Posted on 03/08/2003 9:29:27 AM PST by forest
It is fine by my standards to use force to respond to force initiated by another individial.
It must be directed only at that individual.
So speed limits should only apply to people that have actually run into you? Fascinationg.
Why didn't the Founding Fathers think of that? They must not have been as wise as the Libertarians.
Which book would that be? Your assertions are, as always, unsourced.
You cannot 'debate' tpaine anymore than you can 'debate' a four-year old child. Tpaine's responses always come down to: "I already rebutted that" (when he hasn't), or "that's wrong" (when he hasn't given a reason). Tpaine's 'arguments' are a slightly (and I emphasize slightly) more sophisticated version of "I know you are, but what am I". If FR had an ignore button, I'd put him on it. If you're thinking about 'debating' him, don't.
I know exactly how tpaine will reply to this post..."you can't debate me, you can't deal with my arguments"...blah blah blah". You're right Tpaine. I can't debate someone with the argumenation skills of a Rhesus monkey. If you don't know when you're wrong, you can't argue. And in tpaine's mind, tpaine is never wrong. So, I know how Tpaine will respond. Tpaine is predictable, because his stupidity is an invariable constant. Ignore him and he goes away.
It is well within the rights and authority of a community (through elected representatives)to determine the maximum speed for it's streets .
I think that you are disingenuously trying to draw me into an untennable position.
See my post #59
I don't claim that the rights of the individual supercede the rights of others.
I guess you could say that individual rights end where it interferes with the rights of others.
But that's a far cry from statists who claim that rights are subject to the whims of the state.
Your equation could also read: conservatism = enforced standards = punishing dissent = iron fisted tyrant = totalitarianism = bloodbath. Or as I have already heard leftist say conservatism = Taliban.
With the exception of a few regular posters on this site I would disagree that the conservative mindset is equivalent to the Taliban and I also disagree with your premise that libertarianism = no widely agreed upon and enforced moral standards. Laws against murder, assault, theft, fraud, trespassing etc. though limited still cover a lot of turf, enough to keep a society functional and civilized - especially a "multi-cultural" society. The wider universally held moral principles that you might believe in are only practical in a homogenous society or in a small tribe or clan because outside of those confines there is no agreement. The US is no longer homogenous. Furthermore the socialistic system we live under makes society less civil. As the reach of government grows the more it pits peoples against each other as they vie for official recognition, tax subsidized hand outs and advantage over other groups. Your argument is with leftist promoted social decay and with big government yet you see it as the fault of liberty and you fear liberty as you see it further unleashing this decay but fail to see how limiting government limits the power of the left, hence libertarianism solves the problems against which you rail.
How about my second point? I call this the "Gunga Diner" example. We all know that medical schools give money to winos to have them sign a release stating that after they die, the med schools can use their cadavers for medical training. Right? Ok, now your standard for what government can and cannot do is the "non-initiation of force", right? And you support the right to freely contract, as long as a person is at an "age of reason", right?
So, what if there's a group of people that wants to eat humans after they die a natural death? Let's say I start a restaurant--the Gunga Diner--that voluntarily contracts with terminally ill people to sell their bodies (for--I don't know, $500 a pop?) for food after they die. Ok? Now, you as a libertarian should have no problem with this, right? No violence was initiated against the people agreeing (they weren't killed; they died of natural causes), and they freely contracted of their own free will. Why is this not okay? Or is it? Even more disgusting example--why shouldn't parents have the right to sell their deceased children to said diner? Their children are their "property", aren't they?
I hate to be so disgusting, but sometimes it's necessary.
Which is an argument consistent with the moral position regarding the initiation of force.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.