There can be a world that can't be understood. The thing is, no one can express with language what it's like, it only is. Being does not imply inherent logic.

It can be nice, but it isn't necessary for society to function.

Actually the word is very well defined in law. Theft isn't a moral concept, only a legal one.

Theft from the common utility? On the contrary. Taxation is justified as enhancing the common utility. There are many states that have high taxes and a good standard of living.

The law makes a clear distinction. Taxes, even if high, aren't theft. Theft is a legal concept. There is nothing else to it. It is defined by the society in question.

It's appearantly win-win really. Politicans get to say they are defending jobs and corporations benefit from even cheaper labor. Both parties are already rallying to deny these people (I use the term in the non-legal sense, that encompasses a more diverse array of homo sapiens) the rights Americans claim belong to everyone.

Usually something can be considered a right when it's sought after by practically everyone. There is a strong utilitarian case for universal health care as well. President Obama for example had donations from big businesses that would benefit from a socialized plan. Just because something goes agaisnt some set of inner principles it doesn't mean it's unreasonable. More likely than not you could be ultimately manipulated into voting against your own interest by them.

If doing so would encourage the Chinese to exercise and increase the national spirit enough that it would encompass any harm done to those individuals then China is doing a very moral thing. In fact, it would be selfish of them not to. The Chinese just think of it differently.

Everyone is forced to act in accordance to the common good. By this everyone gains.

If presuppositions are assumed valid you can be "sure". You have to think the following through your-self though. No one can do it for you:

Government has increased utility over anarchism and (economic) equality trumps maximum utility:

1. Accept government, inequality and maximum utility.

2. Accept government and inequality as long as it is set up for the maximum utility of the poorest of society.

3. Accept government and have equality.

4. Don't accept government and have inequality for utility.

5. Don't accept government and have inequality as long is it is set up for the maximum utility of the poorest of society.

6. Don't accept government or inequality.

Consider the degree of the increase compared to the above, assumed either: slight, modest or high. In this order of utility 3, 4 and 5 can swap places according to assumptions.

If you are really disputing your-self as an anarchist you should stop and think about points 2. and 3. These arguments are really utilitarian in nature. Somehow I feel as if all valid ones against leftist anarchism are. The thing with utility is you can't really know, so it's all pretty much presumptions. If you are a utilitarian, your argument for anarchism becomes weaker though.

It's great to see that you created this debate really only to dispute everyone on the statist side.

Is there really any organized authority that you could consider justified in some specific set of circumstances and presuppositions about the world we live in?

The debate creator is a lefty and "isn't a big fan of property". What he has argued for so far I think is anarchism with leftist institutions with democratic control. I picked up on the no government part that you impose property and cartels would be permitted or arise. This isn't the case with traditional leftist anarchism.

I would also like your objection to equal political and economic authority between individuals. It doesn't feel to fit your criticism as much. Remember that the debate creator seems to have definate left-libertarian characteristics. You are answering to his dilemma after all.

I want to be as clear as possible. Even a libertarian nut-case like Robert Nozick would agree that consensuality is only valid if the starting point from which it stems is just. This doesn't mean the current stolen wealth distributed by crony capitalism. Their authority is not justified by capitalistic values. If I were to steal a car and sell it to my friend his sweet deal would be as valid as the original theft.

You claim property as a innate right when it is only an agreement by society that when done in just manner is based on the principles of fairness and freedom. By contrast, the first owner was a person who thought he was right to defend what he took with violence and others had no problem with it.

anything you create or purchase is yours alone, unless a contract says otherwise.

That is because of the framework of trust provided by the government or court. You claim something as your own to have it protected by the government. The government isn't unjust in taking it back if people democratically choose so. You aren't right to hold something as your own to be aggressively defended with everyones money and complain when it gets taken away.

I won't give you the debate, but I'll then agree that complete Anarchy is the only other way.

To be honest, I kind of want to jab you into using a non-libertarian line of justification for the authority you impose. Then I could call you my comrade and we could develop new authority installing tricks to fool the people.

There is no authority for the sake if it. This applies to property. In a default just staring point, everyone is given equal political authority and equal economic authority. Any move away from this has to be justified and the burden of proof is on the person in authority. If he fails to bear that burden the authority will be dismantled democratically, be it private or public.

Ah! The old bait-and-state. Very clever comrade ;)

Freedom is the default of lack of government

Negative liberty is freedom from interference by other people. It includes interference from government as well as other institutions of power and authority. Your constitution enforces retaliation and property.

There is no retaliation for the sake of it. You must justify using force either on the utilitarian basis that the individual would harm society or another objective moral basis that everyone deserves retaliation for harm done against them.

Consensuality justifies repossession of an object, but not claiming special rights on something that doesn't belong to anyone due to your supposed lack of an objective view justice and therefore the role of government. A constitution can't enforce property if it doesn't make an objective claim about justice.

It looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it is a coercive government (and perhaps a threat to our national security for that matter, eh?).

people will believe that what they believe in is far more important than what others believe in, and demand that government steps in and makes this ideology the standard.

Thank you for providing a mouthpiece for my statist propaganda.

You propose using the government, let alone a constitutional and not democratic one, to step in and make your ideology standard. You impose your idiology solves that which is just.

You can ride your high horse saying that yours promotes maximum liberty. What someone else with objective viewpoints on morality would say is that what your government supports is unnecessary or undesireable freedoms or is actually not the way to establish maximum liberty.

If certaint rules that apply to everyone are necessary, then the government we are talking about must be democratic to allow for everyone to affect what must affect everyone.

The question is not about is it alive, but can it feel pain?

I clearly justified those born into a wealthy family can be justified despite great wealth but no merit.

How about the situation of the one who was denied of his basic needs by luck even though they belong to them by merit? I want to make sure we both understand that our justifications for distribution can't make use of merit. We do not propose or endorse a meritocracy.

The use of force and violence to voluntarily is a clear justification for the luck of wealthy spoiled brats.

We must define the parties that are using violence and force. Property which is not protected with violence is not property in any meaningful sense. Therefore the act of aggression has to be justified when a person claims special rights on an object. The same is equally true for the repossession of an object.

Consensuality between traders only justifies repossession and does not encompass the justification of the original claim for the object. When you go back far enough the object is not ultimately claimed from another person. The original claim can't be consensual in nature.

Why should the rich be put in jail?

People, even rich ones go to jail if they do not pay their taxes. Why else would they pay their taxes?

Do you understand how a percentage tax works?

Yes, usually those with more income pay more for the same thing. If you want equal treatment you would propose a monthly payment for your citizenship that is the same for all.

man must work for his fruits of labor, not merely be entitled by breathing

1. What you consider just is a person deserving of his needs by merit being provided with them.

Those who become wealthy just based on previous accumulated wealth is just as bad for those who receive public assistance.

2. What you consider unjust is a person undeserving of his needs by merit being provided with them.

We have already established luck can cause the scenario of the undeserving getting his needs, but luck can also have the opposite effect:

3. By extension you must consider unjust a person deserving of his needs by merit having his needs denied from him.

My system causes the first scenario (good) and the second scenario (bad), but avoids the third one (good).

Your system causes the first scenario (good), the second scenario (bad) and the third scenario (bad).

You are not right in defending your system with merit. You therefore need to provide another justification for this factor of luck or otherwise your system lacks a justification as a whole.

Also, you may prove that it is unjust to affect this factor of luck but in doing so you are not justifying the system itself. You are only make the system unjustifiable. I rest my case if you must consider luck a just basis for distribution to justify your system.

All progressive ta rates are unfair

Then so are flat taxes. You are making rich people pay more for not going to jail than poor people.

redistribution of wealth

Not all redistribution of wealth implies rich people have a legal oblication to help the poor. You can still have redistribution by progressive tax that does not imply the poor get helped. The money could instead go toward the military for instance.

man must work for his fruits of labor, not merely be entitled by breathing

That statement is outright incompatible with non-coercion. People will amass wealth with luck, even if you were to consider merit and hard work legitimate. Suppose someone inherits their fathers wealth and does not need to work a day in his life.

He is entitled by his very breathing just like a welfare recipient. Nothing he worked for. The man did not choose his father, but everything was provided for him.

this is no different with Rock in Roll in the 50's, Disco in the 70's, Rap in the 80's and so forth.

Oh - it's different. Turns out there was not one blunt in any of Justin Biebers music videos. Well not one. No panama red, bhang, reefer, not even a lil' sinsemilla. And unless you can provide evidence to counter my claim there is really no point in the imagined unity of all popular music.

Support for political parties and politicians should remain confidential.

It does remain confidential. We will never know how she voted in the end. She could be lying right now and her statement really does not bear any legal burden on her at all. If you are keen on the state controlling absolutely everything about political speech then fine, but I will call the libertarians on you and they will put a "-1" in front of your zero on the points counter.

A multi-polar world has always historically been ridden with war and violence. A world government solves the problems caused by competing violence monopolies. If sufficient control is adapted it would also end crisis regarding nuclear weapons and geopolitics.

From an American standpoint it might seem horrible but the case is harder to make in Somalia or Kongo. A world super state is the ideal model for anyone who believes history has anything to say about human nature.

There is nothing subjective about curing cancer. It isn't the case that if the man is killed no one will ever come up with the cure. Hardly would the cure be delayed by more than one million deaths from the death of a single man.

the rightful owner

Who is the rightful owner? Is he the one who has consensually traded for the item of his holding? Libertarians might say so, and politicians who want to get elected don't usually poke that hole. Perhaps with the exception of Barrack Obama. What he said of course is completely uncontroversial in Europe for instance.

