Total Posts:393|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Libertarian crap

Cermank
Posts: 3,773
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/3/2013 7:04:35 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
So, an outlandish claim. Can't find the problem with the propositions.

1. Libertarians believe that we should have the right to do anything we want as long as we don't hurt other people, or infringe upon their rights.

2, Right to life is the most fundamental right of a human.

3. Given that we have resources more than we require, we can save someone's life by redistributing them to someone who needs it more than we do.

4. By not doing that, he will die.

5. We are infringing on his right to life by not giving him the resources we don't strictly need.
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/3/2013 7:25:56 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
The right to life is a negative, not a positive right. I have a right not to have my life taken away from. I am not obliged to protect people from having their right to life taken away.
"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."
benevolent
Posts: 1,040
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/3/2013 7:32:16 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/3/2013 7:25:56 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
The right to life is a negative, not a positive right. I have a right not to have my life taken away from. I am not obliged to protect people from having their right to life taken away.

this is just stupid
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/3/2013 7:35:08 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/3/2013 7:04:35 PM, Cermank wrote:
So, an outlandish claim. Can't find the problem with the propositions.

1. Libertarians believe that we should have the right to do anything we want as long as we don't hurt other people, or infringe upon their rights.

And you don't? Why is this a bad idea?
2, Right to life is the most fundamental right of a human.

I take it you are not a fan of the due process clause.
3. Given that we have resources more than we require, we can save someone's life by redistributing them to someone who needs it more than we do.

Last I checked libertarians were against the redistribution of wealth.
4. By not doing that, he will die.

The right to life is a negative right, not a positive right.
5. We are infringing on his right to life by not giving him the resources we don't strictly need.

It does not follow. Liberty is the immunity from an arbitrary exercise of authority.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/3/2013 7:35:09 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/3/2013 7:29:52 PM, benevolent wrote:
libertarians are dying lordknukle just go with it dude

It's actually quite the opposite. With the promising spotlighting of various key political figures, such as Rand and Ron Paul, coupled with the slight (but slow) change in the Republican party towards libertarian tendencies, I'm inclined to believe the exact contrary.
"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."
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/3/2013 7:35:43 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/3/2013 7:32:16 PM, benevolent wrote:
At 7/3/2013 7:25:56 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
The right to life is a negative, not a positive right. I have a right not to have my life taken away from. I am not obliged to protect people from having their right to life taken away.

this is just stupid

That is not a rebuttal
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/3/2013 7:36:33 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/3/2013 7:35:09 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 7/3/2013 7:29:52 PM, benevolent wrote:
libertarians are dying lordknukle just go with it dude

It's actually quite the opposite. With the promising spotlighting of various key political figures, such as Rand and Ron Paul, coupled with the slight (but slow) change in the Republican party towards libertarian tendencies, I'm inclined to believe the exact contrary.

Ron Paul is not a Libertarian
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/3/2013 7:37:33 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/3/2013 7:36:33 PM, DanT wrote:
At 7/3/2013 7:35:09 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 7/3/2013 7:29:52 PM, benevolent wrote:
libertarians are dying lordknukle just go with it dude

It's actually quite the opposite. With the promising spotlighting of various key political figures, such as Rand and Ron Paul, coupled with the slight (but slow) change in the Republican party towards libertarian tendencies, I'm inclined to believe the exact contrary.

Ron Paul is not a Libertarian

Economically, he is. And that's all I care about.
"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."
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/3/2013 7:38:02 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/3/2013 7:36:56 PM, benevolent wrote:
i have a headache...

Big paragraphs hurt your brain?
"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."
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/3/2013 7:38:29 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/3/2013 7:38:02 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 7/3/2013 7:36:56 PM, benevolent wrote:
i have a headache...

Big paragraphs hurt your brain?

Actually, it's more like two lines.
"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."
YYW
Posts: 36,234
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/3/2013 7:39:06 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/3/2013 7:04:35 PM, Cermank wrote:
So, an outlandish claim. Can't find the problem with the propositions.

