i.e. since you don't believe that anybody has inalienable rights, you came to the invalid conclusion that they don't exist in any way shape or form.
Hey, thanks for the schooling. That question was as clear as an azure sky of deepest summer in your mind because you formulated it.
Enlighten me (or indulge me as the case may be). Exactly what is unclear about the question:
Can a person's inalienable rights be taken away from them without due process of law?
EDIT: After looking at it, it could be improved with the addition of the word legally or lawfully before the word "taken". After all, a person's right to life can be taken away with a twist of the neck.
Last edited by lonewolf on Friday Jun 03, 2011, edited 1 time in total.
...Oh, the freedom of the day that yielded to no rule or time...
lonewolf wrote:...Enlighten me (or indulge me as the case may be). Exactly what is unclear about the question:
Can a person's inalienable rights be taken away from them without due process of law?
Nothing is unclear about it, now that the intentionality is defined. A term like "inalienable rights" does carry with it some ambiguity in that it might mean different things to different people in different contexts. The political/philosophical concept of "rights" (let alone inalienable ones) has a long history of debate and definition. You had a definite predetermined parameter of what you meant by that term when you conceived the question. I don't fault the question, it was as clear as possible for what you were asking...it's just that we don't share in that process. I don't think you could have asked it any more clearly...it's just that without further discussion you have to allow room for error until we understand exactly what you meant.
lonewolf wrote:...Enlighten me (or indulge me as the case may be). Exactly what is unclear about the question:
Can a person's inalienable rights be taken away from them without due process of law?
Nothing is unclear about it, now that the intentionality is defined. A term like "inalienable rights" does carry with it some ambiguity in that it might mean different things to different people in different contexts. The political/philosophical concept of "rights" (let alone inalienable ones) has a long history of debate and definition. You had a definite predetermined parameter of what you meant by that term when you conceived the question. I don't fault the question, it was as clear as possible for what you were asking...it's just that we don't share in that process. I don't think you could have asked it any more clearly...it's just that without further discussion you have to allow room for error until we understand exactly what you meant.
Did you see the EDIT?
...Oh, the freedom of the day that yielded to no rule or time...
Yes, I did (after I posted...I take forever to type). I wasn't really able to come up with that when I was writing my last post, but that's pretty much what I was trying to express. Thanks.
EDIT: I'd still like to see some of the folks you were hoping would post weigh in on the question.
Please let me know when its OK to eat at Dennys. Let me know if the FBI and Homeland Security turned up many white sheets and hoods.
Joe, If a business owner of a public eatery discriminated against blacks (won't let them in the door), do you believe he is allowed to do that because he has a right to do so ?
Now Joe, prove to me you can take a direct question and give a direct answer... Or prove to all of us you can't stand up for you principles when they are in front of you. Any bets Joe avoids answering this question ?
A simple yes or no will suffice...
Yes Bill, a private property owner should be able to do whatever he wants to do on his land, as long as he in not harming someone.
I think you should be allowed to play your drum kit any way you want to, just don't harm someone.
Because I support a gun owner the right to own his gun, I am not responsible if he murders with that gun.
If there are racists in this world, and there are both black and white ones, I am not responsible for what they do with their property. But I do support private property rights.
That does not make me a racist Bill, and quit asking questions using your flawed and twisted logic.
undercoverjoe wrote:
Joe, If a business owner of a public eatery discriminated against blacks (won't let them in the door), do you believe he is allowed to do that because he has a right to do so ?
Now Joe, prove to me you can take a direct question and give a direct answer... Or prove to all of us you can't stand up for you principles when they are in front of you. Any bets Joe avoids answering this question ?
A simple yes or no will suffice...
Yes Bill, a private property owner should be able to do whatever he wants to do on his land, as long as he in not harming someone.
I think you should be allowed to play your drum kit any way you want to, just don't harm someone.
Because I support a gun owner the right to own his gun, I am not responsible if he murders with that gun.
If there are racists in this world, and there are both black and white ones, I am not responsible for what they do with their property. But I do support private property rights.
That does not make me a racist Bill, and quit asking questions using your flawed and twisted logic.
You should read this sentence before you keep trying to say Ron Paul and libertarians enable and support racism.
"In most civil law jurisdictions, defamation is dealt with as a crime rather than a tort"
I'm sure you would do what you could to prevent a murder. I would do what I can to prevent race discrimination. You would do what ever you could to allow race discrimination for the sole word "owner". Now if you see that chain of events as defamation, I would be happy to oblige you in court.
Hawk wrote:All that it comes down to is that you two support race segregation and race discrimination in the name of Liberty and you're not racists.
I don't know if I should laugh at you or cry for the minorities...
You guys are sad...
Typical neoprog putting words in people's mouth.
Neither of us support race segregation or discrimination. What we also do not support is the government's existing fascist and ill-conceived solution to the problem. If you can't understand the difference, go back to fucking high school.