Justice deals with what belongs to whom. Consensual trading will result merit being a fundamental factor in who amasses what amount of wealth. Merit is determined by your genes, your hard work and your environment. Of those things you only chose to work hard and your decision is based solely on the other two.

Merit is no way to distribute resources. It needs to be taken out of the equation. Does one then suppose everyone ought be given the same share? You talk of the advantages of inequality. If inequality benefits the poorest of society no point can be made against it based on the grounds stated above.

forceful theft

There is however a distinction between stealing and redistribution. Redistribution is about allocating resources to those whom they belong to. Stealing is about allocating to those whom they do not belong to. It is only forceful to the extent that you are forced to be a member of society. You may leave if you wish.

You need to remember that Romney is going to increase military spending. With Obamas model Americans would get at least some of their money back in services, infrastructure and investment in the future. I have no faith that Romney could actually cut spending.

You also need to remember that he is not for a flat tax, only a tax cut all around in the current system. He has said he is going to close loop holes that the rich use, so he will tax them at the same rate essentially.

He has for a model of health care that is very similar to Obamas model. Universal health care will also benefit corporations, if not then why did Obama win again? You think it has nothing to do with corporations wanting a handout? It's hardly worth the two block drive to go cast your vote. So what is happening is basically this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S3RHnKYNvx8

It's about should Google have deleted the video, not the government. It's only censorship in its fullest meaning when the government takes down the video. Youtube has their terms of service but they are disagreeable and debateable.

Deleting the video would be youtube implying that they do not value free speech/freedom of expression.

Google values profits. It does what is most profitable in this case but not what is the right thing to do. When people act against a corporation it can and maybe should change its ways. This has nothing to do with free speech.

That said I don't think they should apply self-censorship even from a moral perspective that doesn't say "make as much moeny as possible".

Man has the choice of starvation if not for charity.

Yes, I believe we have established that your philosophy is totally bad-ass. Dark and edgy indeed.

contortion of the libertarian philosophy

In that case I only referred to the philosophy to poke fun.

Non-coercively acquired wealth is subject to the components of luck and merit. They define how much each individual can amass wealth and are the reasons why wealth gets distributed unequally.

Merit composes of genes, the environment and hard work. Only one of those is a decision and that decision is based on the other two components. Merit is luck. It is not a real decision so it is not moral in nature.

Consensuality does not answer the question: What to belongs to whom? Luck and merit are incorrect basis for justification of distribution. The only one that survives is: Wealth ought to distributed such that the poorest of society benefit the most.

There are high funcktoning stoners nad low fucktoning tsoners. I'm a hgih funktioning stoner!1!1!!

I'm not really all that "down with the pre-2000's BC barbarians" you know. So I think punishment should be proportional to the amount of harm caused and you can't really kill someone as punishment for rape. If you know what I mean. You are a pretty disturbed person for someone with a puppy as an avatar by the way.

I take "god" to mean anything that I can't affect or have little control over. Perhaps meaning the universe considered religiously or the imagined beign who gave us lucky ones the gift of life. I believe that is what it practically means in this sentence.

A lot of what religion deals with is that which we can't affect. Religious or not you can't affect everything that comes your way.

I am thankful the gift of life and I try to give that gift back. You need the element of "trust" to live in peace and not waste these precious moments.

In doing so within the framework of the original system they do nothing about the circumstances that produced the problem. The worst slaveholder was the one who treated his slaves kindly. There is no point in prolonging the misery of the poor therefore prolonging a system which creates such a gap between the rich and the poor.

In only voluntarily helping the poor they do not have my support. In addition to that they need to work towards a socialist handout to everyone that ensures no one is left at the mercy of another to fill their needs in light of the unjust system that would punish them for the act of stealing to fulfill their needs.

In the case I described stealing is necessary to protect life. If you propose otherwise you have not given the nature of rights very comprehensive thought as a libertarian. One of the most universal statements about rights is that stealing to protect life is fine because the right to life is stronger. Society needs to reflect that in order to reflect rights. What I propose you don't do is try to be "so dark so edgy" by making up your propositions about rights while reading Atlas Shrugged.

You are right in saying I don't provide a point for a money-free society in the conditions and in the scale that we face today.

I am merely implying that a money-less system was the one in which we evolved to have much of our feelings of morality. We need a much deeper inquiry into human nature before we can have a moral "knockout argument" for one system, that's all.

The x420xHustler theory of the world chapter 4.21 (right under the legalization act):

The market is a tool for arranging productive activity but the moral justifications it provides for transaction are sometimes insufficient. A working democracy is necessary to deal with that. A child or someone who lacks knowledge about the matter at hand can't consent in any meaningful sense.

