I agree --- laws are made for everyone (or, at least they should be). No exceptions.
And the laws should present no infringement upon our right to associate or disassociate with whomever we wish, whether blacks, whites or indecent people like drunks, kooks, sodomites and other perverts.
Not to NATIONS, it's not! :)
That never was at issue, Buddy. The notion of “citizenship” is a non-issue in our discussion about when to apply the concept to a human being. Since “citizenship” may be applied to an unborn human in the same way it is applied to a neonate, your invoking it here is irrelevant. You were in fact trying to invoke the religious concept of “personhood” in order to avoid reconciling the murder of human beings with libertarianism. Your aim was to claim that since “personhood” has not yet been legally established, citizenship can’t been established and therefore we should ‘just forget the whole thing.’
This is the sort of intellectually dishonest schizophrenia from which virtually all libertarians within the Libertarian Party suffer. It is precisely this sort of lack of integrity that makes your party every bit as morally, intellectually and politically bankrupt as the other parties.
“Personhood,” is just plain religious horse hockey if it is anything other than heterosexual information that expresses uniquely human proteins and enzymes, which are self-expressing certain higher order expressions such as human cellular multiplication, speech and poetry. There is just nothing else that makes us objectively human than our humanly distinct and objectively determinable biology.
Time will tell, but I have no worries....
Which matters to me not at all. My point was to show the lunacy of employing such nonsensical religious ideas here as your goofy notion of “personhood.” From my vantagepoint, because you are actually going to hell, you really are not so much a “person” that I must consider you a member of the redeemed. It is just one of many ways to define a person and it is every bit as legitimate as your way because no one can objectively prove that you are so fundamentally different from an unborn child that you are legitimately to be called a “person” and the child be called a “non-person.”
On the other hand, since you were once unborn and since essentially the same biochemical processes in you are also taking place in unborn children, we can say with all the certainty we can say about anything else that you and the unborn child are both humans. That is essentially all we can say and you ought not continue like so many so-called “libertarians” to dishonestly skirt this inexorable fact. True libertarianism absolutely must condemn abortion. Logic demands it.
Actually... I was talking about SMALL GOVERNMENT CONSERVATIVES (vs. our current crop of BIG GOVERNMENT CONSERVATIVES), I wasn't talking specifically about Social Conservatives vs. Social Liberals, or Authoritarians vs. Libertarians.
Okay. Whatever. All of these nonsensical distinctions just do not exist when all of these groups are supporting the same infringements of human rights. But go ahead and believe as you must. You’re a “libertarian” after all.
Yep... I believe 'roughly' is not too far off. I believe there are a lot more of the Reagan/Gingrich Revolution crowd around still then is generally realized --- they are just keeping their heads down and their mouths shut under the current fiscal liberal crowd...
Well fine. You are simply supporting my view. According to you, these people are ignoring their principles, even if it means denial of human freedom, in the interest of “pragmatism.”
Er... and that is different exactly HOW from the generally accepted definitions of Libertarianism???????????????????
The differences are just too numerous to even begin here. They are two entirely different notions. Your brand of so-called “libertarianism” accepts exceptions to the freedom to associate, for example. True libertarianism recognizes your right to completely reject dealing with anyone you please and for any reason whatever. Your brand of libertarianism actually accepts the murder of beings just like you. True libertarianism utterly rejects such savagery.
LOL!!!!! Maybe you are a Whig, or a Monarchist or a Mullah-wannabe, or a WOBBLY after all. LOL! Maybe their *ain't* no name for you, Pilchie! ('Ted Kazinsky-ite'?????)
The proper name is Libertarian, though I reject it because you and your kind have crapped on it for so long.
NOPE... it's simply ANTI-AUTHORITARIAN in the Ann Rand Objectivist tradition... an opposition to government powers over the individual.
But individuals have a right to form associations and those associations have a right to determine who is welcomed on their own property. Associations of associations have a right to the same rights and these have a right to form ever larger associations, all of which posses the right to determine who can traverse their property and who cannot. If these social organisms should decide, in response to terrorism, cultural differences, racism, love or hate to ban immigrants from their regions, they are perfectly within their human rights to do it and no so-called “libertarian” leftists have a right to stop them.
That's about as TRADITIONAL a definition of the American brand of Libertarianism as there is!
It is rank leftism. Anti-Immigration is a human right simply because humans have an innate right to determine who is welcome in their homes and who is not. If someone wishes to break with an anti-immigrant association to bring in immigrants, then if he can do it without in any way infringing upon the rights of others, he should take freedom to do it. But he has no right to trade with anyone who as a result of his actions should decide to discriminate against him. That is true libertarianism. The crap you are talking is just the same old rank leftism of the Libertarian, Democrat and (more recently) Republican parties.
Clearly you are not very familiar with it's history... and you simply use the code word 'leftist' to describe ANYTHING with which you disagree.
Please. I so easily recognize you leftists because I am well acquainted with the history.
Actually what I said was: ... Aside from a certain bent towards a renewal of social conservatism that is, certainly no fiscal conservatism is in view, no factions clamoring to conserve our constitutional liberties are at the front of the stage. 'Certain bent' does not imply that social conservatism is in any way becoming dominant.
Well, this is just pulling straws. I don’t even see “a renewal of social conservatism” (whatever you mean by this term), since the forces for conservatism have been around and with great general influence for as long as I can remember, indeed all throughout our history. They were there in the 1600’s, through the 1700’s, right through 1800’s temperance movements, through the 1900’s and its moral majority, right on into the 21st century. Yet for all their force and influence, the issues about which they care have steadily and generally deteriorated, with only a relative few exceptions to this rule. What would have brought about summary execution in the 1600’s right here in America, today will literally bring adulation. So I do not see this “bent” you are talking about. I suppose you can get out of this by saying you only meant “short term,” but we aren’t talking trading here, but society; and that means we need to keep in mind where we have come from and where it seems we are going. The short-term trend here is practically meaningless even in our narrow section of time on the earth. We are not in a truly conservative spell when the long-term trend has so relentlessly moved us leftward and steadily does so even today. If anything, if anything at all, we are moving left only by varying degrees of swiftness. But our march is ever and always leftward.
I would perhaps say that the LONG TERM TREND in America is toward greater moderation in social norms…
Well, this is just to agree with me: there is no real bent toward a “renewal of social conservatism,” but rather a long-term trend toward what you call “moderation” in social norms, what is in truth nothing but rank leftism.
I believe that the anti-Authoritarian ideas of greater individual freedom from government control, expoused by the Libertarian movement, have been steadily rising in the public's conscious for several decades now....)
Yes, unfortunately.
(I believe it would have been extremely unlikely that he could even envision a direct-participatory Democracy, such as may now be possible for the first time in human history as a result of technological advances... but that is quite a bit off-topic.)
This is probably true. But it also likely applies to Jefferson and everyone else at the time, though I agree it very likely applies to Jefferson far less than to Hamilton.
(I hold with the view that men are NOT 'born equal' ...although a good society should treat them as if they were!
And this is nothing but rank leftism. It also betrays a profound ignorance of real libertarianism. Lastly, this opinion militates against the very justification for the existence of our country. If all humans are not innately equal, then America had no natural right to demand and then enforce separation from England, unless one accepts animalistic might-makes-right nihilism as you appear to do with your Colt comment. If that is the case, then you have an entirely different and impossible can of worms to swallow.
Exactly. But the problem that I see is that YOU claim that 'your rights' are being, or going to be infringed... while OTHERS claim that it is YOU who want to infringe their inalienable rights to live free, and be treated as equal in worth, by their government. I'm afraid that you are going to have to define your terms (like: 'human rights') a little more closely!
Jeffersonian libertarianism defines the rights quite handily. The nature of freedom is etched in biology. But, as with all leftists, you actually reject the natural equality of men, which is the basis of real libertarianism. This is at the very root of why you and your silly party are all essentially anti-freedom leftists.
You'll have to define your term a bit more precisely: 'human organism' (I for one have no problems clipping off living skin cells for example....)
Humans are heterosexual information, coded in bio-chemical medium, that self-expresses uniquely human proteins and enzymes, which self-expresses certain higher order expressions such as human cellular multiplication (your skin cells, for example), which self-expression produces ever higher orders of self-expression such as body organs (your brain, for example), which self-expresses ever higher self-expressions (such as thought), which produce such natural self-expressions as sight, speech and other behaviors. Anything else is just subjective hogwash.
I also believe that the death penalty can be justified in some cases....
Me too.
Would establishing uniform financial laws so that life-long paired couples can inherit estates upon their partners demise be 'imposing' anything on you?…
It could. The owner of property should be free to give her property to whomever she wishes, whether “long-paired” with them or not. But if the people involved are not true couples as defined by the essential biological character of humans, then no one is by any means naturally free to force anyone else into an automatic acknowledgment of their “relationship”, whether by such things as “marriage”, “civil unions” or any other means. No one can legitimately force anyone else to acknowledge or accept what is essentially contrary to his most essential identity.
Sorry... Theocrats and Luddites are the TWO things I'm *least* likely to ever support.
Well of course not. You are a “libertarian.” You don’t even support Jefferson, though he penned the American Declaration of the self-evident truth of the equality of all men. I support the freedom of all men, including Theocrats and Luddites, on the basis of human equality.
What are you saying????? Their's was an age of enlightenment and scientific advancement, just as ours.
This is to be expected from a rank libertarian leftist. You are allowing so-called “enlightenment and scientific advancement” to blind you to the wholesale destruction of human rights and freedom. This was true in of all the freedom worshippers of Jefferson’s time, and it is true of you “libertarians” in our time. True libertarians would not be so incorrigibly myopic.
What are you referring to? Slavery?
Please. Were you truly libertarian, you would not even have to ask the question. It would be uppermost in your mind. Your ideals cannot really exist in you so long as you accept the right to deny the rights of any human organism. The freedom ideal failed in Jefferson’s day for the same reason it now fails in yours.
<G> Oh, them old days were pretty damn bad in their own way, too.
Indeed, and in many ways for the same reason they are “bad” today.
'We'????? Who is that 'we', white man?????????
The whole world, Buddy. Everyone, everywhere.
'Forward to the past', eh Pilchie?
Nope. Right here in the present, following what we know to wherever it leads – not lying about it as the “libertarians” do. |
