@PenguinJr1994 You are making the same errors highlighted in the video. Just because you believe something to be right doesn't make it so. Your opinions carry no more weight than others.
Regarding human-animal aggression, you have it all wrong, it is not might-makes-right, but natural superiority that dictates this right to dominate. Which is why killing a dog is worse than a mouse which is worse than a mosquito. Its a 'quality of consciousness' issue. You cannot arbitrarily revoke mans right to kill without revoking every predators, or even the herbivorous -- for they too kill microscopic consciousness.
As for redistribution of wealth, you're assuming that the poor people cannot help themselves. Sure there are the disabled and those who become ill through no choice of their own but does government really need to take people's money, don't you believe people will be charitable and give some of their money for that expensive operation or medication? Don't you think charity is better than robbing the rich and giving to the poor? We did have charities for healthcare and living during Victorian time
(cont) and I value the £1 more than the pen, so really we are both better off, which is why i dont understand how the people get rich when most others get poor. As for the point about the black man and the fountain, is the fountain a public good? i dont really understand is he in a place where there is racial segregation? if he is then i dont understand why he would want to be in a place where he isn't valued, obviously places that do racially segregate are worse off for it, less consumers etc
I'm responding to you points about Libertarians, Libertarians don't care what you believe in, they believe everyone is equal, your second point about 100 people getting very rich and 1 billion people getting poor, how did those rich people get rich if those poor people got poorer, to get rich in a free market you have to provide a product or service that people want, and in an exchange both believe they are getting richer e.g. if i sold you a pen for £1 it means you value the pen more then a £1
You do get alot of crackpots on here, Yes I believe in libertarianism too, but I've heard and read some of the dumbest comments on here, it seems the Internet is like a cat, it just drags anything in at times.
hey i just watched your video on libertarians and i just wanted to say... that you have no idea what your talking about and that. being a libertarian is the exact opposite of pushing your beliefs on someone. i am also an atheist and i am a libertarian. dude look up the word liberty please
Hit the nail square on the head. I'm the unfortunate child of Libertarians (Confederates, actually, which scares me to no end) and have had it shoved down my throat not only by them but by their scary friends. I'm sharing this video with everybody.
Completely wrong when you talk about interdependence. Libertarians don't disparage this fact. Obviously, we realize that the contributions of others are not only desirable, but necessary. You're erected a straw man there. We simply do not want such things to be coerced. We want them to be voluntary. I don't want govt or any other agency to force me to pay for another's housing. Nor vice versa. How the house is physically built (and by whom) is irrelevant to this distinction.
Membership your society is already voluntary. Unless you are being held at gunpoint, then you have made a conscious choice to live where you do. If you choose to live within a particular state, how can you claim that you are being forced?
Being responsible for one's own body and what we do with it has nothing to do with living with other people. Smoking, drugs, alcohol, eating junk food, tatooing, etc. is a person's right. It does not harm anyone else. We should be free to do with what we wish. Also, yes a person has a right to own property. If the person pays for it, it is theirs. can own, therefore, we can control. We are higher than animals. we can own animals, therefore, we can control them.
@kippyafd So far as I know there are no laws to ban smoking, getting tattooed or eating junk food. Although smoking and poor dietary habits but a strain on the health care system - be a public one or a private one, there are no laws seeking to ban those things. Private property is not an immovable object the rest of society must navigate around. Property rights are not absolute as you think they are. According to your argument if I want to build a nuclear reactor in my garage I should be able to
@kippyafd And besides all of that you still don't get that property is a human construction, it only exists if others of your society recognize and society agrees to back each other rights. The notion of property rights isn't a "natural right" - if it were natural then every society and culture around the globe would have the same concept of property, but they do not.
But what happens when these personal "rights" come into conflict with other rules and regulations?
I'd hazard a guess that even in a Libertarian society most employers would prohibit drinking alcohol whilst at work and many landlords would prohibit their tenants from smoking.
If a particular action is dependent on the permission of other people, then how can it be classed as a right?
While i agree that natural rights technically do not exist, then that means we have no laws too follow, and therefore we have anarchy, and anarchy never lasts
Laws are based on the values of a particular society, not "natural rights". This is why I am allowed to draw a picture of Mohammed in my own country but doing the same thing in Iran will incur a death sentence.
In the first 40 seconds what you said was wrong. Yes you can do that, because when you make your society, it is your society and thus you can seperate it if you want from libertarian society that is not hard to understand. Second point is kinda weak and only seems strong in that is arbritary and very general so hard also perfectly defined. You have the right to defend yourself and He has a right to attack you, Lib's may say that cause its nice but both are natural rights as natural abilities
People have the right to disagree with you on what you can and can't do. THey do in fact do that so they are excercising natural rights. This is not difficult, this is why people form gangs(organizations) which is perfectly naturally to have more power over others. This group of people lib's is saying we should have a tool to minimize that natural right and occurrance. Next it comes down to might makes right because they use GOD of that reason as it is the mightest and it says so is so.
animals do own property, their are alot of animals in the animal kingdom. They defend their cave, region, etc, just like humans. Humans just usaully kill them because they have superior tools in the relative department of death and killing. The idea that you own your body, comes from the idea of responsiblity. You have responsiblities to your group as they have aided you and they should be re-paid however you do not have to repay them(wrong). You can do that and they can't get you do it.
@Ryukikon I think the point he was making is that property exist - and I'm of he concept here in our western societies as other societies have differing ideas of property - only because we as a society agree to recognize it and the defend it. As for animals they don't recognize that, if one animal guarding its cave loses a fight with another animal it then becomes that other animals cave. The two of them will not turn to a court of law which determines who really owns the cave.
actually, people do not have a dastrically different idea of property, I am limited by this comment limit but if you want to talk about through another medium I will make this quite clear with logic. Also animals do understand property, the animal world is all about property, even children understand property. Also animals losing caves to violence is natural people lose property, most nations that exist are formed that way, that is natural.
@Ryukikon Yes but we humans recognize that right (at least in our respective countries) and if some guy wonders in and trys to take my home I've got the police to call to enforce my rights & if need be the courts. Animals do not have that. There is no animal police for the animal whose cave was taken to call nor any court of animals to decide who really owns the case. Rights only exist if the others in our society recognize them & there's agreement to back up each other's rights.
No, You are confused. WHat you are talking is in principal conventions. Rights are not conventions. Now, the scenario you give already implies conventions and government. I understand that you may attached to see things emotionally, however that is not representative of the natural world. Animals need no police, Animals(broad group) have other animals. Wolves have packs because one wolf might not do it, just like people do. You confuse privileges and natural rights.
@Ryukikon Property only exists if others acknowledge it. Wolves, be it one wolf or a pack of wolves, fight. The winner gets it. There's no court or legal system of wolves to enforce any property right or to punish the other one for infringing on the rights of the other. Many primates engage in what I would describe as primitive warfare. Yet their has never been a Nuremberg like tribunal held by one group of chimps to adjudicate the actions of another group of chimps.
This is why people defend property instinctively and we have violence, to eat to survive is to attack another persons property and take it for your own. Absorbtion(digestion or eating), this is actually very natural. Now many people don't like this because it is uncomfortable because then they have to take more responsiblities but that is true for all systems created around natural principals for them to be successful and functioning.
Economics is a subset of Philosophy and we can approach this idea from that angle and quite a few ones but we will lead back to the same principals. THe problem is that the ism's that people view the world through are limiting and extreme, they are unnatural and take positions that are unbalanced. Capitalism and socialism is ridiculous, they are just factors of any economy system. Liberalism and Libertarianism is the same thing and the differences are illusory.
@Ryukikon Rigid dogmatic adherence to any ideology or philosophy is, I believe, unproductive. I usually concern myself with the realities of the world and what I think may be practical ways of dealing with those realities, rather than idealized versions of how I think the world ought to be or should be. Many people seem to fall into that trap of dogmatic thinking and when reality conflicts with that dogma, well in their mind the dogma must triump.
I am sorry that someone keeps flagging your comments because I miss them that way. Also your last comment I agree with. What I am talking about is not rigid dogma. I am disccussing reality as it appears in the natural world(philosophy and science). Do I think that things should be this way no, however are things this way, logic and observation points to yes. I have been through the congnitive discord that comes with conforting these ideas that cultures can distort.
And many people call themselves terms which they are when analyzed they do not truly agree with or follow. It is the similar to how many people can't properly express their emotions and only have about 3 words to describe it throughout the given day when they do studies, hence they use the wrong words to describe their emotions most of the time. This happens in many other areas and most fighting(emotional) are over illusions.
No, I am not confusing property with taking things. Property is not unique to humans, this is a myth like how humans are better than animals. Whatever makes people feel better and superior to sleep at night but principally it is immoral and a double stand. Anyways you name me a nation that does not exist today in which they did not take the property. Animals do the same thing and they are territorial just like how a nation is(territorial monopoly).
