take the politics test

[Luke de Spa]

because that cable tv service is used by others in the apartment building and that ultimately makes life in the building better for everyone, including you. if you disagree the opportunity exists for you to replace the landlord.

the alternative is to live outdoors. take your pick

[ravenguy2000]

del

[jczeroman]

Originally Posted by dudehitscar

John Locke is wrong when he says that we have Natural Rights bestowed upon us from a Creator. There is no Creator.

Regardless,of how the order present in nature arrived it still a) exists and b) must be defined. That is the nature of Locke's exploration. The question of origin really isn't important.

Originally Posted by dudehitscar

Everyone gets a vote, rights are given, laws are enforced.

Rights do not come from government or society. That implies original sin (for the mystic) or inherent debt (for the athiest). If you believe in original sin then that will need to be sorted out before any other point. Debaser believes in an original sin and I have demonstrated the silliness of that idea before as have many other's much smarter than me.

[jczeroman]

Originally Posted by Debaser

You need to explain to me how a non-coercive government functions. It sounds like an oxymoron. How do you enforce contracts without coercion or threat of?

Obviously you have two choices: complete pacifism (abolition of force) or some kind of justified force (self-defense or some other criteria). Option one strikes me an unworkable, option two strikes me as tremendously complicated in the least.

Originally Posted by Debaser

The big bright shining contradiction that hits me over the head is how can you call something "natural law" when you need somebody to enforce it?

Why study Rothbard for years when I can just ask you?

Who, what preserves natural law and property rights?

What exactly is the difference between "natural" laws and regular laws?

Did Rothbard make that argument? Do I agree entirely with him? Why go to me when you have a much more thorough resources to go to that will definitely give you a more genuine picture?

Natural laws are not made up - they are derived from observable scientific study of the natural order. Regular laws are instituted by men and societies.

[jczeroman]

Originally Posted by Debaser

I mean I don't feel the need to study intelligent design for years in order to mount an argument against it. Because from what little I "browse" thru its arguments, it just screams bullshit. And I can just address the specific points that ID brings up publicly. If I were in a discussion with a proponent of intelligent design and he were to bring out the "I-can't-talk-to-you-because-you-need-to-read-up-more-on-intelligent-design" card, I would be a little annoyed.

I consider myself well versed in collectivist philosophy and especially modern mixed-market socialism. I have spent years reading, watching and studying in order to make myself well versed. Despite that, I can only hope a person who has spent as much time on scholarly study of socialism that I have on individualism would give me the time of day. In other words, I probably wouldn't be worth listening to in a genuine debate among scholars of socialism.

Originally Posted by Debaser

If what you are saying is a fundamental "truth" or something enlightening, then it shouldn't be so hard or a hassle for you to explain it, prove it or talk about it, should it? All this Rothbard minutia eventually leads to the theory that "all taxation is theft". Which on its face is absurd and wishful thinking. And the foundation its built on (natural laws-->natural rights-->100% self ownership) comes off as absurd, too. Around every corner I see weird leaps in logic and assumptions and changed meanings and code words. Those lead to my little questions I keep throwing out. To you, they probably come off as naive little questions that you think have already been addressed and dismissed in the introductions or first chapter of ethics of liberty -- but wait -- stop. Let's go back and explain these fundamental things again, because the flaws start right there at the beginning and everything based from there on is just hogwash to me.

Not to sound condescending, but this is the nature of academic study. Try sitting through a 400 level philosophy class - talk about "code words." Philosophy, unlike popular political science, doesn't boil down easily to bumper stickers and talking points. Regarding individualism, capitalism, socialism, collectivism, natural rights, social contract theory - these things aren't the kind of things that lend themselves to quick explanations and resolutions in a day or two. People study small aspects of these things for their entire life and might come down, after volumes of books and research, with a couple of real solid points. If you think that we're going to get that on a messageboard - your out of your mind. I surmise that is because *most debate is this abortion-style black and white stuff - shouting matches and taking turns talking. This stuff isn't so simple.

