[Algorithm69]

(Original post by Lord Hysteria)
My point was that the US constitution has such mystical phrases and invocations for the purpose of affirming individual rights. You're just a pedant who doesn't like the fact that I used quotation-marks.

The user before you also ignored the bulk of my post and babbled on Locke ... so I don't know what you have to be amazed by?

You have completely twisted what you said. It wasn't the fact that you used quotation marks, it was the fact you said this, and I quote:

(Original post by Lord Hysteria)
It reminds me of the phrase of the American constitution "one nation under God".

That. Phrase. Does. Not. Appear. In. The. United. States. Constitution. No phrase remotely like that does and the adoption of that motto is considered unconstitutional by many people. You were wrong, sir. All you needed to do was reply with "yes, you're right, my mistake. Thanks for correcting me." But vanity or arrogance has prevented you from doing that.

As for the Constitution having mystical phrases, could you give me one correct example? Because the Constitution is a secular document and contains no mention of God, religion, Jesus or mysticism, at least not in any positive or philosophical sense, but instead has the First Amendment and Separation of Church and State. Perhaps you are thinking of the Declaration of Independence? It is that document which gave the world the fantastic phrase "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

And I never said I was amazed by people ignoring your posts, only that I'm amazed by your aversion to correction and that your implication that I was ignoring the bulk of your post (when in fact I had no problem with it) or did not understand it is false.

[Duckelf]

(Original post by Lord Hysteria)
No. You've conveniently ignored my quoting Locke that "every man has property in his own person" ... Clearly, instead of God, man owns his own person ....

Or do you believe that Locke never said that?

It is flat out wrong to say that Locke did not believe that our bodies belong to God.

[Puritan]

(Original post by Duckelf)
It is flat out wrong to say that Locke did not believe that our bodies belong to God.

This is Locke:

" …by his order and about his business, they [us] are his [God's] property whose workmanship they are, made to last during his, not one another's pleasure: and being furnished with like faculties, sharing all in one community of nature, there cannot be supposed any subordination among us, that may authorize us to destroy one another, as if we were made for one another's uses, as the inferior ranks of creatures are for our's."

So yeah.

[J1812]

(Original post by hunstatham)
But human beings cannot be equal and frankly are not. Economic equality, or the motivation behind it, is simply based on a childish "me-too" mindset. Why does it matter if somebody is richer or has more financial resources than the next?

It can be based on a form of altruism too, even if you think it's misguided altruism. Just one example of a rich person wanting economic equality is enough to question your statement "is simply based on a childish "me-too" mindset".

I think most people genuinely believe in their ideas. Saying things like "you just believe that because you were beat up as a child" or "you just want loot for yourself" is going to do more harm then good.

Consider how it works the other way. Imagine arguing with a socialist who thinks that you don't actually believe free markets are good for people's well-being, that you're just a greedy investor who wants to exploit natural resources and are willing to lie to get there. It would make you less likely to listen to his arguments if he's making the obvious mistake of assuming that you have bad intentions.

The result of that attitude is both sides insulting/ignoring eachother instead of examining logic and evidence.

[J1812]

The discussion of self-ownership:

Well given libertarians believe self-ownership is an unalienable right they clearly *do* think that their freedom extends every person.

lol... which libertarians believe in self-ownership? It cannot even be proven.

Most of them IIRC. [And an admission that it can't be proven]

No they don't.

Yes, I also don't know many modern libertarian thinkers who really subscribe to self-ownership as an axiom or necessary foundational principle.

And the other branch:

Well what do they believe in then, if you're so up to date on Libertarianism?

Many derive freedom from consequentialism, not self-ownership.

I believe the confusion here is about how self-ownership is actually defined. David Friedman, despite being a consequentialist, takes quite an interest in rights and has written about what rights people should have, which would surely include self-ownership. I assume other branches of libertarian consequentialism have similar conclusions.

The difference between David Friedman and Rothbard/Rand/etc is that he approaches the question by thinking about what kind of society he would like to live in. Friedman doesn't believe it has successfully been derived as a natural law or axiom of reality.

If you include both definitions then this statement, "most libertarians believe in self-ownership" might be true, depending how you define "libertarian".

[r.ferguson]

The UK, and devolved administrations, ought to have a libertarian movement. The Conservative, no matter how close economically, will never be libertarian socially.

[walkhms]

Can we please bring this thread back?

[Anony mouse]

(Original post by walkhms)
Can we please bring this thread back?

We're more active on the TSR Libertarian Party private sub forum on TSR. All you need to do is click on the button below then click to join TSR Libertarian Party.

[Rhadamanthus]

Libertarians should be aware that there is a TSR referendum for the Model House of Commons on the future of the United Kingdom: should we abolish or retain the monarchy? Since this issue is one that libertarians will have an opinion of I've decided to alert you to it and encourage everyone to vote.

(Also, this is a shameless thread bump.)

[snozzle]

(Original post by hunstatham)
But human beings cannot be equal and frankly are not. Economic equality, or the motivation behind it, is simply based on a childish "me-too" mindset. Why does it matter if somebody is richer or has more financial resources than the next?

I used to think that was self-evident, but you could apply the same argument to deny political freedom, or any liberty in effect....why should the strongest man not be able to deny others freedom and take all freedom for himself? It's natural right?! This is where you naturalism heads....to a morality of strength...which is a nihilism.

It's part of the paradox of freedom that the state must deny some freedom to protect most of it. I don't see why this doesn't apply in economic matters too, and this I think is one massive failing of libertarian economics in that it sees negative-freedom as the be all and end all in economics. The fact is that a man who works 18 hours a day 7 days a week doesn't have much real freedom at all despite the formal freedom he may have. It would be a sordid dehumanising existence and how can libertarians side with this?

That might seem extreme but in the 19th century children of 6 were working 7 days a week in mills.

[Gwindor]

I have been a long standing libertarian throughout my school life. I have always dismissed coercion, and have adhered to the Non-Aggression Principle. I myself have my own moral beliefs, everyone should (that is part of individuality), but I believe that the government has no right in intervening in such things as sexuality, religion, the private sector and drugs. I believe that through liberty and limited government control, humanity can prosper. As for those who argue that libertarianism will simply make the poor even poorer, that might no be the case. Since taxes would be greatly reduced, people would have more money to spend on charity. Also there are always those, whom I greatly admire and strive to learn from, who work all their lives helping the poor voluntarily. One does not need to be a socialist to help the poor

[MacDaddi]

Go and vote for the Libertarians in TSR's very own Model House of Commons:

Vote here: http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/show....php?t=2303049