It is this line of reasoning that you have that is western and is the justification for many wrong acts in history because when you want to abuse or take land form another group you just have to classify them as not being humans,(animals). This was done against blacks in africa, and Native Americans in America,UK, etc. When wars were and are being fought no one goes to a judge(U.N) that institution is very new in chronological history.
@tonyfalca The point is animals take it away from each other, the strongest animal wins. There's no court of animals or animal police force that will enforce that other animals "property rights". Rights exist because other members of society recognize them and agree to back up each other's rights. Hence the reason the notion of what constitutes rights varies from culture to culture.
I consider Libertarianism to be a direction and not an absolution. I want less government intervention, less wealth redistribution etc. That doesn't mean i want to eliminate it all, i accept some is necessary.
It's things like High Speed 2 that i would like to do away with. If we cut tax and put that 30bn in the pockets of people and companies they can decide for themselves if they want to travel from Brum to London more fancifully or not. Or we could use it to help pay off the deficit.
you are the one the first people that I have read that Shares a simillar sentiment to me. It is about orientation, however most people think in absolution terms.
I would be the first to agree that many government projects are appallingly ill-conceived and badly executed. Libertarians like to think that nobody else works to fight government waste, or even knows that it exists :)
@billburns2 Well i don't think that. I have my views, other people have their views and there can be anywhere between 0 and 100% common ground. It's probably only people on the internet who come across that way.
Why do you so strongly dislike Libertarianism anyway? I wasn't aware that there was a strong movement here. There's one party with ~500 members and the leader is a knob-head.
@billburns2 The fact remains that little income will be offered up to be taxed at high rates. Tax policies cause shifting in ways income is taken. Share of total income taxes paid grew as result of lowering taxes under Bush. SOI tax stats, individuals (IRS) 2001, top 1% paid 33.89%, in 2008, it was 38.02%. If goal is actually to put more money into govt, hands, this works. We could always raise tax rates though, and collect less.
The core of the issue as to whether other species have the same rights is the definition of the word "species." A species is defined by its ability to procreate; piranhas don't kill other piranhas because that would give them a selective disadvantage. The reason humans exist is that for millions of years our ancestors have competed with other species to become what we are. Do gazelle have a right not to be eaten by lions? I don't find the Nazis' arguments very compelling because
@S00perspud Jews and Blacks are still humans. It is in our interest as a species to protect other members of our species from violence, to improve our chance of survival in the cosmos.
"A species is defined by its ability to procreate"
er...no it isn't. Description and definition are different things.
"I don't find the Nazis' arguments very compelling"
Nor do I. Luckily we live in societies that support our views on this. However if we had the misfortune to be born Jewish in 1930s Germany our opinions wouldn't count for much and claiming "natural rights" would mean nothing.
@billburns2 Your argument appears hypocritical: why do you espouse 'might is right' as a framework for society yet, I presume, doubt the synonymous libertarian maxim of 'survival of the fittest'?
@Bluekuebiko Your belief that violence is universally pervasive sounds like a socialist's wishful thinking which conveniently excuses the systemic violence of statism. I trust even socialists appreciate the dividing line between violent crime and self-defence for to say otherwise would be to suppose Gandhi not pacifistic given that he allowed for self-defence.
@billburns2 I was just saying I don't think it is necessary to give other species equal moral value to humans, because it would create a conflict of interest. What if there were a species of animal whose diet consisted of human flesh? We would want to defend ourselves from it. On the other hand, I believe all life has a certain value, and that some rights may be reasonably given to animals, but being human, I value the needs of humans above those of other species.
@S00perspud The Libertarian philosophy was originally intended to apply to humans, but there is nothing that prevents a Libertarian from applying it in other ways
@billburns2 "Natural rights" seems kind of a deceptive term, stemming from a long line of ancient philosophers, which seems to imply that our mere existence gives us rights. On the other hand, I believe our morals, and thus, the rights we observe, are deeply entrenched in our nature as it has adapted to itself, and to the rest of our environment.
The Terms Natural Rights is an acceptable term from philosophy and has nothing to do with morality. Morality can be applied to it as people often do and distort it. Natural Rights exist however how they operate is often not ideal and many people hold misconceptions. I have the right to take your car and you have the right to defend it. What is in my abilities I have a right to do. This may not be opitmally desired, death is not desired for many but it is a product of the natural W
@billburns2 spe·cies [spee-sheez, -seez] Show IPA noun, plural -cies, adjective
noun
1.
a class of individuals having some common characteristics or qualities; distinct sort or kind.
2.
Biology . the major subdivision of a genus or subgenus, regarded as the basic category of biological classification, composed of related individuals that resemble one another, are able to breed among themselves, but are not able to breed with members of another species.
@billburns2 I agree that there is nothing about the higher order of the universe or any great rule book in the sky that gives us "natural rights" but humanly speaking, I feel that we should have certain rights, simply because observing such rights has beneficial consequences to all of us, and because it is a good standard by which to resolve our dissonances with each other and with all of nature.
Limiting government waste is one thing, but simply limiting government in itself is not a valid goal. It has to be the means to an end.
Libertarians want us to believe that government is the root of all evil, unfortunately it's a theory that they have yet to prove. Their smug defence against all criticism of pure free markets (being that there has never been a pure free market) cuts both ways - there has never been a real world example of a stateless society.
@billburns2 I never mentioned a stateless society, nor did I mention a purely free market economy, neither of which exist in reality, but only in the realm of ideals. I guess I agree with you on that part. I do not believe that the government is the root of all evil, saying that shows pure ignorance and misunderstanding of the point of government, which is to create a foundation of laws that provide security for society to build of off, more or less.
@swanmix10 Mentioned at the top are the things I agree with you on. Where I disagree is to the extent that many believe that government is efficient and reliable. Yes it is important to limit government waste, but the best way to do that is to not pass more laws and make things needlessly complex put to limit governments reach. Yes government regulation should exist, but where I disagree is the extents of that regulation.
Sure. There are many areas where we agree. Libertarians like to think that they invented outrage over government waste and mismanagement but these concerns are common across almost every part of the political spectrum.
@billburns2 Families are an interesting example.. are families mini-societies? What is a society if not a social order amongst some people. Families usually aren't considered examples of libertarian societies because of how property is used and shared. Yet they aren't prohibited in a libertarian society. Nor are any other organizations of men. I think some of your definitions are off or you're reading some stuff outside of mainstream libertarian thought (as far as I know).
@billburns2 If you want to create a society with a different definition of property rights inside of a libertarian society, it is true that you would need to buy the (or whatever property you want). But once you've made that sacrifice, that's it. As far as I know, every piece of land belongs to someone so you couldn't escape this fact in any existing society. If you claimed land that didn't belong to anyone, how would libertarians bother you?
Why should I have to buy something if I don't agree that the seller has authority of ownership?
That's like me saying to you "well. I own the color blue, but I can sell that color to you for a fee. Once you've made that sacrifice, you can do whatever you want with that color within your own property. Agreeable?"
@stealspell Once again you are starting with a presumption that there is such a thing as a natural right. There isn't. Basing a train of logic on a false axiom is a non starter. In short, until YOU can prove your starting point there is nothing to elaborate on
@billburns2 "Once again you are starting with a presumption that there is such a thing as a natural right." But there is the definition of a natural right, which is why I asked, do you believe that by definition a natural right can be made into law, IF such a natural right were to exist? I ask this because I think you have a misunderstanding of the definition of a natural right. Moreover, I can't "prove" something to you if you don't understand its definition first.
@billburns2 "Defining something presupposes that it exists in the first place." So if I define a unicorn as a white horse with a long horn growing from its forehead, then I'm presupposing it exists? I'm not sure what you're doing at this point, because it's not making a whole lot of sense. "It's not just a case of someone saying "oh, that's a natural right so we don't need to apply democratic process to make it a law" What does this sentence mean then?Are you presupposing natural rights exist?
@billburns2 Secondly, you've completely buried yourself with your own logic by stating, "defining something presupposes that it exists". How have you tried to dispel natural rights in this video if you do not understand what they mean? Or if you understand what they mean, then you can't dispel them because according to your logic, they exist. Something's gotta give. I'll let you make the call.
The right to property is "natural" only in the sense that it is self-evident to us that resources are limited. It is not biology natural, which is what you seem to be trying to argue. They are natural by virtue of being self-evident.
"The right to live free from violence is not a natural right." The right to life is a natural right via the Constitution. And natural rights are accepted to be self evident, I take it you being possibly the only one that disagrees with you know, the rest of society. I don't get how you get from animals kill stuff, therefore the right to life is not natural. Some are herbivores. Killing a tomato is quite a stretch too. And there are vegetarian cultures, so your objection doesn't hold much water.
Simply claiming that something is self evident don't make it so.
Yes, resources are limited. How does it follow that the Libertarian definition of property is therefore "self evident"? Your logic seems a bit faulty here.
