Evil Avatar

Evil Avatar (http://www.evilavatar.com/forums/index.php)
-   Totally Off Topic (http://www.evilavatar.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=9)
-   -   Anarcho-capitalism (http://www.evilavatar.com/forums/showthread.php?t=210530)

Anemone 08-06-2015 03:06 PM

If nothing else, don't lie about being a small government libertarian more than me. You support taxation, you support military spending, you support all manner of things that I oppose. Don't you dare try to lie about that.

VenomUSMC 08-06-2015 03:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anemone (Post 2390759)
Having someone grossly misunderstand my point, infer their own meaning and even add words I never used, fail to ask me for clarification on ambiguous statements, then attack me for their assumed meaning, then complain when I actually explain what I mean, is not the same thing as "sweeping position changes," no.

You mean, doing exactly what you do?

Quote:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Terran (Post 2390227)
LOL. Bitcoin DOESN'T rely upon the masses to drive demand?

Someone doesn't understand currency valuations very well, let alone human (market) psychology. :rolleyes:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anemone (Post 2390258)
Let me ask you this, does gold rely solely on "the masses to drive demand"?

On the one hand you're right that value is in the mind of the valuer, but that alone cannot drive value. The thing being valued has to have qualities that are being valued. Something with no qualities has nothing to value.

Price is the conflux of qualities and valuers that value those qualities.

But I didn't take you for someone interested in monetary theory.

You seemed to be saying bitcoin has no qualities that can be valued, which is an ignorant position.

The case for being bullish on bitcoin is the idea that most people don't know what qualities bitcoin has that make it a good money, even the best money. As they come to understand this, they'll increasingly want to use it.

Seems you are one of the many who don't understand these qualities.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Terran (Post 2390295)
I never said that, but you do seem to enjoy arguing with yourself while attaching the ideas you are arguing against to others, so...knock yourself out!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anemone (Post 2390319)
Actually I was inviting you to elaborate on your post's meaning and those assumptions after inferring from your sparse original, but if you don't want to have an actual discussion that's fine too.


Although I disagree with what you said, if you feel that this is being done to you, why don't you take them as an invitation like you say it is when you do it?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anemone (Post 2390759)
I've been trying to explain a bleeding-edge idea--decentralized-law, which is not fully developed, which (likely) none of you had encountered before, which I don't necessarily have a complete grasp on myself (nor does anyone, it's developing in real time), which has no specific policy proposals--only a new way of making and effecting them, and which is very broad and open-ended.

And yet you declare it some sort of magical fix. You declared AnCap, this not fully developed idea which you now say you don't have complete grasp of yourself, would have be the cure for a woman who was nearly beaten to death by her ex, Elliot Rodgers wouldn't have been able to attack a community which he was part of, and apparently a place in which people were allowed to own firearms wouldn't be a place where you could mistakenly be shot.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anemone (Post 2390759)
I've often talked while assuming certain things which readers did not realize I was assuming. Much misunderstanding has come from that, from an unspoken premise here or there, or one that a reader hasn't followed through with that existed in earlier discussions and was easily forgotten.

This is equivalent to saying "context of a discussion may or may not apply, without any notification as to if it does. Regardless, I, Anenome, may change that context after the fact for any purpose." This is most obviously seen with your retroactive declaration that when you said "we not allow children in most public places." After the fact, you meant in a COLA you'd agree to. Then comes the problem of declaring "public places" as you've declared COLAs don't own property. The context of the discussion was anti-vaxxers and their children in the United States today. Therefore context doesn't matter; that is until you want it to matter.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anemone (Post 2390759)
The COLA is a condition that one enters into, a condition of association like, say, an Elks club. One joins the Elks and agrees in advance to certain rules and can be expelled if one breaks those rules, and similarly can leave if one does not want to be part of the Elks and the Elks cannot stop you from leaving.

I've never heard anyone worry that the Elks club might become a government in some way. It is pure voluntary association.

The Elks club is a government in some way already. Voluntary association or not does not in itself determine if it's a government type entity. People choose to leave states all the time (well, not you); does that mean those states suddenly aren't governments because you can choose to leave? Of course not. You'll argue that you never agreed to the rules of the United States in the first place, and it's true that you were not asked to sign some contract agreeing to every single rule -- that isn't the end of discussion of consent, however. You're 38 and have been, legally at least, an adult for 20 years. You're an example of implied consent; you haven't left despite all of your complaints. In fact, you've noted why you made the choice to live in California.
Government: The group of people with the authority to govern a country or state; a particular ministry in office.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anemone (Post 2390759)
Now here we have three people, you, Terran, and Ven who are ideological opponents of libertarianism. Which is a bit ironic, since conservatives claim to have a lock of ideas and ideals of liberty, but it's easy to point out how the republican conservatives are equally as guilty as the democrats in enabling the current abuses of the system. You guys are little more than useful idiots who dutifully keep voting for politicians because you think there is no other way.

You continue to vote for politicians; you say so here and here. Those politicians you're voting for? Republicans. By your on words, you're a useful idiot.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anemone (Post 2390759)
It is that belief, that there is no other way, that keeps you prisoner to your current political path.

I investigated other ways and found some great ones.

Your belief that this is no other way than AnCap would mean the same logic applies to you; however, you continue to vote for Republicans and choose to live in California.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anemone (Post 2390759)
That's what this thread is about, other ways. No one should be surprised that those not yet ready to even think about other ways would scoff at such a thread.

You're just not there yet with your mentality. That's okay. I remember being where you were myself, I was the chief conservative of all. I was once labeled the most conservative republican teen in all of California during my service in Youth in Government, and that included the Orange County delegates, because I was the only teen willing to oppose a bill to lower the age of consent to 13--Ven's current sig is particularly ironic thereby.

No, it's not about other ways; it's about your way. If people do not agree with you, you declare their way wrong and your way right (oddly while now conceding it's not all thought-out and you don't fully understand what you're advocating). My sig is particularly ironic -- it's undeniable that you don't see anything inherently immoral with 13 year olds being married off to pedophiles to molest them. You were 13 then; you're 38 now -- a 25 year difference appears to make a very difference, doesn't it?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anemone (Post 2390759)
If you seek you will find. I found. What I found you don't like, yet what I found was the truth about liberty.

This is objectively false. You've found what you believe to be true; you've declared what you believe to be truly moral and immoral (the immoral doesn't appear to include children being married off to adults); and you've quickly often dismissed objective evidence that was contrary to your position. Very notably seen in your declaration that the USSR, despite the killing of protesters, the immediate wars and those that would follow (which continue on today), broke up without a shot fired.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anemone (Post 2390759)
Many former conservatives have become ancaps, like myself. This is not mystery. This is also why you dislike me, because you think I'm trying to recruit. In truth, I'm just elated to find amazing ideas about liberty and sharing them, working them out in my own mind in discussing them, ala iron sharpens iron.