If you genuinely want an answer and not to be right for a day or right by ignorance, then go find those life-works that actually make points on the subject. I can't count the number of times I've made recommendations to these works on this board to you and others in the spirit of genuine enhancement of knowledge. Is that not the goal here? Or is it a pissing match?

[Debaser]

I admit an obviously huge bias against libertarian thought and reading these smug libertarian conclusions are like nails on a chalkboard. My only defense is that I'm not purposely misunderstanding you, Colin.

Originally Posted by jczeroman

Philosophy, unlike popular political science, doesn't boil down easily to bumper stickers and talking points.

Everything can be boiled down to bumper stickers and talking points. For example, the ever popular "taxation is theft" or these:

Originally Posted by jczeroman

Natural laws are not made up - they are derived from observable scientific study of the natural order. Regular laws are instituted by men and societies.

Originally Posted by jczeroman

Rights do not come from government or society.

Those two quotes grate me.

Our rights are not "given" to us nor inherently part of our nature (the reasoning of which is no different from claiming god gives us our rights). I follow a utilitarian view of human rights. Our rights are derived from our own strength. Our rights are just what we as a people are willing to fight for. Our human rights have drastically changed thoughout history as society evolves.

Rothbards "scientific" observations are laughable: the notion that we are all endowed by rights by our creator "scientific observation of nature".

Rothbard:
[a]n apple, let fall, will drop to the ground; this we all observe and acknowledge to be in the nature of the apple."- http://www.mises.org/resources/cdfbd...9-082a6f7dafeb

Oh really? What if we we're in space? With no gravity present, the apple will not fall. So has the "nature" of the apple changed? (Rothbard says that natural law is universal, fixed and immutable.) No, the apple is simply in a different situation.

[Mablak]

Originally Posted by Debaser

Our rights are not "given" to us nor inherently part of our nature (the reasoning of which is no different from claiming god gives us our rights). I follow a utilitarian view of human rights. Our rights are derived from our own strength. Our rights are just what we as a people are willing to fight for. Our human rights have drastically changed thoughout history as society evolves.

So you're saying rights are some kind collective development? 'We as a people' is more than a little ambiguous, borderline nonsensical. As I understand it, you mean to say that whatever nation you happen to be born under, by chance, entitles you to more or less rights, due to the mindset of that nation? Just being around a group of people who are eager to fight for their rights gives you and them greater basic rights? It seems to me that rights, which limit what is morally permissible and impermissible for others to do to you, shouldn't depend at all on what society you're born into. Moreover, how do you know what rights are, fighting for them seems to imply you have a recognition of them. If you're saying people don't know what rights are until they fight for them, could literally anything become a human right so long as someone fights for it? Could we conquer Brazil and then claim that it is our right for someone to provide each of us with free bananas every day?

Or are you saying that we have a set number of possible rights, but we have to earn each of them (by some demonstration of force possibly, I don't know if you consider that essential or not) if we want to attain them? In that case, what if you're never able to earn them? Suppose someone shoots a 2-year old child, who's obviously had no experience earning rights. As I understand it, this would be morally permissible as the child in effect has no rights, such as freedom from imposed force. I really can't fathom a moral system that would allow something like intentional unprovoked murder under any circumstances.

[Debaser]

Originally Posted by Mablak

So you're saying rights are some kind collective development? 'We as a people' is more than a little ambiguous, borderline nonsensical. As I understand it, you mean to say that whatever nation you happen to be born under, by chance, entitles you to more or less rights, due to the mindset of that nation? Just being around a group of people who are eager to fight for their rights gives you and them greater basic rights? It seems to me that rights, which limit what is morally permissible and impermissible for others to do to you, shouldn't depend at all on what society you're born into.

Oh, no. I don't mean it to be limited by nations. I'm talking about civilization itself. Hundreds of years ago, slavery was widely practiced. So why isn't it ok now? Between then and now did God suddenly endow people with more rights? Did we "discover" more rights for brown people? No. I think we simply as a civilization became disgusted by the practice.