As such the necessary knowledge for everyday transactions needs to provided to everyone from a source that is outside the grasp of money. Failure to arrange such has bad effects for both the market and the democracy.

The x420xHustler theory of morality chapter 4.19 (right before the ethics of weed-smoking):

Some transactions, even though consensual can still be morally wrong. What basis should society seek to be founded on if not on morality? There are reasons other than indoctrination as to why schooling is still mainly handled by the government: a deeper sense that education is a right: Since there is only one objective truth and reality why should we allow different elementary schools that reserve the right to teach whatever they want?

democracy means everyone has a say, not every receives the same education, pay and housing .

A working democracy (unlike that which is in the US) I consider to be a brittle thing that must be watered and taken care of every day. It can be harmed by money interests and centralized government power alike.

bad schools create poor people and most public schools are a disaster

If the question is what system has shown to work the best based on real observations the socialist has a solid basis. It's easy to refer to the United States and jump on the privatization band-wagon, but that would be a much harder case to make in Finland for example.

In the United States, privatization may be beneficial. However it doesn't provide the ideal framework for society in the long run. Since I consider this issue moral you could run me through 200 pages of studies but that would not change my moral views. I am willing to respectfully disagree as you made a good point yourself.

If you don't like the agenda of a private school you can say no to it and leave

The whole point is that you don't notice the bias or agenda and therefore you don't leave. A small percentage might, but the bias can't be so visible that it would negatively affect its effectiveness. Nevertheless its there.

if you got to a public school and don't like the agenda you have to get alot of money (considering free schooling drives the cost of schooling up) just to go somewhere else.

Is that really better than requiring money to get educated in the first place? Choosing your bias does not equal striving for a system that endorses objectivity.

Corporations just want you to buy their product, thats it.

The government wants you to work for them, fund them, serve them, support them, defend them and even die for them.

Because the government requires such support it can't show attempts to mislead the public in a working democracy. To a corporation however these things are only externalities. Corporations are already misleading people with advertising.

The point for these institutions is to take the choice out of the equation. If it is profitable for people to be less aware of their choices as consumers that will be reflected on schooling.

People of different economic backgrounds going trough different schools is bad for democracy. The poor and the rich would no longer grow up in the same framework and that would create seperation that shows in their attitudes.

A poor child didn't choose his parents so he should be given the same educational foundation as any other child. He is not morally responsible for his inability to pay and as education is a right we must adapt a socialist model in this case.

I don't think government grants for private shools are good. A system where private schools don't get encouraged so that they don't affect negatively the integrity of the school system and equality of opportunity or divide children into social groups at age seven is better. There are private schools with political and financial agendas. When money controls schools, the corporations control the learning process.

They say any publicity is good publicity. I wouldn't be surprised if it was about that in the end. She deserved the critique because she wanted it so badly.

Interesting point ;)

At the end of ones life it would be better to go accepting the ultimate fact that there is little defined purpose ;)

It is the harsh state of the human condition ;)

On the other hand it is better to have lived than to never have been born at all ;)

So there's still the sense of accomplishment and fulfilment even without a fully defined purpose ;)

In fact, an ideal person would love his life yet be happy with what little he has gotten of it ;)

There's no problem with hoping something would happen after death, but thats all it is in the end, hope, and people should panic about what will happen, its probably nothing bad, eh? ;) ;)

Unless obama implements one of his socialist policies and makes everyone go to obamerville after death ;) ;) ;)

I actually think America should elect a total free market loonie constitutionalist for their presiden. I'm just curious to see what would happen.

Ownership of a dog is necessary to know who owns which dog and is also necessary for trading. My interpretation is that it should not be compulsory to own a dog in order to have it. At any rate it is the only way the question makes any sense at all.

Your critique loosely fits this. Should the government be checking dog ownership permits? I think they would do a service to somebody whose dog was stolen or who didn't claim rights on theirs, risking theft.

In order for a species to be extinct it must die out from all corners of the world at once. An unlikely scenario for the adaptive and quickly spreading human.

In our world today there are more than enough nuclear weapons to wipe out the entire species at once. New technologies could yield easy ways for a very small group of people to endanger the entire population.

it wouldn't surpass an primitive economy

Even so, it wouldn't die. We are more likely to go extinct now than we were 20 000 years ago.

Posting so that people who browse about will get what this is about alright. Smoke weed every day America number one.

420 blaze it up 420 legalize

Yes, and that is why america needs to move to a system which is similar to what is implemented in Finland. Even though reform is necessary theres no need to abolish an institution that promotes critical thinking and literacy.

I think the idea here is that in order to have a dog as a pet you must own it. I support this and respectfully disagree with PrayerFails, who made some interesting points as well.

I don't think drugs should be banned but if you're against legalization and drink your morning coffee you're a hypocrite.

Popular music used to bad-ass. Now it's Justin Bieber and Lady Gaga and I think it's showing. I watched one of Biebers videos and theres not one blunt in there. Well not one... Seriously? Kids don't learn to question authority with this. It's not edgy, it's not cool and its bad for your children who will grow up to be pussies.

Just what is going on in this site? Capital punishment for rape and now whipping? This is too much.

As a hustler I disagree with you. It's really easy to hustle people who are uneducated. Public schools still give people the means to think critically and not get fooled someone like me.

I think you can live a good life without school and if it isn't for you no one should force you to learn anything expect what's necessary and deemed important. I certaintly don't want to imply that people who can't go to school can't live a full life worthy of dignity.

The constitution is a 200 year old text written on hemp paper. The founding fathers who signed it broke its very code already. If it was taken seriously enough to be relevant, then the model it proposed has indeed failed.

"An eye for an eye"

- Code of Hammurabi 1780 BC

"Capital punishment for rape."

- Create Debate users 2012 AD

Based on your premise I propose a world wide capital punishment where all humans are killed to prevent all future crime. Or is protecting life more important to you than stopping crime? If it is, you provide no justification whatsoever.

I believe the world is better off with these people taken out of it.

I ask of you to treat people with dignity, especially those pedophiles who did manage to change or agreed to be castrated or do not molest children. You are dehumanizing these people with no rational reason whatsoever. Castrated people are less likely to rape other people than even you moral crusader.

Why deprive someone of their life when the issue is with their sexuality? Sexuality changes. Even if absolutely nothing else can be done these people can be castrated with their consent or locked away for treatment. The idea that we need to systematically murder people based on their sexual orientation seems intolerant and subhuman to me.

Human society working without money is a fact of nature. It's the way we have evolved to arrange our relations in a natural state before agriculture.

Yes, efficiency isn't the main goal. You can argue that on both sides, but we are talking about facts here.

Well, the U.S. has the strongest economy in the history of the world, so no.

Yes, the US has a strong economy, great natural resources and no natural enemies. That does not tell what would have happened had China's system gotten the same opportunities. But if the goal of the system is:

what is the most good for the most people.

Then the US has failed miserably in comparison to for example Finland. Finland has a fraction of the resources, is located next to Russia, paid an enormous debt to the Soviet Union after a history of being subjugated by Russia and very nearly lost their land. Finland still has a higher standard of living than the United States, who: developed industry isolated, won the cold war, won world war 2, won world war 1 and has more natural resources.

In fact, the division of private power is similar to what you would see in third world countries. Would you not agree that in light of these advantages, the United States model fails more miserably than most other nations? China went trough horrible periods under Mao, but was unified and indeed made it relatively well.

The efficiency of China is an illusion built on sand created by the unsustainable financial system. It is similar to the United States where the central bank manipulates its currency with low interest

The key difference: China is the lender and the United States the one in debt.

Similarities: Both systems have been compared to feudalism and criticized with the same passion as you criticized China.

Which do you then think is more efficient of the two: all-out master-servant feudalism where the servant obeys the master OR "formal freedoms protected with wasted tax money crony-capitalism teacher union policing the world foreign politics war machine" (I believe that is how you would describe the US)?

If you indeed make such a strong distinction between real free markets and these systems then is that really what it is about? Feudalism didn't work the best just before it was at the stage of being replaced by nation states, and crony capitalism works the best (if it works at all) when its cranked up to fascism-levels.

You may think China's system is even less moral, but that is no grounds to dismiss the problem. On the contrary, you should suggest how the west deal with it.

Even if it did prove to be more "efficient" that wouldn't necessarily justify its system.

I agree, however I feel as if you posted your argument on the wrong side. While you imply that you can arrange a free market to be more efficient than China you also imply that we ought to do so because China is more efficient than our system now. At least it seems most of your argument is dealing with the possibility that China is indeed more efficient. You made many observations but didn't seem to side clearly.

While I am critical of the idea that economic and social freedom is absolutely the best for maximizing efficiency your argument is more complex than that.

Its not efficient

Not efficient compared to what? Western capitalism nowadays is way more wasteful, way less productive and way less sustainable. You are not successful in defending your complete position.

The only problem you have stated which does not apply to west more than to China is the cost of labor rising. First of all that is only a sign of economic progress, not of inefficiency. Secondly, the cost of labor is obviously loads higher in the west.

most countries couldn't compete

Exactly. Your only comparative statement goes in favor of China. The concerns you posted apply to the west more so than to China.

when I'm done smoking

I'm never done with the mary jane. I propose a bong that grows more and more weed every time you inhale, like regeneration.

I am mainly talking about foreing policy. Don't pretend the EU is being critical of the US. Their leaders follow along politely. The welfare state is a very american idea, it was supported by Franklin D. Roosevelt. The administration affected many constitutions around the world to include universal health care. Europe followed the ideal set by him.

whether he's right or actually justified is subjective

Well I feel as if libertarians do have objective ideas about justice. Murder is inherently wrong no matter how the murderer feels or how he thinks about the world. If there is no obvious external justification like self-defense or consent he must pay for his crimes.

If a person obviously needs to eat and has no other way of getting food, he has the external justification of self-defense. He shouldn't be made to pay for his crimes unless there are exceptional circumstances. Even though this justification may seem shady there is no actual element of subjectivity in this view of justice. The answers are derived from the inherent nature of rights. Objectivity is an inherent quality of justice in this view.

Even though it allows and implies that people follow their own path to a good life it is still an objective statement to say that everyone should just do that and there should be no common rule. It is also objective to claim no ones right to do so should be taken from them. If libertarian justice had the intention of being subjective so would the very "libertarian values" we are debating.

Human beings are not property.

Yes, and you have a reason why.

They must subject themselves to a contract of indentured servitude, but a contract is not legal grounds for putting one in shackles.

Yes, it is because they are sentient and able to bargain (and some other stuff maybe). You can not claim state protected special rights on a human being as it is against their right to self-ownership that stems from them being capable of bargaining. But how about someone under custody who is sentient but unable to properly bargain?

If this arrangement is external of the market, it would not be going against the "free market" which is within the bounds of the market.

Now arises the question, what am I disputing here? Well, since practically no one would decide not to fulfill their needs a handout would not seem impair the market in any significant way. So, on second thoughts I have no basis to say the market is not "free". But wouldn't there have to be a level of centralization that you are against? On what grounds are you fine with that in this case? And what do you think of Friedmans ideas on pollution?

We don't condone thievery just because some people feel that they have a right to steal from someone else.

The thing I hold on to in my argument right now is that libertarian values and justifications are objective, but since a system of vouchers would effectively ruin the thieves day I actually have no ground to stand on for now. Of course I could have argued that vouchers distort the market in some way but that fell flat on its face. I choose honesty over persistence. It has been an interesting debate indeed. I'd be happy to hear your final thoughts.

Create Debate became a commercial success and was sold to google. Shares of google were provided to the users of this site who helped this change happen. PrayerFails took his money and formed an isolated Anarcho-Capitalist society on a tropical island. The idea spread, politics was gotten rid of and replaced with voluntary association. The world is a sunnier and warmer (definitely warmer, if you know what I mean) place. The liberal leaning portion of this website (and of the world) died of marijuana overdoses on the day that was known as the great legalization. Some conspiracy theories have risen, but there is no reason to suppose PrayerFails had anything to do with this natural occurrence.

The US has handed out free nukes to countries that have signed none of the treatise. Why would any American trust their government with this, seen that they are otherwise so critical of it?

If anything it should be a compliment!

Compliment to what? This image implies that women shaved their armpits in prehistoric times.

It might be horrible vandalism on the other hand but we must define what it vandalizes. If there is graffiti on an ugly-ass 80's concrete box building it isn't vandalizing anything it therefore can only be art. If graffiti is drawn on a beautiful building to mess with it it has nothing to do with art.

If people are going to build the ugliest buildings with no attention to beauty at all they will get graffitied on. The graffiti artist merely finishes the job of vandalism that was initiated by the architect of the building.

Oh so you chose not to:

USA - 1

Britain - 0

I don't have a problem with you picking favourites between the two once great nations. The US is more powerful right now albeit losing its hegemony. Sure, they have commited atrocities but so did Britain during its hegemonial period. I would choose the US over Britain any time from a historical or moral perspective. Enjoy your monarchy by the way.

On the other hand you have great handouts and health care, even Romanians are cashing in on your social security. Enjoy following US policy politely with the rest of the Europeann Union.

governments are known for their ineptness

The government has given me a goud edocatiun (sorry, couldn't resist a bad joke) so far. Your statement might be true on a larger scale. Countries like Finland though are known for good public education. The prime minister picks up his kids from the public school on the way home (there are very few private schools). From personal experience I think a certain welfare state model is acceptable.

God save our gracious Queen!

Long live our noble Queen!

God save the Queen!

Send her victorious,

Happy and glorious,

Long to reign over us:

God save The Queen!

Yes, but the argument works both ways.

I am not supposing all libertarians should condone free markets. I am supposing that in intellectual honesty libertarianism needs to be slightly adapted from what people usually think it implies, in order to properly support a free market, or vice versa, the market to support it.

you're taking these principles into impossible axioms

I hope I'm not taking the non-aggression principle to impossible axioms. It simply states all aggression, including those which I described, are inherently illegitimate. The burden of proof is on the aggressor, who must legitimate his aggression externally. Most of things I listed can be justified.

The right to life and self-ownership includes the right to property.

I agree, I only disagree on how to best protect all of the above rights.