I feel that you're doing nothing but projecting here. You're also not interested in discussing ideas; you're interested in declaring all your views to be the truth, however. It's also odd that you're continuing to "work out" anything:
Quote:

Originally Posted by Anenome (Post 2273000)
If you really think I haven't spent years thinking about this and you've suddenly found a chink in the armor, you're dreaming.


Quote:

Originally Posted by Anemone (Post 2390759)
You conservatives are no different than the old physicists who attacked the idea of quantum physics. You'll have to die off if you won't be convinced, but the world will go on without you.

Maybe. Of course, I feel that you're like the Communists that had utopian dreams -- you'll happily send millions upon millions to their deaths in order to try to build what you are convinced will be paradise on Earth.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anemone (Post 2390769)
If nothing else, don't lie about being a small government libertarian more than me. You support taxation, you support military spending, you support all manner of things that I oppose. Don't you dare try to lie about that.

Small government isn't no government. The best part of this is that you say things like this:
Quote:

Originally Posted by Anenome (Post 2248034)
Bean is probably more libertarian than most/all mainstream conservatives.

So...


SpectralThundr 08-06-2015 03:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anemone (Post 2390769)
If nothing else, don't lie about being a small government libertarian more than me. You support taxation, you support military spending, you support all manner of things that I oppose. Don't you dare try to lie about that.

Yes I support some level of taxation, because unlike you, I live in this little thing called reality rather than Anenome's "I really wish I were a dictator" fantasy world.

Anemone 08-06-2015 04:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SpectralThundr (Post 2390775)
Yes I support some level of taxation, because unlike you, I live in this little thing called reality rather than Anenome's "I really wish I were a dictator" fantasy world.

And that's where your ignorance and bias come in. You still imagine you need someone to buy things for you, that you're too dumb to buy things for yourself.

That is the position of a political elite who believes people are children who must coddled and made to do what's in their interest.

In other words, that is not a libertarian position. At all.

I want people to both keep all their money and make all their own buying choices, even when it comes to things like deciding what kind of national defense to pay for, what kind of courts and roads to pay for, etc.

That is what liberty means, freedom to decide.

Your appeals to "reality" are in actuality excuses for tyranny.

SpectralThundr 08-06-2015 04:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anemone (Post 2390785)
And that's where your ignorance and bias come in. You still imagine you need someone to buy things for you, that you're too dumb to buy things for yourself.

That is the position of a political elite who believes people are children who must coddled and made to do what's in their interest.

In other words, that is not a libertarian position. At all.

I want people to both keep all their money and make all their own buying choices, even when it comes to things like deciding what kind of national defense to pay for, what kind of courts and roads to pay for, etc.

That is what liberty means, freedom to decide.

Your appeals to "reality" are in actuality excuses for tyranny.

Says the wanna be dictator. You can sit there and pretend that you don't need a military at all, or police, judges, public workers, etc to be paid at all for their services, or roads to be repaved when worn. Or basic city level infrastructure to be maintained and improved when needed. What the hell do you think taxes pay for? Does the government over spend on things we don't need? Yep! But wanting to tear it all down, from the comforts of your nazi prison camp in Comiefornia doesn't make the things you propose even feasible.

What do you think a small government libertarian advocate is? Do you think all libertarians wish to tear it all down? Do the politicians you vote for, Ron and Rand Paul want to tear it all down? Bottom line you don't even seem to understand the positions you claim to support at their basic level.

You're not a libertarian, your a authoritarian who's confused about what actual ideologies stand for.

Anemone 08-06-2015 04:39 PM

https://i.imgur.com/sK5Q1G7.jpg

Anemone 08-06-2015 04:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SpectralThundr (Post 2390797)
Says the wanna be dictator.

A laughable assertion that you've never even had the grace to debate me about. I'm an anarchist. Fuck dictators.

You only say this because you hope to infuriate me. You don't believe it for a second. You can't be that naive.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SpectralThundr (Post 2390797)
You can sit there and pretend that you don't need a military at all, or police, judges, public workers, etc to be paid at all for their services, or roads to be repaved when worn.

How many times have I said this now? "You don't understand my idea if you can say this."

I want a military, police, judges, roads, etc. However, economics has proven that we don't need a centralized government to pay for these things.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SpectralThundr (Post 2390797)
Or basic city level infrastructure to be maintained and improved when needed. What the hell do you think taxes pay for?

Only a "wannabe dictator" like you would make excuses for why you have to steal from people to pay for things they already want.

Do you imagine people wouldn't pay for these things if you weren't FORCING them to pay for them? That's ridiculous. People are happy to pay taxes because they want the things taxes pays for. But if they could have those same things and pay less, are you suggesting they wouldn't want that?

Economics tells us that a monopoly provider of any service will charge higher prices and deliver lower service than a competitive market for goods and services, and those things are just goods and services like any other.

You've never understood this. You don't have a good foundation in economics.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SpectralThundr (Post 2390797)
Does the government over spend on things we don't need? Yep! But wanting to tear it all down

How many times have I said that I want a society with law, police, national defense, and courts. How does that equate to "tear it all down" in your mind?

The truth is, you hear 'anarchy' and you think I mean complete lawlessness, when in fact political-anarchy is a completely different idea than anarchy which connotes utter chaos.

I don't want to "tear it all down," I simply want a world which doesn't have a monopoly government forcing laws on me.

Aren't you against monopoly?

I guess you must be the wannabe dictator if you're making excuses for monopoly and why people have to have income stolen from them to pay for services they may or may not want.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SpectralThundr (Post 2390797)
What do you think a small government libertarian advocate is? Do you think all libertarians wish to tear it all down?

I've never agreed that I want to "tear it all down," so again you are attacking me on that basis of what you think I mean, not what I actually do. I constantly say I want a society with law, police, and courts. That description matches our own.

What you're doing is called attacking a strawman.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SpectralThundr (Post 2390797)
Do the politicians you vote for, Ron and Rand Paul want to tear it all down?

I do not vote for politicians.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SpectralThundr (Post 2390797)
Bottom line you don't even seem to understand the positions you claim to support at their basic level.

You don't understand them, rather.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SpectralThundr (Post 2390797)
You're not a libertarian, your a authoritarian who's confused about what actual ideologies stand for.

What makes you think I'm an authoritarian? Me, a voluntarist? Your looney rhetoric has reached satire levels. Calling a voluntarist an authoritarian! Do you have any examples of voluntary tyranny? Were Jews gassing themselves during WWII? Has Obama bombed anyone after they asked him to?

The hell is wrong with you.

SpectralThundr 08-06-2015 05:06 PM

You've dictated that you will LIBERATE people by force, your answer to scenarios of what a private property owner can or can't do to remove an unwanted intruder is to dictate rules as to what they're allowed to do on THEIR property. You advocate for pedophilia claiming it's not immoral to marry off 13 year olds, you claim there is no such thing as morals, except when it's convenient for them to exist Among many other things YOU have said. Venom is correct, you're just like the progressives who are trying to create a utopia on earth and despite claiming you have it all figured out, and have thought about this "for years' you then turn around and claim you don't have all the answers. You don't want discussion that doesn't agree with your views, when you are challenged, you play the victim card, much like progressives.