@billburns2 "Simply claiming that something is self evident don't make it so." Now wait a minute. I don't understand your contention. I'm not claiming something to be self evident. The Constitution is claiming natural rights to be self evident. And I take most people would so as well. It is not universally the case, if that's what you mean. Let me perhaps ask you this: do you think it is not self-evident that you deserve to live or to be happy?
I'm not American. I don't care what your constitution says.
No, it's not self evident that a person deserves to live. I feel that murderers should not deserve to live - just my opinion, but it's an example of something that isn't self-evident, but based on provisos.
@billburns2 I'm not exactly getting the angle you're viewing this from so bare with me a bit. Of course when one infringes on the rights of another, i.e., their right to life, they surrender their right to life in the process. I don't see what is inconsistent with that.
"when one infringes on the rights of another, i.e., their right to life, they surrender their right to life in the process"
Says who? Not the murderer, that's for sure. Once again, you have the idea of a "right" which is purely dependent on how the majority of a particular society choose to interpret it. Go to a different society or a different era of history and the "right" may be interpreted differently. Nothing "natural" about it I'm afraid.
@billburns2 Well now you're trying the terms of the discussion by inducing terms like "murder" which presupposes the notion of law, which we have yet to introduce. So your objection doesn't work I'm afraid.
@billburns2 "Who says that infringing on the right of another forfeits a person's right to life?" Well the very notion of "infringement" would have to be decided by law. And the reason I used the word, as you will notice, was because you wrote "No, it's not self evident that a person deserves to live. I feel that murderers should not deserve to live", i.e., my response was contingent on that. If your question is, who decides they are inalienable, all I can say is that its self-evident they are.
So a right cannot be infringed unless it exists within a legal framework??
You keep citing things as being self evident with the argument that it's self evident. That's circular reasoning AKA assuming what you're trying to prove.
@billburns2 "So a right cannot be infringed unless it exists within a legal framework??" Yes, because whether I infringed on your right or not is debatable; that's why we have plaintiffs and defendants.
@billburns2 "So according to you the whole idea of rights and their infringements are dependent on the opinions of others...correct?" I think the word rights can throw people off. Natural rights are deemed "rights" by people to be in accordance with legal purposes, but are also natural to human beings which is not deemed by people. I think we should just continue the discussion in a private message because I don't like writing 500 characters.
@billburns2 "You keep citing things as being self evident with the argument that it's self evident. That's circular reasoning" You're right that it appears circular just like it would appear to be circular if I were to give an argument that all unmarried men were bachelors. Natural rights are self-evident by definition.
@billburns2 "Some unmarried men may be divorcees, some may be widowers." Yeah, you're right lol I meant, All bachelors are unmarried men. Typing and thinking can do that.
"but if you're only definition is that they are "natural rights", then that's circular reasoning." No, actually it wouldn't be because definitions aren't circular reasoning; they aren't arguments. They explain the meaning of something, not argue for it.
@billburns2 "To state that a personal preference is a natural right is not axiomatic - it needs further proof for it to be valid." I can only justify what is meant by natural right until you understand that it is self-evident. Otherwise by "proving" it would be circular as you said. I desire to live. Do you desire to live?
@billburns2 "Repetition without proof isn't an argument. Faith isn't proof. Personal opinion isn't justification." "Of course I do." Hold these thoughts. You make a unique point.
@billburns2 Let me try a reverse angle and perhaps show you what I mean, so you can better understand where I'm coming from. What justifies your right to life? Or do you believe you don't have a right to life? If so, why is murder wrong or illegal? These are the real tough questions.
@billburns2 "Because the rules of a particular society deem it to be so (or not)." Could you be a little more specific with what you mean by "deem"? How exactly does society "deem" murder to be wrong and illegal?
If the laws, rules, morals or mores of a particular society define murder to be wrong, then it's wrong. If you choose to remain in that society then you must accept that definition or go somewhere else.
In my country the democratic laws that represent society's standpoint on murder are contained within the Criminal Justice Act of 2003. Clearly murder was considered wrong before this, but obsolete laws don't apply (this is why I don't have to worry about being burned at the stake for heresy - an act that was considered wrong in the 17th C,) so the answer to your question is 2003
Yes, but for for a value to become more than just a personal opinion, for it to become a law that all must adhere to requires general consensus through democratic process. It requires people to sit down and vote on whether or not something is "wrong" or not. It's not just a case of someone saying "oh, that's a natural right so we don't need to apply democratic process to make it a law"
@billburns2 "It's not just a case of someone saying "oh, that's a natural right so we don't need to apply democratic process to make it a law" So you believe a natural right is a law?
I thought I explained this already: EVERY social value must be subject to popular consideration and discussion if it's to be made a law or deemed to be a right. No exceptions. Once again - there are no such things as natural rights.
@billburns2 Okay, let me rephrase the question. Based on what you said, and I'm having trouble understanding it, "It's not just a case of someone saying "oh, that's a natural right so we don't need to apply democratic process to make it a law", do you think, and correct me if I'm wrong, a natural right, by definition, can be made into a law? Otherwise, please elaborate on that sentence I quoted.
@billburns2 I think life and property are very much connected and I cannot seem to separate them. Let's stick with the basics. If I want to live, I will need a roof over my head to protect myself from danger, and I will need food and water. Therefore it seems logical to me that if I have a 'natural right' to life, then I would have one of property too.
"I think life and property are very much connected and I cannot seem to separate them"
Sure, because you have grown up in a western society with western values. Other cultures think differently. To some of them, collectivization is self-evident.
@billburns2 Well the way I see it collectivization is just a different means to achieve the same end, that is, it is a different way for the individual to attain resources. Sure, the western view is that they are somehow "private" to the individual, but my argument was contingent on the premise that particular resources are necessary for my right to life. Therefore I have a right to those resources if I have that right to life.
If you want to argue that people should have the "right" to resources that are necessary to life, then collectivization must be the preferred option, not private property. By your definition a starving man has more right to the food in a grocery than the store owner. After all, his need is greater.
@billburns2 Again you're inducing a sense of entitlement *not* rights. You argue a starving man has *greater needs*. But once again, we have yet to introduce legal concepts of entitlements or any social law and order. We're talking strictly talking about the groundwork that paves the way for legal concepts.
@billburns2 "how does your idea of resource allocation based on need equate to the Libertarian notion of the right to private property, even on a moral basis?" You just completely missed the point I made. So I won't bother trying to answer your question. We'll come back to this later once you get what I'm saying.
I'm simply citing what you wrote. Are you saying you made a mistake? That you DON'T have a "right" to resources or that you DON'T have a right to life?
@ regresseur Depends on whether you consider yourself to have Sovereign rights over your body. The Libby kneejerk answer is YES, but it becomes more complicated if you rely on UHC or insurance based healthcare for ailments that you have contributed to by choosing to live an unhealthy lifestyle.
Having a suicide/escape clause, claiming that the will of majority is automatically enforceable because 'you can always just leave' is unsettling. What if the city you live in 'democratically' voted to seize and redistribute your property among the citizens? Would the "you had the right to move away" defense hold?
My question for Lie-bertarians is what if my job was to make high powered explosives and I worked out of my house . . . and there happens to be 300 other houses literally next to mine. What would you do? If you told me to stop building such, wouldn't that violate my right to my work?
@PropheciesofWar Simple: your neighbors would take you to court to enforce their safely. because the risk of blowing them up is trampling on their property right.
@wizwom But wouldn't they be trampling on my property rights? I mean I didn't do anything wrong. I mean getting the government to stop me from what I am doing, doesn't that entail the use of force?
@PropheciesofWar You're threatening your neighbors. Damaging their properties' value too. A big wall would probably be unacceptable too. They'll likely do something about it. This can be solved by things like deed restrictions, courts or just a discussion, ostracism and the neighbors teaming up to remove the threat. It's all about what people find acceptable. In a stateless society, maybe you'll see more voluntary segregation by people of similar mindset.
@fleskebille But deed restrictions require that the courts, police, government, et al to enforce or use their governmental intervention to impede on my property rights. Which again as I said elsewhere I have done nothing wrong. If you don't like my occupation, then move to another town. Also, where's the threat at? Furthermoe, people banding together is collusion (eg. collectivism), that goes against Lie-bertarian. Which is a mortal sin.
@PoW 1. I think the NAP is a good guiding principle. If the bomb maker buys property that has not previously been used for such risky things, and begins building bombs without having the approval of owners whose property is at risk of being destroyed (assuming there's a real chance) I consider that aggression (a threat), really. The NAP covers threats. If the bomb maker lived there first, as in there were no adjacent properties that were in danger at the time, i think he has a better case.
@PoW 2. I don’t assume there is anything in a free society, just speculating. Guessing you’ll get simple laws based on norms (common law). Many people have come up with ideas for free market arbitration. Actually, voluntarily creating a socialistic community is fine by most anti statists and voluntaryists/ancaps I think.
Do you agree with the concept of private property or not?