Originally Posted by Mablak

Moreover, how do you know what rights are, fighting for them seems to imply you have a recognition of them. If you're saying people don't know what rights are until they fight for them, could literally anything become a human right so long as someone fights for it? Could we conquer Brazil and then claim that it is our right for someone to provide each of us with free bananas every day?

That's not realistic. You could not get the populace to back that. I think rights develop and evolve rationally.

If somebody were to tell you "we deserve free bananas from brazilians!", would you be willing to fight for that? No.

If somebody was invading your country and your home and want to put you into slavery to provide bananas would you be willing to fight against it? Yes. (because you feel that your rights are being violated)

Originally Posted by Mablak

Or are you saying that we have a set number of possible rights, but we have to earn each of them (by some demonstration of force possibly, I don't know if you consider that essential or not) if we want to attain them?

No, there is not a set number of rights. I think rights evolve. We have a lot more rights today than we did hundreds of years ago.

Originally Posted by Mablak

In that case, what if you're never able to earn them? Suppose someone shoots a 2-year old child, who's obviously had no experience earning rights. As I understand it, this would be morally permissible as the child in effect has no rights, such as freedom from imposed force. I really can't fathom a moral system that would allow something like intentional unprovoked murder under any circumstances.

The child has rights, of course. We as a society (civilization) say that the child has rights. We as a society enforce those rights. We as a society would catch and punish the shooter.

[Mablak]

Originally Posted by Debaser

Oh, no. I don't mean it to be limited by nations. I'm talking about civilization itself. Hundreds of years ago, slavery was widely practiced. So why isn't it ok now? Between then and now did God suddenly endow people with more rights? Did we "discover" more rights for brown people? No. I think we simply as a civilization became disgusted by the practice.


That's not realistic. You could not get the populace to back that. I think rights develop and evolve rationally.

If somebody were to tell you "we deserve free bananas from brazilians!", would you be willing to fight for that? No.

If somebody was invading your country and your home and want to put you into slavery to provide bananas would you be willing to fight against it? Yes. (because you feel that your rights are being violated)


No, there is not a set number of rights. I think rights evolve. We have a lot more rights today than we did hundreds of years ago.



The child has rights, of course. We as a society (civilization) say that the child has rights. We as a society enforce those rights. We as a society would catch and punish the shooter.

There are too many problems with the idea that rights are contingent upon the state of our civilization. Whether its a nation or the entire human civilization, the idea that a greater number of people and a more developed society can actually decide absolutely (not just in law form) what's morally permissible/impermissible to do to someone is nonsense. Deciding on moral absolutes is a process of reason, not of brute force. To develop the morality of any human right, you need an argument that you can prove is indisputably right, to yourself at least. I mean this is basically an issue of authority versus reason, can a greater number of individuals believing in something make it correct? Obviously more people believing in certain rights does nothing to change whatever arguments that make those rights valid to uphold. The only way to believe in the moral soundness of any right is by a process of reason, it's not as though anyone believes that rights are something we possess without having reasoned as to why we should possess them.

To point out why one should feel that rights are not contingent upon civilization, take an example. Suppose in some post-apocalyptic scenario, there are two or three people remaining in the world who have no real knowledge of any civilization that came before them, other than having a knowledge of the English language. These people are intelligent and fully capable of making decisions on their own. It would seem to be true then, that if these few people are not disgusted by acts of rape, murder, theft, etc., they can do whatever they please to one another without it being against any human rights. Perhaps one of them even believes in rights preventing such acts, but is still victimized by the other two, regardless, in this scenario it is apparently morally permissible to do anything to this person. So in this scenario, should human rights exist, or shouldn't they? Is there some reason that because there are fewer people and they have no moral standards for human rights, there should actually be no human rights? Once again it comes back to the idea that rights are developed due to valid arguments that make them morally founded ideas, rather than being developed due to the inclinations of the majority.

[jczeroman]

Originally Posted by Mablak

There are too many problems with the idea that rights are contingent upon the state of our civilization...

This is my final warning. You will be wasting your time.

[jczeroman]

Originally Posted by Debaser

I admit an obviously huge bias against libertarian thought and reading these smug libertarian conclusions are like nails on a chalkboard. My only defense is that I'm not purposely misunderstanding you, Colin.


Everything can be boiled down to bumper stickers and talking points. For example, the ever popular "taxation is theft" or these:




Those two quotes grate me.

Our rights are not "given" to us nor inherently part of our nature (the reasoning of which is no different from claiming god gives us our rights). I follow a utilitarian view of human rights. Our rights are derived from our own strength. Our rights are just what we as a people are willing to fight for. Our human rights have drastically changed thoughout history as society evolves.

People can make bumper stickers like "taxation is theft" but that doesn't mean such a practice is realistic or even true to the original philosophy. Consider that most men payed (and still do) taxes for literally millennia before we have any kind of really rigorous philosophical basis for not paying taxes. Sure people didn't like them or paying them, but it took thousands of years for a systematic explanation of why they didn't like it - and even more work to determine is this was rational or not. A guy could have said "taxation is theft" in 460BC Persia but he wouldn't really have a clue what that means. Just because people do boil it down doesn't make it rational.

So when I or you or anyone boils such complicated approaches down on a messageboard, genuine seeking of the principles is most likely going to be satisfied offsite - hence my recommendations.

Originally Posted by Debaser

Rothbards "scientific" observations are laughable: the notion that we are all endowed by rights by our creator "scientific observation of nature".

Rothbard:
[a]n apple, let fall, will drop to the ground; this we all observe and acknowledge to be in the nature of the apple."- http://www.mises.org/resources/cdfbd...9-082a6f7dafeb

Oh really? What if we we're in space? With no gravity present, the apple will not fall. So has the "nature" of the apple changed? (Rothbard says that natural law is universal, fixed and immutable.) No, the apple is simply in a different situation.

You are acting like a total idiot here ...No, you just aren't actually reading to synthesize and analyze, you are reading to refute - so naturally you totally miss the meaning.

You do realize that nature is not merely a phenomenon on planet earth right? When Rothbard or any scientist or philosopher discusses natural law, such as gravity in this point, do you think they don't know that in space, where there isn't enough gravity pulling the apple, that it won't fall to the earth? The point, if you would have took any time whatsoever to think and not simple vomit out a reply to first seemingly unintelligent thing you found that Rothbard wrote, I think (dear God, I hope) that you would have figure that out.

If you actually can do it with an open mind, Rothbard's natural law would be a great read (or listen) as he summarizes well a lot of the nuances discovered in the study of how nature operates.

[Debaser]

I've already read it before. It's utterly unconvincing.

Maybe it's time for you to open your mind to criticisms of Rothbard. The best ones usually come from other right wingers or anarchists:
http://rightreason.ektopos.com/archi...rd_as_a_p.html

I've just realized I've been cribbing most of my criticisms from poor recollections of this article from the anarchist's FAQ I read awhile ago, I should have just search and posted this in the first place instead repeating its points in a much less elegant fashion. It's a great read, despite me far from being an anarchist (or a right wing philosopher).
http://www.spunk.org/texts/intro/faq...547/secF7.html

[D.]

You are a Social Moderate (41% permissive) and an... Economic Liberal (31% permissive) You are best described as a: Totalitarian (31e/41s) Link: The Politics Test on Ok Cupid Also: The OkCupid Dating Persona Test

[jczeroman]

Originally Posted by Debaser

I've already read it before. It's utterly unconvincing.