Protecting your property is fine, as it is self-deafens. Protecting your life is fine, as it also self-defense. A very universal idea that has to do with the nature of rights is that the right to life is needed for people to protect any other rights in a civilized manner and ought not be considered less strong than others.

If this were not the case the right to property of the slaveholder would be stronger than the right to life of the slave. We have to define what we can justify the state protecting as our property and what we can not because this statement about rights is one of the most universal. Murder is always worse than stealing.

A poor person can justify stealing basic necessities as defending ones right to life and property (as a person dies so do his other rights outside of arrangements made before death). What that means is that IF this justification is correct and we ought to protect the right to life and property, the basic needs of the individuals must be fulfilled by an arrangement external from the market. THEN and only then the justification of the poor person is no longer valid. Property and life are legitimated and protected to their fullest extent.

The libertarian theory of justice is a rights-based one. I believe it should not be taken to the extreme axiom that the justification above is incorrect. Libertarianism is about the nature of rights. It should not be distorted to include inherently questionable ideas about the nature of rights, that are in reality derived from crypto-utilitarian or quasi-utilitarian notions. In my opinion libertarians should ponder the nature of rights above all, for society ought to be formulated on them, and not the other way around.

Yes in the case of The United States it might not be a good strategy at all, but there is no common rule. If Gary Johnson was to replace Mitt Romney as the republican candidate, then it might be great.

Although I didn't watch the video and therefore know nothing of its message, I'm only against the notion that voting is always wrong: "Voting is immoral because by participating in a thoroughly immoral system, the voter endorses it." argumentum ad wikipedia.

Yes in the case of The United States it might not be a good strategy at all, but there is no common rule. If Gary Johnson was to replace Mitt Romney as the republican candidate, then it might be great.

Although I didn't watch the video and therefore know nothing of its message, I'm only against the notion that voting is always wrong. That argument does certaintly exist within certain ideologies, and unless prayerfails' quote is out of context that is what I believe it referred to.

If he votes for freedom he is letting others be free, if not then not. There is no freedom from freedom. There is nothing innately wrong about voting. It can eighter be a good tactic to achieve a free society or not. There is no common rule.

O say can you see by the dawn's early light,

What so proudly we hailed at the twilight's last gleaming,

Whose broad stripes and bright stars through the perilous fight,

O'er the ramparts we watched, were so gallantly streaming?

And the rockets' red glare, the bombs bursting in air,

Gave proof through the night that our flag was still there;

O say does that star-spangled banner yet wave,

O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave?

Some folks like PrayerJesusfreak here say, that strawmen should be stacked on top of another in stead of real arguments bieng made. Thewayitis disagrees with this nonsense.

The right to own land stems from the aggression of the military, who has eighter conquered or defended it. Property itself is enforced by the monopoly of violence of the state. As you claim special rights on a piece of land with financial power you might not engage in aggression yourself, but by merit of your tax paying citizenship the state will do it for you.

It does not matter if it's a war of defense or a war of aggression, both are inherently illegitimate forms of power under the non-aggression principle. The question is about the compatibility of libertarian ideology with the free market. I argue it is incompatible, because this inherently illegitimate form of power will limit the rights of the individuals.

As the state you propose does not provide the basic needs of its citizens, a portion of them will have no choice but to rent themselves as labour to fill their basic needs. The vice versa is true aswell: those individuals are owned by those who have special rights to basic necessities.

The individuals might have the opportunity to rent themselves to themselves every once in a while (you know, by not working all the time or not working at all for time it takes to die of thirst), but self-ownership is hardly a right in such an economic system. It is taken away with violence.

What I do not understand is: why would any libertarian favor the right to property over the right to life and self-ownership? The marauding bulldozertanks of the state should be used to defend those rights above all.

Help me understand what line of logic leads guitaristdog to believe, for example that murder is justified by economic motives. From your perspectives you might think you already said everything that is nescessary, but I don't think anything is that simple. I used to believe in free market principles myself. The basic view on human nature is questionable however: human nature makes socialism fail, but charity will work and the free market will be fine, as people are kind and fluffy and happy.

P.S. Enjoy the sunny weather under global warming. Remember to move out of coastal areas!

Innovators in the analytical sense are not always strong minded or original. The first to get aids by eating monkey meat (so we suppose it happened that way, as the other alternative...) affected society more than many other innovators.

I suppose I'm a 19th century American conservative. Although I might some day change my age old views, but for the sake of argument I propose a democratic and open society where traditional values and personal integrity are protected.

If that were relevant we would have gone crazy because of equal temperament.

Yes, that is right. I am very prejudiced against Mormons and would never vote for a Mormon like Romney.

The morals of the death penalty block understanding. The societies who tend to use it (The United States, some third world countries) are often poorly organized and don't give all citizens the means to properly and rationally control their actions.