If so, do you agree that people can do what they want on their own property?
All your "solutions" pre-suppose that things like deed restrictions or DROs are already in place. If not, then coercing someone to abide by rules that they don't agree with surely violates the NAP.
@wizwom A few years ago there was a teen in Michigan who decided he wanted to build a nuclear reactor (google 'radioactive boyscout' for news articles). He constructed this little reactor in a tool shed unknown to his parents, came close to causing a major contamination disaster in that neighborhood, had the authorities not become aware of it when they did. As it was the shed had to be taken apart & sent to a nuclear waste storage facility. Was the gov wrong to step in there?
@xexixk The simple answer is that if the boy's actions could harm their neighbors, their neighbors have actionable cause.
But a nuclear reactor from material commonly available is so low powered as to be safe to anyone over a few feet away from it. Since his actions were only a risk to himself, there was no need to stop him.
BTW, I'm a Nuclear Engineering student, I'm not just talking shit.
@billburns2 Actually I already KNEW he had tried using Americium. As for the "likely dangerous levels of radioactivity," its honestly BULLSHIT. Hahn wasn't a moron, he was using a lead container, which would have stopped 75% of the gamma AT LEAST. And the attenuation from the air would have stopped the rest. Perhaps some trivial amounts of radon or radioactive Xenon were being released, but i doubt even that - a simple tin cover would have kept those down.
@wizwom David Hahn didn't give up his unhealthy obession with nuclear projects. He was again arrested for some dabbling in some such things and trying to obtain materials. Last I read some time ago he appeared to have been suffering from effects of radiation poisoning. In any case I don't really want my neighbors dabbling with nuclear projects out in their garage.
I will PM you an experimental essay I wrote on this, and also a "theory" I have on how we can protect common ownership of the land within a "private property" society.
Excellent video again. I actually realize this when I read a part of John Locke's Second Treatise of Civil Government. There he speaks that land cannot be owned and is in common to all. He basically said that if God gave the land to humans, he gave it to us in common. He didn't say "Oh Adam, here take all this land and manage it yourself for others", but rather he gave it to all so that we can all manage it. Therefore Private Property is for convenience not a right.
I don't know about a right to be free from violence, but I do know of a right to defend oneself, of which it is up to the person or creature involved as to which route they may take in attempting to secure their defense. For example, I choose not to delegate my right to protect myself, so I carry a number of weapons and I'm content that most situations in which I might be in danger are managable.
I am not for or against different kinds of governments. I am against people being forced to do things that they don't want to do. If someone wants to pay into socialist healthcare, they should be able to. If someone doesn't want to pay into socialist healthcare, they shouldn't have to.
What I just stated seems to be the main libertarian idea. What is wrong with this idea? It seems immoral to force people to do things.
@urbanrecon Then the whole health care system collapses as people say "i don't need to pay, others are already paying" - unless you just want to let those who didn't die. Here in the US the insured are already paying for the uninsured who use emergency rooms for their source of care. Those bills go unpaid and the loss is made up w/ increasing costs passed on to those w/ the means to pay. Besides that if you aren't forced to live where you do, then it's already voluntary,
@QuartuvLarry straw animals are also disallowed, sorry. Now either make a point or go away. Any more posts that begin with "you might tell me...." will get you kicked out
@QuartuvLarry You are not compelled. You are free to leave whenever you choose. Libertarian demands are all based on concepts that they like to pretend are axioms. Trouble is, they aren't
@billburns2 Uh, YOU say they aren't axioms, but you have no basis with which to say so. After all, our principles apply far better by nature than by some silly notion that we each "owe" the rest of humanity for merely living.
@PenguinJr1994 You are making the same errors highlighted in the video. Just because you believe something to be right doesn't make it so. Your opinions carry no more weight than others.
billburns2 8 hours ago
@mindprism Remind me who is revoking man's right to kill...
billburns2 8 hours ago
@ mindprism.
billburns2 8 hours ago
Regarding human-animal aggression, you have it all wrong, it is not might-makes-right, but natural superiority that dictates this right to dominate. Which is why killing a dog is worse than a mouse which is worse than a mosquito. Its a 'quality of consciousness' issue. You cannot arbitrarily revoke mans right to kill without revoking every predators, or even the herbivorous -- for they too kill microscopic consciousness.
mindprism 23 hours ago
As for redistribution of wealth, you're assuming that the poor people cannot help themselves. Sure there are the disabled and those who become ill through no choice of their own but does government really need to take people's money, don't you believe people will be charitable and give some of their money for that expensive operation or medication? Don't you think charity is better than robbing the rich and giving to the poor? We did have charities for healthcare and living during Victorian time
PenguinJr1994 1 day ago in playlist Uploaded videos
This has been flagged as spam show
(cont) and I value the £1 more than the pen, so really we are both better off, which is why i dont understand how the people get rich when most others get poor. As for the point about the black man and the fountain, is the fountain a public good? i dont really understand is he in a place where there is racial segregation? if he is then i dont understand why he would want to be in a place where he isn't valued, obviously places that do racially segregate are worse off for it, less consumers etc
PenguinJr1994 1 day ago in playlist Uploaded videos
This has been flagged as spam show
I'm responding to you points about Libertarians, Libertarians don't care what you believe in, they believe everyone is equal, your second point about 100 people getting very rich and 1 billion people getting poor, how did those rich people get rich if those poor people got poorer, to get rich in a free market you have to provide a product or service that people want, and in an exchange both believe they are getting richer e.g. if i sold you a pen for £1 it means you value the pen more then a £1
PenguinJr1994 1 day ago in playlist Uploaded videos
Comment removed
PenguinJr1994 1 day ago in playlist Uploaded videos
Comment removed
PenguinJr1994 1 day ago in playlist Uploaded videos
Comment removed
PenguinJr1994 1 day ago in playlist Uploaded videos
Comment removed
PenguinJr1994 1 day ago in playlist Uploaded videos
Your video "Why Libertarianism Is Wrong" is really good and makes a lot of excellent points! I'd give it a thumbs up if I could!
katakisLives 3 days ago
You do get alot of crackpots on here, Yes I believe in libertarianism too, but I've heard and read some of the dumbest comments on here, it seems the Internet is like a cat, it just drags anything in at times.
bosshoggett 3 days ago
hey i just watched your video on libertarians and i just wanted to say... that you have no idea what your talking about and that. being a libertarian is the exact opposite of pushing your beliefs on someone. i am also an atheist and i am a libertarian. dude look up the word liberty please
buewave26 1 week ago
@buewave26
Well most people debate by addressing specific topics rather than just saying "you're wrong".
billburns2 6 days ago
Hit the nail square on the head. I'm the unfortunate child of Libertarians (Confederates, actually, which scares me to no end) and have had it shoved down my throat not only by them but by their scary friends. I'm sharing this video with everybody.
MissVictoryGirl 1 week ago
Completely wrong when you talk about interdependence. Libertarians don't disparage this fact. Obviously, we realize that the contributions of others are not only desirable, but necessary. You're erected a straw man there. We simply do not want such things to be coerced. We want them to be voluntary. I don't want govt or any other agency to force me to pay for another's housing. Nor vice versa. How the house is physically built (and by whom) is irrelevant to this distinction.
swebbie 2 weeks ago
@swebbie
Membership your society is already voluntary. Unless you are being held at gunpoint, then you have made a conscious choice to live where you do. If you choose to live within a particular state, how can you claim that you are being forced?
billburns2 1 week ago
Being responsible for one's own body and what we do with it has nothing to do with living with other people. Smoking, drugs, alcohol, eating junk food, tatooing, etc. is a person's right. It does not harm anyone else. We should be free to do with what we wish. Also, yes a person has a right to own property. If the person pays for it, it is theirs. can own, therefore, we can control. We are higher than animals. we can own animals, therefore, we can control them.
kippyafd 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@kippyafd So far as I know there are no laws to ban smoking, getting tattooed or eating junk food. Although smoking and poor dietary habits but a strain on the health care system - be a public one or a private one, there are no laws seeking to ban those things. Private property is not an immovable object the rest of society must navigate around. Property rights are not absolute as you think they are. According to your argument if I want to build a nuclear reactor in my garage I should be able to
njanovic1980 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@kippyafd And besides all of that you still don't get that property is a human construction, it only exists if others of your society recognize and society agrees to back each other rights. The notion of property rights isn't a "natural right" - if it were natural then every society and culture around the globe would have the same concept of property, but they do not.
njanovic1980 3 weeks ago
@kippyafd
But what happens when these personal "rights" come into conflict with other rules and regulations?
I'd hazard a guess that even in a Libertarian society most employers would prohibit drinking alcohol whilst at work and many landlords would prohibit their tenants from smoking.
