Capitol Hill Blue Forums Political Issues Politics In General libertarians = right wing anarchists

I didn't read that anywhere in your post.

You have declared that Issodhos' dreams could never lead to useful action. Should we all just run our dreams past you to make sure we aren't wasting our time? My point is that one mans dream can have infinite value and that to dream is perhaps the most important thing we can do.
Issodhos is a clever wordsmith, right now he is grinning like a coondog sh!ttin' peach seeds.

Goodness, Schlack! When you stop, unasked, to help another, that is your inner angel. When you meet a person who is in bad straits because of his past conduct and will probably continue to hold to that conduct, yet you give him a helping hand anyway -- that is your inner angel. When you forgive someone for what they have done to you, it is your inner angel tugging at your heart. Even tougher, when you recognize the harm you have done others, that is your inner angel trying to lead you to a place of solace. When you are in complete disagreement with another on most all things, yet you go to her aid when needed, that is also your inner angel.

The paths of your inner angel are seventy times seven, Schlack -- and they are all "true".;-)
Yours,
Issodhos

Sorry, Schlack. I just realized that I missed your second question concerning a libertarian society. First, pure is not a part of the equation and only serves to irretrievably distort the discussion. As I have mentioned previously, I think human beings in general are often guided by fuzzy rationalization, moral and ethical sloppiness, and just everyday human foiables. Pureness does not enter into the human equation.

So, in a libertarian-oriented society there would still be laws. In such a society it would be recognized that the purpose for establishing governments is to secure and to protect the natural rights of the individual. This does not mean that the laws would reflect all the same laws that are in effect today, because the basic premise within a libertarian society is neither the state nor the individual can aggress against another except to defend against a physical attack.

The second premise is that the exercising of a natural right by one individual cannot infringe upon the natural rights of another (exempli gratia: I have a natural right to make a living, but I do not have the right to use your property to do so).

There is also plenty of room withing libertarian thought for limited government beyond the securing and protection of rights and sovereignty. To get a better handle on libertarianism you must understand that it is about the political freedom of the individual and his relationship to the state (i.e. is the individual the property of the state to do with him as it desires, or is the state the established protector of and subordinate to the natural rights of the individual).

As to your other concern, just because we all have a bit of the fascist in us it does not mean that we will all go "goose-stepping" about at the drop of a hat - but it does mean that we should be vigilant as to what may be motivating us when we seek to use force to inflict our will upon others.;-)
Yours,
Issodhos

Laws implies lawmakers. Would the Constitution not be sufficient?

Secure and protect? Implies a police force of some sort. Wouldn't that amount to coercive force of the State? To benefit one individual from another individual? Who appoints the impartial judge? Who picks the appointer of the impartial judge?

The basic premise within a libertarian society is neither the state nor the individual can aggress against another except to defend against a physical attack? So if there is no physical attack there is no actionable offense? If I pollute the water on my property and it flows downstream to yours and kills your animals, what happens then?

Unfortunately, the Republican form of government and the Constitution were long ago corrupted into arbitrary meaninglessness, serving whichever mob is in power at any given time. In other words, the founders were way over-optimistic in thinking it did not need more stringent safeguards to protect it from subversion -- or perhaps they realized that only a citizenry sufficiently protective of liberty could safeguard it. Our bad.;-)

Enforcement of the law against one who has violated another individual's rights would not be coercive. You may be under the impression that libertarianism is the equivilent of libertine action. It is not.

If you allow pollution on your property to flow onto another's property, you have negatively impacted his property. In doing so you have violated his property rights, including his right to the peaceful enjoyment of that property, by using his property without his consent. His recourse would be to demand that you cease polluting his property and compensate him for his loss.
Yours,
Issodhos

Yes but we all know how that works.... the polluting property owner simply asserts that the pollution was benign, damage cannot be proved, and damage cannot be proven to be a direct result to the "pollution," and after all it is not really pollution as much as a refletion of natural changes in he enviroment that take place all of the time, and that the scientists in this issue are paid shills who will find pollution and damage everywhere because it puts money in their pocket, etc etc etc....

I thought the bar was 'physical attack'....

Now the State can tell me what I can and cannot do with my private property? Seems inconsistent.
Also, to prove I am a polluter, the State would have to come onto my property, a permission I do not wish to grant. I admit to no violation of the natural law and insist upon my natural right to pursue whatever activity I wish with my personal property. The water on my land is mine, not the propery of my neighbor until and if it gets there. It most certainly does not belong to the State. The state exists only to protect me from 'physical attack'.

I repeat my questions: If there is a difference of opinion on this matter, who is the impartial judge? Who appoints the impartial judge? Who picks the appointer of the impartial judge?

thanks for your belated answer

before i can understand what you said, i must understand what you mean by "natural" rights.

i think any rights are natural - all have been fought for an won in some form or other.

nothing natural about them, nor are rights constant over time.

if youre going to use a word as definate and discussion defining as "natural rights", it would have to be an agreed definition, no?

the only natural rights i see are the ones that flow from our very existence.

every human being has an equal right to exist, to live.

it naturally follows that humans cant survive without water, food and shelter .

to prevent infringement of those most basic of natural rights, each individual is obligated to assist our fellow humans.

if we do not assist, many cannot have their natural rights.

Schlack, the right is not to food, water, shelter. The right is to freely pursue happiness. If that means pursuing food, water, clothing, shelter, guns, ammo, SUV's wide screen TV's and a bass boat - fine. Pursue them freely, but do not expect me and the rest of your neighbors to provide them to you just because you think you'd like them provided to you without any effort on your part.

you cannot do any of these things without water to drink.

or at least not very long.

Damn i forgot Breathable air, another "natural right" that we cant live without.

like a man locked in an airtight safe with all his property.