Maybe it's time for you to open your mind to criticisms of Rothbard. The best ones usually come from other right wingers or anarchists:
http://rightreason.ektopos.com/archi...rd_as_a_p.html

I've just realized I've been cribbing most of my criticisms from poor recollections of this article from the anarchist's FAQ I read awhile ago, I should have just search and posted this in the first place instead repeating its points in a much less elegant fashion. It's a great read, despite me far from being an anarchist (or a right wing philosopher).
http://www.spunk.org/texts/intro/faq...547/secF7.html

You think I agree with Rothbard 100% or that I haven't read his critiques? Trust me, I am well versed in the Chicago School's (and Friedman's) criticisms of anarcho-capitalism.

[Trotskilicious]

Originally Posted by D.

and you ask why i hate you

[Trotskilicious]

Originally Posted by Mablak

Why you've got me all wrong, debaser. I would love for everyone to pay some form of taxes. Of their own free will, never forcibly regulated or demanded by the government. And I don't use any government services intentionally. What the government provides me is done against my will, so it is nothing that I'm obligated to pay for. And I rather like living in the most capitalist and free country in the world, where the hell else would I live.

I'd like to put your dumb ass in a rocket ship and shoot it to mars.

[D.]

Originally Posted by Trotskilicious

and you ask why i hate you

test is bogus.

[Trotskilicious]

Your Score: Social Liberal

You scored 67% Personal Liberty and 37% Economic Liberty!

A social liberal believes in little to moderate government intervention on personal matters and moderate to high government intervention on economic matters. They tend to be opposed to war, police powers, victimless crimes, and what they may consider to be a corporate state or rogue capitalism. They generally support personal liberty and believe in a social safety net or welfare state. They support self-ownership and privacy. Social liberals are essentially the "mainstream" left and left of center.

Link: The Politics Test written by brainpolice on OkCupid Free Online Dating, home of the The Dating Persona Test

[Trotskilicious]

Originally Posted by D.

test is bogus.

well take the long one that someone else posted. However, the fact that you're a godboy makes me think that you are definitely in the boat with the christian right about legislating morality, but you chuck economic restriction in there as well which would make you a fascist.

[Trotskilicious]

Originally Posted by jczeroman

You make two important distinctions here: the first is more obvious that athletes are paid their market value. But the second, almost no one has figured out - that rich people aren't the same as "the bourgeoise" or "the elite" - thus, professional athletes are no different than the steelworker or waiter.

well you're missing a third distinction which questions how much entertainment really should be worth which is why i had a problem with the question in the first place.

Mike Vick got 10 years 130 million. Does he deserve it because he funnelled money into the franchise, raising their profile and making them competative? Sure. Does he deserve it on a fundamental level, being a cretinous idiot who can run really fast and throw a ball fairly well? Not really.

[D.]

Originally Posted by Trotskilicious

well take the long one that someone else posted. However, the fact that you're a godboy makes me think that you are definitely in the boat with the christian right about legislating morality, but you chuck economic restriction in there as well which would make you a fascist.

lol

you're funny. i like you.

[Mablak]

When the libertarian/laissez-faire capitalist revolution comes, Trotsky's kind will be the first up against the wall. I'm referring to trolls of course.

[Trotskilicious]

Originally Posted by Mablak

When the libertarian/laissez-faire capitalist revolution comes, Trotsky's kind will be the first up against the wall. I'm referring to trolls of course.

yeah this isn't just a big bucket of contradiction

hey bud next time you use the interstate to go somewhere, why don't you curse taxation while you do so.

[severin]

not really surprising for me:

You are a Social Liberal (73% permissive) and an... Economic Liberal (18% permissive) You are best described as a: Socialist (18e/73s) Link: The Politics Test on Ok Cupid Also: The OkCupid Dating Persona Test

[daydreamer999]

I prefer to see the political spectrum as more of a donut myself.

[Ol' Couch Ass]

You are a Social Liberal (63% permissive) and an... Economic Moderate (41% permissive) You are best described as a: Centrist (41e/63s) Link: The Politics Test on OkCupid Free Online Dating Also: The OkCupid Dating Persona Test