Total Posts:78|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

"absolute freedom" should we have it?

Izayah003
Posts: 369
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2013 7:22:28 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I have seen in a few threads the discussion of "absolute freedom" and individual liberties, and I wanted to discuss this as a main topic.

In my opinion, the thought of "absolute freedom" and individual liberty over a government system of laws is mixed. I do feel that every person has a right to their own individual liberty, you have the right to think what you want, and should have the right to do as you please so long as it does not effect another s individual liberties. At the same time I also feel that there has to be a structure of law and order to maintain a civilized society, and that not all rights should be unlimited or without regulation.

In my opinion, mankind can't fully govern their own lives, laws must be in place to ensure that there is order. Without order, there is chaos, without laws, we would be no better then savages. While I do not agree with how the government has been working for the past 13+ years, it does not mean that we should do away with the government system and start governing ourselves. I also believe that to give total power to each individual state would open the door to more chaos. Look how divided this country is now, if we had separation of states, there would be civil wars left and right. Man by nature are greedy, reckless, and unable to make wise decisions at all times. Laws are in place to set the standard for civilized society. Now it can be argued that some "civilized" society"s have a difference of opinion of what "civilized" is, and this is true, but again we determine that by the laws that society holds.

If you look back at our history here in the US, there was a time in the beginning were slavery was not only excepted but the law, you could kill a black person for any reason, or no reason at all, and it was totally legal, why? Because this is what happens when you do not have a regulated system of laws, during those times, there were very few regulations on civil liberties. In western times, you could have a gun fight, and it be perfectly legal in most cases, someone called you out, you have a gun fight, someone dies, you go back into the saloon and have a couple rounds, legal... Should we go back to these times.

But the main reason why we can't and should not have "total individual freedoms" is because we as humans are also driven by emotion, we tend to minimize and justify our actions by moral or spiritual interpretation. So if we were allowed to govern ourselves, we would do so based on our own personal views, and would most certainly conflict with others, hence chaos. To give an example, let's look again our past, when this country was first founded, certain races were viewed as a lesser race just because of the color of their skin, they were bought and sold like cattle, now back then this was viewed as acceptable, today it is viewed as deplorable, but given the freedom to do so, could in fact be resurrected again.

The notion that there will be peace and bright fluffy lights if we all were free to govern ourselves is disproved by history, when certain things are not regulated right, we fall short, for a great example, look to our financial market when it was deregulated, and the recession that fallowed.

This post was longer then I had planned..lmao
"When a man who is honestly mistaken hears the truth, he will either quit being mistaken or cease to be honest." - Abraham Lincoln
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2013 7:26:11 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
tl;dr anarchy= chaos.

lol stupid
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
Izayah003
Posts: 369
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2013 7:32:41 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/14/2013 7:26:11 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
tl;dr anarchy= chaos.

lol stupid

can you name one example of how an anarchy based civilization succeeded?
"When a man who is honestly mistaken hears the truth, he will either quit being mistaken or cease to be honest." - Abraham Lincoln
lewis20
Posts: 5,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2013 7:35:13 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
If you want to give government a bunch of your money to tell you what to do, thats all good and fine, but don't force it on everyone else. As long as you aren't infringing on someone else's rights you should be free to do as you please.
"If you are a racist I will attack you with the north"- Abraham Lincoln

"Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material" - Leviticus 19 19

"War is a racket" - Smedley Butler
Izayah003
Posts: 369
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2013 7:38:37 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/14/2013 7:35:13 PM, lewis20 wrote:
If you want to give government a bunch of your money to tell you what to do, thats all good and fine, but don't force it on everyone else. As long as you aren't infringing on someone else's rights you should be free to do as you please.

