Total Posts:4|Showing Posts:1-4
Jump to topic:

Classical Liberalism

Wallstreetatheist
Posts: 7,132
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/21/2012 2:40:32 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Give these a quick skim for LIBERTY, or something.

Principle 1. The life of each individual is an absolute and universal moral value. No non-aggressive individual's life, liberty, or property may be legitimately sacrificed for any goal.

Principle 2. Every individual owns his body, his mind, and the labor thereof, including the physical objects legitimately obtained through such labor.

Principle 3. Every individual has the right to pursue activities for the betterment of his life - including its material, intellectual, and emotional aspects - by using his own body and property, as well as the property of consenting others.

Principle 4. The rights of an individual to life, liberty, and property are inherent to that individual's nature. They are not granted by other human beings, and they cannot be taken away by any entity.

Principle 5. The initiation of physical force, the threat of such force, or fraud against any individual is never permissible - irrespective of the position and character of the initiator. However, proportionate force may be used to retaliate and defend against aggression.

Principle 6. The sole fundamental purpose of government is to protect the rights of individuals by engaging in actions specifically delegated to the government by its constituents. Government is not the same as society, nor is the government entitled to sacrifice some non-aggressive individuals to advance the well-being of others.

Principle 7. Every individual has the absolute right to think and express any ideas. Thought and speech are never equivalent to force or violence and ought never to be restricted or to be subject to coercive penalties. Specifically, coercion and censorship on the basis of religious or political ideas are not acceptable under any circumstances.

Principle 8. Commerce, technology, and science are desirable, liberating forces that are capable of alleviating historic ills, improving the quality of human life, and morally elevating human beings. The complete freedom of trade, innovation, and thought should be preserved and supported for all human beings in the world.

Principle 9. Accidents of birth, geography, or ancestry do not define an individual and should not result in manmade restrictions of that individual's rights or opportunities. Every individual should be judged purely on his or her personal qualities, including accomplishments, character, and knowledge.

Principle 10. There are no "natural" or desirable limits to human potential for good, and there is no substantive problem that is necessarily unsolvable by present or future human knowledge, effort, and technology. It is a moral imperative for humans to expand their mastery of the universe indefinitely and in such a manner as will reinforce the survival and flourishing of all non-aggressive individuals.
DRUG HARM: http://imgur.com...
Primal Diet. Lifting. Reading. Psychedelics. Cold-Approach Pickup. Music.
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/21/2012 7:18:45 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Some thoughts:

1. Even if you think that rights are inherent, you still have to rely on other people to recognize them. For those of us who don't believe that rights are inherent, this can be problematic. We basically concede that rights are just important, "good ideas" for our livelihoods and not something sacred given to us by the Divine. That can make them harder to infer.

2. Technological advancements aren't always positive (see: the environment).

3. The issue of property and whether or not it can be legitimately owned and to what extent is debatable, at least.

4. The government "protecting the rights of the individuals" becomes sticky because of #3. For instance a lot of leftists don't believe in property the way capitalists do (eg. Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, Mikhail Bakunin, etc.). To some, the government would be doing a disservice by upholding property in the way it's been described. Some people don't believe it's legitimate and that the government shouldn't recognize it because of that.

I think sociological studies of societal structures are really interesting, both in a historic and modern context. The individual vs. society and to what extent that dynamic should play a role in political endeavors is intriguing.
President of DDO
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/21/2012 9:56:43 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/21/2012 7:18:45 AM, Danielle wrote:
Some thoughts:

1. Even if you think that rights are inherent, you still have to rely on other people to recognize them. For those of us who don't believe that rights are inherent, this can be problematic. We basically concede that rights are just important, "good ideas" for our livelihoods and not something sacred given to us by the Divine. That can make them harder to infer.

Natural rights are rights that people have outside of civilization. That is to say they are rights not granted by government. They are natural rights, because man instinctively recognizes them. Every culture believes stealing is wrong, every culture believes murder is wrong, and every culture believes suppression/confinement is wrong.
The purpose of government is to protect the people's natural rights, but that does not mean every government will recognize the people's natural rights. Governments that don't recognize people's natural rights are oppressive.

2. Technological advancements aren't always positive (see: the environment).

assuming CO2 and CFCs do as Greenies claim.
3. The issue of property and whether or not it can be legitimately owned and to what extent is debatable, at least.

Even a 2 year old has a sense of ownership. It's not until one is older that they develop personal moral principles to the contrary, because when they are younger they are more content with what they got, and are less envious of others. 2 year olds will sometimes share with each other, but the sense of ownership is still there.

Why is taking candy from a baby bad? Because the baby owns the candy, and you are using coercion and/or force to deprive them of their property.

4. The government "protecting the rights of the individuals" becomes sticky because of #3. For instance a lot of leftists don't believe in property the way capitalists do (eg. Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, Mikhail Bakunin, etc.). To some, the government would be doing a disservice by upholding property in the way it's been described. Some people don't believe it's legitimate and that the government shouldn't recognize it because of that.

As I mentioned above, they subjectively chose not to believe in property rights, but all humans naturally/objectively believe in property rights. Government recognition of property rights is dependent on whether the ruler(s) rules arbitrarily or objectively. In America the " we owe no allegiance, we bow to no throne, Our ruler is law and the law is our own;" also "Our leaders themselves are our own fellow-men, Who can handle the sword, or the scythe, or the pen."

I think sociological studies of societal structures are really interesting, both in a historic and modern context. The individual vs. society and to what extent that dynamic should play a role in political endeavors is intriguing.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle