gonzojournals
Better than You
You leftists seem to be so scared by the concept of freedom-- why is that?
Libertarianism
- Thread starter gonzojournals
- Start date
Agnosticus_Caesar
Fuck You Too
Gonzo, please refrain from claiming to be a Libertarian. Insofar as I disagree with many Libertarians, you are a far less intelligent individual than any I've met who have claimed said creed.
gonzojournals
Better than You
Isn't he, though? He must have access to my mind, since he seems to know so much about my intelligence.
Beefy
Worst gambler ever
Collectivism is safer, more "fair" in a classical sense. And it does have its place in society. But individuality is far more important on the scale or the happiness that we are guaranteed to persue. In fact, that's what its all about, the ability to be free.
My belief system in a word is "Live and let live".
I love this guy. AC, you're one of the most inteligent posters here. Serious.
theMAJORITY
MAJORITYrules-sorry
I like as much freedom as is possible and still live in a society rather than a jungle
That is the catch 22. Only without society and government, can a person be totally free. As society and governemnt grows, freedom of individuals in that society diminishes. I don't think anyone can dispute that statement--it is a fact.--So, what is our destiny?
Diuretic
New member
Without cooperation we can't live, it's part of human nature to cooperate for mutual/collective good. I don't have the intellectual firepower to describe what I want to happen but I do want to see the end of all government because government means lack of freedom. I do want to see societies continue though, through collectivism, but not a simple subsistence form of collectivism, but a post-capitalist, post-industrialist form. No, I can't explain it and I'll have to take a hammering as a wide-eyed dreamer but for mine even liberal democracy has outlived its usefulness and if we're not careful we'll do a u-turn back to authoritarianism and totalitarianism.
gonzojournals
Better than You
Nice.
Minister of Truth
Practically Perfect
That is not the catch. It was agreed upon at the founding of this country that without government there is no way to guarantee one's Natural Rights. Having a government of some kind, helps to ensure individual liberties. Something often ignored in mindless attacks on libertarianism (i.e. "Libertarians must support anarchy because X"). Some people who call themselves libertarians go so far as to promote ideas that would destroy government, but then they are defeating the values which they "claim" to want to uphold. An example is Grind's view that paying taxes should be voluntary.
The catch is stability. Since the ideal government is a republic (what the Greeks called a commonwealth, actually) that exists to protect our Natural Rights, as we demand more liberty for ourselves, we become more democratic. As we become more democratic we begin to demand more license, and that leads to an unstable society. We will have more freedom of choice, but if the society collapses from our irresponsible lifestyles, we lose our government and its promise to protect our liberty.
Diuretic
New member
Watch what happens when the resources we need to live are dwindling. Where I live water is a huge political issue and one single river serves the water needs of four states or at least some of the regions of four states.
Already I'm seeing people who use the river water to irrigate their crops gettting angry and trying to organise political marches. Meanwhile downstream a city of one million people and several rural towns rely on that river for drinking water (as well as other domestic uses).
Government at the federal level stuffed it up so they're gone. Now we have a new federal government and four state governments which needs to sort this out and I'm seeing parochialism by three state governments that want the water for their farmers and one state government that wants the the water for drinking and domestic use struggling with the other three.
This is when you see the stupidity of government that acts on parochial interests.
Already I'm seeing people who use the river water to irrigate their crops gettting angry and trying to organise political marches. Meanwhile downstream a city of one million people and several rural towns rely on that river for drinking water (as well as other domestic uses).
Government at the federal level stuffed it up so they're gone. Now we have a new federal government and four state governments which needs to sort this out and I'm seeing parochialism by three state governments that want the water for their farmers and one state government that wants the the water for drinking and domestic use struggling with the other three.
This is when you see the stupidity of government that acts on parochial interests.
theMAJORITY
MAJORITYrules-sorry
Any kind of socialism hurts our freedom. Human nature to cooperate for mutual/collective good is a load of crap when third (3 to 300) outside parties are skimming from the top. Do you donate to the Christians Childrens Fund? Their ad on TV specfically states "Don't worry about the Christian Childrens fund (just a example folks--don't get all worked up becuase I used this particular fund for an example), we make sure 80% of the money coming in goes to charitable programs to help children like these." What that really means is---"We take off 20% off the top, so the rest of the money goes to many other programs, may be through 3 or 4 programs, who all take up to 30% off the top---before the last 10% actually goes to the children. Now for the insane liberials--I don't have a problem with helping out people I want to help out directly---but this "good for the all" BS does not include me in the all (because I am productive--and choose to take care of myself)---but I have to give all of my all to pay for your stiking all. Later, I will be part of the all that needs help, because all of what I worked for myself was taken away from me by thrid parties that really want it all.
Ya get it?
THATS RIGHT!!
theMAJORITY
MAJORITYrules-sorry
The sky is falling--the sky is falling. Quick, panic
Rivers change all the time---even before humans existed. not sure if you knew that or not. There has always been the same amount of water on the planet.
Annie
Not So Junior Member
Have you read, "Leviathan" by Thomas Hobbes? Plato?
There are worse things by far and away than government. While I agree that most humans are social, there are some that are not so. They may be the largest, loudest, or strongest. Unfortunately the negative are rarely the smartest.
You do know that water can be broken down into other elements, right? This means that there has not always been the same amount of water.
the quantity of water is not the issue. You're right, the hydrological cycle is relatively constant.
the issue is the availability and distribution of fresh, potable, unpolluted water that can sustain human populations and the ecosystem.
Diuretic
New member
Enjoy the rant? I'll check later and see if there's anything factual worth taking on and demolishing in that stream-of-barely-consciousness.
No, second thoughts, just had a quick look and it's the usual stereotypical, off the back of the cornflakes box rubbish.
Diuretic
New member
Don't be a twat. I'm talking about the drought we're suffering here and the long-term climate change that's being observed. I'm sure it's pissing down with rain somewhere in the world, maybe in the Congo, but it's bone fucking dry here and that's all I fucking well care about.