Ok this has been said over and over, but what is your definition of "infringing on someone else's rights"? My opinion is not based on the thinking that government is the answer to everything, but a nation without laws or governing would not be a nation at all. You give people to the individual person, and they will abuse eventually. You assume too much if i am saying that government should be in total control.
"When a man who is honestly mistaken hears the truth, he will either quit being mistaken or cease to be honest." - Abraham Lincoln
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,244
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2013 7:40:28 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/14/2013 7:38:37 PM, Izayah003 wrote:
At 4/14/2013 7:35:13 PM, lewis20 wrote:
If you want to give government a bunch of your money to tell you what to do, thats all good and fine, but don't force it on everyone else. As long as you aren't infringing on someone else's rights you should be free to do as you please.

Ok this has been said over and over, but what is your definition of "infringing on someone else's rights"? My opinion is not based on the thinking that government is the answer to everything, but a nation without laws or governing would not be a nation at all. You give people to the individual person, and they will abuse eventually. You assume too much if i am saying that government should be in total control.

Infringing on another's rights = force on another person who is not initiating force on anyone else.
Izayah003
Posts: 369
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2013 7:41:02 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/14/2013 7:38:37 PM, Izayah003 wrote:
At 4/14/2013 7:35:13 PM, lewis20 wrote:
If you want to give government a bunch of your money to tell you what to do, thats all good and fine, but don't force it on everyone else. As long as you aren't infringing on someone else's rights you should be free to do as you please.

Ok this has been said over and over, but what is your definition of "infringing on someone else's rights"? My opinion is not based on the thinking that government is the answer to everything, but a nation without laws or governing would not be a nation at all. You give people to the individual person, and they will abuse eventually. You assume too much if i am saying that government should be in total control.

LOL "power" not "people" if you give power to the individual person...
"When a man who is honestly mistaken hears the truth, he will either quit being mistaken or cease to be honest." - Abraham Lincoln
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2013 7:46:04 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/14/2013 7:32:41 PM, Izayah003 wrote:
At 4/14/2013 7:26:11 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
tl;dr anarchy= chaos.

lol stupid

can you name one example of how an anarchy based civilization succeeded?

I love it when statists bring up this argument.

Name me one anarchist nation or state that has failed. (inb4 somalia)
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2013 7:48:31 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/14/2013 7:46:04 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 4/14/2013 7:32:41 PM, Izayah003 wrote:
At 4/14/2013 7:26:11 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
tl;dr anarchy= chaos.

lol stupid

can you name one example of how an anarchy based civilization succeeded?

I love it when statists bring up this argument.

Name me one anarchist nation or state that has failed. (inb4 somalia)

Inb4 ZOMG WHAT ABOUT TEH ROADSSSSSS
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus
Izayah003
Posts: 369
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2013 7:48:48 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/14/2013 7:40:28 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 4/14/2013 7:38:37 PM, Izayah003 wrote:
At 4/14/2013 7:35:13 PM, lewis20 wrote:
If you want to give government a bunch of your money to tell you what to do, thats all good and fine, but don't force it on everyone else. As long as you aren't infringing on someone else's rights you should be free to do as you please.

Ok this has been said over and over, but what is your definition of "infringing on someone else's rights"? My opinion is not based on the thinking that government is the answer to everything, but a nation without laws or governing would not be a nation at all. You give people to the individual person, and they will abuse eventually. You assume too much if i am saying that government should be in total control.

Infringing on another's rights = force on another person who is not initiating force on anyone else.

Ok thank you for your definition, so now i must ask, who decides if a right is being infringed upon?

Give you a great example, if you give someone the right to refuse services to someone based on their color, religion, or sexual orientation, would you not be then infringing on that person's right to service. Let's say a doctor refuses medical treatment because the person is black, and if he does not receive said treatment, that person could die, is that persons right to life not being infringed upon because of someone else forcing their views on another? Now yes that is a very drastic example, but still plausible. See the problem is when you give someone total freedom to govern themselves without laws in place, then at some point their freedom infringes on another, again we as humans guide our actions based on our own individual views.
"When a man who is honestly mistaken hears the truth, he will either quit being mistaken or cease to be honest." - Abraham Lincoln
Izayah003
Posts: 369
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2013 7:50:46 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/14/2013 7:46:04 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 4/14/2013 7:32:41 PM, Izayah003 wrote:
At 4/14/2013 7:26:11 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
tl;dr anarchy= chaos.

lol stupid

can you name one example of how an anarchy based civilization succeeded?

