I should know better, but [modified]
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
But without authoritarian power, where does the ability legal pretext to defend anything come from? Without authoritarian power how does a socieety manage to arrive at definitions of which activities are peaceful and honest
We hold that all individuals have the right to exercise sole dominion over their own lives, and have the right to live in whatever manner they choose, so long as they do not forcibly interfere with the equal right of others to live in whatever manner they choose.
Stan Shannon wrote:
simply do not understand how such a society would be structured.
Governments throughout history have regularly operated on the opposite principle, that the State has the right to dispose of the lives of individuals and the fruits of their labor. ( as you cite) Even within the United States, all political parties other than our own grant to government the right to regulate the lives of individuals and seize the fruits of their labor without their consent.
fred_ wrote:
We hold that all individuals have the right to exercise sole dominion over their own lives, and have the right to live in whatever manner they choose, so long as they do not forcibly interfere with the equal right of others to live in whatever manner they choose.
But how do you intend to enforce that principle?
fred_ wrote:
Governments throughout history have regularly operated on the opposite principle, that the State has the right to dispose of the lives of individuals and the fruits of their labor. ( as you cite) Even within the United States, all political parties other than our own grant to government the right to regulate the lives of individuals and seize the fruits of their labor without their consent.
And doesn't that suggest anything to you? This is my issue with libertarians, it boils down to constructing a government which is empowered to force people to not force people. Even a libertarian government would necessarily require force to ensure its principles were ahered to by the citizenry. That force is what 'radical individualism' is all about - the use of the state to protect the individual from being in any way affected by any sort of socially defined restraints upon their own behavior. It is ultimately no different from liberalism, it merely has a slightly differenct orientation.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
When they start blowing up grainy videos and putting eerie music over the top, then that's it for me. I mean, I'm not advocating the stifling of scientific curiosity just because the event is tragic - in this case, unbelievably so - but it's all been explained, and very satisfactorily so. This is making me remember that day, actually. It was in the morning, and I got up before the rest of my family to watch cartoons - when I saw the news I actually screamed. I remember the people jumping out of the windows... :( .
I was reading CP, I did one final refresh before going to bed, and someone had posted about the first plane hitting. I spent the next few hours between CP and the TV.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. "! i don't exactly like or do programming and it only gives me a headache." - spotted in VB forums. I can do things with my brain that I can't even google. I can flex the front part of my brain instantly anytime I want. It can be exhausting and it even causes me vision problems for some reason. - CaptainSeeSharp
-
I was reading CP, I did one final refresh before going to bed, and someone had posted about the first plane hitting. I spent the next few hours between CP and the TV.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. "! i don't exactly like or do programming and it only gives me a headache." - spotted in VB forums. I can do things with my brain that I can't even google. I can flex the front part of my brain instantly anytime I want. It can be exhausting and it even causes me vision problems for some reason. - CaptainSeeSharp
I was walking to the break room at work to get some coffee and I noticed that there were quite a few people in the conference room across the hall watching TV. I went to see what all the fuss was about...about 5 minutes later the second plane hit. I remember getting mad and saying out loud, "This is war!" I don't think I got any work done that day. By coincidence, my wife's birthday is also 9/11.
Gary Kirkham Forever Forgiven and Alive in the Spirit The men said to them, "Why do you seek the living One among the dead? He is not here, but He has risen." Me blog, You read
-
Actually, Mustafa, an honest person does not actually expect improbable stories to be believed even when they are true, unless they can be independently varified, of course. I am the very epitome of honesty. Most of the things I relate about myself tend to be the more negative aspects of my life, because, frankly, I wouldn't expect anyone to believe the more self-aggrandizing things I might relate. The fact of the matter remains that you and Jon share a particular world view, and you don't like having your underlieing precepts challanged in any significant way. My hands are not in fists, and I am not lost in any bubble. I simply disagree with your most cherised philosophical constructs. And the notion that it is I who would benefit most by some exchange of ideas with you is actually a very telling statement. I am no more unreceptive to well formed arguments than any one here. But neither yours, nor Jon's, are well formed.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan. Whether you like it or not or whether you believe it or not, I'm brutally honest. You're free to believe me or not and I won't try to convince you otherwise.
Stan Shannon wrote:
The fact of the matter remains that you and Jon share a particular world view, and you don't like having your underlieing precepts challanged in any significant way. My hands are not in fists, and I am not lost in any bubble. I simply disagree with your most cherised philosophical constructs. And the notion that it is I who would benefit most by some exchange of ideas with you is actually a very telling statement. I am no more unreceptive to well formed arguments than any one here. But neither yours, nor Jon's, are well formed.
Sure Stan.
If the post was helpful, please vote! Current activities: Book: Devils by Fyodor Dostoyevsky Project: Hospital Automation, final stage Learning: Image analysis, LINQ Now and forever, defiant to the end. What is Multiple Sclerosis[^]?
-
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
It's a big production, one that certainly would not have gone unnoticed by the thousands of people working there every hour of every single day.
It was noticed, and not everyone is in every part of the building 24 hours a day 7 days a week. You should know that. Building 7 was not hit by any plane, it just fell. Jet fuel does not burn hot enough to melt the steal to cause a collapse like that in any of those buildings. You think you know science? You can't even figure this shit out, you just go with the flow.
Obloga Obama Blog[^] Diet, injections, and injunctions will combine, from a very early age to produce the sort of character and sort of beliefs that authorities consider desirable. Any serious criticism of the powers that be will become psychologically impossible.
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
Building 7 was not hit by any plane, it just fell.
Besides, why would the government spend so much time planning, preparing and implementing an unbelievably convoluted scheme only to say, "What the hell, let's bring down this other building here as well - I mean, we flew planes into the other buildings to give them an excuse to fall, but nobody will notice if this other one collapses for no reason." Does this seem likely to you?
-
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
Building 7 was not hit by any plane, it just fell.
Besides, why would the government spend so much time planning, preparing and implementing an unbelievably convoluted scheme only to say, "What the hell, let's bring down this other building here as well - I mean, we flew planes into the other buildings to give them an excuse to fall, but nobody will notice if this other one collapses for no reason." Does this seem likely to you?
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
Does this seem likely to you?
Yes, its the government, and the owner of the building was over insured so he profited from it. If the government is involved, expect the unexpected in your case, in my case I know what to expect. The government had a lot to gain from 9/11. They got to ratchet up their control over the people and invade the middle east.
Obloga Obama Blog[^] Diet, injections, and injunctions will combine, from a very early age to produce the sort of character and sort of beliefs that authorities consider desirable. Any serious criticism of the powers that be will become psychologically impossible.