SapereAude

Ok, I'll throw some chum. Murray Rothbard Ludwig von Mises Milton Friedman Thoreau Max Stirner Friedrich Hayek Bastiat William Godwin are the major ones often grouped in as being "libertarian" that I've personally read. I think, Jonathan, that you are misinterpreting what SWN said. I don't believe he was saying that there aren't libertarian philosophers, or that philosphy doesn't come up as a basis for some libertarian policy or thought. While not desiring to put words in his mouth I think what was being said by "libertarianism doesn't have much of an underlying philosophy is that libertarianism is too poorly defined and not terribly cohesive or coherent at this point to have anything that one could rightly call an underlying philosophy. You have thousands of people claiming many contradictory things to be "libertarian", therein lies the problem.

Intellectual Ammo, let me ask you a question. If I decide that I either can't or don't want to grow my own food and I seize you and force you to plant, sow and reap crops and raise livestock to feed me. If you see a way to escape the bondage I have kept you in must you ignore the opportunity and instead try to debate me on the ethics of slavery? Give up your chance to escape to freedom to convince me to be more just? And if you do escape from the slavery I have kept you in, and take all my other slaves with you, and I refuse to start trading value for value and I refuse to raise my crops myself are you then guilty of murder when I starve to death? Could it be said you "purged" me? Edit:typo

I did no such thing, you are attemtping to change the meaning of the entire book. He and his friends retired to a small bit of private property and yes, only certain people were allowed to enter their private property. They left the outside world to the looters. If the looters had changed their ways and become rational and productive they would not have destroyed themselves. And one of the biggest points you seem to be willfully ignoring- John Galt did not "come back to take over" He stayed in the outside world to watch over and protect the woman he loved. The looters who you think he should have sacrificed himself to save stalked and followed Galt out assaulted and kidnapped Galt imprisoned and tortured Galt attempted to enslave Galt and in fact, tried to force Galt to take over This is why none of what you are saying makes sense. He tried to avoid them. They came to get him.

While I am pro-choice I don't think it can automatically be said that using the term "child" is innately irrational. There is much to disagree about here, most especially when one starts getting into the ethics of late term abortions and the ethics of people who use that to extend to killing a baby that has just been born if the baby comes out undesirable. http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/willheaven/100140331/after-birth-abortion-is-logically-sound-thats-why-it-will-boost-the-pro-life-movement/ It is a legitimate dialogue to have. Some say post birth the baby has a right to life, some say that as soon as it *could* survive independently of the mother it has a right to life. The issue is complicated by how subjective even the most rational person can become on the matter. For example (this example appeals to men but in the case of female readers just assume you are carrying the baby) Your wife is 5 1/2 months pregnant with a child you both wanted to conceive. Someone assaults your wife, killing the unborn in the process. Many, no matter how pro choice they are, would feel they lost a child. Which means at some point many (not all, but many) are basing the unborn's right to life on the subjective issue of whether the child is wanted. I am not saying this precludes a woman's right to choose. I am just saying this causes enough concern as to make it understandable that many still argue the matter.

I tend to agree.

I'm in agreement here. Although I would consider myself anti-abortion I am still pro-choice for the woman as an actual person's rights must come before the potential person's rights. Nonetheless, I'd take Rand Paul over most of what is out there. He was less extreme about being anti choice several years ago. He seems to have changed his mind. But overall, he's better than most since I don't see anyone running for any major office that is "perfect".

It woulde depend somewhat on the nature of the crime. It would be reasonable and just to deny a murderer the ability to legally purchase firearms. It would not be reasonable to do so to someone who was convicted of a non-violent crime.

Haha.. we're not the pukey kind of bar. We're the "if you irritate the owner she will throw you out on your ass in a humiliating manner" kind of bar. I take their money and then send them forth to vomit elsewhere.

Service as in "Friday night service". I own a bar.

Crap. Due to the tangental nature of my mind I will now have the Bugs Bunny "Kill Da Wabbit" opera stuck in my head all through service tonight. Eh. Worse things have happened to better people!

Letters like these are preaching to the choir so to speak, intended to bring together people who are already informed on the issue and have made up their minds on it. There's plenty of other places where Paul gives hard facts on the matter. NAGR is an activist group, not journalism. Why should something be ignored just because it doesn't provide new information to the uninformed?

Perhaps reread it more carefully. What she is saying is that a welcome sleep is *not* sinister.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2013/01/28/gun-laws-and-the-fools-of-chelm-by-david-mamet.html A worthwhile read.

Been so busy at work I missed this, thanks for posting it Darrell.

But all the administration related to these issues and the actual vote itself would incur expense. So, while "poll-tax" is an unpopular term I think a reasonable user fee would be necessary to cover expenses. Poll tax carries with it an implication of excluding people from voting, but I don't think this is neceesarily so- at least no more so than paying a fee to file a contract or what have you.