I love it when statists bring up this argument.

Name me one anarchist nation or state that has failed. (inb4 somalia)

ah so you can't answer the question, so you ask the same question in return? if ya can't name one that's ok, because the answer is.... none.
"When a man who is honestly mistaken hears the truth, he will either quit being mistaken or cease to be honest." - Abraham Lincoln
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2013 7:52:45 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/14/2013 7:50:46 PM, Izayah003 wrote:
At 4/14/2013 7:46:04 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 4/14/2013 7:32:41 PM, Izayah003 wrote:
At 4/14/2013 7:26:11 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
tl;dr anarchy= chaos.

lol stupid

can you name one example of how an anarchy based civilization succeeded?

I love it when statists bring up this argument.

Name me one anarchist nation or state that has failed. (inb4 somalia)

ah so you can't answer the question, so you ask the same question in return? if ya can't name one that's ok, because the answer is.... none.

So if I concede that an anarchist nation has never succeeded, and you concede that an anarchist nation has never failed (which you obviously do), then the point that I was trying to get to becomes clear. Anarchism has not ever actually been tested on a macro scale. This doesn't make it inherently bad or good, but appeals to history of anarchist nations are redundant.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2013 7:52:58 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/14/2013 7:48:48 PM, Izayah003 wrote:
At 4/14/2013 7:40:28 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 4/14/2013 7:38:37 PM, Izayah003 wrote:
At 4/14/2013 7:35:13 PM, lewis20 wrote:
If you want to give government a bunch of your money to tell you what to do, thats all good and fine, but don't force it on everyone else. As long as you aren't infringing on someone else's rights you should be free to do as you please.

Ok this has been said over and over, but what is your definition of "infringing on someone else's rights"? My opinion is not based on the thinking that government is the answer to everything, but a nation without laws or governing would not be a nation at all. You give people to the individual person, and they will abuse eventually. You assume too much if i am saying that government should be in total control.

Infringing on another's rights = force on another person who is not initiating force on anyone else.

Ok thank you for your definition, so now i must ask, who decides if a right is being infringed upon?

Give you a great example, if you give someone the right to refuse services to someone based on their color, religion, or sexual orientation, would you not be then infringing on that person's right to service. Let's say a doctor refuses medical treatment because the person is black, and if he does not receive said treatment, that person could die, is that persons right to life not being infringed upon because of someone else forcing their views on another? Now yes that is a very drastic example, but still plausible. See the problem is when you give someone total freedom to govern themselves without laws in place, then at some point their freedom infringes on another, again we as humans guide our actions based on our own individual views.

You are confusing two very different concepts of rights here. Libertarians tend to only believe in negative rights, so there can be no such thing as a right to service. You cannot have a right to someone else's time and labor.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
R0b1Billion
Posts: 3,730
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2013 7:53:21 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Giving people rights is the first problem. Humans have assumed the "right" to destroy the environment and do whatever the hell they want.
Beliefs in a nutshell:
- The Ends never justify the Means.
- Objectivity is secondary to subjectivity.
- The War on Drugs is the worst policy in the U.S.
- Most people worship technology as a religion.
- Computers will never become sentient.
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2013 7:54:31 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/14/2013 7:50:46 PM, Izayah003 wrote:
At 4/14/2013 7:46:04 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 4/14/2013 7:32:41 PM, Izayah003 wrote:
At 4/14/2013 7:26:11 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
tl;dr anarchy= chaos.

lol stupid

can you name one example of how an anarchy based civilization succeeded?

I love it when statists bring up this argument.

Name me one anarchist nation or state that has failed. (inb4 somalia)

ah so you can't answer the question, so you ask the same question in return? if ya can't name one that's ok, because the answer is.... none.

The same argument could have been made at certain points in history to discredit any modern form of government.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,244
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2013 7:56:16 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/14/2013 7:48:48 PM, Izayah003 wrote:
At 4/14/2013 7:40:28 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 4/14/2013 7:38:37 PM, Izayah003 wrote:
At 4/14/2013 7:35:13 PM, lewis20 wrote:
If you want to give government a bunch of your money to tell you what to do, thats all good and fine, but don't force it on everyone else. As long as you aren't infringing on someone else's rights you should be free to do as you please.

Ok this has been said over and over, but what is your definition of "infringing on someone else's rights"? My opinion is not based on the thinking that government is the answer to everything, but a nation without laws or governing would not be a nation at all. You give people to the individual person, and they will abuse eventually. You assume too much if i am saying that government should be in total control.

Infringing on another's rights = force on another person who is not initiating force on anyone else.

Ok thank you for your definition, so now i must ask, who decides if a right is being infringed upon?

Give you a great example, if you give someone the right to refuse services to someone based on their color, religion, or sexual orientation, would you not be then infringing on that person's right to service. Let's say a doctor refuses medical treatment because the person is black, and if he does not receive said treatment, that person could die, is that persons right to life not being infringed upon because of someone else forcing their views on another? Now yes that is a very drastic example, but still plausible. See the problem is when you give someone total freedom to govern themselves without laws in place, then at some point their freedom infringes on another, again we as humans guide our actions based on our own individual views.

"person's right to service."

What is this right to service you speak of? I'd say a person is not legally obligated to sell anything to anyone they don't want to.

" Let's say a doctor refuses medical treatment because the person is black, and if he does not receive said treatment, that person could die, is that persons right to life not being infringed upon because of someone else forcing their views on another? "

A person has the right to life. Not the right to force others to help them survive. So there's no right to begin with.
Izayah003
Posts: 369
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2013 7:59:06 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/14/2013 7:56:16 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 4/14/2013 7:48:48 PM, Izayah003 wrote:
At 4/14/2013 7:40:28 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 4/14/2013 7:38:37 PM, Izayah003 wrote:
At 4/14/2013 7:35:13 PM, lewis20 wrote:
If you want to give government a bunch of your money to tell you what to do, thats all good and fine, but don't force it on everyone else. As long as you aren't infringing on someone else's rights you should be free to do as you please.

Ok this has been said over and over, but what is your definition of "infringing on someone else's rights"? My opinion is not based on the thinking that government is the answer to everything, but a nation without laws or governing would not be a nation at all. You give people to the individual person, and they will abuse eventually. You assume too much if i am saying that government should be in total control.

Infringing on another's rights = force on another person who is not initiating force on anyone else.

Ok thank you for your definition, so now i must ask, who decides if a right is being infringed upon?

Give you a great example, if you give someone the right to refuse services to someone based on their color, religion, or sexual orientation, would you not be then infringing on that person's right to service. Let's say a doctor refuses medical treatment because the person is black, and if he does not receive said treatment, that person could die, is that persons right to life not being infringed upon because of someone else forcing their views on another? Now yes that is a very drastic example, but still plausible. See the problem is when you give someone total freedom to govern themselves without laws in place, then at some point their freedom infringes on another, again we as humans guide our actions based on our own individual views.

"person's right to service."

What is this right to service you speak of? I'd say a person is not legally obligated to sell anything to anyone they don't want to.

" Let's say a doctor refuses medical treatment because the person is black, and if he does not receive said treatment, that person could die, is that persons right to life not being infringed upon because of someone else forcing their views on another? "

A person has the right to life. Not the right to force others to help them survive. So there's no right to begin with.

Sorry "right to service" was the wrong wording. But hey if you think that ones hateful views trump a persons right, then..ok

The same argument could have been made at certain points in history to discredit any modern form of government.

This is very true
"When a man who is honestly mistaken hears the truth, he will either quit being mistaken or cease to be honest." - Abraham Lincoln
Izayah003
Posts: 369
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2013 8:00:58 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/14/2013 7:52:45 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 4/14/2013 7:50:46 PM, Izayah003 wrote:
At 4/14/2013 7:46:04 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 4/14/2013 7:32:41 PM, Izayah003 wrote:
At 4/14/2013 7:26:11 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
tl;dr anarchy= chaos.

lol stupid

can you name one example of how an anarchy based civilization succeeded?

I love it when statists bring up this argument.

Name me one anarchist nation or state that has failed. (inb4 somalia)

ah so you can't answer the question, so you ask the same question in return? if ya can't name one that's ok, because the answer is.... none.

So if I concede that an anarchist nation has never succeeded, and you concede that an anarchist nation has never failed (which you obviously do), then the point that I was trying to get to becomes clear. Anarchism has not ever actually been tested on a macro scale. This doesn't make it inherently bad or good, but appeals to history of anarchist nations are redundant.

see this we agree on, there is a reason why it hasn't been tested though.
"When a man who is honestly mistaken hears the truth, he will either quit being mistaken or cease to be honest." - Abraham Lincoln
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,244
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2013 8:03:10 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
"Sorry "right to service" was the wrong wording. But hey if you think that ones hateful views trump a persons right"

A right to what? A person only has a right to unfettered voluntary exchange. That's it.
lewis20
Posts: 5,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2013 8:07:12 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/14/2013 7:59:06 PM, Izayah003 wrote:
Sorry "right to service" was the wrong wording. But hey if you think that ones hateful views trump a persons right, then..ok

If you want a doctor to treat you for something, but he refuses for whatever reason, do you have the right to force him to treat you? against his will?
"If you are a racist I will attack you with the north"- Abraham Lincoln

"Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material" - Leviticus 19 19

"War is a racket" - Smedley Butler
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2013 8:07:34 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/14/2013 8:00:58 PM, Izayah003 wrote:
At 4/14/2013 7:52:45 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 4/14/2013 7:50:46 PM, Izayah003 wrote:
At 4/14/2013 7:46:04 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 4/14/2013 7:32:41 PM, Izayah003 wrote:
At 4/14/2013 7:26:11 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
tl;dr anarchy= chaos.

lol stupid

can you name one example of how an anarchy based civilization succeeded?

I love it when statists bring up this argument.

Name me one anarchist nation or state that has failed. (inb4 somalia)

ah so you can't answer the question, so you ask the same question in return? if ya can't name one that's ok, because the answer is.... none.

So if I concede that an anarchist nation has never succeeded, and you concede that an anarchist nation has never failed (which you obviously do), then the point that I was trying to get to becomes clear. Anarchism has not ever actually been tested on a macro scale. This doesn't make it inherently bad or good, but appeals to history of anarchist nations are redundant.

see this we agree on, there is a reason why it hasn't been tested though.

Not being tested=/= bad

Democracy wasn't tested 3000 years ago. It didn't mean that it was a bad system at that time.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
Izayah003
Posts: 369
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2013 8:14:29 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/14/2013 8:03:10 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
"Sorry "right to service" was the wrong wording. But hey if you think that ones hateful views trump a persons right"

A right to what? A person only has a right to unfettered voluntary exchange. That's it.

Ok since that is a good point, let me shift it to a more specific point. The main reason why we should not have the absolute right to govern ourselves is the fact that to do so would req a moral, and ethical code which we as humans do not equally share.

