Ehrlich and Nudds on Rights
harvest dancer
> Now Harvest Dancer has typically refused to answer the question.
>
> So I ask again...
You asked someone else this question, so saying I refused to answer is
a Lie. Why do you lie?
> Man's Inalienable Rights - Dr. Paul. M. Ehrlich
> ------------------------
> 1. The right to eat well.
> 2. The right to drink pure water.
> 3. The right to breathe clean air.
> 4. The right to decent, uncrowded shelter.
> 5. The right to enjoy natural beauty.
> 6. The right to avoid regimentation.
> 7. The right to avoid pesticide poisoning.
> 8. The right to freedom from thermonuclear war.
> 9. The right to limit families.
> 10. The right to educate our children.
> 11. The right to have grandchildren.
>
> Which of the above rights does Libertarianism
> deny?
Tell you what. I'll take the bait. I'll answer. But I want to lay some
ground rules first.
Rule number 1) If you quote me, you use the whole quote, not just bits
and pieces.
Rule number 2) You recognize that while Libertarians may not recognize
Ehrlich's Right Number # as a right, this does NOT mean that
Libertarians want to deny Ehrlich's Right #. If you are honest enough
to grant this, it means that just because we don't recognize it as a
right does not mean we want to ban it.
Rules number 3) You recognize that just because a Libertarian opposes
the government making a law against an activity, it does not mean that
Libertarians support that activity. I oppose the Drug War and laws
against drugs, but do not support drug use, for example.
Rule number 4) Just because a Libertarian opposes the government
acting in some issue, does not mean the Libertarian opposes private
individuals acting on that issue. Charity, for example. I oppose
welfare, but do not oppose private individuals or corporations being
charitable.
Are you going to respond to this? Are you going to take the bait? Are
you honest enough to obey the two rules? Promise? If you break your
promise it is proof that you are a liar.
Harvest Dancer
harvest dancer
away? I'm waiting...
harvest dancer
away? I'm waiting...
Then again, I suppose simply the first rule - insisting on keeping
things in context instead of snipping away anything relevant - is
scaring you off. After all, a lack of context is your distinct
strength in any argument.
Scott, you have asked me to answer your question. I have shown that I
am willing to do so if you agree to these very four simple terms. Is
it perhaps the case that you really don't want me to answer your
question? If you are forced to keep my answers in context, perhaps
you might be shown for the dishonesty that is your nature.
harvest dancer
away? I'm waiting...
Then again, I suppose simply the first rule - insisting on keeping
things in context instead of snipping away anything relevant - is
scaring you off. After all, a lack of context is your distinct
strength in any argument. It shows how foolish you are, and it shows
you to be a liar, but it is what you do.
Scott, you have asked me to answer your question. I have shown that I
am willing to do so if you agree to these very four simple terms. Is
it perhaps the case that you really don't want me to answer your
question? If you are forced to keep my answers in context, perhaps
you might be shown for the dishonesty that is your nature.
Scott Douglas <s_do...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<Xns926B140FD...@216.221.81.119>...
harvest dancer
to respond to this for some reason. You very much wanted us
Libertarians, Anarchists, and Objectivists to answer your question.
Now I'm offering to answer it and you won't reply.
Then again, I suppose simply the first rule - insisting on keeping
things in context instead of snipping away anything relevant - is
scaring you off. After all, a lack of context is your distinct
strength in any argument. It shows how foolish you are, and it shows
you to be a liar, but it is what you do.
Scott, you have asked me to answer your question. I have shown that I
am willing to do so if you agree to these very four simple terms. Is
it perhaps the case that you really don't want me to answer your
question? If you are forced to keep my answers in context, perhaps
you might be shown for the dishonesty that is your nature.
Scott Douglas <s_do...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<Xns926B140FD...@216.221.81.119>...
harvest dancer
away? I'm waiting... I've been waiting for some time now. You refuse
to respond to this for some reason. You very much wanted us
Libertarians, Anarchists, and Objectivists to answer your question.
you is that this challenge is not going away.
Then again, I suppose simply the first rule - insisting on keeping
things in context instead of snipping away anything relevant - is
scaring you off. After all, a lack of context is your distinct
strength in any argument. It shows how foolish you are, and it shows
you to be a liar, but it is what you do.
Scott, you have asked me to answer your question. I have shown that I
am willing to do so if you agree to these very four simple terms. Is
it perhaps the case that you really don't want me to answer your
question? If you are forced to keep my answers in context, perhaps
you might be shown for the dishonesty that is your nature.
Scott Douglas <s_do...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<Xns926B140FD...@216.221.81.119>...
Jason
harvest dancer
Come on Nudds, are the four rather simple rules enough to scare you
away? I'm waiting... I've been waiting for some time now. You refuse
to respond to this for some reason. You very much wanted us
Libertarians, Anarchists, and Objectivists to answer your question.
Now I'm offering to answer it and you won't reply. The problem for
you is that this challenge is not going away.
Then again, I suppose simply the first rule - insisting on keeping
things in context instead of snipping away anything relevant - is
scaring you off. After all, a lack of context is your distinct
strength in any argument. It shows how foolish you are, and it shows
you to be a liar, but it is what you do.
Scott, you have asked me to answer your question. I have shown that I
am willing to do so if you agree to these very four simple terms. Is
it perhaps the case that you really don't want me to answer your
question? If you are forced to keep my answers in context, perhaps
you might be shown for the dishonesty that is your nature.
Scott Douglas <s_do...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<Xns926B140FD...@216.221.81.119>...
Jason