AuthorTopic: Ron Paul on the American Empire  (Read 14637 times)

Offline Petty Tyrant

  • Cannot be Saved
  • Sous Chef
  • *
  • Posts: 4573
    • View Profile
Re: Ron Paul on the American Empire
« Reply #45 on: March 18, 2015, 08:28:50 AM »
jim quinn et al says democrat governors lead to these somali conditions in detroit and all the most decayed and dangerous armed african run counties. i also cant help notice that every country you cite as a libertarian hellhole has had cia incited mayhem. a libertarian govt would not have meddled in those places to create those conditions paid for with the taxes they also would not have taken so much of. 
What happens to libertarian paradises in real life?

http://www.vice.com/read/atlas-mugged-922-v21n10
http://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/honduras-sold-libertarian-paradise-i-went-and-discovered-capitalist-nightmare
http://www.businessinsider.com/bitcoin-libertarian-paradise-would-be-hell-on-earth-2013-12
http://www.thewire.com/national/2013/08/guide-americas-separatist-communities/68921/

... and the queen of libertairian paradises:
http://www.somaliaonline.com/community/topic/somalia-libertarian-paradise/

Quote
Free from the Nanny-State, un-mined highways, laws, police, paramedics, telephones, museums, schools, clean water, libraries, hospitals, sanitation, old-age and most of all, free from taxes! Bon voyage!

Enjoy. My work here is done.

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/v/7QDv4sYwjO0" target="_blank" class="new_win">http://www.youtube.com/v/7QDv4sYwjO0</a>
« Last Edit: March 18, 2015, 08:32:09 AM by Uncle Bob »
ELEVATE YOUR GAME

Offline MKing

  • Contrarian
  • Sous Chef
  • *
  • Posts: 3354
    • View Profile
Re: Ron Paul on the American Empire
« Reply #46 on: March 18, 2015, 08:49:35 AM »
Government Spends More on Corporate Welfare Subsidies than Social Welfare Programs[/size][/color][/url]
About $59 billion is spent on traditional social welfare programs. $92 billion is spent on corporate subsidies. So, the government spent 50% more on corporate welfare than it did on food stamps and housing assistance in 2006.

What is what you get when the inmates run the asylum and write the laws.

Depends on whether or not your personhood is that of a corporation, or individual. If the system is designed and funded by corporations, as most of us believe it is, then the system is operating in its best interests, and it has nothing to do with who is crazy…those making a profit that can be used to sustain certainly your lifestyle as well as mine, but that of tens of millions of others. Because without that profit, we would all be…those of us who were left anyway…doing the normal "individual" things we did prior to the industrial revolution coming along.

And for some reason, no one seems to idealize that lifestyle, hell, you can't even get folks to admit that THIS is really what they claim to want, while avoiding it like the plague.



Quote from: Surly1

Quote
"Of course the people don't want war. But after all, it's the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it's always a simple matter to drag the people along whether it's a democracy, a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism, and exposing the country to greater danger."
-- Herman Goering at the Nuremberg trials

Sure sounds like he is just rearranging standard religious doctrine into a political context, doesn't it?
Sometimes one creates a dynamic impression by saying something, and sometimes one creates as significant an impression by remaining silent.
-Dalai Lama

Offline agelbert

  • Global Moderator
  • Master Chef
  • *****
  • Posts: 11820
    • View Profile
    • Renewable Rervolution
Re: Ron Paul on the American Empire
« Reply #47 on: March 18, 2015, 12:32:41 PM »
  Surly is RIGHT! 

GO, it's time you faced the fact that being a Romantic is not being realistic.

RE, those feedback loops, regardless of the size of the population, are undermined and manipulated to destroy accountability and the democratic process if the population is not ethics based.

The Dunbar number concept ignores the, too common, horrendous conditions inside a dysfunctional family, a group of Homo SAPS much fewer in number than the tribe size.

Your view that peer pressure keeps everyone in line when the numbers are "manageable" (i.e. proper feedback loops) REQUIRES the sine qua non condition of ethical behavior.