If a particular action is dependent on the permission of other people, then how can it be classed as a right?
billburns2 3 weeks ago
While i agree that natural rights technically do not exist, then that means we have no laws too follow, and therefore we have anarchy, and anarchy never lasts
TheCaptainjuicy 3 weeks ago
@TheCaptainjuicy
Laws are based on the values of a particular society, not "natural rights". This is why I am allowed to draw a picture of Mohammed in my own country but doing the same thing in Iran will incur a death sentence.
billburns2 3 weeks ago
It's all about the purest of the pure anarchy. Forget libertarianism and property rights.
tonyfalca 3 weeks ago
In the first 40 seconds what you said was wrong. Yes you can do that, because when you make your society, it is your society and thus you can seperate it if you want from libertarian society that is not hard to understand. Second point is kinda weak and only seems strong in that is arbritary and very general so hard also perfectly defined. You have the right to defend yourself and He has a right to attack you, Lib's may say that cause its nice but both are natural rights as natural abilities
Ryukikon 4 weeks ago
P2
People have the right to disagree with you on what you can and can't do. THey do in fact do that so they are excercising natural rights. This is not difficult, this is why people form gangs(organizations) which is perfectly naturally to have more power over others. This group of people lib's is saying we should have a tool to minimize that natural right and occurrance. Next it comes down to might makes right because they use GOD of that reason as it is the mightest and it says so is so.
Ryukikon 4 weeks ago
P3
animals do own property, their are alot of animals in the animal kingdom. They defend their cave, region, etc, just like humans. Humans just usaully kill them because they have superior tools in the relative department of death and killing. The idea that you own your body, comes from the idea of responsiblity. You have responsiblities to your group as they have aided you and they should be re-paid however you do not have to repay them(wrong). You can do that and they can't get you do it.
Ryukikon 4 weeks ago
@Ryukikon I think the point he was making is that property exist - and I'm of he concept here in our western societies as other societies have differing ideas of property - only because we as a society agree to recognize it and the defend it. As for animals they don't recognize that, if one animal guarding its cave loses a fight with another animal it then becomes that other animals cave. The two of them will not turn to a court of law which determines who really owns the cave.
njanovic1980 3 weeks ago
@njanovic1980
R1
actually, people do not have a dastrically different idea of property, I am limited by this comment limit but if you want to talk about through another medium I will make this quite clear with logic. Also animals do understand property, the animal world is all about property, even children understand property. Also animals losing caves to violence is natural people lose property, most nations that exist are formed that way, that is natural.
Ryukikon 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Ryukikon Yes but we humans recognize that right (at least in our respective countries) and if some guy wonders in and trys to take my home I've got the police to call to enforce my rights & if need be the courts. Animals do not have that. There is no animal police for the animal whose cave was taken to call nor any court of animals to decide who really owns the case. Rights only exist if the others in our society recognize them & there's agreement to back up each other's rights.
njanovic1980 3 weeks ago
@njanovic1980
No, You are confused. WHat you are talking is in principal conventions. Rights are not conventions. Now, the scenario you give already implies conventions and government. I understand that you may attached to see things emotionally, however that is not representative of the natural world. Animals need no police, Animals(broad group) have other animals. Wolves have packs because one wolf might not do it, just like people do. You confuse privileges and natural rights.
Ryukikon 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Ryukikon Property only exists if others acknowledge it. Wolves, be it one wolf or a pack of wolves, fight. The winner gets it. There's no court or legal system of wolves to enforce any property right or to punish the other one for infringing on the rights of the other. Many primates engage in what I would describe as primitive warfare. Yet their has never been a Nuremberg like tribunal held by one group of chimps to adjudicate the actions of another group of chimps.
njanovic1980 3 weeks ago
@njanovic1980
R2
This is why people defend property instinctively and we have violence, to eat to survive is to attack another persons property and take it for your own. Absorbtion(digestion or eating), this is actually very natural. Now many people don't like this because it is uncomfortable because then they have to take more responsiblities but that is true for all systems created around natural principals for them to be successful and functioning.
Ryukikon 3 weeks ago
@njanovic1980
R3
Economics is a subset of Philosophy and we can approach this idea from that angle and quite a few ones but we will lead back to the same principals. THe problem is that the ism's that people view the world through are limiting and extreme, they are unnatural and take positions that are unbalanced. Capitalism and socialism is ridiculous, they are just factors of any economy system. Liberalism and Libertarianism is the same thing and the differences are illusory.
Ryukikon 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Ryukikon Rigid dogmatic adherence to any ideology or philosophy is, I believe, unproductive. I usually concern myself with the realities of the world and what I think may be practical ways of dealing with those realities, rather than idealized versions of how I think the world ought to be or should be. Many people seem to fall into that trap of dogmatic thinking and when reality conflicts with that dogma, well in their mind the dogma must triump.
njanovic1980 3 weeks ago
@njanovic1980
I totally agree.
billburns2 3 weeks ago
@njanovic1980
I am sorry that someone keeps flagging your comments because I miss them that way. Also your last comment I agree with. What I am talking about is not rigid dogma. I am disccussing reality as it appears in the natural world(philosophy and science). Do I think that things should be this way no, however are things this way, logic and observation points to yes. I have been through the congnitive discord that comes with conforting these ideas that cultures can distort.
Ryukikon 3 weeks ago
@njanovic1980
R4
And many people call themselves terms which they are when analyzed they do not truly agree with or follow. It is the similar to how many people can't properly express their emotions and only have about 3 words to describe it throughout the given day when they do studies, hence they use the wrong words to describe their emotions most of the time. This happens in many other areas and most fighting(emotional) are over illusions.
Ryukikon 3 weeks ago
@Ryukikon
You are confusing property with takings.
The concept of property is unique to humans
billburns2 3 weeks ago
@billburns2
1
No, I am not confusing property with taking things. Property is not unique to humans, this is a myth like how humans are better than animals. Whatever makes people feel better and superior to sleep at night but principally it is immoral and a double stand. Anyways you name me a nation that does not exist today in which they did not take the property. Animals do the same thing and they are territorial just like how a nation is(territorial monopoly).
Ryukikon 3 weeks ago
@billburns2
2
It is this line of reasoning that you have that is western and is the justification for many wrong acts in history because when you want to abuse or take land form another group you just have to classify them as not being humans,(animals). This was done against blacks in africa, and Native Americans in America,UK, etc. When wars were and are being fought no one goes to a judge(U.N) that institution is very new in chronological history.
Ryukikon 3 weeks ago
@billburns2 I don't think so. Certain animals understand the concept of property just fine, as in the possession of land.
tonyfalca 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@tonyfalca The point is animals take it away from each other, the strongest animal wins. There's no court of animals or animal police force that will enforce that other animals "property rights". Rights exist because other members of society recognize them and agree to back up each other's rights. Hence the reason the notion of what constitutes rights varies from culture to culture.
njanovic1980 3 weeks ago
I consider Libertarianism to be a direction and not an absolution. I want less government intervention, less wealth redistribution etc. That doesn't mean i want to eliminate it all, i accept some is necessary.
It's things like High Speed 2 that i would like to do away with. If we cut tax and put that 30bn in the pockets of people and companies they can decide for themselves if they want to travel from Brum to London more fancifully or not. Or we could use it to help pay off the deficit.
N330AA 4 weeks ago
@N330AA
you are the one the first people that I have read that Shares a simillar sentiment to me. It is about orientation, however most people think in absolution terms.
Ryukikon 4 weeks ago
@N330AA
I would be the first to agree that many government projects are appallingly ill-conceived and badly executed. Libertarians like to think that nobody else works to fight government waste, or even knows that it exists :)
billburns2 3 weeks ago
@billburns2 Well i don't think that. I have my views, other people have their views and there can be anywhere between 0 and 100% common ground. It's probably only people on the internet who come across that way.
Why do you so strongly dislike Libertarianism anyway? I wasn't aware that there was a strong movement here. There's one party with ~500 members and the leader is a knob-head.
N330AA 3 weeks ago
@billburns2 The fact remains that little income will be offered up to be taxed at high rates. Tax policies cause shifting in ways income is taken. Share of total income taxes paid grew as result of lowering taxes under Bush. SOI tax stats, individuals (IRS) 2001, top 1% paid 33.89%, in 2008, it was 38.02%. If goal is actually to put more money into govt, hands, this works. We could always raise tax rates though, and collect less.
luvcheney1 3 weeks ago
The core of the issue as to whether other species have the same rights is the definition of the word "species." A species is defined by its ability to procreate; piranhas don't kill other piranhas because that would give them a selective disadvantage. The reason humans exist is that for millions of years our ancestors have competed with other species to become what we are. Do gazelle have a right not to be eaten by lions? I don't find the Nazis' arguments very compelling because
S00perspud 1 month ago
@S00perspud Jews and Blacks are still humans. It is in our interest as a species to protect other members of our species from violence, to improve our chance of survival in the cosmos.
S00perspud 1 month ago
@S00perspud
"A species is defined by its ability to procreate"
er...no it isn't. Description and definition are different things.
