But your rights are only denied in response to you violating the rights of others. We don't say the criminal no longer has the right to liberty, he is being denied it as punishment for his crime. If his sentence is less than life, when it is over, he regains the right.

But your rights are only denied in response to you violating the rights of others. We don't say the criminal no longer has the right to liberty, he is being denied it as punishment for his crime. If his sentence is less than life, when it is over, he regains the right.

It is. Look, in a state of nature, do you have the right to free speech? Yes. To defend yourself? Of course. To worship, to assemble? Yeah. But to vote? The question doesn't even make sense. Voting is a derivative 'right'; it cannot exist without government.

Try the parable of the Talents, or the parable of the vineyard and husbandmen. The Bible is none too kind to those who disrespect others property.

There was more liberty in the old "Ataturk system" in Turkey than under today's democracy.

Try the parable of the Talents, or the parable of the vineyard and husbandmen. The Bible is none too kind to those who disrespect others property.

I'm sorry, but to me this throws the whole idea of natural rights out the window. I have a right to deny your rights if you denied someone else's rights? Um, this is ridiculous

You can have health care without government.

No you can't

But your rights are only denied in response to you violating the rights of others.

Then all concept of morality falls apart. Might makes right, just like it does with animals.

I can hold my own election, or vote in my mother's basement, but unless government is involved my vote is meaningless.

Then all concept of morality falls apart. Might makes right, just like it does with animals.

Nope. Many rights are still withheld from ex-cons after their release. Ironically, considering this thread, one of them is often the right to vote.

But not the "natural rights".

'Misirlou' seems to be playing DNC talking-points bingo all by himself. He's a "fair share" and an "amnesty" away from winning.

If restriction of the franchise, or even monarchy is necessary to protect basic right, then they are superior to majority rule.


Has never happened in the history of the world, and likely never will.

Slaves, obey your earthly masters with fear and trembling, in singleness of heart, as you obey Christ; not only while being watched, and in order to please them, but as slaves of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart. Render service with enthusiasm, as to the Lord and not to men and women, knowing that whatever good we do, we will receive the same again from the Lord, whether we are slaves or free.

And, masters, do the same to them. Stop threatening them, for you know that both of you have the same Master in heaven, and with him there is no partiality.

I can hold my own election, or vote in my mother's basement, but unless government is involved my vote is meaningless.

And just about as meaningless as limiting the definition of health care to applying a bandage to a cut.

And just about as meaningless as limiting the definition of health care to applying a bandage to a cut.

It's the least bad option IF the majority respects others' basic rights. That's why we're a Republic, not a Democracy.

If you had a society where that weren't true, it wouldn't be.

'Misirlou' seems to be playing DNC talking-points bingo all by himself. He's a "fair share" and an "amnesty" away from winning.

.but I think it's a bit simplistic to say that majority rule is always the best course for human freedoms (whatever that entails). It may be the most reliable one we know of, but it's not fool-proof.

Has never happened in the history of the world, and likely never will.

Odd. You seem to be inventing positions and pretending I took them. I never limited any definition of health care to that example.

Just like the starving man is morally allowed to steal your food, if you have plenty. His right to life trumps your right to property.

You can make up a system of morals. But someone else can make up another that says enslave/kill a minority and their morality is equally valid to yours.

If anyone of your kin falls into difficulty and sells a piece of property, then the next-of-kin shall come and redeem what the relative has sold. If the person has no one to redeem it, but then prospers and finds sufficient means to do so, the years since its sale shall be computed and the difference shall be refunded to the person to whom it was sold, and the property shall be returned. But if there are not sufficient means to recover it, what was sold shall remain with the purchaser until the year of jubilee; in the jubilee it shall be released, and the property shall be returned.

Then kindly explain to me how we got from primates climbing down from the trees to anti-biotics, MRI's and Laser surgery without a government system which began to allow for the accumulations of wealth and surplus, eventually leading to certain members of the tribe to be able to engage in such unproductive activities such as the study of math and science? What medical breakthroughs have come from the Amazon rain forest or the New Guinea highlands?

since I was the one who said this, let me say, that taken literally, I'm probably wrong, there probably have been rare instances where an undemocratic government provided more "liberty" for the populace than a democratic one would have at the same time and place, but overall...

Then kindly explain to me how we got from primates climbing down from the trees to anti-biotics, MRI's and Laser surgery without a government system which began to allow for the accumulations of wealth and surplus, eventually leading to certain members of the tribe to be able to engage in such unproductive activities such as the study of math and science? What medical breakthroughs have come from the Amazon rain forest or the New Guinea highlands?

That X happened with government involvement does not mean that X would not have happened but for government involvement.

That X happened with government involvement does not mean that X would not have happened but for government involvement.

If our creator endowed us with that, and then inspired the Bible, he or she must have meant an extremely limited right. I'm surprised it shows up so highly on the list.

Now you want a "Valid" or preferred morality. Well I would argue that within the marketplace of ideas some moralities will tend to be more successful (not to get all Social Darwin on the bit) and thus more followed. But yeah there is not a preferred or automatically valid morality. So what, there are still morals and the one I listed is a pretty darn good one with or without a God.

That X happened with government involvement does not mean that X would not have happened but for government involvement.

Honestly, I think that if I could be king of the world for one day, a debt jubilee would be very high on my list of things that could massively improve the state of people's lives.