The deterrent effect has largely been disproven. Most murders are commited in unstable mindsets. The death penalty and the morals implied by it block understanding, as the poorly organized societies who tend to use it (The United States, some third world countries) don't give everybody the means to control themselves and think rationally about what they are doing.

The death penalty is an act of revenge, not of justice. It is against the right to life we are trying to defend in the first place.

As long as it wouldn't stop government entitlements a bit more of tax exempt status would be nice.

Free Market Capitalism is merely the idea that government has no business in telling a man what he can do with his own business, body, and property.

Even so, the definition of free market capitalism is quite narrow and simple. Therefore as a system it does not require extreme arguments to refute. For example:

Buying a car to roll with is all good for the dealer and the customer, but even that has effects for everyone such as global warming. The buyer has used financially legitimated power on others. Whether or not the legitimation is correct is subject to petition in a democratically arranged society.

In a true free market individuals don't always have a say in how financially legitimated power is used upon them. But in a libertarian society, no power should be used in a manner that violates of the rights of others. That calls for democratic arrangements that are incompatible with a truly free market.

I misread your argument 500000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000char

I think you suspected that because I typed alternative account on my argument as a joke. On the other hand, who would you think I really was if I were a "fraud account"? (and not O. G. - teacher at Ballerton University of Hustlers' Paradise, Florida)

P.S. You can se I have classroom debates, legit just so you know.

Free higher education is a useful way for government to subsidize corporations in a market. Those corporations will benefit from the educated work force in the same way as they would from direct tax reductions or payments. The result is a more competitive and better developing society. Market societies that have not set up these subsidies have historically not developed at all.

Free higher education is the best form of this necessary subsidy because it is easily defendable as a human right.

In my opinion that has to be PrayerFails. Consider this:

You are unable to attack his religion, as he has none.

You can't attack his political philosohpy, because he argues free market capitalism is not a politcal philosphy and as his model makes no attempt to intervene in it.

He has read enough economy text books to build his impenetrable defenses.

He does not lose arguments. Making an endless loop against him to bore would be readers and logging into your alternative account to do some upvoting is the best you can hope for.

In five sentences I think I have misrepresented his views in some way.

I hope he is not reading this.

Christian girls definately have it easier than christian boys. Many of the expectations communities might set on these children are much more feasible to girls than boys. Girls' extramarital or premarital sexual relationships are an example of this, as the possible consequences of these encounters are suffered by the female. These once reasonable expectations stick with the girls, but not the boys.

These values are now useless if not harmful and outdated because of birth control. Christian boys still confine themselves to follow them. In addition to failed marriages and unrealistic expectations suffered by both they are more alienated from their group that has departed from these values.

Although Mitt Romenys early work is still clouded in mystery, we must remember it is in a completely different category from the amateur scribblings of the likes of Barrack Obama. A piece of history is lost if the master hides his talent by trying to alter his otherwise brilliant works to suit the uncivilized demands of the plebeians.

It also messes up your nails. They make you get a haircut and make fun of you and yell at you. Seriously, the fashion police needs to totally raid that place.

Atheits might argue that religion is a tool that was used to justify war. In fact used by people. Were there no religion would there be justifications based on values and morality. If there was no morality no justifications would even be needed. In the end it is a matter of human nature. Religions and states do not cause wars, behind all of that are the people. They also have used these institutions for maintaining peace, but then decided not to.

Oh, say, can you see, by the dawn's early light,

What so proudly we hail'd at the twilight's last gleaming?

Whose broad stripes and bright stars, thro' the perilous fight,

O'er the ramparts we watch'd, were so gallantly streaming?

And the rockets' red glare, the bombs bursting in air,

Gave proof thro' the night that our flag was still there.

O say, does that star-spangled banner yet wave

O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave?

On the shore dimly seen thro' the mists of the deep,

Where the foe's haughty host in dread silence reposes,

What is that which the breeze, o'er the towering steep,

As it fitfully blows, half conceals, half discloses?

Now it catches the gleam of the morning's first beam,

In full glory reflected, now shines on the stream:

'Tis the star-spangled banner: O, long may it wave

O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave!

And where is that band who so vauntingly swore

That the havoc of war and the battle's confusion

A home and a country should leave us no more?

Their blood has wash'd out their foul footsteps' pollution.

No refuge could save the hireling and slave

From the terror of flight or the gloom of the grave:

And the star-spangled banner in triumph doth wave

O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave.

O, thus be it ever when freemen shall stand,

Between their lov'd homes and the war's desolation;

Blest with vict'ry and peace, may the heav'n-rescued land

Praise the Pow'r that hath made and preserv'd us a nation!

Then conquer we must, when our cause is just,

And this be our motto: "In God is our trust"

And the star-spangled banner in triumph shall wave

O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave!