liberty student: Chris: I was saying I understand how rights are determined under this principle. I do not necessarily agree with the process Chris, it is a lot to take in all at once. I think sometimes people here forget how long it took each of us individually to move to the positions we currently hold. You should be very proud of yourself for sticking with this, and at least hearing out different perspectives.
Chris: I was saying I understand how rights are determined under this principle. I do not necessarily agree with the process
I was saying I understand how rights are determined under this principle. I do not necessarily agree with the process
Chris, it is a lot to take in all at once. I think sometimes people here forget how long it took each of us individually to move to the positions we currently hold.
You should be very proud of yourself for sticking with this, and at least hearing out different perspectives.
With that said, Chris, I recommend you read Murray N. Rothbard's For a New Liberty.
thank you very much. I'm glad to be here. I will add this book to my reading list
I will add it to my list
nirgrahamUK: you are thinking that law is 'legal positivist' law. you are thinking that the institutions which provide 'harmonization' services between sovereign individuals are good. noble and government whether or not they are insitutions competiting for custom on the freemarket (voluntary 'government') or a monopolistic granfalloon criminal organisation (involuntary government) if you wish to learn how to think otherwise, stick around, ask questions , etc. greetings.
you are thinking that law is 'legal positivist' law.
you are thinking that the institutions which provide 'harmonization' services between sovereign individuals are good. noble and government whether or not they are insitutions competiting for custom on the freemarket (voluntary 'government') or a monopolistic granfalloon criminal organisation (involuntary government)
if you wish to learn how to think otherwise, stick around, ask questions , etc.
greetings.
That is not what I'm thinking. I initially was defending an act. The ADA specifically and then still I was only defending its existence not the absurd extreme to which it's been taken. Government institutions be they voluntary or otherwise require capital to exist. I just believe the government has more responsibility than enforcing contracts made between men
We are big fans of law here. Our positions are fairly close to Ron Paul's. We just see his position as being more nuanced than strictly Constitutional. But this is the Mises community, which is different from the Institute proper, which is what I believe Ron Paul was referring to with The Revolution. We're definitely radicals in here, not that the main site isn't radical, but this is probably the most radical libertarian forum around.
If you enjoy video or audio, there are a ton of resources here, including For A New Liberty available in one or both of those formats.
If you find something evil that wobbles, push it. - Gary North
an act which is an example of legal positivism.
Chris: Government institutions be they voluntary or otherwise require capital to exist.
Chris: I just believe the government has more responsibility than enforcing contracts made between men
Where there is no property there is no justice; a proposition as certain as any demonstration in Euclid
Fools! not to see that what they madly desire would be a calamity to them as no hands but their own could bring
nirgrahamUK: an act which is an example of legal positivism. Chris: Government institutions be they voluntary or otherwise require capital to exist. ok. fair enough Chris: I just believe the government has more responsibility than enforcing contracts made between men you think involuntary government has respobisiblities to you and citizens? i would agree , but only that they are responsible for their crimes. to make them responsible for your care and well-being is sheer madness. (go Mises!) then we must agree to disagree. the majority of society has determined that the government owes me certain protections. The country has too many people In it for everyone to agree all the time. Just because some people on the fringe do not agree is no reason to dismantle the system altogether. On the other hand, if they can get enough people on their side and that is all the more reason to consider their plight. Somewhere along the way enough people ended up being on my side.
fair enough
then we must agree to disagree. the majority of society has determined that the government owes me certain protections. The country has too many people In it for everyone to agree all the time. Just because some people on the fringe do not agree is no reason to dismantle the system altogether. On the other hand, if they can get enough people on their side and that is all the more reason to consider their plight. Somewhere along the way enough people ended up being on my side.
Chris: the majority of society has determined that the government owes me certain protections. The country has too many people In it for everyone to agree all the time. Just because some people on the fringe do not agree is no reason to dismantle the system altogether. On the other hand, if they can get enough people on their side and that is all the more reason to consider their plight. Somewhere along the way enough people ended up being on my side.
Argumentum ad populum.
My favorite online shop: www.cafepress.com/libertyphile
Daniel: Chris: the majority of society has determined that the government owes me certain protections. The country has too many people In it for everyone to agree all the time. Just because some people on the fringe do not agree is no reason to dismantle the system altogether. On the other hand, if they can get enough people on their side and that is all the more reason to consider their plight. Somewhere along the way enough people ended up being on my side. Argumentum ad populum.
Love it or hate it that is the world we live in
'might makes right' etc.
i suppose your pean to rationalism and law was only superficial
What process? You're being too vague. Here's what Jack said:
Jack: "Going a bit further, the Libertarian principal of rights is based on negative rights. That is, I must refrain from killing you. I am under no obligation to protect and/or save your life, however. I must refrain from using aggression, that is, initiating or threatening violence.
"Going a bit further, the Libertarian principal of rights is based on negative rights. That is, I must refrain from killing you. I am under no obligation to protect and/or save your life, however. I must refrain from using aggression, that is, initiating or threatening violence.
I don't want to put words in your mouth. Could you point out the "process" you are referring to here?
"I used to see a mountain as a mountain.. Thereafter.. when I saw a mountain; lo! it was not a mountain.. yet now of final tranquillity: I see a mountain just as a mountain as I used to.." - Master Yuan; molon labe
In reply to the question I would say that the disabled could certainly fare no worse under a libertarian system, if only because a rising tide lifts all boats. Sure, the comforting guarantees and programs would vanish, but you could present that argument against Libertarianism, and indeed Capitalism, at every level. For the vast majority of disabled people improvements in medical technology, access to private charity and social advancement would more than offset the potential for some business not having a wheel-chair friendly lavatory.
Chris: Love it or hate it that is the world we live in
Well then you are not really possessing of the vision to become a libertarian. If you concede to, or even recognise the relevance of, popular opinion you are a collectivist. The rationale for libertarianism does not derive solely out of the merits of Capitalism or its unparalleled power to ameliorate lives, but principally from the belief that the individual should determine the course of his own life. If you cannot accept that fundamental concept, you should abandon any attempt to get technical of libertarianism in practice
Chris: Once Again That Is an Extreme. I Grow Tired of People Asking Me If I'm Going to Poop in Their Living Room, Eat the Cake That They Cooked, or Expect Them to Adhere to My Marriage Contract. the Day I Do Any One of Those Things or the Law Proposes That I Should Be Able to Then We Can Discuss It.
Once Again That Is an Extreme. I Grow Tired of People Asking Me If I'm Going to Poop in Their Living Room, Eat the Cake That They Cooked, or Expect Them to Adhere to My Marriage Contract. the Day I Do Any One of Those Things or the Law Proposes That I Should Be Able to Then We Can Discuss It.
lol... I know Daniel, can't remember off-hand where the others came from, but Daniel was asking you a legal question in reference to the Marriage Contract. Not that you are accepted or not to adhere to the Marriage Contract - he was trying to find an analogous example that might help you understand in more familiar terms. I'm pretty sure of that. He wasn't asking if YOU would any longer adhere to it. He was asking if a marriage - in fact - any contract in general - if other people sign it BUT not you. Are you obligated to adhere to said contract?
You wrote a long passage about being disabled in a city and being unable to find an accessible toilet, and therefore having an embarrassing accident. Do you remember this? My question to you is, by what right are you using anyone's toilet but your own? What is the difference between the toilet in my house and the toilet in my restaurant? What is the difference between some thug with a gun forcing me to install an accessible toilet in my house and some thug with a gun forcing me to install an accessible toilet in my restaurant?
It could, and probably should, be argued that it is in my best interest to install an accessible toilet in my restaurant, as it would lead to increased business. More people with disabilities would become patron, and I would avoid boycotts by those who stick up for people with disabilities. People like me, actually. I certainly would not frequent an establishment that discriminated.
There is a world of difference between "Civil Rights" at the business end of a gun and voluntary openness. The surest way to discourage brotherhood is to legislate it.
Chris:If you do not wish to live in a society that taxes then leave that society. slaves are forced to stay and work you are not.
Slaves are free to kill themselves. So no, they are not forced to stay, using your logic.
At most, 5% of the population would need to stop complying to bring down the government.
Chris,
Welcome to the world of following a concept to its conclusion. You state that you came her to just talk about the Disabilities Act. The problem is that the Disabilities Act is a creature of an unjust government. For us, any discussion of government will lead to the discussion of the libertarian principle, the non-aggression principle. The logical conclusion of the non-aggression principle is that government without consent is aggression, as such, it cannot be defended intellectually. It is a big pill to swallow. Some like to refer to it in terms of the Matrix, it is the red pill.
I was what I would consider a conservative Democrat just five years ago. When I found this site, I was what I would call a "minarchist". I hope you will read some of the wonderful material on the site.
Chris: After doing a little more reading I discovered that the Libertarian movement does in fact generally not support the Americans with Disabilities Act nor does it go very far in securing rights for people with disabilities.
After doing a little more reading I discovered that the Libertarian movement does in fact generally not support the Americans with Disabilities Act nor does it go very far in securing rights for people with disabilities.
You mean "rights" different from the rights of non-disabled people? True. Everybody has the same rights.
Chris:For one thing, from what I have read the majority of libertarians are pro-life.