1. Libertarians believe that we should have the right to do anything we want as long as we don't hurt other people, or infringe upon their rights.

2, Right to life is the most fundamental right of a human.

3. Given that we have resources more than we require, we can save someone's life by redistributing them to someone who needs it more than we do.

4. By not doing that, he will die.

5. We are infringing on his right to life by not giving him the resources we don't strictly need.

We are guilty of all the good we choose not to do.

Libertarians would counter that his consuming another's resources violates another's right to the product of their labor -the implication being that the one who hold's the means to save another's life is worth more than another's life. It's an interesting calculus, for sure.
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/3/2013 7:40:00 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/3/2013 7:39:06 PM, YYW wrote:
At 7/3/2013 7:04:35 PM, Cermank wrote:
So, an outlandish claim. Can't find the problem with the propositions.

1. Libertarians believe that we should have the right to do anything we want as long as we don't hurt other people, or infringe upon their rights.

2, Right to life is the most fundamental right of a human.

3. Given that we have resources more than we require, we can save someone's life by redistributing them to someone who needs it more than we do.

4. By not doing that, he will die.

5. We are infringing on his right to life by not giving him the resources we don't strictly need.

We are guilty of all the good we choose not to do.


Lol is all I can say to this.
"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."
YYW
Posts: 36,234
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/3/2013 7:41:17 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/3/2013 7:40:00 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 7/3/2013 7:39:06 PM, YYW wrote:
At 7/3/2013 7:04:35 PM, Cermank wrote:
So, an outlandish claim. Can't find the problem with the propositions.

1. Libertarians believe that we should have the right to do anything we want as long as we don't hurt other people, or infringe upon their rights.

2, Right to life is the most fundamental right of a human.

3. Given that we have resources more than we require, we can save someone's life by redistributing them to someone who needs it more than we do.

4. By not doing that, he will die.

5. We are infringing on his right to life by not giving him the resources we don't strictly need.

We are guilty of all the good we choose not to do.


Lol is all I can say to this.

How much Rand have your read, LK?
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/3/2013 7:43:20 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/3/2013 7:41:17 PM, YYW wrote:
At 7/3/2013 7:40:00 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 7/3/2013 7:39:06 PM, YYW wrote:
At 7/3/2013 7:04:35 PM, Cermank wrote:
So, an outlandish claim. Can't find the problem with the propositions.

1. Libertarians believe that we should have the right to do anything we want as long as we don't hurt other people, or infringe upon their rights.

2, Right to life is the most fundamental right of a human.

3. Given that we have resources more than we require, we can save someone's life by redistributing them to someone who needs it more than we do.

4. By not doing that, he will die.

5. We are infringing on his right to life by not giving him the resources we don't strictly need.

We are guilty of all the good we choose not to do.


Lol is all I can say to this.

How much Rand have your read, LK?

Quite a bit.
"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."
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/3/2013 7:43:43 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/3/2013 7:42:32 PM, benevolent wrote:
rand was also a retard

Go away. You're not adding anything here.
"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."
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/3/2013 7:45:28 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/3/2013 7:04:35 PM, Cermank wrote:
So, an outlandish claim. Can't find the problem with the propositions.

1. Libertarians believe that we should have the right to do anything we want as long as we don't hurt other people, or infringe upon their rights.

2, Right to life is the most fundamental right of a human.

3. Given that we have resources more than we require, we can save someone's life by redistributing them to someone who needs it more than we do.

4. By not doing that, he will die.

5. We are infringing on his right to life by not giving him the resources we don't strictly need.

2, Right to life is the most fundamental right of a human.

In what sense does some one have the "right to life" ? It could mean either...

1) The right not to be killed
2) The right to have things given to them to sustain their life

I think most people use it in the first sense, thus it doesn't follow that accepting the "right to life" in that sense we have to accept 3 & 5
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
Cermank
Posts: 3,773
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/3/2013 7:47:28 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/3/2013 7:25:56 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
The right to life is a negative, not a positive right. I have a right not to have my life taken away from. I am not obliged to protect people from having their right to life taken from.

But you have the resources to ensure that his life is not taken away from him. So by not redistributing them, you are directly a part of the responsibility equation of the person who dies, because he has not enough resources. See P1. By exercising your right to live on excess resources, you are directly causing the death of people who COULD have lived, given you had redistributed your resources.
benevolent
Posts: 1,040
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/3/2013 7:50:12 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
We live in a world of finite resources. In hoarding all those resources for yourself, you're essentially killing everyone else. Let's take it to that ridiculous extreme. What say you libertarians? Would you just die?
benevolent
Posts: 1,040
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/3/2013 7:51:24 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/3/2013 7:50:12 PM, benevolent wrote:
We live in a world of finite resources. In hoarding all those resources for yourself, you're essentially killing everyone else. Let's take it to that ridiculous extreme. What say you libertarians? Would you just die?

Ergo libertarianism is retarded.
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/3/2013 7:51:30 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/3/2013 7:47:28 PM, Cermank wrote:
At 7/3/2013 7:25:56 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
The right to life is a negative, not a positive right. I have a right not to have my life taken away from. I am not obliged to protect people from having their right to life taken from.

But you have the resources to ensure that his life is not taken away from him. So by not redistributing them, you are directly a part of the responsibility equation of the person who dies, because he has not enough resources. See P1. By exercising your right to live on excess resources, you are directly causing the death of people who COULD have lived, given you had redistributed your resources.

Yup.
"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."
YYW
Posts: 36,234
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/3/2013 7:52:02 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/3/2013 7:43:20 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 7/3/2013 7:41:17 PM, YYW wrote:
At 7/3/2013 7:40:00 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 7/3/2013 7:39:06 PM, YYW wrote:
At 7/3/2013 7:04:35 PM, Cermank wrote:
So, an outlandish claim. Can't find the problem with the propositions.

1. Libertarians believe that we should have the right to do anything we want as long as we don't hurt other people, or infringe upon their rights.

2, Right to life is the most fundamental right of a human.

3. Given that we have resources more than we require, we can save someone's life by redistributing them to someone who needs it more than we do.

4. By not doing that, he will die.

5. We are infringing on his right to life by not giving him the resources we don't strictly need.

We are guilty of all the good we choose not to do.


Lol is all I can say to this.

How much Rand have your read, LK?

Quite a bit.

I figured as much. Ever read any Rawls?
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,042
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/3/2013 7:54:01 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Us libertarians tend to say that people have the negative right to life: meaning, no one may obstruct a person from living (ie, kill them). However, similarly, no one is obligated to give that person the means by which to live (ie, food and shelter).
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
CanWeKnow
Posts: 217
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/3/2013 7:54:10 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Think about it like this:

We can all own vehicles.

Some people own SUVs because it's safer and more comfortable for their passengers.

I own a small sedan. It fits my needs perfectly

When the b%$# driving the SUV crashed into me I was seriously injured and she walked away without a scratch.

One mindset would be that she has the right to keep herself as safe as she wants.

My mindset would be that her use of an SUV is excessive and therefore unnecessarily dangerous.

That's why I created the ADAACUS. The Automobile Driver's Association Against Consumer Usage of SUVs. :) lol. I just really hate SUVs.
YYW
Posts: 36,234
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/3/2013 7:54:23 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/3/2013 7:42:32 PM, benevolent wrote:
rand was also a retard

She was actually a brilliant writer, but a minimally adequate political philosopher. I disagree with the bulk of her main points, but I'm not so bold as to discredit her in her entirety just because I disagree with the bulk of what she argues for.

That said, whenever Paul Ryan says he took economics lessons from Rand, I LOL.