You Anenome, your words, paint you as an authoritarian and you're either too narcissistic or just too ignorant to realize it.

Deus Equus 08-06-2015 05:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anemone (Post 2390785)
That is the position of a political elite who believes people are children who must coddled and made to do what's in their interest.

/constructive_criticism
This belief is not exclusive to the political elite and therefore highlights your political bias, and this bias interferes with the debate.

And while your statement is not a 'technically untrue' statement, it is still a good example of the meme you yourself posted about controlling the BS factor when presenting a point. You should be focusing on non-political reasons for why you think all adults are so mature and wise that they don't need to be coddled.

/opinion
Your definition of adult is biased. You presume that adults are not children. This is only true in the sense of defining ourselves biologically. This does not presume any intelligence, experience or wisdom. Most adults are in fact very much 'like' children.

A child's perspective of being an adult is 'that adults have freedom'. The limitation of the child's perspective is that they see this freedom as being absolute. Only as an adult, can the child eventually learn the skills to become self-reflective and only then can they see the repeating behavior in themselves and understand that their 'freedom' was only relative and that they are still a child in many, many ways. So, we can not presume that all adults are not children... and therefore, yes, need much coddling.

Anemone 08-06-2015 05:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SpectralThundr (Post 2390804)
You've dictated that you will LIBERATE people by force

No. I always said I would only justify taking action if the people I wanted to rescue had FIRST INVITED ME TO HELP REMOVE THEM. It's not possible for you not to have seen me say that, I've said that every time we've talked about this issue.

Further, governments do not own their people in a literal sense. Governments were created to protect people. It cannot be considered a violation of the right of a government to cross their territory to remove people that a criminal government is oppressing or trying to kill from that situation, since the purpose of government in the first place is to protect those very people.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SpectralThundr (Post 2390804)
your answer to scenarios of what a private property owner can or can't do to remove an unwanted intruder is to dictate rules as to what they're allowed to do on THEIR property.

You ignore that I have always cast this within the context of someone operating under the assumptions of a voluntarist legal order. I have never said "X must have these rules." I have said "under a voluntarist legal order, here's how the rules work."

90% of your and Venoms claims about me are due to ignoring this fact.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SpectralThundr (Post 2390804)
You advocate for pedophilia

I do not advocate for pedophilia. Pedophilia is always against the will of children. I have supported voluntary marriage by women as young as 13 who have experienced their first menses. Only your cultural and historical myopia makes you think this is weird. First menses has been a very common point of marriage for women historically and world-wide, and considered the line of pedophilia that shall not be crossed.

I don't think that there's any objective age for pedophilia, but first menses is an objective physical sign that a woman is physically ready to begin having children.

For many women that age varies significantly. I dated a girl who didn't have her first period till she was 18, so under my rubric she would've not been able to marry until 17.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SpectralThundr (Post 2390804)
claiming it's not immoral to marry off 13 year olds

With their consent, of course.

Here's the problem, you're operating in an emotional mode, not a rationale one. This is why you are unable to sit here and calmly tell us why it's immoral to marry a 13 year old.

Once you do you'll begin discovering the philosophical and practical problems with your emotional feeling.

For my part, if a 13 year old wants to get married, and her parents agree it's a good idea, only an authoritarian would stand in their way.

You must be an authoritarian, because you are assuming you know more about the situation and have the girl's interest at heart more than even her own parents.

Which brings us back to the conclusion that you think people are moron children who must be controlled by YOUR LAW for their own good because they're too stupid to make their own decisions.

And you never responded to the virtual historical certainty that Jesus' mother was likely 14 when she gave birth to Jesus.

Are you suggesting Joseph, who had further children with her shortly thereafter, was a pedophile? Moronic.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SpectralThundr (Post 2390804)
you claim there is no such thing as morals

No, this is a gross mistatement of my position. Which has become a habit with you. I claim there is no such thing as objective-morals, which is saying quite a different thing.

And on this point you had better sit down and do your philosophy reading, because as other posters here pointed out, you'd be laughed out of a Philosophy 101 course for saying there is such a thing, and with good reason.

You'll have to do better than just asserting a moral claim, you've got to support it with reason.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SpectralThundr (Post 2390804)
except when it's convenient for them to exist Among many other things YOU have said.

The only possible objective morals could come from god, and obviously I believe in god, but I'm not going to force those morals on people by law.

That's quite a different position from what you are casting me as.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SpectralThundr (Post 2390804)
You Anenome, your words, paint you as an authoritarian and you're either too narcissistic or just too ignorant to realize it.

Moronic.

All you do is make empty accusations. I'm bored with you. Welcome back to the ignore button.

SpectralThundr 08-06-2015 06:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anemone (Post 2390809)
No. I always said I would only justify taking action if the people I wanted to rescue had FIRST INVITED ME TO HELP REMOVE THEM. It's not possible for you not to have seen me say that, I've said that every time we've talked about this issue.

Further, governments do not own their people in a literal sense. Governments were created to protect people. It cannot be considered a violation of the right of a government to cross their territory to remove people that a criminal government is oppressing or trying to kill from that situation, since the purpose of government in the first place is to protect those very people.


You ignore that I have always cast this within the context of someone operating under the assumptions of a voluntarist legal order. I have never said "X must have these rules." I have said "under a voluntarist legal order, here's how the rules work."

90% of your and Venoms claims about me are due to ignoring this fact.


I do not advocate for pedophilia. Pedophilia is always against the will of children. I have supported voluntary marriage by women as young as 13 who have experienced their first menses. Only your cultural and historical myopia makes you think this is weird. First menses has been a very common point of marriage for women historically and world-wide, and considered the line of pedophilia that shall not be crossed.

I don't think that there's any objective age for pedophilia, but first menses is an objective physical sign that a woman is physically ready to begin having children.

For many women that age varies significantly. I dated a girl who didn't have her first period till she was 18, so under my rubric she would've not been able to marry until 17.


With their consent, of course.

Here's the problem, you're operating in an emotional mode, not a rationale one. This is why you are unable to sit here and calmly tell us why it's immoral to marry a 13 year old.

Once you do you'll begin discovering the philosophical and practical problems with your emotional feeling.

For my part, if a 13 year old wants to get married, and her parents agree it's a good idea, only an authoritarian would stand in their way.

You must be an authoritarian, because you are assuming you know more about the situation and have the girl's interest at heart more than even her own parents.

Which brings us back to the conclusion that you think people are moron children who must be controlled by YOUR LAW for their own good because they're too stupid to make their own decisions.

And you never responded to the virtual historical certainty that Jesus' mother was likely 14 when she gave birth to Jesus.