I don't know about that. (Note that the vast majority of people who call themselves "libertarian" are not very libertarian!)
Chris:Presumably, because euthanasia is illegal one would again deny this person the right to die when they are mature enough to make the choice for themselves
I can't see how euthanasia could be illegal in a libertarian society (as long as it's distinguishable from murder, which is easy enough)
Chris:Number two, the beginning of the Declaration of Independence only lists three unalienable rights. Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. It says nothing about the right to property being unalienable.
Well, the original line was indeed "property", but what does that have to do with libertarianism?
Chris: Does a man's right to property take higher priority over my right to pursuit of happiness inasmuch as my happiness relies on the ability to be able to travel freely with my friends and family and experience all the beauty and majesty this country has to offer its able-bodied citizens?
Does a man's right to property take higher priority over my right to pursuit of happiness inasmuch as my happiness relies on the ability to be able to travel freely with my friends and family and experience all the beauty and majesty this country has to offer its able-bodied citizens?
Depends. Do you want to rob that man of his property in order to finance your travel? Then clearly yes. You don't get to rob people! If not, I can't see how the two are related.
Chris: Let's assume also that the principles presumptions about the generosity of men are correct in that 80% of private companies decided for charity or profit to accommodate disabilities. A man in a wheelchair is touring a city he has never been to before and realizes with some urgency that he needs to use the bathroom. He hastily enters the nearest building to use their bathroom. They inform them that there are no accommodations. He goes back and forth across the street from one building to another and gets the same response. Eventually his time has run out and there he sits embarrassed and ashamed as he defecates on himself in the street for all to see.
Let's assume also that the principles presumptions about the generosity of men are correct in that 80% of private companies decided for charity or profit to accommodate disabilities. A man in a wheelchair is touring a city he has never been to before and realizes with some urgency that he needs to use the bathroom. He hastily enters the nearest building to use their bathroom. They inform them that there are no accommodations. He goes back and forth across the street from one building to another and gets the same response. Eventually his time has run out and there he sits embarrassed and ashamed as he defecates on himself in the street for all to see.
Assume a man on his feet is touring this city and wants a bathroom. He goes into the first building, and they say "sorry, we're not a public toilet"...he goes from one building to another, but nobody will let him use their toilet...
Chris: Libertarians have to accept a certain level and form of taxation in order to finance the government
Libertarians have to accept a certain level and form of taxation in order to finance the government
Why? We don't want to finance government; we <edit>want</edit> it gone!
Chris: I know the principle assumes people would be naturally charitable enough to make up for all of the needs of the disabled and elderly in this country but that is a big assumption.
I know the principle assumes people would be naturally charitable enough to make up for all of the needs of the disabled and elderly in this country but that is a big assumption.
Why? The same people vote for the government which institutes these measures...
Chris: I do not however label a man's actions criminal if he steals a loaf of bread to feed his starving children.
I do not however label a man's actions criminal if he steals a loaf of bread to feed his starving children.
OK; but would you say that if a man needs to feed his starving children he has a right to someone else's bread?
Chris:A symptom of a larger problem which is the corrupt nature of man. The society I hear being proposed sounds perfect, it really does. A world where no man takes from another and we all respect each other's life and property.
Nobody is suggesting that. There will always be criminals. We're just saying that people who steal should be recognized as criminals (and preferably be made to repay their victims and prevented from stealing again, to the extent possible), not considered Great Men worthy of public adulation...as politicians largely are today by people not on this forum.
Chris:The point I'm trying to make is that I believe we should all have the right to equal access.
Equal access to what? Other people's property? You think everyone should have equal access to your house? If they're passing by and feel like a snack, they can just come into your kitchen and find something to eat? If they're tired, they can take a nap in your bed? (I expect you're making some sort of distinction between homes and businesses, but what do you think the difference is? There is none!)
(PS: please terminate the quoted material before inserting your replies; you make it look like the person you're replying to said your words, and you said nothing)
Chris:the majority of society has determined that the government owes me certain protections. The country has too many people In it for everyone to agree all the time. Just because some people on the fringe do not agree is no reason to dismantle the system altogether. On the other hand, if they can get enough people on their side and that is all the more reason to consider their plight. Somewhere along the way enough people ended up being on my side.
What kind of argument is that? Hitler was elected, therefore Auschwitz was a Good Idea?
While I think everyone here does not support the ADA, Im sure some of us use private charities to help disabled people. We libertarians dont think everything is about money
Ludwig von Mises Institute | 518 West Magnolia Avenue | Auburn, Alabama 36832-4528
Phone: 334.321.2100 · Fax: 334.321.2119
contact@Mises.org | webmaster | AOL-IM MainMises
Mises.org sitemap