How much or little do you think the US should intervene in foreign affairs?

ttystikk said:

I'm really honestly sorry you feel that way. It's very self limiting.

Click to expand...

DonAlejandroVega said:

I don't care enough about the issue to read new histories, by apologists. all I know is that the Muslims wish to deprive the Jews of their most revered holy site, mentioned 800 times in the Torah, because Muhammed, peanut butter upon him, had a dream, to an unspecified magic city, on a flying monster horse. Jerusalem is who the Jews are. maybe you an' the Green Party can go take it from them, dude. don't waste money on a return ticket.

Click to expand...

Padawanbater2 said:

Human rights abuses in North Korea,

Click to expand...

tobinates559 said:

the US has the power to stop a lot bad things from happening in the world, but we just seem to instigate and prolong any conflict or violence in foreign countries, and our own!!!

Click to expand...

Canna Sylvan said:

The Jews lost their land about 3 millennia ago. A lot has happened since then. Use the internet, you got a lot of catching up to do. There's much more to cyberspace than this site.

Also, you seem confused. The Ebony Horse is from way before Muhammed, and is a fable, different from myths.

Click to expand...

DonAlejandroVega said:

looks like they got it back..........

Click to expand...

Rob Roy said:

Hoppe quote -

A society is free, if every person is recognized as the exclusive owner of his own (scarce) physical body, if everyone is free to appropriate or “homestead” previously un-owned things as private property, if everyone is free to use his body and his homesteaded goods to produce whatever he wants to produce (without thereby damaging the physical integrity of other peoples’ property), and if everyone is free to contract with others regarding their respective properties in any way deemed mutually beneficial. Any interference with this constitutes an act of aggression, and a society is un-free to the extent of
such aggressions.




Apologies for the ad....can't seem to make it go away.

Click to expand...

I find it bizarre that anyone would find Hoppe’s argumentation ethics argument for libertarianism even slightly persuasive. It’s a string of non-starters followed by a string of non-sequitors. But I recently learned that at least one super-smart person found it convincing when he was younger. Thus, I think it’s worth showing how you can refute this argument in under a minute. First, I’ll give you terms commonly used in political philosophy. Then I’ll quote Hoppe’s argument. After that, the minute starts.

Begin with some terms from political philosophy:

A liberty right is something that grants me permission to do something.

A claim right is something that entails others have obligations, responsibilities, or duties toward me.

So, for instance, suppose you believe: “Everyone has the right to do whatever he pleases; no one has any duties to anyone else.” This sentence asserts that people have liberty rights to do anything, but have no claim rights at all.

In contrast, take: “I have the right not to be taxed–the government shouldn’t take my money.” Here I assert a claim right to my money–I assert that government agents have duties not to take my money from me.

So, to review, by definition:

“X has a liberty right to do Y” means “It is morally permissible for X to Y.”

“X has a claim right to do Y” means “Others have a duty not to interfere with X when he Ys.”

You can have a liberty right without a claim right. So, for instance, Hoppe thinks in the state of nature we all have liberty rights to kill one another, but he doesn’t think we have claim rights not to be killed.

With that distinction, consider Hans Hermann-Hoppe’s argumentation ethics argument for libertarian self-ownership.

Hoppe claims that the act of trying to justify a theory that rejected libertarian self-ownership is a performative contradiction—the act presupposes the truth of libertarian self-ownership. As he explains in The Economics and Ethics of Private Property:

It must be considered the ultimate defeat for an ethical proposal if one can demonstrate that its content is logically incompatible with the proponent’s claim that its validity be ascertain- able by argumentative means. To demonstrate any such incompatibility would amount to an impossibility proof; and such proof would constitute the most deadly smash possible in the realm of intellectual inquiry … Such property right in one’s own body must be said to be justified a priori. For anyone who would try to justify any norm whatsoever would already have to presuppose an exclusive right to control over his body as a valid norm simply in order to say ‘I propose such and such’. And anyone disputing such right, then, would become caught up in a practical contradiction, since arguing so would already implicitly have to accept the very norm which he was disputing.

Click to expand...

Harrekin said:

Should people be allowed sell themselves into slavery?

Click to expand...

abandonconflict said:

I was accused of argumentation ethics and referred to this as a result. I found it strange that a post-leftist (right wing philosophy) would use a refutation of an extreme right wing character such as Hoppe, but maybe I was using such a fallacy at the time. This is why I don't push any set of ideas explicitly but criticize doctrines instead.

Click to expand...

Rob Roy said:

People should not sell or compromise another persons freedom. Preventing another from selling or renting themself, by threats of force compromises that ability.

I am not interested in owning others, just myself.

Click to expand...

Harrekin said:

I think you misunderstood, under the libertarian self-ownership tenet, one has the right to contract their unlimited labour to someone else for any price they choose, right?

So should a person be allowed contract their body into slavery? (Assuming a "buyer" surfaced)

Click to expand...

Rob Roy said:

What do you think of the doctrine of not initiating aggression?

Click to expand...

Rob Roy said:

What a person does with their body is their business as long as what they are doing does not prevent others from enjoying their own freedom.

So, to say something should it be "allowed" assumes that permission must be granted by an external authority. If permission must be "allowed", then the slavery has already taken place to a smaller degree.

Click to expand...

abandonconflict said:

It is incomplete and therefore open to adoption by voluntaryism which is incompatible. Hence my rhetorical question:

Wherefore doth thine non-aggression principal reconcile upon exclusive deed regarding innate wherewithal?

Click to expand...

Harrekin said:

So in your world, people can sign themselves up as slaves?

Click to expand...

Rob Roy said:

That's a good question. If I understand it correctly.

I assume you are implying that ownership is a limited concept. What are the limitations you would place on it?

Click to expand...