Your statement in bold, my response beneath: "If you desire ever again to live in an industrial society, it will be on our moral terms." If you want the fruits of our labors, you shall have them only as those that produce it are willing to trade it. "We offer him life as a reward for accepting ours." The previous world was a culture of death. The strikers made very clear that people of meagre accomplishment were not without worth- so long as they did not extort and blackmail those that made an industrial nation's standard of living possible. In other words "do not attempt to hurt us and you can enjoy the surplus of what we produce". And if you don't, perish in and of you own void; you will not stop us. I don't see this as being hostile. If you refuse to let us exist for ourselves in peace we will withdraw and leave you to the fruits of *your* beliefs. They are nihilists and the strikers refuse to continue creating for those that believe in nothingness and they refuse to be held prisoner to perish with those that have destroyed the world. "We do not need you." I have trouble seeing the problem with this. Galt, Ragnar, Reardon... they don't need the second handers... would you prefer they lie and pretend otherwise? We just need you to get the hell out of the way, "until the wreckage of the morality of sacrifice has been wiped out of our way" Again, what is your problem with this? To say you want wreckage swept out of your way doesn't mean you caused the destruction. I work at a bar. Someone broke a bunch of glass... I didn't break it, I swept it up because it was hazardous. "You will not sneak by with the rest of your lifespan." The ending of a parasitic relationship. The tick has been noticed and shall no longer be given a ride. The second handers had always lied to themselves pretending that their relationship with the producers was a symbiotic one. This is simply a statement that people will have to choose actively to live, there will be no mooching from the corners escaping notice. "I have foreshortened the usual course of history." I think we have already been over that Galt's actions caused the inevitable to happen faster than it would have otherwise. If you rescue the victims of a cannibal the cannibal's food is gone. He must cease being a cannibal, find others victims, or starve. "You had been living on borrowed time - and I am the man who had called in the loan." What is wrong with stating the obvious? You can refuse to accept reality but the consequences will come down upon you nontheless. That Galt is the man who spells this out clearly no more makes him the killer than a doctor letting a person know they have terminal cancer is a murderer. "you will mot stay much longer on this earth, which we love and will not permit you to damn." What exactly is wrong with telling someone they may not destroy something of value to you? "Yes, you are bearing punishment for your evil." Stating that someone is experiencing the consequences of their actions does not mean that you created the nature of cause and effect. My telling you that you are bleeding, and could in fact bleed to death because you got drunk and cut your hand off with a chainsaw does not mean that I am responsible for that which is taking place. In others words "I didn't make the news, I am just reporting it" "This country will once more become a sanctuary for a vanishing species: the rational being." He is just speaking their language, what is the problem with this? Hiskind, his "brothers in spirit", heroes, traders, men of the mind. The rest, well, they "are not a concern of mine." This statement seems to prove what the rest of us are saying against your point. These people are incidental to the strikers. The strikers do not wish to harm the second handers- they simply refuse to continue having their lives focused around them. Only those that "deserve will enter" "by the rules and term of my code" The same could be said of my house. And when in "You will live in a world of responsible beings, who will be as consistent and reliable as facts." Sign me up. Remember, "If you desire ever again to live in an industrial society, it will be on our moral terms." "choose to perish, or to learn" it. Again, he didn't make the news, he's just spelling it out for them. They (the looters) have proven they can't sustain an industrial society. The strikers are simply letting the people know that if they (the strikers) return to produce that they will no longer have terms dictated to them by the people that need them. Essentially saying "you need us, we don't need you- we're willing to exist amongst you and let you have the benefit of our surplus but we will not let you set the terms". "For centuries[…] no one came to say that your life belongs to you and that the good is to live it." You're right. How horrible of him to remind people that they have every right to be as free, productive and joyful as he is. The monster!

First, I have not yet come out in favor of restricting on this basis, so I am not yet ready to argue in favor of it. I will say however that you are misrepresenting the position of the people advocating for this. It is not an issue of denying the vote to persons you disagree with (although incidentally someone who lives off of welfare would most likely disagree with a capitalist on many important issues- but again- that is incidental) the issue is to borrow a term from the unionists creating a class of "free riders"- that is- persons who use the resources of something they are not contributing to the good of. Putting aside the trickier question of people who have worked and "contributed to society" their whole lives who suddenly find themselves destitute we have a large segment of our society that have never worked, have always taken the stolen property of others to survive and intend to continue doing so. I think it is important to ask- if we (we being capitalists/Objectivists) believe in voluntary user fees for a court system, for other government functions in general what would be a proper "user fee" to vote? Again, I have not made up my mind on this issue- but these are important questions to ask. edited-typo

First, we need to make sure you understand the distinction between "charity" and "government handouts" Charity is when people voluntarily give to causes and people they deem worthy of assistance. If your past posts are any reliable basis for judgement I'm quite sure what you actually mean is "people who rely on the government to steal from the productive and redistribute goods and services to them". These are entirely different situations.

I'm not sure I understand what you are asking.

You put your own oxygen mask on first.

I'm complaining! To quote Conrad from A Man In Full: This is not OK This is not RIGHT Nonetheless, I hear ya.

I ask in seriousness: Have you ever been on an airplane?

When the cannibals seek to devour you the first rational thing is to get away from them. Later you may decide to come back with reinforcements and see if any can be coverted to civilized ways. But the first *rational* thing to do is to get away from the cannibals who outnumber you.

Vigilantism can only exist where one is under the protection of a lawful system of justice. There was no lawful justice to be had, making vigilantism a non-issue.

First of all, I'd like you to pay special attention to SWN's pointing out that a desire to kill and an intention to kill are very different things. He was holding a dying boy. A boy who after years of being a useless drone had just escaped the poisoned philosophy he was taught only to be murdered. Emotions would be rather intensified by that moment. You know, the expressions "I could wring his neck!" or "I could just KILL him for that" and so on? So that answers that question. Now on to "Would you have a desire to kill the teachers, or have a desire to do something about that which they teach?" The two are not mutually exclusive.