"I don't find the Nazis' arguments very compelling"
Nor do I. Luckily we live in societies that support our views on this. However if we had the misfortune to be born Jewish in 1930s Germany our opinions wouldn't count for much and claiming "natural rights" would mean nothing.
This is exactly the point I am trying to make.
billburns2 1 month ago
@billburns2 Your argument appears hypocritical: why do you espouse 'might is right' as a framework for society yet, I presume, doubt the synonymous libertarian maxim of 'survival of the fittest'?
Bluekuebiko 1 month ago
@Bluekuebiko Your belief that violence is universally pervasive sounds like a socialist's wishful thinking which conveniently excuses the systemic violence of statism. I trust even socialists appreciate the dividing line between violent crime and self-defence for to say otherwise would be to suppose Gandhi not pacifistic given that he allowed for self-defence.
Bluekuebiko 1 month ago
@billburns2 I was just saying I don't think it is necessary to give other species equal moral value to humans, because it would create a conflict of interest. What if there were a species of animal whose diet consisted of human flesh? We would want to defend ourselves from it. On the other hand, I believe all life has a certain value, and that some rights may be reasonably given to animals, but being human, I value the needs of humans above those of other species.
S00perspud 1 month ago
@S00perspud The jews, however, are human and therefore should be of equal value to me as all other humans.
S00perspud 1 month ago
@S00perspud The Libertarian philosophy was originally intended to apply to humans, but there is nothing that prevents a Libertarian from applying it in other ways
S00perspud 1 month ago
@S00perspud
But that's simply your own personal opinion. Claiming it as a "natural right" is something else entirely.
billburns2 1 month ago
@billburns2 "Natural rights" seems kind of a deceptive term, stemming from a long line of ancient philosophers, which seems to imply that our mere existence gives us rights. On the other hand, I believe our morals, and thus, the rights we observe, are deeply entrenched in our nature as it has adapted to itself, and to the rest of our environment.
S00perspud 1 month ago
@S00perspud
Right, but morality is subjective.
Your morals may not tally with my morals. Neither of us can claim that our morality is simply "right" or that the other's is simply "wrong"
billburns2 4 weeks ago
@billburns2 True.
S00perspud 4 weeks ago
@S00perspud
The Terms Natural Rights is an acceptable term from philosophy and has nothing to do with morality. Morality can be applied to it as people often do and distort it. Natural Rights exist however how they operate is often not ideal and many people hold misconceptions. I have the right to take your car and you have the right to defend it. What is in my abilities I have a right to do. This may not be opitmally desired, death is not desired for many but it is a product of the natural W
Ryukikon 3 weeks ago
@billburns2 spe·cies [spee-sheez, -seez] Show IPA noun, plural -cies, adjective
noun
1.
a class of individuals having some common characteristics or qualities; distinct sort or kind.
2.
Biology . the major subdivision of a genus or subgenus, regarded as the basic category of biological classification, composed of related individuals that resemble one another, are able to breed among themselves, but are not able to breed with members of another species.
S00perspud 1 month ago
Comment removed
S00perspud 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@billburns2 I agree that there is nothing about the higher order of the universe or any great rule book in the sky that gives us "natural rights" but humanly speaking, I feel that we should have certain rights, simply because observing such rights has beneficial consequences to all of us, and because it is a good standard by which to resolve our dissonances with each other and with all of nature.
S00perspud 1 month ago
I see the libertarian philosophy as a way of limiting government.
swanmix10 1 month ago
@swanmix10
Limiting government waste is one thing, but simply limiting government in itself is not a valid goal. It has to be the means to an end.
Libertarians want us to believe that government is the root of all evil, unfortunately it's a theory that they have yet to prove. Their smug defence against all criticism of pure free markets (being that there has never been a pure free market) cuts both ways - there has never been a real world example of a stateless society.
billburns2 1 month ago
@billburns2 I never mentioned a stateless society, nor did I mention a purely free market economy, neither of which exist in reality, but only in the realm of ideals. I guess I agree with you on that part. I do not believe that the government is the root of all evil, saying that shows pure ignorance and misunderstanding of the point of government, which is to create a foundation of laws that provide security for society to build of off, more or less.
swanmix10 1 month ago
@swanmix10 Mentioned at the top are the things I agree with you on. Where I disagree is to the extent that many believe that government is efficient and reliable. Yes it is important to limit government waste, but the best way to do that is to not pass more laws and make things needlessly complex put to limit governments reach. Yes government regulation should exist, but where I disagree is the extents of that regulation.
swanmix10 1 month ago
There most be some 'libertarian' ideas you like ?
aac74 1 month ago
@aac74
Sure. There are many areas where we agree. Libertarians like to think that they invented outrage over government waste and mismanagement but these concerns are common across almost every part of the political spectrum.
billburns2 1 month ago
Can you at least show geo-libertarians some love ?
aac74 1 month ago
@billburns2 Families are an interesting example.. are families mini-societies? What is a society if not a social order amongst some people. Families usually aren't considered examples of libertarian societies because of how property is used and shared. Yet they aren't prohibited in a libertarian society. Nor are any other organizations of men. I think some of your definitions are off or you're reading some stuff outside of mainstream libertarian thought (as far as I know).
luftwaffle 1 month ago
@billburns2 If you want to create a society with a different definition of property rights inside of a libertarian society, it is true that you would need to buy the (or whatever property you want). But once you've made that sacrifice, that's it. As far as I know, every piece of land belongs to someone so you couldn't escape this fact in any existing society. If you claimed land that didn't belong to anyone, how would libertarians bother you?
luftwaffle 1 month ago
@luftwaffle
Why should I have to buy something if I don't agree that the seller has authority of ownership?
That's like me saying to you "well. I own the color blue, but I can sell that color to you for a fee. Once you've made that sacrifice, you can do whatever you want with that color within your own property. Agreeable?"
billburns2 1 month ago
@stealspell Once again you are starting with a presumption that there is such a thing as a natural right. There isn't. Basing a train of logic on a false axiom is a non starter. In short, until YOU can prove your starting point there is nothing to elaborate on
billburns2 1 month ago
@billburns2 "Once again you are starting with a presumption that there is such a thing as a natural right." But there is the definition of a natural right, which is why I asked, do you believe that by definition a natural right can be made into law, IF such a natural right were to exist? I ask this because I think you have a misunderstanding of the definition of a natural right. Moreover, I can't "prove" something to you if you don't understand its definition first.
stealspell 1 month ago
@stealspell
"But there is the definition of a natural right"
Defining something presupposes that it exists in the first place.
The onus of proof is on the one presenting the theory, not the other way around.
I admire your tenacity but I'm becoming a bit bored of this thread now. I'll agree to disagree.
billburns2 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@billburns2 "Defining something presupposes that it exists in the first place." So if I define a unicorn as a white horse with a long horn growing from its forehead, then I'm presupposing it exists? I'm not sure what you're doing at this point, because it's not making a whole lot of sense. "It's not just a case of someone saying "oh, that's a natural right so we don't need to apply democratic process to make it a law" What does this sentence mean then?Are you presupposing natural rights exist?
stealspell 1 month ago
@billburns2 Secondly, you've completely buried yourself with your own logic by stating, "defining something presupposes that it exists". How have you tried to dispel natural rights in this video if you do not understand what they mean? Or if you understand what they mean, then you can't dispel them because according to your logic, they exist. Something's gotta give. I'll let you make the call.
stealspell 1 month ago
@billburns2 "There isn't." I think you just shifted the burden of proof on yourself.
stealspell 1 month ago
The right to property is "natural" only in the sense that it is self-evident to us that resources are limited. It is not biology natural, which is what you seem to be trying to argue. They are natural by virtue of being self-evident.
stealspell 2 months ago in playlist Uploaded videos
"The right to live free from violence is not a natural right." The right to life is a natural right via the Constitution. And natural rights are accepted to be self evident, I take it you being possibly the only one that disagrees with you know, the rest of society. I don't get how you get from animals kill stuff, therefore the right to life is not natural. Some are herbivores. Killing a tomato is quite a stretch too. And there are vegetarian cultures, so your objection doesn't hold much water.
stealspell 2 months ago in playlist Uploaded videos
@stealspell
Simply claiming that something is self evident don't make it so.
Yes, resources are limited. How does it follow that the Libertarian definition of property is therefore "self evident"? Your logic seems a bit faulty here.
billburns2 2 months ago
@billburns2 "Simply claiming that something is self evident don't make it so." Now wait a minute. I don't understand your contention. I'm not claiming something to be self evident. The Constitution is claiming natural rights to be self evident. And I take most people would so as well. It is not universally the case, if that's what you mean. Let me perhaps ask you this: do you think it is not self-evident that you deserve to live or to be happy?
stealspell 2 months ago
@stealspell
I'm not American. I don't care what your constitution says.