IOW, what's with all the quotes from the unauthorized sequel?

What medical breakthroughs have come from the Amazon rain

Trying to build a religion based on the US Constitution would be a wreck.

Va'etchanan, which you might know as Deuteronomy 5:16. Or perhaps you want Kedoshim, a/k/a Leviticus 19.

The closest any group, I've ever read about, has come to Libertaria is the Hadza*
and while, from what I've read they seem to be a very admirable people in many ways, technologically speaking they have done very little of note except develop some remarkably effective low-tech hunting strategies.

"Don't steal" is not the same as a God-endowed right to property.

Educated guesses are all well and good when it comes to determining who saves more runs with the glove at SS, but when it comes to morality there's naturally an overwhelming desire to be sure you're doing it right.

please note that this passage, which is sometimes used to show a supposed Biblical endorsement of socialism, is anything but. The giving up of possessions among the group was purely voluntary, as Peter acknowledged here. The propoerty was owned by an individual, and he had a choice to give none/some/or all of it away. Ananias' problem was he was a big fat liar trying to show how much he put in the offering plate.

Odd. You seem to be inventing positions and pretending I took them.

Libertarians generally look to the Icelandic Commonwealth as the best example of a libertarian society.

242: I am not a Calvinist, but those I know would state they certainly know which side they are on; and this assurance is confirmed in the Scriptures. I don't know where the "constantly searching" you mention comes from, theologically.

Odd. You seem to be inventing positions and pretending I took them.



Odd, you seem to make this complaint a lot, perhaps you are not communicating your positions as clearly as you think you are.

The same Iceland that responded to the financial crisis of 2007-8 by telling the lenders and banks to #### right off?

Yes, but the universe is a complex and uncaring bit of business. Just because we want it to be simple and clear that we are right doesn't make it so.

In some ways I am the anti-Calvinist. I am positive I have no hold on ultimate truth. Take each day in stride, be the besty person you can. Life is not fair, but most of the time it works out. And then you die, because everyone dies.

The same Iceland that responded to the financial crisis of 2007-8 by telling the lenders and banks to #### right off? Interesting, that, huh?

No, the Historical Iceland from several hundred years ago.

Hence, it is clear that the main tenet of socialism, community of goods, must be utterly rejected, since it only injures those whom it would seem meant to benefit, is directly contrary to the natural rights of mankind, and would introduce confusion and disorder into the commonwealth. The first and most fundamental principle, therefore, if one would undertake to alleviate the condition of the masses, must be the inviolability of private property.

Odd. You seem to be inventing positions and pretending I took them.

Odd, you seem to make this complaint a lot, perhaps you are not communicating your positions as clearly as you think you are.

Yeah, that bit was particularly disingenuous considering Ray's position wrt money and free speech.

When the conversation is thus:

"You can't have free speech with restrictions on campaign contributions."

"Sure you can. just go to a corner and start talking."

Ray is vehemently on the side of the former and ridicules the latter.

I'm realizing I need to present my ideas more clearly!

And this fell apart almost immediately causing Paul to say "If a man will not work, neither shall he eat".

That's why Pius XI wrote ”no one can be at the same time a good Catholic and a true socialist”.

but I fail to see how this analogy argues against the notion that health care can exist independently of government unlike voting.

Iceland specifically didn't bail out the banks owners. They let the equity and bondholders get wiped out.

That's the right way to do a bailout.

Doesn't anyone feel that applying acute, discrete physical actions from hundreds and hundreds of years ago to now is utterly worthless?

How do the conservative and libertarian financial experts on the board feel about the Iceland-style bailouts?

Iceland specifically didn't bail out the banks owners. They let the equity and bondholders get wiped out.

That's the right way to do a bailout.

but I fail to see how this analogy argues against the notion that health care can exist independently of government unlike voting.

That's always been the distinction in Christianity. Charity is an obligation on the giver, not a right of the receiver.

Well, unlike gov't, a religion has the right (and the necessity) to mandate restrictions on free belief and speech. That's what it does. If you don't believe the teachings, you get out.

They also seized the failed banks and blew them up themselves, while prosecuting the bank executives for financial crimes.

I was not trying to disagree with you, but expound on my feelings - so we both could be better.

Someone mentioned it already, those people entered that community voluntarily.

Yeah, but the penalty is only 3 Hail Marys, so don't whine.

I assume very low and as stated above very homogeneous.

Yeah, but the penalty is only 3 Hail Marys, so don't whine.

There's a multiplicative function at work here that you may not be aware of. Three times a gazillion is a lot.

A religion can't grant freedom of belief (for example) because then it becomes nothing. It's very purpose is to direct belief and actions in the direction of God's plan.

is that from coveting the same neighbor's wife many times, or from coveting many neighbors' wives?

I'm not saying they should seek civil sanctions against those who don't believe. I'm just saying belief is a requirement of membership.

You're confusing the role of gov't and religion in regards to natural rights.

God gives us natural rights that should not be infringed by gov't/society b/c they are necessary to human dignity and a well functioning world. He also gives us religion to tell us how to exercise those rights in order to achieve salvation.

is that from coveting the same neighbor's wife many times, or from coveting many neighbors' wives?

So ... God gives all humans natural rights, and governments shouldn't infringe on them. But God also only wants us to take advantage of those natural rights in certain ways.