Granted the smaller the group, the easier it is to enforce ethical behavior with fines or imprisonment. BUT WTF do you have when EVERYBODY, regardless of the size of the group, has an "apex predator" world view that defines "successful" behavior as DOING WHATEVER YOU CAN GET AWAY WITH DOING to get yours? You have a "Libertarian Paradise". Surly nailed it.  :emthup:

So did I.  ;D The Dunbar ideal will not work without an ethical word view. The numbers are not the indispensable condition for a just and viable society; Ethical behavior is. There is NO WAY you can legislate ethical behavior. People either have it or they become destructive and greedy. Homo SAPdom is pretty much there. :emthdown: 

UB and Ka,
Ethics is IT in ANY form of government! Ethical behavior is NOT relative to your power, position and ability, as too many Libertarians CONVENIENTLY claim. :emthdown: Everything else is buck passing.
« Last Edit: March 18, 2015, 12:41:09 PM by agelbert »
Leges         Sine    Moribus      Vanae   
Faith,
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.

Offline agelbert

  • Global Moderator
  • Master Chef
  • *****
  • Posts: 11820
    • View Profile
    • Renewable Rervolution
Re: Ron Paul on the American Empire
« Reply #48 on: March 18, 2015, 12:48:05 PM »
UB,
Jim Quinn et al doesn't know his bigoted, greedy, doubletalking ASS from a hole in the ground!  :emthdown:

I hope when YOU are the "treed coon" about to get ripped apart by Quinn's "dogs" to keep them in trim (see swatting mosquitos, evolution and survival of the "apex predator" - nothing personal, just "smart" behavior.. LOL!), you accept your fate.

Some mosquitos win, others lose. Remember, according to the Libertarian world view, you are no more important in the greater scheme of things than a mosquito or a treed coon.  :evil4:
« Last Edit: March 19, 2015, 06:04:21 PM by agelbert »
Leges         Sine    Moribus      Vanae   
Faith,
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.

Offline jdwheeler42

  • Global Moderator
  • Sous Chef
  • *****
  • Posts: 3338
    • View Profile
    • Going Upslope
Re: Ron Paul on the American Empire
« Reply #49 on: March 18, 2015, 01:46:01 PM »
RE, those feedback loops, regardless of the size of the population, are undermined and manipulated to destroy accountability and the democratic process if the population is not ethics based.

The Dunbar number concept ignores the, too common, horrendous conditions inside a dysfunctional family, a group of Homo SAPS much fewer in number than the tribe size.

Your view that peer pressure keeps everyone in line when the numbers are "manageable" (i.e. proper feedback loops) REQUIRES the sine qua non condition of ethical behavior.

Granted the smaller the group, the easier it is to enforce ethical behavior with fines or imprisonment. BUT WTF do you have when EVERYBODY, regardless of the size of the group, has an "apex predator" world view that defines "successful" behavior as DOING WHATEVER YOU CAN GET AWAY WITH DOING to get yours? You have a "Libertarian Paradise". Surly nailed it.  :emthup:

So did I.  ;D The Dunbar ideal will not work without an ethical word view. The numbers are not the indispensable condition for a just and viable society; Ethical behavior is. There is NO WAY you can legislate ethical behavior. People either have it or they become destructive and greedy. Homo SAPdom is pretty much there. :emthdown: 

UB and Ka,
Ethics is IT in ANY form of government! Ethical behavior is NOT relative to your power, position and ability, as too many Libertarians CONVENIENTLY claim. :emthdown: Everything else is buck passing.
You are quite right about the Dunbar number, it's just a limit on what can be effectively enforced through peer pressure.  If they don't agree on ethical standards, it's quite irrelevant.

One reason I absolutely despise the Koch Brothers brand of neo-Libertarianism is because they have corrupted classical Libertarianism.  There IS an ethical standard in classical Libertarianism, in the form of twin evils:

1. Force
2. Fraud

A true Libertarian paradise would be completely absent either.  Of course, that's a pipe dream, but ideally, the only force used would be to undo something committed by force or fraud.  Note, that includes polluting someone else's property without their informed consent.
Making pigs fly is easy... that is, of course, after you have built the catapult....

Offline Petty Tyrant

  • Cannot be Saved
  • Sous Chef
  • *
  • Posts: 4573
    • View Profile
Re: Ron Paul on the American Empire
« Reply #50 on: March 18, 2015, 05:53:34 PM »
of course i would accept my fate. under libertarianism it is not left to the increasingly bankrupt state increasingly cutting back on social sevices, healthcare and making homelessness and being poor illegal, to help the poor or any fellow man. under the present eystem they are the states problem and i would be the states problem. we have govt depts and beuracrats for all that. dont complain about apathy about the environment either, thats the epa,s problem. dont complain about big brother from big govt at all, the bigger the govt the better, the bigger the budget, the more agencies, the more regulations, all should provide us with a utopia keeping us in line. ron paul, eddie, or i would never treat anyone who couldnt afford full fees, goleen oxen would never support church charity, we just want small govt so we can throw away car batteries in lakes with less chance of getting caught.

im pretty sure we already have a situation where we can all be treated as a resource or pest and that is with bigger and bigger govt. i would like to see it shrunk to the size where we really have some say and more cfs prevails.


UB,
Jim Quinn et al doesn't know his bigoted, greedy, doubletalking ASS from a hole in the ground!  :emthdown:

I hope when YOU are the "treed coon" about to get ripped apart by Quinn's "dogs" to keep them in trim (see swatting mosquitos, evolution an survival of the "apex predator" - nothing personal, just "smart" behavior.. LOL!), you accept your fate.

Some mosquitos win, others lose. Remember, according to the Libertarian world view, you are no more important in the greater scheme of things than a mosquito or a treed coon.  :evil4:
ELEVATE YOUR GAME

Offline JRM

  • Sous Chef
  • ****
  • Posts: 3190
    • View Profile
Re: Ron Paul on the American Empire
« Reply #51 on: March 18, 2015, 06:13:31 PM »

Are you foolish enough to believe that most people who own something would willfully destroy it, it is the other way around JRM.

Who do you know who worked all their life to pay off a mortgage on their home or a farmer that worked his life on his farm would destroy it? Who built up a business or company over a lifetime that would destroy it?

People who own things care, nurture, maintain and preserve them for their financial future and those of their families.

Sure, there are examples of individual people who fit the type you're writing about here, but these examples are overwhelmed by those (individuals, businesses, corporations) who do what business generally always does -- which is to favor short term profit over the health of soil, water, air, people, etc.  They may not destroy their own homes, as in their brick or lumber dwellings. But they will destroy the standing trees, poison the water, contaminate the air and ravage Earth's climate system. All for money.

One has to bury one's head in the sand not to take notice of this obvious fact. 

As Leonard Cohen said it, "Everybody knows".

http://www.azlyrics.com/lyrics/leonardcohen/everybodyknows.html

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/v/Lin-a2lTelg?feature=player_detailpage" target="_blank" class="new_win">http://www.youtube.com/v/Lin-a2lTelg?feature=player_detailpage</a>
My "avatar" graphic is Japanese calligraphy (shodō) forming the word shoshin, meaning "beginner's mind". --  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shoshin -- It is with shoshin that I am now and always "meeting my breath" for the first time. Try it!

Offline JRM

  • Sous Chef
  • ****
  • Posts: 3190
    • View Profile
Re: Ron Paul on the American Empire
« Reply #52 on: March 18, 2015, 06:35:00 PM »
...  or a farmer that worked his life on his farm would destroy it?

I recommend doing a little research on the environmental and ecological impacts of conventional farming,  which is known to be among the most destructive of human activities.

http://www.omorganics.org/page.php?pageid=78

https://www.sustainabletable.org.au/Hungryforinfo/Conventionalfarmingdamagetheenvironment/tabid/117/Default.aspx

E.g. - Ocean "Dead Zones":

" .... Hypoxia occurs most often, however, as a consequence of human-induced factors, especially nutrient pollution (also known as eutrophication). The causes of nutrient pollution, specifically of nitrogen and phosphorus nutrients, include agricultural runoff, fossil-fuel burning, and wastewater treatment effluent."

http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/hazards/hypoxia/

Normal, conventional farming destroys not only THAT farm, but also much else external to it.  Well,  nothing is really "external," ultimately, which is my point.  But "business" generally results in what economists call "externalized costs" -- a.k.a., destroyed "property," land, water, etc.

My "avatar" graphic is Japanese calligraphy (shodō) forming the word shoshin, meaning "beginner's mind". --  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shoshin -- It is with shoshin that I am now and always "meeting my breath" for the first time. Try it!

Offline g

  • Golden Oxen
  • Contrarian
  • Master Chef
  • *
  • Posts: 12280
    • View Profile
Re: Ron Paul on the American Empire
« Reply #53 on: March 18, 2015, 06:44:05 PM »
Quote
of course i would accept my fate. under libertarianism it is not left to the increasingly bankrupt state increasingly cutting back on social sevices, healthcare and making homelessness and being poor illegal, to help the poor or any fellow man. under the present eystem they are the states problem and i would be the states problem. we have govt depts and beuracrats for all that. dont complain about apathy about the environment either, thats the epa,s problem. dont complain about big brother from big govt at all, the bigger the govt the better, the bigger the budget, the more agencies, the more regulations, all should provide us with a utopia keeping us in line. ron paul, eddie, or i would never treat anyone who couldnt afford full fees, goleen oxen would never support church charity, we just want small govt so we can throw away car batteries in lakes with less chance of getting caught. ;D ;D

im pretty sure we already have a situation where we can all be treated as a resource or pest and that is with bigger and bigger govt. i would like to see it shrunk to the size where we really have some say and more cfs prevails.

My Dear Uncle Robert, I will NEVER EVER AGAIN accuse you of not writing clearly, NEVER, I PROMISE:emthup: :emthup: :exp-grin: :exp-laugh:

Uncle Bob's got it Right!  :icon_sunny:
 

Offline Ka

  • Global Moderator
  • Waitstaff
  • *****
  • Posts: 887
    • View Profile
Re: Ron Paul on the American Empire
« Reply #54 on: March 19, 2015, 12:11:21 AM »

UB and Ka,
Ethics is IT in ANY form of government! Ethical behavior is NOT relative to your power, position and ability, as too many Libertarians CONVENIENTLY claim. :emthdown: Everything else is buck passing.

Why is this addressed to me? I don't recall advocating unethical government, nor am I an ethical relativist.

Offline JRM

  • Sous Chef
  • ****
  • Posts: 3190
    • View Profile
Re: Ron Paul on the American Empire
« Reply #55 on: March 19, 2015, 03:42:27 PM »
<a href="http://www.youtube.com/v/BRtc-k6dhgs?feature=player_detailpage" target="_blank" class="new_win">http://www.youtube.com/v/BRtc-k6dhgs?feature=player_detailpage</a>
My "avatar" graphic is Japanese calligraphy (shodō) forming the word shoshin, meaning "beginner's mind". --  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shoshin -- It is with shoshin that I am now and always "meeting my breath" for the first time. Try it!

Offline agelbert

  • Global Moderator
  • Master Chef
  • *****
  • Posts: 11820
    • View Profile
    • Renewable Rervolution
Re: Ron Paul on the American Empire
« Reply #56 on: March 19, 2015, 07:08:54 PM »

UB and Ka,
Ethics is IT in ANY form of government! Ethical behavior is NOT relative to your power, position and ability, as too many Libertarians CONVENIENTLY claim. :emthdown: Everything else is buck passing.

Why is this addressed to me? I don't recall advocating unethical government, nor am I an ethical relativist.

Ka, I understand you advocate Green Libertarianism, right?
Quote

Green Libertarianism

Garvan Walshe

Accepted: 13 February 2014

Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Abstract

 People evolved as part of an ecosystem, making use of the Earth's bounty without reflection. Only when our ancestors developed the capacity for moral agency could we begin to reflect on whether we had taken in excess of our due. This outlines a 'green libertarianism' in which our property rights are grounded in fundamental ecological facts. It further argues that it is immune from two objections leveled at right- and left- libertarian theories of acquisition: that Robert Nozick, without justification, divided people into those who were able to acquire unowned resources, and those would could not; and, that left-libertarian attempts, such as Hillel Steiner’s, to separate choice from circumstance cannot account for the fact that not only people’s decisions to have children, but even their decisions to continue living, affect people’s entitlements to use the natural world.
http://www.academia.edu/7121864/Green_Libertarianism_Ethical_Theory_and_Moral_Practice_

I apologize if you have a viable way to enforce the biosphere math on the Homo SAP population in Green Libertarianism. If the assumed behavior is to leave everybody alone because they all took courses in ecology, it will not work (although I certainly DO advocate a thorough knowledge of ecology be required of ALL students on the planet henceforth.).

If you have supervision of everybody's carbon footprint, then it will work. However, I don't see many Libertarians of any kind going along with enforcement issues when they are the object of said enforcement by the local tort committee.

IOW, I do not see how you can make people walk the biosphere math talk. UB goes straight into hyperbole with the "batteries in the lake" snark. But that is an excellent example of how difficult it would be for UB or Ka to tell GO to pay a huge fine because of all the pollution his gold purchases caused the biosphere by bidding up the price of gold through his purchases. Those purchases, in  turn, had people wasting tribal people in, for example Peru, so they could pan for gold. So we have the death of biosphere ENHANCING people AND additional biosphere trashing through gold mining as a DIRECT EFFECT of the "SACRED" FREE MARKET FORCES. 

Market forces, according to Green Libertarianism, would be subject to regulation (anathema to most Libertarians) in order to prevent polluting practices directly resulting from free market practices.

There is NO NULL HYPOTHESIS in homo SAP behavioral issues. we have a track record of being polluters that pollute in somebody else's back yard while we naively (or disingenuously) claim that polluting is something a Libertarian will never do because it makes no CFS for a property owner. That is simply NOT THE CASE.  Making use of the Earth's bounty without reflection is the NORM for Homo SAPS, not the exception.

Homo SAPS are GUILTY until proven innocent of being polluters. Green Libertarianism, in order to work, has to be assume guilt until innocence is proven.

Don't hold your breath waiting for UB or GO to accept that they are guilty until an energy, soil sample, and asset purchase audit declares them innocent on a monthly or annual basis. They will fight tooth and nail to AVOID supervision of any sort, PERIOD. And if the audit forced on them  by the local Green Libertarian tort committee declares they must trim this or that behavior or face fines or imprisonment , they'll scream government tyranny!

Libertarians ABHOR somebody looking over their shoulder. A viable biosphere as a product of Green Libertarianism REQUIRES it.


Since most Libertarians scream "SOCIALIST TYRANNY! " when the very idea of submitting to routine inspections is brought up, Green Libertarianism is, though well meaning, not practical.

The null hypothesis of "innocent of pollution because we are Libertarian property owners" that Libertarians DEMAND be applied across the board will lead to corruption, cheating, bought committee members and batteries in somebody else's lake. :emthdown:
« Last Edit: March 19, 2015, 07:15:37 PM by agelbert »
Leges         Sine    Moribus      Vanae   
Faith,
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.

Offline Ka

  • Global Moderator
  • Waitstaff
  • *****
  • Posts: 887
    • View Profile
Re: Ron Paul on the American Empire
« Reply #57 on: March 19, 2015, 10:03:36 PM »

UB and Ka,
Ethics is IT in ANY form of government! Ethical behavior is NOT relative to your power, position and ability, as too many Libertarians CONVENIENTLY claim. :emthdown: Everything else is buck passing.

Why is this addressed to me? I don't recall advocating unethical government, nor am I an ethical relativist.

Ka, I understand you advocate Green Libertarianism, right?


No, I advocate Green Libertarian Socialism. Of course I am well aware that libertarians are anti-socialist and tend to be anti-green, and socialists are anti-libertarian and (judging by past history) anti-green, but my reaction to seeing the leftists and the libertarians talk past each other in this thread is that it is only if the three groups work with each other that there is any chance of a viable way forward.

I base GLS, as I mentioned on another thread, on Robert Pirsig's moral theory. Skipping the metaphysical background, he states that there are four levels of what he calls 'static quality': the physical, the biological, the social, and the intellectual. Each has its own morality, and they are ordered, in that the biological depends on the physical, but works against it at the same time, e.g., birds manage to fly despite the physical restriction of gravity. Similarly, the social depends on the biological, but works against it, e.g., by restricting mating. And the intellectual depends on the social, but works against it, mainly by questioning overly restrictive customs.

And so, all things being equal, intellectual morality trumps social morality (why we honor Socrates and boo the Athenians), and social trumps biological. But of course it is seldom the case that all things are equal, and so we need a means to work things out when, say, an intellectual moral demand threatens the social fabric on which intellectual freedom depends. And both social and intellectual demands need to take into account biological restrictions.

Greens, Socialists, and Libertarians are all working from a valid premise, but different ones. Greens say, rightly, that the biosphere must be protected. Socialists say, rightly, that no one should be able to thrive if that harms others. Libertarians say, rightly, that government should not interfere with individual liberty. On the other hand, each group, if left unrestricted, infringes on the valid premises of the other two. Hence, each group has to be held back by the others, and each group can thrive if and only if they take the ideas of the others into account. In particular, it is to realize that true individual freedom requires socialism and a viable biosphere, and true socialism requires individual freedom and a viable biosphere, and a viable biosphere requires socialism and individual freedom (if it is going to include humans).

Offline Ashvin

  • Contrarian
  • Sous Chef
  • *
  • Posts: 2655
    • View Profile
Re: Ron Paul on the American Empire
« Reply #58 on: March 20, 2015, 02:21:58 AM »
Greens, Socialists, and Libertarians are all working from a valid premise, but different ones. Greens say, rightly, that the biosphere must be protected. Socialists say, rightly, that no one should be able to thrive if that harms others. Libertarians say, rightly, that government should not interfere with individual liberty. On the other hand, each group, if left unrestricted, infringes on the valid premises of the other two. Hence, each group has to be held back by the others, and each group can thrive if and only if they take the ideas of the others into account. In particular, it is to realize that true individual freedom requires socialism and a viable biosphere, and true socialism requires individual freedom and a viable biosphere, and a viable biosphere requires socialism and individual freedom (if it is going to include humans).

I really like this formulation  :emthup: and would love to see all those principles working in harmony.

But I guess it's difficult to wrap our heads around a system in which protecting individual freedom and the biosphere are both of utmost importance. Do you specific examples of this happening or how it may hypothetically happen? It's easier to imagine a system which protects individual freedom and promotes socioeconomic equality, although there are obviously tensions there as well.

Offline agelbert

  • Global Moderator
  • Master Chef
  • *****
  • Posts: 11820
    • View Profile
    • Renewable Rervolution
Re: Ron Paul on the American Empire
« Reply #59 on: March 20, 2015, 12:26:42 PM »

UB and Ka,
Ethics is IT in ANY form of government! Ethical behavior is NOT relative to your power, position and ability, as too many Libertarians CONVENIENTLY claim. :emthdown: Everything else is buck passing.

Why is this addressed to me? I don't recall advocating unethical government, nor am I an ethical relativist.

Ka, I understand you advocate Green Libertarianism, right?


No, I advocate Green Libertarian Socialism. Of course I am well aware that libertarians are anti-socialist and tend to be anti-green, and socialists are anti-libertarian and (judging by past history) anti-green, but my reaction to seeing the leftists and the libertarians talk past each other in this thread is that it is only if the three groups work with each other that there is any chance of a viable way forward.

I base GLS, as I mentioned on another thread, on Robert Pirsig's moral theory. Skipping the metaphysical background, he states that there are four levels of what he calls 'static quality': the physical, the biological, the social, and the intellectual. Each has its own morality, and they are ordered, in that the biological depends on the physical, but works against it at the same time, e.g., birds manage to fly despite the physical restriction of gravity. Similarly, the social depends on the biological, but works against it, e.g., by restricting mating. And the intellectual depends on the social, but works against it, mainly by questioning overly restrictive customs.

And so, all things being equal, intellectual morality trumps social morality (why we honor Socrates and boo the Athenians), and social trumps biological. But of course it is seldom the case that all things are equal, and so we need a means to work things out when, say, an intellectual moral demand threatens the social fabric on which intellectual freedom depends. And both social and intellectual demands need to take into account biological restrictions.

Greens, Socialists, and Libertarians are all working from a valid premise, but different ones. Greens say, rightly, that the biosphere must be protected. Socialists say, rightly, that no one should be able to thrive if that harms others. Libertarians say, rightly, that government should not interfere with individual liberty. On the other hand, each group, if left unrestricted, infringes on the valid premises of the other two. Hence, each group has to be held back by the others, and each group can thrive if and only if they take the ideas of the others into account. In particular, it is to realize that true individual freedom requires socialism and a viable biosphere, and true socialism requires individual freedom and a viable biosphere, and a viable biosphere requires socialism and individual freedom (if it is going to include humans).

Ka,
Well said.  :emthup:

But the bottom line is WHO is going to do the restricting, is it not? If you can get any kind of Libertarian to agree to your (100% valid    ) requirements of true individual freedom, then there is a possiblity of a meeting of minds. I do NOT see GO or UB ever agreeing to that requirement/definition in any way.  :(

As you said, "if left unrestricted", the different world views do not work. An INTRINSIC part of the world view of both UB and GO is to be restricted ONLY by they OWN conscience, period. That might work for the health of the biosphere in the case of the self-restricted behavior of GO and UB.

That will NOT work for 90% (or more) of humanity   :emthdown: :(
« Last Edit: March 20, 2015, 12:29:29 PM by agelbert »
Leges         Sine    Moribus      Vanae   
Faith,
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.

 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
0 Replies
554 Views
Last post April 13, 2016, 02:48:18 PM
by Surly1
20 Replies
2856 Views
Last post July 24, 2017, 01:18:41 AM
by azozeo
4 Replies
420 Views
Last post May 21, 2018, 07:54:00 PM
by Palloy2