Are you suggesting Joseph, who had further children with her shortly thereafter, was a pedophile? Moronic.


No, this is a gross mistatement of my position. Which has become a habit with you. I claim there is no such thing as objective-morals, which is saying quite a different thing.

And on this point you had better sit down and do your philosophy reading, because as other posters here pointed out, you'd be laughed out of a Philosophy 101 course for saying there is such a thing, and with good reason.

You'll have to do better than just asserting a moral claim, you've got to support it with reason.


The only possible objective morals could come from god, and obviously I believe in god, but I'm not going to force those morals on people by law.

That's quite a different position from what you are casting me as.


Moronic.

All you do is make empty accusations. I'm bored with you. Welcome back to the ignore button.

No asshat, all I, or Venom, or Terran, or Bearded or anyone else does is point out your inconsistencies and backtracking, and then you sob like a two year old that you're a victim. You don't live in reality Anenome, either due to a narcissistic condition (Derek Smart has nothing on you btw) or some other mental issue.

A 13 year old who's barely gone through puberty is going to seriously know what the hell they're doing at their parents urging that marrying at a young age to someone near middle age is normal? Come now. Call it for what it is, Pedophilia.

We have over 300 million people in the US, the government is sure doing a terrible job at trying to "kill people"

As for voting, YOU have said you voted for Ron Paul, you have also said you would vote for Rand Paul. Which is it? It can't be both sweety pie.

Shit man, I could easily post a god damn novel of inconsistencies and flat out 180 position changes just based on a handful of your posts. In fact Venom does a fine job of it on a regular basis, most of which you ignore because deep down you know you're full of shit.

Anemone 08-06-2015 06:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Deus Equus (Post 2390806)
This belief is not exclusive to the political elite and therefore highlights your political bias, and this bias interferes with the debate.

It's an unimportant belief in any other context, because other contexts do not have the power to force the consequences of that belief upon others.

E.g.: I don't care if some X "random person" is a racist. But if our politicians were racist they could pass racist law and that would be bad.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Deus Equus (Post 2390806)
You should be focusing on non-political reasons for why you think all adults are so mature and wise that they don't need to be coddled.

This thread is 100 pages now, much of that discussing the economic reasons for why I think what I think. It's because these three don't have much economic training that they often can't understand the point in the first place, much less discuss it intelligently.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Deus Equus (Post 2390806)
/opinion
Your definition of adult is biased. You presume that adults are not children. This is only true in the sense of defining ourselves biologically. This does not presume any intelligence, experience or wisdom. Most adults are in fact very much 'like' children.

All that matters is the legal definition of being responsible for one's action and the ability to freely contract. The other contexts you're talking about aren't relevant to law.

E.g.: I don't care if Y has the emotional maturity of a 12 year old even though she's 35, as a 35 year old she can contract and is expected to uphold her legal agreements.

Also, I've talked quite a bit about the economic concept of time preference, which in fact explains the mechanism behind the childification of adults, and why we should expect that trend to reverse in a free society, a low time-preference society.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Deus Equus (Post 2390806)
A child's perspective of being an adult is 'that adults have freedom'. The limitation of the child's perspective is that they see this freedom as being absolute. Only as an adult, can the child eventually learn the skills to become self-reflective and only then can they see the repeating behavior in themselves and understand that their 'freedom' was only relative and that they are still a child in many, many ways. So, we can not presume that all adults are not children... and therefore, yes, need much coddling.

In discussions here of when someone should be considered an adult and able to care for themselves and contract, I've proposed that we shouldn't rely on a rote and one-size-fits-all 18 year age.

Rather I propose a combined rule, that the child must be above 13 years of age, must move out of their parents home and pay all their bills by their own earnings, and the work they do cannot be sex-work.

That seems to offer the most flexibility and the least problems. The 18 year rule allows bad parents to remain as tyrants over some children in bad homes for far too long. My own best friend ran away from home at 13 in fear of his life, girls in the meantime can be made virtual slaves by bad parents.

I also support the idea of children being able to sue parents for crimes committed during childhood, once they reach adulthood.

There's no perfect system, but there can be improvements, and I think that an improvement over the 18 rule, all things considered.

Anemone 08-06-2015 06:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SpectralThundr (Post 2390817)
As for voting, YOU have said you voted for Ron Paul, you have also said you would vote for Rand Paul. Which is it?

Classic context-dropping, your hallmark. I said I would vote for them only if they failed to achieve the nomination, ie: can't win, as a protest vote, not an actual vote for anyone to gain power.

Are you literally insane? Are you literally that much of a liar that you can't remember I said these things?

Which is the same as voting for Mickey Mouse--they cannot win. They aren't politicians anymore. It's not a vote for a politician then, as I said it's a protest vote that says "I'm a libertarian and I won't vote your R or D."

Just to show you little it means to me, I am switching my vote. I will now be voting for Murray Rothbard in all future elections as my write-in candidate.

Try to figure out why this isn't voting for a politician either, if you can.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SpectralThundr (Post 2390817)
A 13 year old who's barely gone through puberty is going to seriously know what the hell they're doing at their parents urging that marrying at a young age to someone near middle age is normal? Come now. Call it for what it is, Pedophilia.

Nope, that's not an argument. If she doesn't know, her parents will. That's the point. Why do you think you know more than the parents. Try again. Again, my question to you is, why do you think you know better then they? If the girl wants to do it, and her parents who ostensibly love her and want what's best for her are fine with it, who are you to say you know better?

You do realize that some people mature faster than others?

http://i.imgur.com/DcQlwtD.jpg

Or are in situations why one-size-fits-all law can't foresee?

Suppose she's a little 13 year old cancer victim with 6 months to live and fell in love with her hospital 12 year old boy roomate, also with 6 months to live.

You're going to tell little Debbie cancer-victim she can't get married because she isn't 18 yet. Fuck you, you're the dictator authoritarian.

You're still ignoring that the virgin Mary almost certainly birthed Jesus at age 14. Why would god let that happen if 14 year olds bearing children is 100% proof of pedophilia. Are you accusing god of being a pedophile? LOL

Quote:

Originally Posted by SpectralThundr (Post 2390817)
No asshat, all I, or Venom, or Terran, or Bearded or anyone else does is point out your inconsistencies and backtracking, and then you sob like a two year old that you're a victim. You don't live in reality Anenome, either due to a narcissistic condition (Derek Smart has nothing on you btw) or some other mental issue.

We have over 300 million people in the US, the government is sure doing a terrible job at trying to "kill people"

Shit man, I could easily post a god damn novel of inconsistencies and flat out 180 position changes just based on a handful of your posts. In fact Venom does a fine job of it on a regular basis, most of which you ignore because deep down you know you're full of shit.

For a guy who hasn't made a single legitimate argument in this thread, or offered any substantive supporting rationale for your statement, you sure have a lot to say.

It's empty and meaningless, but at least it makes you feel good when you say it, right?

SpectralThundr 08-06-2015 06:26 PM

Yes you are empty and meaningless, exactly. But as I've said a million times this is typical of authoritarians, the only things they pay attention to is themselves and their rules. There's a common theme in this 100 page thread of yours, many many many people have pointed out your inconsistencies. Why do you think that is? Do all of them just not understand your genius? Or do you think it could just be possible that they're all correct since they all pretty much say the same damn thing.

VenomUSMC 08-06-2015 06:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anemone (Post 2390785)
And that's where your ignorance and bias come in. You still imagine you need someone to buy things for you, that you're too dumb to buy things for yourself.

No, that's not actually it. As explained before, when there exist other groups - collectives - that are quite willing to buy, develop, and deploy military units to enforce their will, it requires a response. The cost of this increases when others develop technologies that you must counter and/or circumvent. That is a big reason that many people that believe in a small government believe in a military force. Now you can argue what size is needed, what programs are needed, at what cost, and what kind of overall strategy for the use of military -- that's merely arguing the details. The idea that people will suddenly form a temporary collective to fight this seems short-sighted at best.

Private military forces run amok was a major factor leading up to the development of what became known as jus bellum iustum. Despite that development, the modern world continues to see private military forces used for aggression. Obviously this hasn't prevented states from staging what is considered by many to be wars of aggression. Yet what happens in your dream where states cease to exist? Will aggression die with it? Will no private group carry out military action against others for resources, land, and/or any other reason? Previously your answer to this revolved around the hopes of future tech. Yet those that would be aggressive are not bound to past technologies in reality.

The richest individual in the world at the time of this Forbes article was worth just shy of $80 billion dollars. China's military budget for 2015 was a little over $141 billion dollars. Even if you look at much smaller budgets, say Japan, you're looking at nearly $60 billion per year.

Now you can hope to hide under another state's projection, but ultimately you're merely relying on other people's taxes to fund a military to protect you directly or indirectly. If the U.S. suddenly gutted it's military spending, stopped its patrolling and returned all of its forces to the United States, what do you think the result would be?

Why are you ignorant and biased concerning this topic? You've lived a spoiled and coddled life in the United States by choice.
Quote:

Originally Posted by Anemone (Post 2390785)
That is the position of a political elite who believes people are children who must coddled and made to do what's in their interest.

Sure. Is that why you continue to vote for elected politicians that are Republicans?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anemone (Post 2390785)
In other words, that is not a libertarian position. At all.

Once again, a libertarian does not mean no government. In fact, you've enjoyed declaring Bean19, advocate of a complete government takeover of health care, random police searches of the homes of gun owners not suspected of crimes, and taxes at every turn, of being a libertarian.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anemone (Post 2390785)
I want people to both keep all their money and make all their own buying choices, even when it comes to things like deciding what kind of national defense to pay for, what kind of courts and roads to pay for, etc.

That is what liberty means, freedom to decide.

Your appeals to "reality" are in actuality excuses for tyranny.

No, you want people to be able to make choices that fall under what you deem acceptable.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anemone (Post 2390802)
Quote:

Originally Posted by SpectralThundr (Post 2390797)
Says the wanna be dictator.

A laughable assertion that you've never even had the grace to debate me about. I'm an anarchist. Fuck dictators.

You only say this because you hope to infuriate me. You don't believe it for a second. You can't be that naive.

No, you're not really an anarchist. As shown many times, even if we assume you're talking about a particular COLA you as an individual, Anenome, would want to live in, you'd only live in a COLA in which a person would abide by what you deem to be the usage of an acceptable amount of force to remove an intruder:
Quote:

Originally Posted by Anemone (Post 2360115)
No, owners govern their own property. COLAs don't own property, they are instead made up of property owners.

Leading to:
Quote:

Originally Posted by Anemone (Post 2360115)
Quote:

Originally Posted by VenomUSMC (Post 2360075)
If a person were to wander onto a rancher's ancap property, that rancher is supposedly allowed to enslave them, murder them, rape them, etc (in no particular order). It's their land, their rules. However, in the United States even illegals are given certain protections; criminals are given protections (sometimes to absurd levels, in my opinion).

False, because again we're talking about the rule of owners over their own property, and all people own their body first and foremost. Even if you wander onto X property, the owner cannot enforce his rules on you unless you agree to them. If you refuse to agree, the most he can do is use enough force to make you leave his property and no more.

This is the same rule that we have now, it's called trespassing. If a business doesn't want you on its property, it doesn't rape and enslave you, it asks you to leave and if you don't it call police who specialize in removing people within the bounds of the law.

Trespassing laws are forced onto property owners; property owners must act within parameters in which they never consented to -- you're trying to do the same thing, force acceptable behavior onto other people's property without their consent. While I may personally agree that it's unacceptable to do many things to a person for wandering on your property, that's irrelevant to the discussion.

You've also spoke about how "we," as in the collective, should be able to tell other people's children which public places they're allowed to visit:
Quote:

Originally Posted by Anenome (Post 2356282)
Quote:

Originally Posted by vallor (Post 2356159)
Yes, and Republicans are so much more science smart. Like when they say parents should be able to decide if their children should be able to be walking petri-dishes by refusing vaccinations.

They should be able to decide so, yes, but we should not let such children into most public places for obvious reasons.


Quote:

Originally Posted by Anemone (Post 2390802)
How many times have I said that I want a society with law, police, national defense, and courts. How does that equate to "tear it all down" in your mind?

You've more than once declared that democracy needs to be abandoned. This example oddly comes from a Gamergate thread after you stated you were done posting in Gamergate threads:
Quote:

Originally Posted by Anemone (Post 2362763)
Democracy is at fault. Want to stop it, abandon democracy.


VenomUSMC 08-06-2015 07:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anemone (Post 2390819)
Classic context-dropping, your hallmark.

This has to be a joke. Earlier today you were declaring you don't include context:
Quote:

Originally Posted by Anemone (Post 2390759)
Much misunderstanding has come from that, from an unspoken premise here or there, or one that a reader hasn't followed through with that existed in earlier discussions and was easily forgotten.

Context drops, appears, disappears, and is retroactively added by you.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anemone (Post 2390819)
I said I would vote for them only if they failed to achieve the nomination, ie: can't win, as a protest vote, not an actual vote for anyone to gain power.

Your vote, as explained to you, does help someone achieve power. Also, failing to achieve the Republican party's nomination doesn't magically make an elected a politician not a politician.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anemone (Post 2390809)
No. I always said I would only justify taking action if the people I wanted to rescue had FIRST INVITED ME TO HELP REMOVE THEM. It's not possible for you not to have seen me say that, I've said that every time we've talked about this issue.

Irrelevant when utilizing your black and white views. This requires you enforcing your morality/ethics on a 3rd party, without their consent. You've stated you would gladly violate boundaries in order to assist this person, and you've included fantasies of utilizing lethal force (as in, you said you'd turn people into dust). The issue is that you're enforcing your views, lethally, of who is the real owner of what lands -- if you've paid any attention at all to history, you'll see lots of different views on who are the true owners of what lands. Beyond picking an uncontroversial opponent in your fiction, you've tried to create a scenario, with future tech that you had access to of course, that resulted in no "collateral damage." You've declared collateral damage to be unacceptable:
Quote:

Originally Posted by Anenome (Post 2235140)
As much as modern tech makes collateral damage less and less a factor, I still find any collateral damage unacceptable and think we need to do better.

I don't accept murdering women and children of a terrorist to take him out by droning his house or caravan.

I think someday we'll be using airborne laser systems to kill someone even in a group with no collateral damage.

Until then, they should be using other means.

And we should stop fucking around in others people's countries generally.

Then, as we saw you in a thread about the Boston Bombing (soon after it hit the news):
Quote:

Originally Posted by Anenome (Post 2203105)
Not sure what you mean. I'm just questioning whether the US really has the moral high ground or not, as so many seem to assume we do. Certainly murdering innocents in bombing is wrong and indefensible, but if you were living in Afghanistan right now you might be watching US troops murdering innocents too.

Now beyond the ignorance spewed by Anenome here, how does this play out with his military fantasies? When he "turns attackers into dust," does that same view of that may be considered murder by others disappear? Yet you, Anenome, should "fuck around" in other people's countries if someone asks? You may not realize it, but there are people (obviously not all) that have asked the U.S. to "fuck around" in the likes of Iraq and Afghanistan. Obviously you wouldn't require everyone's consent for your military fantasies.


Quote:

Originally Posted by Anemone (Post 2390819)
Are you literally insane? Are you literally that much of a liar that you can't remember I said these things?

Lying because he can't remember? I wonder if that applies to you:
Quote:

Originally Posted by Anenome (Post 2350602)
The only special case is children, which is necessitated by children's youth and inability to be responsible for themselves. This is a ridiculous attack as every society treats children as a special case. Or are you one of those freaks who believe child-sex at any age is ethical? If not, then you agree that children below a certain age are unable to guide their own affairs and unable to contract responsibly. They are only a special case because they eventually grow up.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anemone (Post 2358373)
Quote:

Originally Posted by VenomUSMC (Post 2358316)
Your declaration that this only applies to children due to their age (which you've yet to say which age a person is allowed to consent to laws) is based on a belief that isn't universal.

I never said age, actually. I said parents might come up with many schemes of when a kid is able to decide for themselves, and offered the idea of being able to pay your own way, etc., as superior to a cut off age.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anemone (Post 2390819)
Which is the same as voting for Mickey Mouse--they cannot win. They aren't politicians anymore. It's not a vote for a politician then, as I said it's a protest vote that says "I'm a libertarian and I won't vote your R or D."

A vote for one of the Pauls (I see you love that particular political dynasty) is usually a vote the nominee from the Democrats. Regardless, even if that politician doesn't win the presidency, they remain a politician -- often remaining in office.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anemone (Post 2390819)
Just to show you little it means to me, I am switching my vote. I will now be voting for Murray Rothbard in all future elections as my write-in candidate.

I'm glad that you're finally able to stop merely giving the Republican party your votes.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anemone (Post 2390819)
Try to figure out why this isn't voting for a politician either, if you can.

It remains voting for a politician if you like it or not. Hell, don't even vote -- that's also voting for a politician.


Quote:

Originally Posted by Anemone (Post 2390819)
Nope, that's not an argument. If she doesn't know, her parents will. That's the point. Why do you think you know more than the parents. Try again. Again, my question to you is, why do you think you know better then they? If the girl wants to do it, and her parents who ostensibly love her and want what's best for her are fine with it, who are you to say you know better?

A picture of the 15 year old Rock isn't an argument either; you continue to post it anyway.

Lets see how well your "argument" works:
45 year old father is having sex his 13 year old daughter. You wouldn't stop that? The same defense you make for parents marrying off children to adults can be applied to that scenario. Your same rationale applies: " If the girl wants to do it, and her parents who ostensibly love her and want what's best for her are fine with it, who are you to say you know better?"

Also, you've stated that children cannot consent:
Quote:

Originally Posted by Anenome (Post 2383894)
Quote:

Originally Posted by VenomUSMC (Post 2383892)
Quote:

Originally Posted by Anenome (Post 2383891)
What right does anyone have to tell you what sorts of relationships to enter into. None.

Then you support pedophiles that have relationships with children?

Of course not, that's not a consensual relationship, children cannot contract. It was foolish for you to even bring that up. There's no controversy to the idea that children cannot contract.


Quote:

Originally Posted by Anemone (Post 2390819)
Suppose she's a little 13 year old cancer victim with 6 months to live and fell in love with her hospital 12 year old boy roomate, also with 6 months to live.

You're going to tell little Debbie cancer-victim she can't get married because she isn't 18 yet. Fuck you, you're the dictator authoritarian.

You do understand that, for example, a 13 year old having sex with a 12 year old isn't pedophilia, right?


Quote:

Originally Posted by Anemone (Post 2390819)
You're still ignoring that the virgin Mary almost certainly birthed Jesus at age 14. Why would god let that happen if 14 year olds bearing children is 100% proof of pedophilia. Are you accusing god of being a pedophile? LOL

Your applying your theological views (which you pulled from a source titled: Yahya Snow's Blog: AN ISLAMIC APOLOGETICS BLOG). Your continued claim about Mary shows an incredibly weak theological stance as you flail around trying to defend your stance of not declaring pedophilia to be immoral. Trying to equate God's decision to have Mary conceive Jesus with an adult human being molesting a child is quite disgusting. You've reached a new low.

VenomUSMC 08-06-2015 09:43 PM

The fact that you've now thrown your own professed religion under the bus twice in order to try to win an argument on a gaming website says a lot.
Quote:

Originally Posted by Anenome (Post 2356806)
Even as a Christian who believes in an objective morality that comes from an objective being, I have to admit that without trust in a higher being, people are unmoored from morality, that what is good or bad depends on what you value, and there are no objective values.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anemone (Post 2390819)
You're still ignoring that the virgin Mary almost certainly birthed Jesus at age 14. Why would god let that happen if 14 year olds bearing children is 100% proof of pedophilia. Are you accusing god of being a pedophile? LOL

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anenome (Post 2384008)
How old do you think Mary was when she gave birth to Jesus? She was probably about 14.


https://yahyasnow.wordpress.com/2013...iblical-times/ [Yahya Snow's Blog: AN ISLAMIC APOLOGETICS BLOG (that's the complete title that Yahya gave his blog)]
Yes I'm aware of the religion of the author, it's immaterial.

No, the religion of the author is not immaterial.

Regardless, the idiocy in trying to utilize Mary as an example to defend your stance of not declaring a pedophile molesting a child because that child's parents put them in that marriage is telling.

First, we need to bring up while a pedophile is to show why your defense is idiotic (especially as a professed Christian):
Quote:

What is a pedophile?
A pedophile is a person who has a sustained sexual orientation toward children, generally aged 13 or younger, Blanchard says.

Not all pedophiles are child molesters (or vice versa). "Child molesters are defined by their acts; pedophiles are defined by their desires," Blanchard says. "Some pedophiles refrain from sexually approaching any child for their entire lives." But it's not clear how common that is.
Are you saying that the Holy Spirit, as many Christians believe created the pregnancy, had a sexual attraction towards Mary? That's what pedophilia is -- a sexual attraction towards children. Is anyone here saying that the Holy Spirit had a sexual attraction towards Mary? No. That's why it's an absolutely idiotic attempt at a defense.

Do most Christians believe that the Holy Spirit had sex with Mary? No, hence the virgin birth that is believed to have occurred. This is supposed to be a Divine Act which led to the birth of Jesus from the virgin Mary, who was emaculately conceived.

What you posted was simply a tu quoque argument often used to defend Mohammad about his relationship with Aisha; I recall it well from classes with Islamists. You'll quite literally degrade Christianity, as you call yourself one, in an attempt to legitimize your own disturbing views towards pedophilia not being inherently immoral.

And since you love to complain about context, pedophiles marrying children was the context of the conversation:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anenome (Post 2383909)
Quote:

Originally Posted by VenomUSMC (Post 2383901)
Meaning that you support parents being able to put their children into pedophile relationships, or anything else that's obviously wrong. This, of course, creates other problems when you combined your military force strategies and children not being able to consent.

Many cultures of the world marry girls off after their first menses, around 13 years old. I can't say that's inherently immoral, no.

I expect however that when those women grow up they have a choice to judge their own experience as to whether they thought that was a good thing for them or not in their own lives and then to judge what to do with their own children.

By this process, society advances, from idiocy to wisdom. There's not shortcut around it.

Then there is this problematic bit:
Quote:

Originally Posted by Anemone (Post 2390759)
I remember being where you were myself, I was the chief conservative of all. I was once labeled the most conservative republican teen in all of California during my service in Youth in Government, and that included the Orange County delegates, because I was the only teen willing to oppose a bill to lower the age of consent to 13--Ven's current sig is particularly ironic thereby.

Versus
Quote:

Originally Posted by Anenome (Post 2383900)
I don't believe society is ever going to break the taboo against sexual relationships with children, despite the few deviants talking about it, because there's a very real difference with kids that everyone understands broadly: that children don't have enough life experience and sense to understand the consequences of a sexual relationship, that is they cannot give informed consent are must be under the care of their parents until they are adults. Parents like to assert this same idea. The only sticky point is when and how children can leave their parents' care.

Versus
Quote:

Originally Posted by Anenome (Post 2383909)
Many cultures of the world marry girls off after their first menses, around 13 years old. I can't say that's inherently immoral, no.

At age 13, you were willing to stand against children consenting to sex -- now you're no longer against it at 38. I hope it's not for the mental disorder that's being discussed.

SpectralThundr 08-07-2015 09:45 AM

It's amazing that very obvious direct contradictions, in Anenome's mind aren't contradictions. It's where his whole argument falls flat. Desires to invade sovereign nations to liberate people, advocating for pedophilia, creating laws against individuals on their own property. Calling for the end of democracy as a cure all, then claiming he never said that, Yeah you're certainly for volunteerism, oh wait not really.

VenomUSMC 08-07-2015 11:12 AM

And it only gets worse when you look at Anenome's other views. He takes a very different stance against children being taught abstinence than he does children being married to pedophiles:

Quote:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Terran (Post 2272453)
Quote:

Originally Posted by bean19 (Post 2272401)
Also, I have to sell this to my fiancee and our priest, so. . . I'm just not comfortable telling teenagers who are having sex or who will have sex to just not have sex without ever mentioning safety.

Why anyone would place themselves in a position of authority (a teacher is an authority on behalf of an institution, in this case the Catholic church) in terms of teaching doctrine while simultaneously disagreeing with fundamental, foundational positions held by the institution you would be representing is beyond me. It's dishonest, unethical, and irrational.

Get a spine, stand up for your beliefs, tell the church, and your girlfriend, that you think their doctrine is BS, and get out. You have no right to be mucking around in the lives of kids whose parents are entrusting them to the Catholic church when you don't believe the most basic tenets of the institution. You are betraying the parents' trust, as well as the church's.

Questioning and disputing the church's position on sexuality while representing the church to kids is, frankly, disgusting and dishonest. If you want to disagree with basic church doctrine, you should not do so as a teacher representing the church to children. Of course, you won't read this because you're a coward who resorts to silencing (or, in the case of church doctrine, ignoring) what he disagrees with.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anenome (Post 2272590)
Quote:

Originally Posted by Terran
...

Not really. Subverting those idiotic doctrines is perhaps heroic, actually. The kids are better off being taught by someone with a brain enough to know bullshit when he sees it than by a 'true believer' who will fuck them up mentally perhaps for life.


Your stance is clear: you view Bean's lying in order to get into a position of authority over kids as heroic (you'd compare Bean to Schindler) despite going against the what the parents apparently feel is best for their child; you're saying that you, Anenome, know what's best for these children and not their parents do not. Being taught abstinence wasn't something you felt would be appropriate for these kids to grow up and judge their own experience as to whether or not it was a good thing. It appears shortcuts do exist by the process which you believe society advances and wisdom is gained.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anenome (Post 2383909)
Quote:

Originally Posted by VenomUSMC (Post 2383901)
Meaning that you support parents being able to put their children into pedophile relationships, or anything else that's obviously wrong.

Many cultures of the world marry girls off after their first menses, around 13 years old. I can't say that's inherently immoral, no.

I expect however that when those women grow up they have a choice to judge their own experience as to whether they thought that was a good thing for them or not in their own lives and then to judge what to do with their own children.

By this process, society advances, from idiocy to wisdom. There's not shortcut around it.

Now that we've shifted gears to pedophiles marrying little girls, lets see how where you stand. Oh, you don't believe pedophiles marrying, therefore molesting, little girls is inherently immoral. That's quite disturbing to say the least. Surely you feel that people should subvert these ideas like you felt abstinence teachings required subverting, right? Nope. You hope it's something those little girls who were married off to pedophiles and raped will decide was bad; stopping the cycle.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anemone (Post 2390819)
Quote:

Originally Posted by SpectralThundr (Post 2390817)
A 13 year old who's barely gone through puberty is going to seriously know what the hell they're doing at their parents urging that marrying at a young age to someone near middle age is normal? Come now. Call it for what it is, Pedophilia.

Nope, that's not an argument. If she doesn't know, her parents will. That's the point. Why do you think you know more than the parents. Try again. Again, my question to you is, why do you think you know better then they? If the girl wants to do it, and her parents who ostensibly love her and want what's best for her are fine with it, who are you to say you know better?

We have two situations in which parents have decided what they believe is best for their children and two very opinions from you.

1) A little girl is being married off to a pedophile -- you shriek that the parents know best, and how dare someone think they know better. Maybe after this little girl, after being raped by her "husband," has kids of her own, she will decide this wasn't a good thing and end the cycle. You say that there are no shortcuts to going from idiocy to wisdom. Also, you don't find pedophiles marrying 13 year old girls inherently immoral.

2) A little girl is being taught abstinence at a Catholic Church -- you shriek that subverting abstinence classes makes someone a modern day Schindler. You cite your fear of life long mental damage from abstinence classes, and your disagreement with these teachings equates to you knowing what is best for that kid instead of her parents. In contrast to your views on the cycles of child brides, you applaud those taking action now, against the wishes of the kid's parents, to stop abstinence training.

In your view:
The Catholic Church's abstinence training is inherently immoral.
13 year old girls married off to pedophiles isn't inherently immoral.

Anemone 08-07-2015 11:47 AM

Left vs right spectrum from the libertarians POV:

Why I Am a Left Libertarian

Quote:

Many libertarians say the traditional Left/Right political spectrum has become meaningless and useless. But to the extent that this is true for them, this is only because they have allowed themselves to be befuddled by political fraud and, perhaps, by a weak background in political history. The spectrum is just as useful and meaningful as it always was, which is very. It is necessary only to clarify one’s thinking about the past century in American politics to see that this is so.

But let us begin at the beginning – with what the left/right spectrum meant when it was created during the French Revolution. Murray Rothbard has written that 18th Century “liberalism” was “the party of hope, of radicalism, of liberty, of the Industrial Revolution, of progress, of humanity; the other [party] was Conservatism, the party of reaction, the party that longed to restore the hierarchy, statism, theocracy, serfdom, and class exploitation of the old order.” And according to Will and Ariel Durant in their book The Age of Napoleon, it was in the French Legislative Assembly in the fall of 1791 that the terms Right and Left were first used in this political sense. As the Durants tell it, when the assembly convened, the “substantial minority dedicated to preserving the monarchy. . .occupied the right section of the hall, and thereby gave a name to conservatives everywhere.” The liberals, meanwhile, “sat at the left.” Some fifty-odd years later, after another French Revolution (the one that took place in 1848) had unseated the last French king, Louis Philippe, the same seating arrangement was revived for the newly elected legislative assembly of the Second Republic. As has often been noted, two of the newly elected legislators who sat together on the left side of that assembly in 1848 and 1849 were the free market economist and publicist for free trade Frederic Bastiat and Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, the first man ever to publicly declare himself an anarchist.

This conception of the Left/Right political spectrum also guided the political understanding of the 20th Century libertarian activist and writer Karl Hess, who wrote forty years ago that on “the far right […] we find monarchy, absolute dictatorships, and other forms of absolutely authoritarian rule,” while the Left “opposes the concentration of power and wealth and, instead, advocates and works toward the distribution of power into the maximum number of hands.” Just as the farthest right you can go is absolute dictatorship, Hess argued, so “[t]he farthest left you can go, historically at any rate, is anarchism—the total opposition to any institutionalized power, a state of completely voluntary social organization.”

Now, if we take this model of the Left/Right political spectrum and apply it to the politics of today, what follows from that? First, that all dictatorships, whether they are called communist or fascist, are on the Right. This is, of course, contrary to the doctrine set forth a few years ago in a ridiculous and unfortunately somewhat influential book called Liberal Fascism, in which the author, Jonah Goldberg, attempts to prove that fascist dictatorships like the one Adolf Hitler ran in Germany in the 1930s and early 1940s were and are Leftwing dictatorships, because they were socialist and socialism is a Leftist phenomenon). In fact, exactly the opposite is the truth of the matter. Fascism and socialism are the same thing, but they are both products of Rightwing thinking. Socialism has never really been on the Left. The original socialists, in the early part of the 19th Century, were advocates of the ideas of Henri Saint-Simon, a former monarchist and thoroughgoing conservative, a Rightwing defender of the ancien regime who had decided that the industrial revolution and the end of monarchy in France had to be taken into account by those who wanted a big government to run everyone’s lives as the kings of old had done. In effect, they transferred their allegiance from the king to a hoped-for technocracy, which could engineer the perfect society by applying “scientific” ideas to the job (but only if it had unlimited power to do so).

Two brief quotations from Ayn Rand seem relevant here. “Fascism and communism,” she wrote, “are not two opposites, but two rival gangs fighting over the same territory . . . both are variants of statism, based on the collectivist principle that man is the rightless slave of the state.” And, again Ayn Rand: “There is no difference between communism and socialism, except in the means of achieving the same ultimate end: communism proposes to enslave men by force, socialism – by vote. It is merely the difference between murder and suicide.” And fascism, socialism, and communism are, quite evidentally, all “forms of authoritarian rule,” to refer back to Karl Hess’s words. So all three belong on the Right side of the traditional Left/Right political spectrum. Adolf Hitler was a Rightwinger. So was Joseph Stalin...

As Richard Ebeling pointed out recently, these “progressives” are, ideologically speaking, “the grandchildren” of Otto von Bismarck, the Chancellor of Imperial Germany in the last two decades of the 19th Century. As Ebeling writes, “Bismarck persuaded Kaiser Wilhelm to initiate a series of government programs and controls to gain political support of the ‘working class’ population that became the basis and inspiration for the modern Welfare State around the world.” As Bismarck himself put it, “My idea was to bribe the working class, or shall I say, to win them over, to regard the state as a social institution existing for their sake and interested in their welfare. . . .Life insurance, accident insurance, sickness insurance. . . should be carried out by the state.”

Sound familiar? It should. For this is the song that has long been sung by both Republicans and Democrats. These two parties, widely and absurdly believed to represent Right and Left, respectively, in American politics, are in fact no more different from each other than are Lewis Carroll’s Tweedledum and Tweedledee. They differ only on which Bismarckian welfare state programs should be given the most money and on how much any given Bismarckian welfare state program should have its budget increased in any particular year. That all Bismarckian welfare state programs should enjoy annual budget increases is taken for granted by both Republicans and Democrats. Today’s America is really governed by a single conservative party with two wings: the Republicans and the Democrats; if we choose to vote for a major party candidate at all, we have no real choice but to elect someone who wants to expand government and reduce individual liberty, that is to say, a conservative, a Rightwinger. “Statism” is a synonym for conservatism. Statism is the politics of the Right.

But if both Republicans and Democrats, both conservatives and modern “liberals,” as well as self-styled “progressives,” are on the Right, who is on the Left? The answer is: libertarians. Libertarians are almost the only true leftists left in this country.
https://jeffriggenbach.liberty.me/wh...t-libertarian/


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:55 AM.