That doesn't mean we wouldn't like to see a better solution to racism that actually worked and changed people's thoughts rather than made people behave a certain way because they are essentially held at gunpoint.
What is sad is that you blindly assume that government solutions (including this one) are the only possible correct solutions and it doesn't matter who's rights get trampled on to achieve a certain end.
The fact of the matter is that most government ideas are the worst solutions because they are based on political ideology, cronyism and kickbacks rather than logical problem solving.
Now that I have made my positions nice and sparkling clear, let me make something else nice and sparkling clear: If you ever publicly comment, state or otherwise imply that I support racism, discrimination or segregation again, there's gonna be trouble.
I don't deserve that kind of talk and I'm sure as hell not gonna take it.
Since I place a high value on our friendship, this is my final explanation and post on this subject. I'm shutting the fuck up.
Bill, this is going to be my answer to your attempt to defame the name of libertarians and my libertarian friends. Jeff said it very clearly, I could not do better, and I strongly agree with his post.
Edit: Except the last line. I will keep on, just giving you this answer when you defame myself and other libertarians.
Hawk wrote:All that it comes down to is that you two support race segregation and race discrimination in the name of Liberty and you're not racists.
I don't know if I should laugh at you or cry for the minorities...
You guys are sad...
Typical neoprog putting words in people's mouth.
Neither of us support race segregation or discrimination. What we also do not support is the government's existing fascist and ill-conceived solution to the problem. If you can't understand the difference, go back to fucking high school.
That doesn't mean we wouldn't like to see a better solution to racism that actually worked and changed people's thoughts rather than made people behave a certain way because they are essentially held at gunpoint.
What is sad is that you blindly assume that government solutions (including this one) are the only possible correct solutions and it doesn't matter who's rights get trampled on to achieve a certain end.
The fact of the matter is that most government ideas are the worst solutions because they are based on political ideology, cronyism and kickbacks rather than logical problem solving.
Now that I have made my positions nice and sparkling clear, let me make something else nice and sparkling clear: If you ever publicly comment, state or otherwise imply that I support racism, discrimination or segregation again, there's gonna be trouble.
I don't deserve that kind of talk and I'm sure as hell not gonna take it.
Since I place a high value on our friendship, this is my final explanation and post on this subject. I'm shutting the fuck up.
Bill, this is going to be my answer to your attempt to defame the name of libertarians and my libertarian friends. Jeff said it very clearly, I could not do better, and I strongly agree with his post.
Edit: Except the last line. I will keep on, just giving you this answer when you defame myself and other libertarians.
I do have to say I don't know enough about Liberterians. In searching (and I need to do a lot on more than one or two sites) but I see that within the Libertarian principles there are still conflicting views among Liberterians themselves.
I think these views are interesting:
David Boaz, libertarian writer and vice president of the Cato Institute, writes that, "Libertarianism is the view that each person has the right to live his life in any way he chooses so long as he respects the equal rights of others" and that, "Libertarians defend each person's right to life, liberty, and property—rights that people have naturally, before governments are created."
"equal rights"
Libertarians exhibit differing approaches in areas such as the treatment of property rights, especially with respect to natural resources, with some libertarians advocating private ownership rights, while others hold that private ownership should be avoided as being inconsistent with the basic principles of libertarianism or advocate redistribution of natural resource-based wealth.
"Classical Liberalism" is not like the word 'Liberal" is used today. Classical Liberalism is one of the roots of Liberterians.
"Classical liberalism holds that individual rights are natural, inherent, or inalienable, and exist independently of government. Thomas Jefferson called these inalienable rights: "...rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law', because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual."
I like the 9th amendment of the bill of rights:
"The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
As America grew, industry became a larger and larger part of American life; and, during the term of America's first populist president, Andrew Jackson, economic questions came to the forefront. The economic ideas of the Jacksonian era were almost universally the ideas of classical liberalism. Freedom was maximized when the government took a "hands off" attitude toward industrial development and supported the value of the currency by freely exchanging paper money for gold. The ideas of classical liberalism remained essentially unchallenged until a series of depressions, thought to be impossible according to the tenets of classical economics, led to economic hardship from which the voters demanded relief.
The Great Depression saw a sea change in liberalism, leading to the development of modern liberalism. In the words of Arthur Schlesinger Jr.:
When the growing complexity of industrial conditions required increasing government intervention in order to assure more equal opportunities, the liberal tradition, faithful to the goal rather than to the dogma, altered its view of the state," and "there emerged the conception of a social welfare state, in which the national government had the express obligation to maintain high levels of employment in the economy, to supervise standards of life and labor, to regulate the methods of business competition, and to establish comprehensive patterns of social security.
As America grew, industry became a larger and larger part of American life; and, during the term of America's first populist president, Andrew Jackson, economic questions came to the forefront. The economic ideas of the Jacksonian era were almost universally the ideas of classical liberalism. Freedom was maximized when the government took a "hands off" attitude toward industrial development and supported the value of the currency by freely exchanging paper money for gold. The ideas of classical liberalism remained essentially unchallenged until a series of depressions, thought to be impossible according to the tenets of classical economics, led to economic hardship from which the voters demanded relief.
The Great Depression saw a sea change in liberalism, leading to the development of modern liberalism. In the words of Arthur Schlesinger Jr.:
When the growing complexity of industrial conditions required increasing government intervention in order to assure more equal opportunities, the liberal tradition, faithful to the goal rather than to the dogma, altered its view of the state," and "there emerged the conception of a social welfare state, in which the national government had the express obligation to maintain high levels of employment in the economy, to supervise standards of life and labor, to regulate the methods of business competition, and to establish comprehensive patterns of social security.
Andrew Jackson called his Congress a "Den of Vipers". LOL . He had to fight congress tooth and nail to get that Hands Off attitude your post refers to.
As America grew, industry became a larger and larger part of American life; and, during the term of America's first populist president, Andrew Jackson, economic questions came to the forefront. The economic ideas of the Jacksonian era were almost universally the ideas of classical liberalism. Freedom was maximized when the government took a "hands off" attitude toward industrial development and supported the value of the currency by freely exchanging paper money for gold. The ideas of classical liberalism remained essentially unchallenged until a series of depressions, thought to be impossible according to the tenets of classical economics, led to economic hardship from which the voters demanded relief.
The Great Depression saw a sea change in liberalism, leading to the development of modern liberalism. In the words of Arthur Schlesinger Jr.:
When the growing complexity of industrial conditions required increasing government intervention in order to assure more equal opportunities, the liberal tradition, faithful to the goal rather than to the dogma, altered its view of the state," and "there emerged the conception of a social welfare state, in which the national government had the express obligation to maintain high levels of employment in the economy, to supervise standards of life and labor, to regulate the methods of business competition, and to establish comprehensive patterns of social security.
So the government's "hands off" approach led to a series of depressions and social inequality. Why would we want that to happen again?
"Music, the greatest good that mortals know, and all of heaven we have below." -Joseph Addison
Larry wrote:...So the government's "hands off" approach led to a series of depressions and social inequality. Why would we want that to happen again?
We wouldn't, that quote assigns false causality to a pretty complex development and contains quite a bit of assumption built into it.
The statement needs more research. I can't say one way or another, but it is something to consider in the context of the history of the Great Depression and the demand (from the people) that the government help the people. That would be article 1 section 8 of the constitution. Protecting the general welfare of the people.
Just like today, "... the national government had the express obligation to maintain high levels of employment in the economy..."
That's what we all expect including many conservatives.
Last edited by Hawk on Saturday Jun 04, 2011, edited 1 time in total.
Larry wrote:A country run solely by big business is no better than a country run solely by big government. A balance of power between the two is necessary.
Are you saying that its better having two behemoths pissing down your back than just one?
Last edited by lonewolf on Saturday Jun 04, 2011, edited 1 time in total.
...Oh, the freedom of the day that yielded to no rule or time...
Larry wrote:A country run solely by big business is no better than a country run solely by big government. A balance of power between the two is necessary.
Housing numbers just out this week show the fall in housing prices is actually WORSE that during the depression. It said it took 19 for the housing prices to recover that time.
So we are in a depression, Obama's depression:
- The worst housing numbers including the Great Depression
- the DOW's worst week in many years
- unemployment up to 9.1% with one of the lowest percentage of Americans working ever
- record high prices for food and coffee
- gas at $4.00 per gallon, some places over $5.00
And a $14.3 TRILLION DEBT. With Obama and Geithner demanding to raise the debt ceiling so they can run another 2 or 3 trillion dollar debt.
Larry wrote:A country run solely by big business is no better than a country run solely by big government. A balance of power between the two is necessary.
Are you saying that its better having two behemoths pissing down your back than just one?
Absolute power corrupts, absolutely.
"Music, the greatest good that mortals know, and all of heaven we have below." -Joseph Addison
Gallowglass wrote:
We wouldn't, that quote assigns false causality to a pretty complex development and contains quite a bit of assumption built into it.
It seems the majority of voters in that time saw a causality.
And this is how liberty dies...with thunderous applause.
We do it to ourselves time and time again. Who says people learn from their mistakes?
"Music, the greatest good that mortals know, and all of heaven we have below." -Joseph Addison
undercoverjoe wrote:Housing numbers just out this week show the fall in housing prices is actually WORSE that during the depression. It said it took 19 for the housing prices to recover that time.
So we are in a depression, Obama's depression:
- The worst housing numbers including the Great Depression
- the DOW's worst week in many years
- unemployment up to 9.1% with one of the lowest percentage of Americans working ever
- record high prices for food and coffee
- gas at $4.00 per gallon, some places over $5.00
And a $14.3 TRILLION DEBT. With Obama and Geithner demanding to raise the debt ceiling so they can run another 2 or 3 trillion dollar debt.
Hope everyone is enjoying their Hope and Change.
I thought you knew that this was all George Bush's fault:
