-ownership - taken to a conclusion this means every cubic foot of air, every stream, every green space ends up being owned. And it wouldn't be by anarcho-capitalists but by the corporations, who own so much of my fucking eyeballs as it is. Unregulated, this is what woudl happen! An-archy - the absence of rule. Having said that, the marriage of anarchy and capitalism is a fantastic idea if your aim is to shag dopey freshmen.

But thanks for sharing all that with us, Che.


My position: I am a pro-life pentecostalist opthalmologist theocrat.

Bertros Bertros wrote:But are you really suggesting, taking that comment with consideration of your previous statement that an individual should have the right to attack, with weapons, which implies harm or murder, any other individual or organisation which they consider to being infringing their personal liberty.

Attack? No. You're posing a strawman. I believe in the defense of Life, Liberty, and justly acquired Property. To initiate force in attempt to coerce is the forfeiture of your own right to Justified Defense, and if it calls for it, Life.

I can't see that being much consolation to the family of the government representative murdered in the protection of your civil liberties, can you? What about their rights?

I refuse to answer this on the grounds that it is based off of an appeal to emotion, a strawman in the previous subsection, and clear moving of the goal posts. If you're going to ask me questions don't insult my intelligence while you're at it.

This is just childish ravings. Are you really going to gun down members of your tyrannical government in defense of your liberty? I suspect if you do you will see your liberty curtailed to a far greater extent for a much longer period of time, if not permanently.

Why are they childish? Because you deem them so, or because you have rational backing to your ideas which negate my own? Please, don't belittle me or my intelligence, it's nothing short of a show your own subaltern intelligence and intellectual sloth.

And as for the answer to your actual question at hand, yes, if need be I will defend (keyword here, DEFEND, don't want you throwing out another strawman or loaded question) my liberties by force. I would also accept the consequences, but even considering that, death would be infinitely more pleasant then a lifetime of slavery, wouldn't you agree? I am willing to die for my freedom to go about unmolested without coercive influences, to go about my business without the fear of an extorting influence who will imprison me or fiscally damage me in attempt to take my property.

heavycola wrote: WTF is this supposed to mean? Who says the most basic right of the Individual (loving the capitalisation) is Self-Ownership?

This is a valid premise if you accept that man is the ends to the means of himself. It denotes that what man possesses is his, and that no one can take his Life, Liberty, and justly acquired Property. To deny Self-Ownership is to imply that another Individual has a higher claim on your life, and thus further implies that you are or can be a slave to another by ethical nature.

EDIT: Here is a 5 minute Flash that describes the Philosophy of Self Ownership in brevity, but detail. http://www.isil.org/resources/introduction.swf

Which dogeared coffesshop revolutionary have you picked up this week?

Don't presume to know me, because quite frankly, you don't. I have studied Rothbard, Bastiat, Rand, Von Mises, etc., for the past 7 years, and their competitors (Marx, Kropotkin, Bakunin, etc.) works are not unknown to me either.

What absolute bollocks.

Whatever, mate.

Maybe 'anarcho-capitalist' is a label you enjoy dropping casually into conversations with other beret-wearing tosspots, but it's a nonsensical position.

I don't wear a beret, and it's not nonsensical (I smell a suppressed premise here).

Capitalism is unsustainable - not in a tree-hugging, you-need-to-change way, but factually. Endless growth is an impossibility.

Here it is, the suppressed premise. Why is it impossible? Or do you just think it is impossible due to an understanding of what you think is Capitalism but instead happens to be Mercantilism?

And as for self-ownership - taken to a conclusion this means every cubic foot of air, every stream, every green space ends up being owned.

Debatable, a slippery slope, and a non-sequitur. Please rationally define how it would come to that conclusion in light of the definition of Self Ownership I gave you.

And it wouldn't be by anarcho-capitalists but by the corporations, who own so much of my fucking eyeballs as it is. Unregulated, this is what woudl happen!

Corporations are a State construct (existing only through Corporate Welfare, cushy status laws, state enforced monopolies) completely dependent on the State to survive. Without the State to regulate most Corporations, they would collapse under the pressure of Competition. May I add, that Corporatism =/= Capitalism, and that the two are diametrically opposed.

An-archy - the absence of rule. Having said that, the marriage of anarchy and capitalism is a fantastic idea if your aim is to shag dopey freshmen.

Get an education. Anarchy is the idea of a stateless, coercive-less hierarchy society. Rule exists, by mutual consensus. What you're thinking of is Anomie. A mighty big difference.

But thanks for sharing all that with us, Che.

Che was in complete contradiction to my values and ethics. He was a murdering fool who supported the notion of collectivism and the elimination of the Individual freedoms which we should all possess as human beings.

My position: I am a pro-life pentecostalist opthalmologist theocrat.

Good for you. I hope your endeavors in the eye profession work out for you.

I'm sorry Jesse, but you yourself said each Individual (I too love the capitalisation) should have the right to defend themselves against a tyrannical government, and also said every Individual should be armed to the teeth. In using the word attack I was in no way suggesting you would pre-emptively strike against your tyrannical oppresors, I meant it in the meaning of assail.

Your paranoia seems to be bordering on the delusional. Where are these coercive influences who will imprison you and fiscally damage you in an attempt to take your property, or subject you to a lifetime of slavery? If your talking about the IRS and you're going to arm yourself against them then I think attack in the sense of taking the offensive would be equally valid.

Jesse, Bad Boy wrote:Why are they childish? Because you deem them so, or because you have rational backing to your ideas which negate my own? Please, don't belittle me or my intelligence, it's nothing short of a show your own subaltern intelligence and intellectual sloth.

Not childish because I think they infer any lack of intelligence. You are clearly an educated and intellectual person, your wordplay is formidable, in comparison mine could well be considered subaltern. No, not that at all. Childish, because I believe most people grow out of their feelings of resentment towards society and consider the capability to compromise a facet of maturity.

Bertros Bertros wrote:I'm sorry Jesse, but you yourself said each Individual (I too love the capitalisation) should have the right to defend themselves against a tyrannical government, and also said every Individual should be armed to the teeth. In using the word attack I was in no way suggesting you would pre-emptively strike against your tyrannical oppresors, I meant it in the meaning of assail.

Indeed, they should be allowed to defend their selves. What seems to be the issue with this?

Your paranoia seems to be bordering on the delusional.

It's not paranoia. I do not believe anyone is out to get me, nor do I show the symptoms that are generally attributed to paranoia outlined in the DSM-IV, but I do believe in vigilance. I do not possess an irrational fear, but rather a rational understanding that my (and yours, if you're not a cold weather neighbor or friend from across the pond) inborn liberties are under a constant threat, and are taken advantage of every day. Taxation, Gun Laws, Book Bannings, Abortion Bannings, Gay Marriage Bannings, Drug Bannings, Subjective-Moral enforcement.... it goes on and on.

Where are these coercive influences who will imprison you and fiscally damage you in an attempt to take your property, or subject you to a lifetime of slavery?

After working for the government for my due amount of years in the Navy, I have grown to distrust the government. As for the influences, they exist all around. If I wanted to marry my boyfriend in Texas, I can't, because the government is denying me my right to contract mutually. And if my sister wanted to get an abortion in South Dakota, she can't, because the State has deemed her to be State property. The infringements occur everyday, and I fight against them. You're probably asking me why my guns aren't blazing; they don't need to be. Reason (or maybe it is just plain apathy, I dunno, I guess calling the masses reasonable is a bit of a nice, romantic notion) is dawning across the country and freedoms are being restored, and peaceful resolutions can be sought. But should the day come when I need to break out my guns, I'll be ready. There is nothing wrong with being prepared.

If your talking about the IRS and you're going to arm yourself against them then I think attack in the sense of taking the offensive would be equally valid.

I have actually become quite adept at dodging my ta----

++CARRIER LOST++







But seriously, the IRS is slowly being chiseled away by various court cases, slowly but surely. If it all works out, maybe I could settle for a Minarchist form of government, but even then I would still be vigilant. So long as there is a threat to my Liberty, there is no reason not to be.

Not childish because I think they infer any lack of intelligence. You are clearly an educated and intellectual person, your wordplay is formidable, in comparison mine could well be considered subaltern. No, not that at all. Childish, because I believe most people grow out of their feelings of resentment towards society and consider the capability to compromise a facet of maturity.

Quantify maturity

Jesse, Bad Boy wrote:

heavycola wrote: WTF is this supposed to mean? Who says the most basic right of the Individual (loving the capitalisation) is Self-Ownership?

This is a valid premise if you accept that man is the ends to the means of himself. It denotes that what man possesses is his, and that no one can take his Life, Liberty, and justly acquired Property. To deny Self-Ownership is to imply that another Individual has a higher claim on your life, and thus further implies that you are or can be a slave to another by ethical nature.

EDIT: Here is a 5 minute Flash that describes the Philosophy of Self Ownership in brevity, but detail. http://www.isil.org/resources/introduction.swf

Which dogeared coffesshop revolutionary have you picked up this week?

Don't presume to know me, because quite frankly, you don't. I have studied Rothbard, Bastiat, Rand, Von Mises, etc., for the past 7 years, and their competitors (Marx, Kropotkin, Bakunin, etc.) works are not unknown to me either.

What absolute bollocks.

Whatever, mate.

Maybe 'anarcho-capitalist' is a label you enjoy dropping casually into conversations with other beret-wearing tosspots, but it's a nonsensical position.

I don't wear a beret, and it's not nonsensical (I smell a suppressed premise here).

Capitalism is unsustainable - not in a tree-hugging, you-need-to-change way, but factually. Endless growth is an impossibility.

Here it is, the suppressed premise. Why is it impossible? Or do you just think it is impossible due to an understanding of what you think is Capitalism but instead happens to be Mercantilism?

And as for self-ownership - taken to a conclusion this means every cubic foot of air, every stream, every green space ends up being owned.

Debatable, a slippery slope, and a non-sequitur. Please rationally define how it would come to that conclusion in light of the definition of Self Ownership I gave you.

And it wouldn't be by anarcho-capitalists but by the corporations, who own so much of my fucking eyeballs as it is. Unregulated, this is what woudl happen!

Corporations are a State construct (existing only through Corporate Welfare, cushy status laws, state enforced monopolies) completely dependent on the State to survive. Without the State to regulate most Corporations, they would collapse under the pressure of Competition. May I add, that Corporatism =/= Capitalism, and that the two are diametrically opposed.

An-archy - the absence of rule. Having said that, the marriage of anarchy and capitalism is a fantastic idea if your aim is to shag dopey freshmen.

Get an education. Anarchy is the idea of a stateless, coercive-less hierarchy society. Rule exists, by mutual consensus. What you're thinking of is Anomie. A mighty big difference.

But thanks for sharing all that with us, Che.

Che was in complete contradiction to my values and ethics. He was a murdering fool who supported the notion of collectivism and the elimination of the Individual freedoms which we should all possess as human beings.

My position: I am a pro-life pentecostalist opthalmologist theocrat.

Good for you. I hope your endeavors in the eye profession work out for you.

I wasn't claiming to know you, i was taking the piss. I apologise for being a dick, i'm having a shocking morning.

That said, I do disagree entirely with you, despite having not read a single anarcho-capitalist tract...
Mutual consensus, justly acquired property - you drop these terms as if they are fundamental concepts and yet they go to the heart of why I utterly disagree. Marxism may be anathema to you but it sounds pretty similar in some ways. People are people - fucked up and selfish. What mutual consensus? When has that ever, EVER happened? 'Justly acquired'? If there is no judicial system, who decides what 'justly' means? You, or a 'mutual consensus'? I'm too old and cynical to buy into any of that stuff anymore.
As for corporations, they may have begun as a state invention but where does the power lie now? What about the corruption charges levelled against BAe that have just gone tits up after prime ministerial intervention, for one recent example?

Democracy is withering (and possibly dead), certainly, but i think it's worth fighting for. It is the closest to a mutual political consensus that a significant number of people have ever reached. State control is out of control, I agree with you there - but i believe we have the power to change that ourselves within the system we have ceated.

You were right, I did misunderstand self-ownership. I still think it's bollocks though. it's like Mr Nate arguing that belief in god is 'prinicipally basic'. Just because someone decides 'people are thus' doesn't change the peopel themselves.

Indeed, they should be allowed to defend their selves. What seems to be the issue with this?

I think you misunderstand me, there is nothing at issue with the concept of defense per se. I am indeed from across the pond, thankfully over here the concept of owning a gun is alien and the concept of using one to defend ones liberty is not only ludicrous its abhorent.

I have no doubt you own a gun, but truly hope that you will never use it to defend yourself. I certainly don't expect, and to be honest don't really think you expect either, that you will ever rise up in defense of your liberty against your tyrannical government. Maybe that is what i mean by maturity, a little bit of realism.

heavycola wrote:I wasn't claiming to know you, i was taking the piss. This thread isn't a political discussion, it's you telling a bunch of risk-playing geeks (aged 8 and upwards) all about what you believe. Is this forum where the revolution is to be instigated? How exciting!

In inquired about everyones views in my OP, and I attempted to get the conversation started by stating my own views. Later, I was asked questions, posters made comments, and some debated my views. I was only more then happy to politely respond. If polite debate is something a little too much for you, then don't post here. I certainly as hell am not holding a gun to your head and coercing you to be here.

That said, I do disagree with almost everything you wrote, despite having not read a single anarcho-capitalist tract.

Ah, well, don't let my viewpoints stop you from keeping your head in the sand. Ignorance is your own choice.

Mutual consensus, justly acquired property - you drop these terms as if they are fundamental concepts and yet they go to the heart of why I utterly disagree.

You don't understand a concept, so you automatically disagree? Jesus jumped up Christ, I actually thought you were pretty intelligent, but now you're just disappointing me.

Here, let me try and break it down while maintaining brevity:

Mutual Consensus is defined as two or more individuals agreeing without threat of force or coercion to set terms in social, economic, or political contract. In short, it's agreeing to terms without being forced too.

Justly acquired Property would be defined as any thing you gain from your labor, which can only exist through your Life and Liberty, or mutual agreement. Anything that would otherwise force or coerce is unethical and would be subject to retribution.

Marxism may be anathema to you but it sounds pretty damn similar in some ways. People are people - fucked up and selfish.

I agree, and Capitalism balances that while maintaining reality.

What mutual consensus? When has that ever, EVER happened?

Most legitimate business contracts (i.e., non-corporational/monopolistic), marriage, purchasing food from the market. It occurs every day.

'Justly acquired'? If there is no judicial system, who decides what 'justly' means?

A rationally accept definition, and a general idea reinforced by threat of retribution. In a world where everyone is armed, I would think it prudent to have a basic understanding of what is and isn't yours.

As for corporations, they may have begun as a state invention but where does the power lie now?

The State/Corporation. I agree that they are almost interchangeable, but elimination would topple the other.

What about the corruption charges levelled against BAe that have just gone tits up after prime ministerial intervention, for one recent example?

Why are you complaining to me about it? I abhorrently oppose such things and am surprised that you haven't already come to the conclusion that this could have been cut short by a lack of existence of a government and the Corporations that it supports.

You were right, I did misunderstand self-ownership. I still think it's bollocks though. it's like Mr Nate arguing that belief in god is 'prinicpally basic'. Just because some Austrian decides 'people are thus' doesn't change anything. Interesting ideas but ultimately pointless.

First, it's nothing like Mr. Nates' arguments. I support my views with the rational premise that all men are the ends to their own means. His arguments are nothing short of a pedantic endeavor into circular logic.

Second, it isn't pointless if you value your own life. Apparently, you don't value your own life, but that is your choice, only to be made by you.

Bertros Bertros wrote:

Indeed, they should be allowed to defend their selves. What seems to be the issue with this?

I think you misunderstand me, there is nothing at issue with the concept of defense per se. I am indeed from across the pond, thankfully over here the concept of owning a gun is alien and the concept of using one to defend ones liberty is not only ludicrous its abhorent.

I have no doubt you own a gun, but truly hope that you will never use it to defend yourself. I certainly don't expect, and to be honest don't really think you expect either, that you will ever rise up in defense of your liberty against your tyrannical government. Maybe that is what i mean by maturity, a little bit of realism.

Realism?

Are you suggesting the Realism of the suspension of various civil liberties in the history of the nation I reside in, or the 'Realism' that Utopian idealists like to pander about?

How about the Realism of a nation that had an act in similar nature to the Reichstag Fire Decree passed after a national tragedy?

May I press on about a Real nation with Real issues, one of which happens to be government profiling of citizens with no criminal connections?

Indeed, it would be most mature to respond to the reality around me.

Second, it isn't pointless if you value your own life. Apparently, you don't value your own life, but that is your choice, only to be made by you.

But is it pointless if you value the lives of others?

Realism?

No, realism. Notice the difference?

Bertros Bertros wrote:

Second, it isn't pointless if you value your own life. Apparently, you don't value your own life, but that is your choice, only to be made by you.

But is it pointless if you value the lives of others?

Depends on your values and the nuances views. If you value other lives to the point of being a suicidal altruist, it may have meaning for you, but it is also irrational. If you value other lives in the form of company, then in a way you do value yourself, as you wish to make your experience more pleasurable.

Bertros Bertros wrote:

Realism?

No, realism. Notice the difference?

Same thing. I admit I get a bit caps happy, but I usually cap a word if I am stressing it, or noting its significance to a specific concept. Just an old trait from a forum I used to post on.

Depends on your values and the nuances views. If you value other lives to the point of being a suicidal altruist, it may have meaning for you, but it is also irrational. If you value other lives in the form of company, then in a way you do value yourself, as you wish to make your experience more pleasurable.

How about some middle ground. The world isn't black and white, its not the case that if you value the lives of others you are an altruist (i'll not use the term suicidal as I responded to that earlier). Another quality I attribute to maturity; the capacity to acknowledge we do not live in a polarised world and the acceptance that in nearly every aspect of our lives there are many and varying degrees between each end of the spectrum.