No, it's not self evident that a person deserves to live. I feel that murderers should not deserve to live - just my opinion, but it's an example of something that isn't self-evident, but based on provisos.
billburns2 1 month ago
@billburns2 I'm not exactly getting the angle you're viewing this from so bare with me a bit. Of course when one infringes on the rights of another, i.e., their right to life, they surrender their right to life in the process. I don't see what is inconsistent with that.
stealspell 1 month ago
@stealspell
"when one infringes on the rights of another, i.e., their right to life, they surrender their right to life in the process"
Says who? Not the murderer, that's for sure. Once again, you have the idea of a "right" which is purely dependent on how the majority of a particular society choose to interpret it. Go to a different society or a different era of history and the "right" may be interpreted differently. Nothing "natural" about it I'm afraid.
billburns2 1 month ago
@billburns2 Well now you're trying the terms of the discussion by inducing terms like "murder" which presupposes the notion of law, which we have yet to introduce. So your objection doesn't work I'm afraid.
stealspell 1 month ago in playlist Uploaded videos
@stealspell
So for the sake of argument, let's take law out of it.
again: Who says that infringing on the right of another forfeits a person's right to life? Where does that proviso come from?
billburns2 1 month ago
@billburns2 "Who says that infringing on the right of another forfeits a person's right to life?" Well the very notion of "infringement" would have to be decided by law. And the reason I used the word, as you will notice, was because you wrote "No, it's not self evident that a person deserves to live. I feel that murderers should not deserve to live", i.e., my response was contingent on that. If your question is, who decides they are inalienable, all I can say is that its self-evident they are.
stealspell 1 month ago in playlist Uploaded videos
@stealspell
So a right cannot be infringed unless it exists within a legal framework??
You keep citing things as being self evident with the argument that it's self evident. That's circular reasoning AKA assuming what you're trying to prove.
Not very convincing I'm afraid...
billburns2 1 month ago
@billburns2 "So a right cannot be infringed unless it exists within a legal framework??" Yes, because whether I infringed on your right or not is debatable; that's why we have plaintiffs and defendants.
stealspell 1 month ago
@stealspell
So according to you the whole idea of rights and their infringements are dependent on the opinions of others...correct?
How is that natural rather than subjective?
billburns2 1 month ago
@billburns2 "So according to you the whole idea of rights and their infringements are dependent on the opinions of others...correct?" I think the word rights can throw people off. Natural rights are deemed "rights" by people to be in accordance with legal purposes, but are also natural to human beings which is not deemed by people. I think we should just continue the discussion in a private message because I don't like writing 500 characters.
stealspell 1 month ago
@stealspell
"but are also natural to human beings which is not deemed by people"
it's this aspect that you have yet to prove. So far your argument boils down to "they are because they are" - circular reasoning.
billburns2 1 month ago
@billburns2 "You keep citing things as being self evident with the argument that it's self evident. That's circular reasoning" You're right that it appears circular just like it would appear to be circular if I were to give an argument that all unmarried men were bachelors. Natural rights are self-evident by definition.
stealspell 1 month ago
@stealspell
Some unmarried men may be divorcees, some may be widowers. It's a bad example and you sem to be confused as to what circular reasoning is.
"Natural rights are self-evident by definition."
but if you're only definition is that they are "natural rights", then that's circular reasoning.
Is this really all you have or is there more?
billburns2 1 month ago
@billburns2 "Some unmarried men may be divorcees, some may be widowers." Yeah, you're right lol I meant, All bachelors are unmarried men. Typing and thinking can do that.
"but if you're only definition is that they are "natural rights", then that's circular reasoning." No, actually it wouldn't be because definitions aren't circular reasoning; they aren't arguments. They explain the meaning of something, not argue for it.
stealspell 1 month ago
@stealspell
You're talking about axioms.
To state that a bachelor is an unmarried man is axiomatic
To state that a personal preference is a natural right is not axiomatic - it needs further proof for it to be valid.
billburns2 1 month ago
@billburns2 "To state that a personal preference is a natural right is not axiomatic - it needs further proof for it to be valid." I can only justify what is meant by natural right until you understand that it is self-evident. Otherwise by "proving" it would be circular as you said. I desire to live. Do you desire to live?
stealspell 1 month ago
@stealspell
Repetition without proof isn't an argument. Faith isn't proof. Personal opinion isn't justification.
"Do you desire to live?"
Of course I do. I also desire all manner of other things - doesn't mean I have a right to them though.
billburns2 1 month ago
@billburns2 "Repetition without proof isn't an argument. Faith isn't proof. Personal opinion isn't justification." "Of course I do." Hold these thoughts. You make a unique point.
stealspell 1 month ago
@billburns2 Let me try a reverse angle and perhaps show you what I mean, so you can better understand where I'm coming from. What justifies your right to life? Or do you believe you don't have a right to life? If so, why is murder wrong or illegal? These are the real tough questions.
stealspell 1 month ago in playlist Uploaded videos
@stealspell
"What justifies your right to life?"
Who says I or anyone else has a right to life?
"why is murder wrong or illegal?"
Because the rules of a particular society deem it to be so (or not). It's a subjective standpoint, not a "natural right"
billburns2 1 month ago
@billburns2 "Because the rules of a particular society deem it to be so (or not)." Could you be a little more specific with what you mean by "deem"? How exactly does society "deem" murder to be wrong and illegal?
stealspell 1 month ago
@stealspell
What specifics are you looking for?
If the laws, rules, morals or mores of a particular society define murder to be wrong, then it's wrong. If you choose to remain in that society then you must accept that definition or go somewhere else.
billburns2 1 month ago
@billburns2 OK so you didn't answer my question. How would you say society deems murder to be wrong or illegal?
stealspell 1 month ago
@stealspell
"How would you say society deems murder to be wrong or illegal?"
I thought I did answer it. Popular consensus is how a society deems murder to be wrong. That pesky ol' democracy again.
billburns2 1 month ago
@billburns2 "Popular consensus is how a society deems murder to be wrong." So a bunch of people sat down and said, "OK, who votes murder is wrong?"
stealspell 1 month ago
@stealspell
"So a bunch of people sat down and said, "OK, who votes murder is wrong?"
Yes. That's how societies work.
billburns2 1 month ago
@billburns2 "Yes. That's how societies work." So when did human make this decision?
stealspell 1 month ago
@stealspell
In my country the democratic laws that represent society's standpoint on murder are contained within the Criminal Justice Act of 2003. Clearly murder was considered wrong before this, but obsolete laws don't apply (this is why I don't have to worry about being burned at the stake for heresy - an act that was considered wrong in the 17th C,) so the answer to your question is 2003
billburns2 1 month ago
@billburns2 And why was murder declared illegal by the Criminal Justice Act of 2003?
stealspell 1 month ago
@stealspell
Because, as with all laws, they reflect the values of a particular society at a particular time.
billburns2 1 month ago
@billburns2 Are values not personal opinion?
stealspell 1 month ago
@stealspell
Yes, but for for a value to become more than just a personal opinion, for it to become a law that all must adhere to requires general consensus through democratic process. It requires people to sit down and vote on whether or not something is "wrong" or not. It's not just a case of someone saying "oh, that's a natural right so we don't need to apply democratic process to make it a law"
billburns2 1 month ago
@billburns2 "It's not just a case of someone saying "oh, that's a natural right so we don't need to apply democratic process to make it a law" So you believe a natural right is a law?
stealspell 1 month ago
@stealspell
Huh??
I thought I explained this already: EVERY social value must be subject to popular consideration and discussion if it's to be made a law or deemed to be a right. No exceptions. Once again - there are no such things as natural rights.
billburns2 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@billburns2 Okay, let me rephrase the question. Based on what you said, and I'm having trouble understanding it, "It's not just a case of someone saying "oh, that's a natural right so we don't need to apply democratic process to make it a law", do you think, and correct me if I'm wrong, a natural right, by definition, can be made into a law? Otherwise, please elaborate on that sentence I quoted.
stealspell 1 month ago
@billburns2 I think life and property are very much connected and I cannot seem to separate them. Let's stick with the basics. If I want to live, I will need a roof over my head to protect myself from danger, and I will need food and water. Therefore it seems logical to me that if I have a 'natural right' to life, then I would have one of property too.
stealspell 2 months ago
@stealspell
"I think life and property are very much connected and I cannot seem to separate them"
Sure, because you have grown up in a western society with western values. Other cultures think differently. To some of them, collectivization is self-evident.
billburns2 1 month ago
@billburns2 Well the way I see it collectivization is just a different means to achieve the same end, that is, it is a different way for the individual to attain resources. Sure, the western view is that they are somehow "private" to the individual, but my argument was contingent on the premise that particular resources are necessary for my right to life. Therefore I have a right to those resources if I have that right to life.
stealspell 1 month ago
@stealspell
If you want to argue that people should have the "right" to resources that are necessary to life, then collectivization must be the preferred option, not private property. By your definition a starving man has more right to the food in a grocery than the store owner. After all, his need is greater.
billburns2 1 month ago
@billburns2 Again you're inducing a sense of entitlement *not* rights. You argue a starving man has *greater needs*. But once again, we have yet to introduce legal concepts of entitlements or any social law and order. We're talking strictly talking about the groundwork that paves the way for legal concepts.
stealspell 1 month ago in playlist Uploaded videos
@stealspell
But you just said that:
"particular resources are necessary for my right to life. Therefore I have a right to those resources if I have that right to life."
how does your idea of resource allocation based on need equate to the Libertarian notion of the right to private property, even on a moral basis?
billburns2 1 month ago
@billburns2 "how does your idea of resource allocation based on need equate to the Libertarian notion of the right to private property, even on a moral basis?" You just completely missed the point I made. So I won't bother trying to answer your question. We'll come back to this later once you get what I'm saying.
stealspell 1 month ago in playlist Uploaded videos
@stealspell
"You just completely missed the point I made"
I'm simply citing what you wrote. Are you saying you made a mistake? That you DON'T have a "right" to resources or that you DON'T have a right to life?
Which is it?
billburns2 1 month ago
@ regresseur Depends on whether you consider yourself to have Sovereign rights over your body. The Libby kneejerk answer is YES, but it becomes more complicated if you rely on UHC or insurance based healthcare for ailments that you have contributed to by choosing to live an unhealthy lifestyle.
billburns2 2 months ago
Is your body your property?
regresseur 2 months ago in playlist Uploaded videos
What would be an example you'd use as a different definition / concept of property rights than that of libertarians?
regresseur 2 months ago in playlist Uploaded videos
@csofan52 Yes. Next question...
billburns2 2 months ago
Having a suicide/escape clause, claiming that the will of majority is automatically enforceable because 'you can always just leave' is unsettling. What if the city you live in 'democratically' voted to seize and redistribute your property among the citizens? Would the "you had the right to move away" defense hold?
csofan52 2 months ago
@wizwom Not so simple. Who gave your neighbors authority to tell someone what they can or can't do on their own property?
billburns2 2 months ago
If a "natural right" is some privilege which is natural to assume, then it is, by definition, culturally dependent.
wizwom 2 months ago
My question for Lie-bertarians is what if my job was to make high powered explosives and I worked out of my house . . . and there happens to be 300 other houses literally next to mine. What would you do? If you told me to stop building such, wouldn't that violate my right to my work?
PropheciesofWar 2 months ago
@PropheciesofWar Simple: your neighbors would take you to court to enforce their safely. because the risk of blowing them up is trampling on their property right.
wizwom 2 months ago
@wizwom But wouldn't they be trampling on my property rights? I mean I didn't do anything wrong. I mean getting the government to stop me from what I am doing, doesn't that entail the use of force?
PropheciesofWar 2 months ago
@PropheciesofWar You're threatening your neighbors. Damaging their properties' value too. A big wall would probably be unacceptable too. They'll likely do something about it. This can be solved by things like deed restrictions, courts or just a discussion, ostracism and the neighbors teaming up to remove the threat. It's all about what people find acceptable. In a stateless society, maybe you'll see more voluntary segregation by people of similar mindset.
fleskebille 2 months ago
@fleskebille But deed restrictions require that the courts, police, government, et al to enforce or use their governmental intervention to impede on my property rights. Which again as I said elsewhere I have done nothing wrong. If you don't like my occupation, then move to another town. Also, where's the threat at? Furthermoe, people banding together is collusion (eg. collectivism), that goes against Lie-bertarian. Which is a mortal sin.
PropheciesofWar 2 months ago
@PoW 1. I think the NAP is a good guiding principle. If the bomb maker buys property that has not previously been used for such risky things, and begins building bombs without having the approval of owners whose property is at risk of being destroyed (assuming there's a real chance) I consider that aggression (a threat), really. The NAP covers threats. If the bomb maker lived there first, as in there were no adjacent properties that were in danger at the time, i think he has a better case.
fleskebille 2 months ago
@PoW 2. I don’t assume there is anything in a free society, just speculating. Guessing you’ll get simple laws based on norms (common law). Many people have come up with ideas for free market arbitration. Actually, voluntarily creating a socialistic community is fine by most anti statists and voluntaryists/ancaps I think.
fleskebille 2 months ago
@fleskebille
Do you agree with the concept of private property or not?
If so, do you agree that people can do what they want on their own property?
All your "solutions" pre-suppose that things like deed restrictions or DROs are already in place. If not, then coercing someone to abide by rules that they don't agree with surely violates the NAP.
billburns2 2 months ago
@billburns2 see my responses to PropheciesofWar
fleskebille 2 months ago
@wizwom A few years ago there was a teen in Michigan who decided he wanted to build a nuclear reactor (google 'radioactive boyscout' for news articles). He constructed this little reactor in a tool shed unknown to his parents, came close to causing a major contamination disaster in that neighborhood, had the authorities not become aware of it when they did. As it was the shed had to be taken apart & sent to a nuclear waste storage facility. Was the gov wrong to step in there?
xexixk 2 months ago
@xexixk The simple answer is that if the boy's actions could harm their neighbors, their neighbors have actionable cause.
But a nuclear reactor from material commonly available is so low powered as to be safe to anyone over a few feet away from it. Since his actions were only a risk to himself, there was no need to stop him.
BTW, I'm a Nuclear Engineering student, I'm not just talking shit.
wizwom 1 week ago
@wizwom
I suggest you look into the details of what David Hahn actually made before passing judgement on it.
Libertarianism simply has no defence for this kind of thing. This naive ideology always favours the pound of cure over the ounce of prevention.
billburns2 1 week ago
@billburns2 Actually I already KNEW he had tried using Americium. As for the "likely dangerous levels of radioactivity," its honestly BULLSHIT. Hahn wasn't a moron, he was using a lead container, which would have stopped 75% of the gamma AT LEAST. And the attenuation from the air would have stopped the rest. Perhaps some trivial amounts of radon or radioactive Xenon were being released, but i doubt even that - a simple tin cover would have kept those down.
wizwom 1 week ago
@wizwom David Hahn didn't give up his unhealthy obession with nuclear projects. He was again arrested for some dabbling in some such things and trying to obtain materials. Last I read some time ago he appeared to have been suffering from effects of radiation poisoning. In any case I don't really want my neighbors dabbling with nuclear projects out in their garage.
njanovic1980 6 days ago
I will PM you an experimental essay I wrote on this, and also a "theory" I have on how we can protect common ownership of the land within a "private property" society.
FearedBliss 2 months ago in playlist Uploaded videos
Excellent video again. I actually realize this when I read a part of John Locke's Second Treatise of Civil Government. There he speaks that land cannot be owned and is in common to all. He basically said that if God gave the land to humans, he gave it to us in common. He didn't say "Oh Adam, here take all this land and manage it yourself for others", but rather he gave it to all so that we can all manage it. Therefore Private Property is for convenience not a right.
FearedBliss 2 months ago in playlist Uploaded videos
I don't know about a right to be free from violence, but I do know of a right to defend oneself, of which it is up to the person or creature involved as to which route they may take in attempting to secure their defense. For example, I choose not to delegate my right to protect myself, so I carry a number of weapons and I'm content that most situations in which I might be in danger are managable.
RossWalline 2 months ago
Very impressive video, you've made very good observations of libertarian logic, and reality.
MechanicV8 2 months ago
Debate me you prize prick. I am an anarchist.
KevHughes21 2 months ago
@KevHughes21
good for you. BTW you're blocked. Have a nice day Mr Angry :)
(other rants deleted, didn't even read them)
billburns2 2 months ago
I am not for or against different kinds of governments. I am against people being forced to do things that they don't want to do. If someone wants to pay into socialist healthcare, they should be able to. If someone doesn't want to pay into socialist healthcare, they shouldn't have to.
What I just stated seems to be the main libertarian idea. What is wrong with this idea? It seems immoral to force people to do things.
urbanrecon 2 months ago
@urbanrecon Then the whole health care system collapses as people say "i don't need to pay, others are already paying" - unless you just want to let those who didn't die. Here in the US the insured are already paying for the uninsured who use emergency rooms for their source of care. Those bills go unpaid and the loss is made up w/ increasing costs passed on to those w/ the means to pay. Besides that if you aren't forced to live where you do, then it's already voluntary,
xexixk 2 months ago
@QuartuvLarry straw animals are also disallowed, sorry. Now either make a point or go away. Any more posts that begin with "you might tell me...." will get you kicked out
billburns2 2 months ago
@QuartuvLarry
billburns2 2 months ago
@QuartuvLarry You are not compelled. You are free to leave whenever you choose. Libertarian demands are all based on concepts that they like to pretend are axioms. Trouble is, they aren't
billburns2 2 months ago
@billburns2 Uh, YOU say they aren't axioms, but you have no basis with which to say so. After all, our principles apply far better by nature than by some silly notion that we each "owe" the rest of humanity for merely living.
QuartuvLarry 2 months ago