To you denying someone based on the color of their skin may be ok, it does violate moral and ethical standards. Your're taking a very narrow view on a persons "rights" yet not understanding that by nature a mans actions does effect others, either directly or indirectly, the point still remains the same. so to say that people should have total freedom because it won't effect other's freedom is groundless and short sighted.

Now yes this is a moral view i take, but am not alone in thinking this way. I tend to not view human life so cheap, nor am i a selfish person. can you give me your impression on how this country at least would look like should you actually get what you want, i think that may clear up this question I have about your logic.
"When a man who is honestly mistaken hears the truth, he will either quit being mistaken or cease to be honest." - Abraham Lincoln
Izayah003
Posts: 369
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2013 8:18:08 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/14/2013 8:07:34 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 4/14/2013 8:00:58 PM, Izayah003 wrote:
At 4/14/2013 7:52:45 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 4/14/2013 7:50:46 PM, Izayah003 wrote:
At 4/14/2013 7:46:04 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 4/14/2013 7:32:41 PM, Izayah003 wrote:
At 4/14/2013 7:26:11 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
tl;dr anarchy= chaos.

lol stupid

can you name one example of how an anarchy based civilization succeeded?

I love it when statists bring up this argument.

Name me one anarchist nation or state that has failed. (inb4 somalia)

ah so you can't answer the question, so you ask the same question in return? if ya can't name one that's ok, because the answer is.... none.

So if I concede that an anarchist nation has never succeeded, and you concede that an anarchist nation has never failed (which you obviously do), then the point that I was trying to get to becomes clear. Anarchism has not ever actually been tested on a macro scale. This doesn't make it inherently bad or good, but appeals to history of anarchist nations are redundant.

see this we agree on, there is a reason why it hasn't been tested though.

Not being tested=/= bad

Democracy wasn't tested 3000 years ago. It didn't mean that it was a bad system at that time.

You're deflecting again, never said that not being tested must mean it's bad, The reason why an anarchy based society would not be done is because it would fail, doesn't mean it is bad, but as human beings, we do not have the ability to govern our own actions. Without laws, one can not be punished, so then how can one be held accountable for his actions?
"When a man who is honestly mistaken hears the truth, he will either quit being mistaken or cease to be honest." - Abraham Lincoln
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,244
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2013 8:23:39 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/14/2013 8:14:29 PM, Izayah003 wrote:
At 4/14/2013 8:03:10 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
"Sorry "right to service" was the wrong wording. But hey if you think that ones hateful views trump a persons right"

A right to what? A person only has a right to unfettered voluntary exchange. That's it.

Ok since that is a good point, let me shift it to a more specific point. The main reason why we should not have the absolute right to govern ourselves is the fact that to do so would req a moral, and ethical code which we as humans do not equally share.

To you denying someone based on the color of their skin may be ok, it does violate moral and ethical standards. Your're taking a very narrow view on a persons "rights" yet not understanding that by nature a mans actions does effect others, either directly or indirectly, the point still remains the same. so to say that people should have total freedom because it won't effect other's freedom is groundless and short sighted.

Now yes this is a moral view i take, but am not alone in thinking this way. I tend to not view human life so cheap, nor am i a selfish person. can you give me your impression on how this country at least would look like should you actually get what you want, i think that may clear up this question I have about your logic.

A person's freedom cannot be predicated or require force on another to be achieved.
lewis20
Posts: 5,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2013 8:25:03 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Freedom isn't always a good thing, people are free to be hateful, racist, bigoted everything as long as they aren't hurting anyone. That's the price of freedom. As soon as you start bending any one of those rights you've lost your freedom.
So yes, absolute freedom is what we want, even if that means some backwoods moonshiner gets to put a 'whites only' on his shop front. chances are he's not getting any business to begin with.
"If you are a racist I will attack you with the north"- Abraham Lincoln

"Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material" - Leviticus 19 19

"War is a racket" - Smedley Butler
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2013 8:30:21 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/14/2013 8:18:08 PM, Izayah003 wrote:
At 4/14/2013 8:07:34 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 4/14/2013 8:00:58 PM, Izayah003 wrote:
At 4/14/2013 7:52:45 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 4/14/2013 7:50:46 PM, Izayah003 wrote:
At 4/14/2013 7:46:04 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 4/14/2013 7:32:41 PM, Izayah003 wrote:
At 4/14/2013 7:26:11 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
tl;dr anarchy= chaos.

lol stupid

can you name one example of how an anarchy based civilization succeeded?

I love it when statists bring up this argument.

Name me one anarchist nation or state that has failed. (inb4 somalia)

ah so you can't answer the question, so you ask the same question in return? if ya can't name one that's ok, because the answer is.... none.

So if I concede that an anarchist nation has never succeeded, and you concede that an anarchist nation has never failed (which you obviously do), then the point that I was trying to get to becomes clear. Anarchism has not ever actually been tested on a macro scale. This doesn't make it inherently bad or good, but appeals to history of anarchist nations are redundant.

see this we agree on, there is a reason why it hasn't been tested though.

Not being tested=/= bad

Democracy wasn't tested 3000 years ago. It didn't mean that it was a bad system at that time.

You're deflecting again, never said that not being tested must mean it's bad, The reason why an anarchy based society would not be done is because it would fail, doesn't mean it is bad, but as human beings, we do not have the ability to govern our own actions.

Evidence? Proof? Anything but sheer conjecture.

Without laws, one can not be punished, so then how can one be held accountable for his actions?

Where did you get the ridiculous assumption that anarchy entails no laws?
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,244
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2013 8:34:54 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Where did you get the ridiculous assumption that anarchy entails no laws?

Anarchy, by definition, has no laws. There may be rules that carry punishments for breaking them, but they aren't laws in the legal sense.
Izayah003
Posts: 369
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2013 8:35:27 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/14/2013 8:25:03 PM, lewis20 wrote:
Freedom isn't always a good thing, people are free to be hateful, racist, bigoted everything as long as they aren't hurting anyone. That's the price of freedom. As soon as you start bending any one of those rights you've lost your freedom.
So yes, absolute freedom is what we want, even if that means some backwoods moonshiner gets to put a 'whites only' on his shop front. chances are he's not getting any business to begin with.

So again I would like to know what you view is on this country should you get what you want and there would be absolute freedom, how would the country look in your eyes.

Also, the moment you tolerate hate, you condone it, the moment you condone it, more hate will spread, look to our history of slavery, racism, and discrimination for reference. How then can we talk about peace and liberty, or be called civilized when we allow hate to run free? A great example is West Burrow Baptist Church, their level of hate even caught the eye of the KKK, and when you go below their moral line, then it's game over man. From what your saying, they should be allowed to protest funerals, and such, yet morally, how could you possibly see this as acceptable?
"When a man who is honestly mistaken hears the truth, he will either quit being mistaken or cease to be honest." - Abraham Lincoln
Izayah003
Posts: 369
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2013 8:36:49 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/14/2013 8:34:54 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
Where did you get the ridiculous assumption that anarchy entails no laws?


Anarchy, by definition, has no laws. There may be rules that carry punishments for breaking them, but they aren't laws in the legal sense.

Ah not laws but rules, got it....

And I take it these "rules" will be decided by whomever?
"When a man who is honestly mistaken hears the truth, he will either quit being mistaken or cease to be honest." - Abraham Lincoln
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,244
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2013 8:39:21 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/14/2013 8:36:49 PM, Izayah003 wrote:
At 4/14/2013 8:34:54 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
Where did you get the ridiculous assumption that anarchy entails no laws?


Anarchy, by definition, has no laws. There may be rules that carry punishments for breaking them, but they aren't laws in the legal sense.

Ah not laws but rules, got it....

And I take it these "rules" will be decided by whomever?

They will be decided by whoever can enforce them. Essentially, brute force.