Is libertarianism just one of many a rights-based-theories as opposed to ideal-pattern-of-distribution theories?
Immortalist
in finding a distributive outcome that conforms to some ideal pattern
of how income and wealth should be distributed. These theories differ
about what that ideal pattern is. Some say that income should
correspond to contribution, others say that it should correspond to
effort or need, and still others say that it should correspond to a
more abstract criterion such as the maximization of average utility or
the distribution specified by Rawls's difference principle. In an
important book published in 1974, Robert Nozick offered a radical
challenge to any such "patterned" theory of justice.
In the real world, of course, it is highly unlikely that any society
would ever achieve a distribution of income that would perfectly match
the ideal pattern stipulated by some philosophical theory of
distributive justice. But, just for the sake of argument, suppose that
some society somewhere did do just that. This society has achieved a
state of perfect justice in distribution, and accordingly each
individual in this society is justly entitled to hold the income that
he or she holds. Now a disturbing thing happens. Michael Jordan,
having retired from professional basketball, offers to play exhibition
basketball for the public in exchange for a $2 admission fee. Millions
of fans are delighted at the chance to see Jordan play again and
consider the admission fee a real bargain. Each of these fans pays for
his admission fee out of his own, on our own view, just holdings. But
the resultant distribution of wealth, involving the transfer of
millions of dollars from the fans to Michael Jordan, violates the
perfect pattern of justice that had been achieved. Must we then deny
that the fans and Jordan had a right to enter into their mutually
satisfying agreement? Must we, in the name of distributive justice,
"forbid capitalist acts between consenting adults?"
Any pattern of distribution, once achieved, is likely to be upset by
acts of individuals with respect to the dispersement of the income
they hold. A harmless gift between lovers would lead from a
distribution satisfying the pattern of justice to a distribution not
satisfying that pattern. Hence, any patterned theory of justice seems
to require an extensive and continuous interference with the liberty
of individuals to do with their income what they like. Liberty upsets
patterns, and any political philosophy that attempts to realize on
earth some ideal pattern of justice will be forced to pervasively
interfere with the liberty of individual persons. Libertarian-ism, the
political philosophy defended by Nozick, rejects any such interference
with individual liberty. It is a political philosophy based on the
consistent and inviolable defense of individual liberty as the
fundamental principle of all political and social life...
...Rights-Based Theories
In the very first sentence of Anarchy, State, and Utopia, Robert
Nozick says, "Individuals have rights, and there are things no person
or group may do to them (without violating their rights). So strong
and far-reaching are these rights that they raise the question of
what, if anything, the state and its officials may do." The rights
that Nozick claims here are not rights that are created by any
government or any human agency. In this sense, they are natural
rights, rights that human beings have simply in virtue of their
existence as human beings. Among the rights central to Nozick's view
is the right to liberty, a right to do what one wants with one's life
without interference from government or any other person so long as
one's actions do not interfere with the like liberty of others.
Nozick believes that the right to liberty forms a "side constraint" on
what governments or other people may do. Suppose there is something
the government would like to do that would greatly increase the total
happiness of society as a whole but which involves violating my right
to liberty. In saying that my right to liberty is a side constraint,
No/.ick means that it blocks any such governmental project. My right
to liberty may not be violated even if doing so would achieve greater
overall happiness. Further, suppose some dictator agrees to release a
hundred political prisoners on the grounds that you capture me and
turn me over to him to be his prisoner. By capturing me and achieving
the release of the hundred political prisoners, you would maximize
nonvi-olations of the right to liberty. But by calling the right to
liberty a side constraint, Nozick means to prohibit even this. My
right to liberty may not be violated even if doing so minimizes total
violations of rights to liberty. My right to liberty is, in a sense,
an absolute right, not violable for any reason.
This idea of a strong right to liberty, understood as a negative right
not to be interfered with that belongs to every normal adult human
being and which may not be violated to achieve some other purpose, is
fundamental to libertarian political philosophy. For the libertarian,
this absolute or near-absolute right to liberty is the cornerstone
upon which the edifice of economic, social, and political institutions
must be built. In an essay published in 1974, "What Libertarianism
Is," the libertarian philosopher John Hospers says, "Every human being
has the right to act in accordance with his own choices, unless those
actions infringe on the equal liberty of other human beings to act in
accordance with their choices." In a later essay with the same title
Hospers says that, "The essential ingredient in all this is freedom
from coercion by others. This is one's basic and inalienable right."
The libertarian philosopher Jan Narveson makes an even stronger claim
about the centrality of the right to liberty, saying that "the only
relevant consideration in political matters is individual liberty."
Unlike utilitarianism, which makes the right to liberty a means to the
end of social happiness, libertarianism conceives of the right to
liberty as an independent foundation for political philosophy. It, not
the maximization of happiness nor any other end, is the "bottom line"
for political philosophy. Further, in conceiving of the right to
liberty as inviolable, as a side constraint on all other economic,
social, and political institutions, libertarians raise the
independently grounded right to liberty above all other
considerations. For these reasons, libertarianism is said to be a
"rights-based" theory. In this respect, and in its conception of the
right to liberty as one belonging to human beings by nature and not by
human convention, libertarianism agrees with the older natural-rights
tradition and disagrees with utilitarianism.
This shift away from utilitarianism to rights-based theories was
characteristic of a broad movement in ethics and political philosophy
in the 1960s and 1970s. This shift was largely motivated by imagined
cases that seemed to show that utilitarian principles led to morally
unacceptable conclusions. In chapter 6 we considered the case of the
utilitarian surgeon faced with five patients needing transplants and
one patient whose organs happened to provide the needed matches for
the five needing transplants. Utilitarianism, consistently applied,
would seem to require the surgeon to painlessly kill the one in order
to harvest organs for the five, thereby maximizing the total amount of
happiness in the world, but also grossly violating our sense that such
an action would be a morally unacceptable violation of individual
rights. Faced with a number of such examples, most philosophers have
come to the conclusion that utilitarianism is not tenable as a
fundamental theory of morality, and consequently not tenable as the
foundation for political philosophy. Though utilitarians have mounted
some interesting defenses of their position, most philosophers have
felt that these defenses ultimately fail and have turned to rights-
based theories or mixed theories as more adequately accounting for our
fundamental moral judgments.
As a rights-based theory, libertarianism built upon this shift away
from utilitarianism in ethics and political theory. However,
libertarianism represents only one current within the wider family of
rights-based theories. Rawls's theory of justice, for example, also
lies, broadly speaking, within the family of rights-based theories.
Utilitarianism is often called a teleological or consequentialist
theory. Such theories identify some quality or state of affairs as
what is intrinsically good and then define morally right actions as
those actions that aim at maximization of this good. In the case of
utilitarianism, the good is happiness and right action is action that
maximizes happiness. In contrast, Rawls's theory is a deontological
theory, one that determines the right-ness or wrongness of an action
in terms of the kind of action that it is, and not in terms of the
conduciveness of that action to the maximization of some good. Thus,
for example, according to Rawls's theory, any suppression of liberty
is morally wrong. In this, Rawls too accepts a strong right to
liberty. Other political philosophers have also supported the shift
from utilitarianism to rights-based theories but do not adopt
libertarian positions.
One characteristic of libertarians is that they reject claims to
positive rights. We will examine the implications of this position
more fully below. Here it suffices to note that the shift from
utilitarianism to rights-based theories need not include the rejection
of positive rights. -----------Nor need the rights-based theorist
agree with the libertarian that negative rights always override other
moral and political considerations. For example, the philosopher
Michael Freeden presents a complex theory that includes negative
rights, positive rights, and considerations of utility. Libertarianism
is a particular current within the broader family of postutilitarian
rights-based theories. It is, in a sense, a radical rights-based
theory, one that challenges much of the fabric of law and practice
that has come to govern economic, social, and political life in
developed industrial societies. Having seen how libertarianism makes
the right to liberty the cornerstone of political philosophy, it is to
these radical implications of libertarian theory that we now turn.
The Radical Implications of Libertarian Theory
Libertarians reject all positive rights. At the heart of libertarian
theory is the right to liberty that belongs to every normal adult
human being. Libertarians understand this right as a negative right, a
right not to be interfered with in the conduct of one's life so long
as one does not interfere with others in the free conduct of their
lives. The libertarian understands this noninterference in terms of
the absence of coercion. If I am walking down the street and a tourist
from out of town stops me and asks for directions, there is a sense in
which the tourist has interfered with me. By stopping me and asking
for directions, the tourist interrupts the flow of my life. But I
remain free to ignore this request. If I am in a hurry, or lost in
thought, or just don't want to be bothered, I am free to go on my way.
So far the libertarian has no objection to the actions of the tourist.
But were the tourist to grab me by the arm and prevent my moving on,
or threaten me with a gun and demand an answer, then the intervention
of the tourist takes on a coercive aspect that aims at removing my
freedom. It is such coercive intervention that the libertarian sees as
interfering with my liberty in a morally objectionable way.
Libertarians argue that positive rights inherently involve such
coercive interference with liberty. To see why this is so, we must
briefly consider the libertarian view of property rights.
To have a right of property in or over some thing is to have the right
to use the thing; the right to sell, bequeath, or give away the thing;
and the right to prevent others from using the thing. In this way,
property rights are often said to be bundles of rights over objects.
Now, each of these rights can be understood as involving a right of
liberty with respect to the thing. To say that I have a right to use
the thing is to say that I am free to use the thing and others may not
coercively interfere to prevent me from using it. In the same way, to
say that I have the rights to sell, bequeath, and give away the thing,
is to say that I have a right of liberty to do these things that
prevents others from coercively interfering in my doing so. And,
finally, to say that I have a right to prevent others from using the
thing is to say that the question of whether or not others may use the
thing is one that falls within the domain of my free choice. You may
not take my car without my consent. Your use of my car is up to me. It
is a matter of my free choice...
Modern Political Philosophy by Richard Hudelson
http://www.amazon.com/Modern-Political-Philosophy-Explorations/dp/0765600226/
http://tinyurl.com/ModPolitPhlosophy
Michael Gordge
> [Many theories] of distributive justice ...
Whooops silly you, yet again you precede a noun (justice) with an
adjective (distributive) and you pretend or assume that the meaning of
the noun changes, either that or you have invented something, you need
to explain what you mean by justice, because there is nothing in the
stuff that follows that sugggests in a million light years that you
are talking about justice.
MG
ZerkonXXXX
> In the real world, of course,
John Stafford
ZerkonXXXX <Z...@erkonx.net> wrote:
Exactly what is a Liberal? IMHO it has come to mean (in the USA) simply
a negation of the previous administration. Negation is not building - it
is avoidance behavior.
Jerry Okamura
Libertairans believe that people should be free. They believe that the
bigger government translates to less freedom.
"Immortalist" <reanima...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:00bdaafe-b2ac-44b4...@g1g2000pra.googlegroups.com...
Ed
wrote:
> Too much thinking and too little common sense. It is really simple.
> Libertairans believe that people should be free. They believe that the
> bigger government translates to less freedom.
>
anarchy.
Real world examples suggest that there are limits to this theory.
Somalia has an extremely weak government, perhaps the weakest in the
world today. That should mean that Somali's are the freest people in
the world today; and yet that doesn't seem to be the case. Either
libertarian theory needs to be modified or we need a better definition
of what it means to be free.
Rod Speed
>>> In the real world, of course,
> Exactly what is a Liberal? IMHO
Why is your opinion horrible or hairy ?
> it has come to mean (in the USA) simply a negation of the previous administration.
Its much more just an insult, the opposite of rightard etc.
> Negation is not building
It can be avoidance of what doesnt work.
> - it is avoidance behavior.
Nope.
Rod Speed
> Too much thinking and too little common sense.
Your sig is sposed to be last, with a line with just -- on it in front of it.
> It is really simple.
Nope, nothing is.
> Libertairans believe that people should be free.
Libertairans would know what free was if it bit them on their lard arses.
> They believe that the bigger government translates to less freedom.
Whereas in the real world, bigger govt often translates to more freedom,
most obviously when a bigger govt involves a military that ensures that
you are free to do anything that is lawful, and a decent system of health
care funding means that you are free to not be bankrupted by a serious
medical problem, etc etc etc.
You're always free to fuck off to somalia and be as free as you like there.
> Immortalist <reanima...@yahoo.com> wrote
John Stafford
<5da5cdcd-dd82-4eae...@f18g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
Ed <edg...@att.net> wrote:
The Libertarian ideal is not to be taken as a goal, or a model of how
things should be. It is merely a pose, an expression against reality
with the hope of ever so slightly influencing it. IOW, a whine.
John Galt
Libertarianism is not anarchism. Somehow, most critics against it use
arguments against anarchism, as if they are one and the same.
JG
Les Cargill
The words mean what they want them to mean, no more, no less.
--
Les Cargill
Strabo
> On Oct 27, 12:55 pm, "Jerry Okamura" <okamuraj...@hawaii.rr.com>
> wrote:
>> Too much thinking and too little common sense. It is really simple.
>> Libertairans believe that people should be free. They believe that the
>> bigger government translates to less freedom.
>>
> So people would be most free if there were no government at all, pure
> anarchy.
>
Switch to an absurd position to throw the opponent off balance. A clear
indication that you have no interest in analysis or resolution.
>
> Real world examples suggest that there are limits to this theory.
> Somalia has an extremely weak government, perhaps the weakest in the
> world today. That should mean that Somali's are the freest people in
> the world today; and yet that doesn't seem to be the case. Either
> libertarian theory needs to be modified or we need a better definition
> of what it means to be free.
>
A confused and inappropriate analogy. Somalia has a government. It is
poorly managed and heavily influenced by outside interests. Left
to themselves the warlords would eventually consolidate power and
revert to tribalism. A much more stable system for those circumstances.
Libertarians are not anarchists.
Minimal, consensual government is a hallmark of libertarians.
Michael Gordge
> Too much thinking and too little common sense. It is really simple.
> Libertairans believe that people should be free.
Nope, you are born free and what you believe doesn't change that fact.
> They believe that the
> bigger government translates to less freedom.
What they believe doesnt change the fact that the bigger the
government the less the freedom.
MG
Michael Coburn
> Ed wrote:
>> On Oct 27, 12:55 pm, "Jerry Okamura" <okamuraj...@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
>>> Too much thinking and too little common sense. It is really simple.
>>> Libertairans believe that people should be free. They believe that
>>> the bigger government translates to less freedom.
>>>
>> So people would be most free if there were no government at all, pure
>> anarchy.
>>
>>
> Switch to an absurd position to throw the opponent off balance. A clear
> indication that you have no interest in analysis or resolution.
It is the Libertarian that most often indulges in "absurdity".
>> Real world examples suggest that there are limits to this theory.
>> Somalia has an extremely weak government, perhaps the weakest in the
>> world today. That should mean that Somali's are the freest people in
>> the world today; and yet that doesn't seem to be the case. Either
>> libertarian theory needs to be modified or we need a better definition
>> of what it means to be free.
>>
>>
> A confused and inappropriate analogy. Somalia has a government. It is
> poorly managed and heavily influenced by outside interests. Left to
> themselves the warlords would eventually consolidate power and revert to
> tribalism. A much more stable system for those circumstances.
>
> Libertarians are not anarchists.
>
> Minimal, consensual government is a hallmark of libertarians.
Define "consensual" as it relates to a group the size of the people of
Oklahoma.
--
"Those are my opinions and you can't have em" -- Bart Simpson
Demon Buddha
> Define "consensual" as it relates to a group the size of the people of
> Oklahoma.
It means that people agree on the basic principles, which is a reason
to keep is small and simple. The larger and more complicated it gets,
the more people will be in disagreement with all or parts thereof.
Michael Coburn
That is the problem with all ideological fundamentalism. Such religious,
axiom based, concepts do not stand up to reality. The most successful of
the ideologies when properly implemented is American republicanism. It
is currently failing because it was purposefully destroyed by political
parties. Yet there was a solution at square one that almost made it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_the_first
Jerry Okamura
"Michael Gordge" <mikeg...@xtra.co.nz> wrote in message
news:55a46ccf-c1fe-4a56...@b36g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
On Oct 28, 1:55 am, "Jerry Okamura" <okamuraj...@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
> Too much thinking and too little common sense. It is really simple.
> Libertairans believe that people should be free.
Nope, you are born free and what you believe doesn't change that fact.
You may be born free, but you are not free for very long, if governement
takes away your freedom.
> They believe that the
> bigger government translates to less freedom.
What they believe doesnt change the fact that the bigger the
government the less the freedom.
Which means what about the Libertarian position on the issue?
MG
Rod Speed
> Michael Gordge <mikeg...@xtra.co.nz> wrote Jerry Okamura <okamuraj...@hawaii.rr.com> wrote
>>> Too much thinking and too little common sense. It is really simple. Libertairans believe that people should be free.
Libertarians are terminal fuckwits.
>> Nope, you are born free and what you believe doesn't change that fact.
> You may be born free, but you are not free for very long, if governement takes away your freedom.
No govt does that in any modern first world country.
>>> They believe that the bigger government translates to less freedom.
More fool them. In fact bigger govt can translate to MORE freedom,
most obviously when bigger govt completely dominates the entire
world militarily and economically and that produces much more
freedom, most obviously in WW2 when that comprehensively fucked
over those that were attempting to produce less freedom for so many.
>> What they believe doesnt change the fact that the bigger the government the less the freedom.
> Which means what about the Libertarian position on the issue?
Nothing, it has always been completely irrelevant. What they believe in spades.
Jerry Okamura
"Rod Speed" <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:7lc0p1F...@mid.individual.net...
> Jerry Okamura wrote:
>> Michael Gordge <mikeg...@xtra.co.nz> wrote Jerry Okamura
>> <okamuraj...@hawaii.rr.com> wrote
>
>>>> Too much thinking and too little common sense. It is really simple.
>>>> Libertairans believe that people should be free.
>
> Libertarians are terminal fuckwits.
>
then I would be proud to be called a libertarian..
Michael Gordge
> You may be born free, but you are not free for very long, if governement
> takes away your freedom.
Hence, freedom can only ever be violated / taken away, never granted.
> Which means what about the Libertarian position on the issue?
As far as I understand, libertarians like to keep things natural, as
in nature, leave man alone therefore free, leave him to live
independently, leave him alone to be the sole benefactor and the sole
decider of the results of his own energy.
(clue; the thug, the murderer, the rapist, the robber, the taxman, the
fraudster is NOT leaving man alone and is therefore not living
independently).
Living independenetly does NOT mean living without society, it means
the society by default becomes independent and free when the human
individuals who make up that society are left free and alone to be
independent.
MG
PS ffs. learn how to use a newsgroup.
Michael Gordge
>
> More fool them. In fact bigger govt can translate to MORE freedom,
Check your premises ewe commie jackass, check the facts, the US is no
longer the free country it once was and the size of the state has
never been bigger and with the fuckwit Obaaabaaamammamamama its going
to get bigger fatter and therefore less and less free, ewe are rapidly
becoming a communist state.
MG
Rod Speed
> Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote
>> Jerry Okamura wrote
>>> Michael Gordge <mikeg...@xtra.co.nz> wrote
>>>> Jerry Okamura <okamuraj...@hawaii.rr.com> wrote
>>>>> Too much thinking and too little common sense. It is really
>>>>> simple. Libertairans believe that people should be free.
>> Libertarians are terminal fuckwits.
> Libertarians believe in freedom.
Libertarians wouldnt know what real freedom was if it bit them on their lard arses.
Most obviously when their dreaded 'big govt' delivered real freedom for MILLIONS in WW2.
And completely eliminated world wars as well.
Thats REAL freedom, fuckwit.
> If that makes them "terminal fuckwits", then I would be proud to be called a libertarian..
No surprises there.
Mark M.
Libertarianism is consumerism wearing a powdered wig and knee breeches.
Mark M.
Les Cargill
There is a Vast amount of truth to that. It does have its less
venal side.
I still consider myself a Libertarian. But ultimately, a
consumer society is more unlikely with it than what we now
have.
--
Les Cargill
Jerry Okamura
> Jerry Okamura wrote
>> Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote
>>> Jerry Okamura wrote
>>>> Michael Gordge <mikeg...@xtra.co.nz> wrote
>>>>> Jerry Okamura <okamuraj...@hawaii.rr.com> wrote
>
>>>>>> Too much thinking and too little common sense. It is really
>>>>>> simple. Libertairans believe that people should be free.
>
>>> Libertarians are terminal fuckwits.
>
>> Libertarians believe in freedom.
>
> Libertarians wouldnt know what real freedom was if it bit them on their
> lard arses.
No, you got it backwards. Democrats don't give a damn about our freedoms,
or they would not be trying to "force" everyone to have health insurance.
>
> Most obviously when their dreaded 'big govt' delivered real freedom for
> MILLIONS in WW2.
Ah, and Bush delivered real freedom for MILLIONS, when he went to war with
Iraq. Are you saying that he made the right decision?
>
> And completely eliminated world wars as well.
That is a downright silly statement. No one can ELIMINATE world wars.
>
> Thats REAL freedom, fuckwit.
Yep. we fought to give other people freedom, while at home we are doing
eveything we can to take away our freedoms.
>
>> If that makes them "terminal fuckwits", then I would be proud to be
>> called a libertarian..
>
> No surprises there.
>
If wanting our citizens to be free, is being a "terminal fuckwit", I would
be more than happy to be among those who will fight for our freedoms.
Jerry Okamura
"Mark M." <ma...@ztech.com> wrote in message
news:_-6dnbPRh5vZG27X...@earthlink.com...
Bert Hyman
<rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Libertarians wouldnt know what real freedom was if it bit them on
> their lard arses.
This, coming from someone who can't even spell "asses."
--
Bert Hyman St. Paul, MN be...@iphouse.com
Rod Speed
> Mark M. <ma...@ztech.com> wrote
>>>>> Michael Gordge <mikeg...@xtra.co.nz> wrote
>>>>>> Jerry Okamura <okamuraj...@hawaii.rr.com> wrote
>>>>>>> Too much thinking and too little common sense. It is really
>>>>>>> simple. Libertairans believe that people should be free.
>>>> Libertarians are terminal fuckwits.
>>> Libertarians believe in freedom. If that makes them "terminal
>>> fuckwits", then I would be proud to be called a libertarian..
>> Libertarianism is consumerism wearing a powdered wig and knee breeches.
> If you are free, you get to choose what you want or need.
Wrong when things are setup very badly so you cant get to choose an appropriate way to deal with
a serious medical problem when you are incapable of working due to that serious medical problem.
Rod Speed
> Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote
>> Libertarians wouldnt know what real freedom was if it bit them on their lard arses.
> This, coming from someone who can't even spell "asses."
You're welcome to your donkeys, fuckwit.
Entirely appropriate in your case too.
Rod Speed
> Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote
>> Jerry Okamura wrote
>>> Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote
>>>> Jerry Okamura wrote
>>>>> Michael Gordge <mikeg...@xtra.co.nz> wrote
>>>>>> Jerry Okamura <okamuraj...@hawaii.rr.com> wrote
>>>>>>> Too much thinking and too little common sense. It is really
>>>>>>> simple. Libertairans believe that people should be free.
>>>> Libertarians are terminal fuckwits.
>>> Libertarians believe in freedom.
>> Libertarians wouldnt know what real freedom was if it bit them on their lard arses.
> No, you got it backwards.
Nope, you have.
> Democrats don't give a damn about our freedoms, or they would not be trying to "force" everyone to have health
> insurance.
It aint just democrats that force everyone to have liability insurance with their cars.
>> Most obviously when their dreaded 'big govt' delivered real freedom for MILLIONS in WW2.
> Ah, and Bush delivered real freedom for MILLIONS, when he went to war with Iraq.
No one but a fool ever claimed anything like that.
> Are you saying that he made the right decision?
Nope, I have said repeatedly that he didnt.
Separate matter entirely to whether your dreaded 'big
govt' delivered real freedom to MILLIONS in WW2.
>> And completely eliminated world wars as well.
> That is a downright silly statement.
Nope.
> No one can ELIMINATE world wars.
Its just happened, with your dreaded 'big govt' delivering nukes.
And your dreaded 'big govt' delivered the 'green revolution' that
delivered real freedom from starvation for countless millions in spades.
>> Thats REAL freedom, fuckwit.
> Yep. we fought to give other people freedom, while at home we are doing eveything we can to take away our freedoms.
That last is only your pathetic little pig ignorant fantasyland.
>>> If that makes them "terminal fuckwits", then I would be proud to be called a libertarian..
>> No surprises there.
> If wanting our citizens to be free,
They have been for a hell of a long time now, fool.
> is being a "terminal fuckwit",
You're a terminal fuckwit if you havent even noticed that they have been free for a long time now.
> I would be more than happy to be among those who will fight for our freedoms.
You never ever do anything even remotely resembling anything like that, just
mindlessly and pig ignorantly bay at the moon with no effect what so ever.
Jerry Okamura
On Nov 3, 8:59 am, "Jerry Okamura" <okamuraj...@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
> You may be born free, but you are not free for very long, if governement
> takes away your freedom.
Hence, freedom can only ever be violated / taken away, never granted.
> Which means what about the Libertarian position on the issue?
As far as I understand, libertarians like to keep things natural, as
in nature, leave man alone therefore free, leave him to live
independently, leave him alone to be the sole benefactor and the sole
decider of the results of his own energy.
(clue; the thug, the murderer, the rapist, the robber, the taxman, the
fraudster is NOT leaving man alone and is therefore not living
independently).
That is really a silly statement. When anyone wants people to be free, that
does not mean that you can do anything you want to do with that freedom.
Someone much wiser than me said, with freedom comes responsibility. When we
do not act responsibily, we don't deserve to be free.
Living independenetly does NOT mean living without society, it means
the society by default becomes independent and free when the human
individuals who make up that society are left free and alone to be
independent.
Independence and freedom are not necessarily the same thing.
Rod Speed
> Jerry Okamura <okamuraj...@hawaii.rr.com> wrote
>> You may be born free, but you are not free for very long, if governement takes away your freedom.
> Hence, freedom can only ever be violated / taken away, never granted.
Wrong, as always.
The allies granted real freedom to hordes as a result of WW2, fool.
Tim
> As far as I understand ---- well at least we won't be going far.
Zinnic
> On Oct 28, 1:55 am, "Jerry Okamura" <okamuraj...@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
>
> > Too much thinking and too little common sense. It is really simple.
> > Libertairans believe that people should be free.
>
> Nope, you are born free and what you believe doesn't change that fact.
>
Get real Gordgeous! You are not born free. You are born dependent on
others. Whatever you believe as a political adult does'nt change the
fact that mammalian offspring restrict the freedom of their parents.
To deny this is to deny a fundamental of biology.
PS Do not bother to ask how "political' before 'adult' changes the
meaning of adult.
Jerry Okamura
>
Jerry Okamura
> Jerry Okamura wrote
>> Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote
>>> Jerry Okamura wrote
>>>> Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote
>>>>> Jerry Okamura wrote
>>>>>> Michael Gordge <mikeg...@xtra.co.nz> wrote
>>>>>>> Jerry Okamura <okamuraj...@hawaii.rr.com> wrote
>
>>>>>>>> Too much thinking and too little common sense. It is really
>>>>>>>> simple. Libertairans believe that people should be free.
>
>>>>> Libertarians are terminal fuckwits.
>
>>>> Libertarians believe in freedom.
>
>>> Libertarians wouldnt know what real freedom was if it bit them on their
>>> lard arses.
>
>> No, you got it backwards.
>
> Nope, you have.
>
>> Democrats don't give a damn about our freedoms, or they would not be
>> trying to "force" everyone to have health insurance.
>
> It aint just democrats that force everyone to have liability insurance
> with their cars.
That is a true statement, that does not mean they are right.
>
>>> Most obviously when their dreaded 'big govt' delivered real freedom for
>>> MILLIONS in WW2.
>
>> Ah, and Bush delivered real freedom for MILLIONS, when he went to war
>> with Iraq.
>
> No one but a fool ever claimed anything like that.
Once again you got it backwards. The Iraqi people were not free when Saddam
was in control of that country. As a result of our actions, the peole have
a chance to be free. Now, what they will do about that chance is still an
unknwon, but you cannot argue that they have not been given the chance, that
they did not have when Saddam was in control of that country.
>
>> Are you saying that he made the right decision?
>
> Nope, I have said repeatedly that he didnt.
Obama is making the wrong decision?
>
> Separate matter entirely to whether your dreaded 'big
> govt' delivered real freedom to MILLIONS in WW2.
>
>>> And completely eliminated world wars as well.
>
>> That is a downright silly statement.
>
> Nope.
>
>> No one can ELIMINATE world wars.
>
> Its just happened, with your dreaded 'big govt' delivering nukes.
Which means what?
>
> And your dreaded 'big govt' delivered the 'green revolution' that
> delivered real freedom from starvation for countless millions in spades.
At the cost of the "freedom" of someone else?
>
>>> Thats REAL freedom, fuckwit.
No REAL freedom is when EVERYONE is free, not some with more FREEDOM and
some with less FREEDOM.
>
>> Yep. we fought to give other people freedom, while at home we are doing
>> eveything we can to take away our freedoms.
>
> That last is only your pathetic little pig ignorant fantasyland.
When government is about to "force" everyone to have health insurance, how
can that be giving people more freedom? Insurance IS making people less
free, not more free. When you buy insurance you are depeding on someone
else to provide you with a little more safety, at the price of your freedom.
Who is the ignorant one, you or me?
Rod Speed
> Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote
>> Jerry Okamura wrote
>>> Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote
>>>> Jerry Okamura wrote
>>>>> Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote
>>>>>> Jerry Okamura wrote
>>>>>>> Michael Gordge <mikeg...@xtra.co.nz> wrote
>>>>>>>> Jerry Okamura <okamuraj...@hawaii.rr.com> wrote
>>>>>>>>> Too much thinking and too little common sense. It is really
>>>>>>>>> simple. Libertairans believe that people should be free.
>>>>>> Libertarians are terminal fuckwits.
>>>>> Libertarians believe in freedom.
>>>> Libertarians wouldnt know what real freedom was if it bit them on their lard arses.
>>> No, you got it backwards.
>> Nope, you have.
>>> Democrats don't give a damn about our freedoms, or they would not be trying to "force" everyone to have health
>>> insurance.
>> It aint just democrats that force everyone to have liability insurance with their cars.
> That is a true statement, that does not mean they are right.
You get no say what so ever on what is right, EVER.
>>>> Most obviously when their dreaded 'big govt' delivered real freedom for MILLIONS in WW2.
>>> Ah, and Bush delivered real freedom for MILLIONS, when he went to war with Iraq.
>> No one but a fool ever claimed anything like that.
> Once again you got it backwards.
You're lying, as always.
> The Iraqi people were not free when Saddam was in control of that country.
They aint free NOW, fuckwit.
> As a result of our actions, the peole have a chance to be free.
They always did, they could have overthrown Saddam, fuckwit.
> Now, what they will do about that chance is still an unknwon,
Like hell it is, we already know that they told americans to fuck off out of their country.
> but you cannot argue that they have not been given the chance,
Corse I can when their personal circumstances ended
up MUCH LESS FREE as a result of the stupid invasion.
They werent even free to go down the market without a severe risk of getting killed, fuckwit.
> that they did not have when Saddam was in control of that country.
Thanks for that completely superfluous proof that you have
never ever had a fucking clue about anything at all, ever.
>>> Are you saying that he made the right decision?
>> Nope, I have said repeatedly that he didnt.
> Obama is making the wrong decision?
He hasnt made any decision that matters except to continue what the shrub did on the bailouts etc.
>> Separate matter entirely to whether your dreaded 'big
>> govt' delivered real freedom to MILLIONS in WW2.
>>>> And completely eliminated world wars as well.
>>> That is a downright silly statement.
>> Nope.
>>> No one can ELIMINATE world wars.
>> Its just happened, with your dreaded 'big govt' delivering nukes.
> Which means what?
That nukes completely eliminated any possibility of another world war.
No one like the Japs or the krauts will ever be stupid enough to try it again.
>> And your dreaded 'big govt' delivered the 'green revolution' that
>> delivered real freedom from starvation for countless millions in spades.
> At the cost of the "freedom" of someone else?
Nope, most who were free to starve were free to not starve, fuckwit.
>>>> Thats REAL freedom, fuckwit.
> No REAL freedom is when EVERYONE is free, not some with more FREEDOM and some with less FREEDOM.
You aint established that anyone had less FREEDOM as a result of that particular big govt activity, fuckwit.
You aint established that anyone had less FREEDOM as
a result of big govt completely eliminating smallpox from
the wild either except in the peurile sense that you are
no long free to contract smallpox and die of it anymore.
And if you object to that loss of FREEDOM, you are indeed a terminal fuckwit.
>>> Yep. we fought to give other people freedom, while at home we are doing eveything we can to take away our freedoms.
>> That last is only your pathetic little pig ignorant fantasyland.
> When government is about to "force" everyone to have health
> insurance, how can that be giving people more freedom?
They have the freedom to stop working when their medical condition makes that undesirable,
because they dont lose their health insurance when they stop working, fuckwit.
> Insurance IS making people less free, not more free.
Wrong, as always.
> When you buy insurance you are depeding on someone else to provide you with a little more safety, at the price of your
> freedom.
Wrong, as always. You are always free to not bother with the insurance, fuckwit.
And free to choose whether you use insurance too.
> Who is the ignorant one, you or me?
You, as always.
Jerry Okamura
> Jerry Okamura wrote
>> Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote
>>> Jerry Okamura wrote
>>>> Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote
>>>>> Jerry Okamura wrote
>>>>>> Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote
>>>>>>> Jerry Okamura wrote
>>>>>>>> Michael Gordge <mikeg...@xtra.co.nz> wrote
>>>>>>>>> Jerry Okamura <okamuraj...@hawaii.rr.com> wrote
>
>>>>>>>>>> Too much thinking and too little common sense. It is really
>>>>>>>>>> simple. Libertairans believe that people should be free.
>
>>>>>>> Libertarians are terminal fuckwits.
>
>>>>>> Libertarians believe in freedom.
>
>>>>> Libertarians wouldnt know what real freedom was if it bit them on
>>>>> their lard arses.
>
>>>> No, you got it backwards.
>
>>> Nope, you have.
>
>>>> Democrats don't give a damn about our freedoms, or they would not be
>>>> trying to "force" everyone to have health insurance.
>
>>> It aint just democrats that force everyone to have liability insurance
>>> with their cars.
>
>> That is a true statement, that does not mean they are right.
>
> You get no say what so ever on what is right, EVER.
Don't approve of the First Amendment to the Constitution?
>
>>>>> Most obviously when their dreaded 'big govt' delivered real freedom
>>>>> for MILLIONS in WW2.
>
>>>> Ah, and Bush delivered real freedom for MILLIONS, when he went to war
>>>> with Iraq.
>
>>> No one but a fool ever claimed anything like that.
>
>> Once again you got it backwards.
>
> You're lying, as always.
>
>> The Iraqi people were not free when Saddam was in control of that
>> country.
>
> They aint free NOW, fuckwit.
That is a lie. They have a whole lot more freedom than the citizens of Iran
or North Korea, to name two countries where the people have less freedom.
>
>> As a result of our actions, the peole have a chance to be free.
>
> They always did, they could have overthrown Saddam, fuckwit.
Meaningless statement. The fact is, they DID NOT overthrow Saddam
>
>> Now, what they will do about that chance is still an unknwon,
>
> Like hell it is, we already know that they told americans to fuck off out
> of their country.
Free people can do what they want for their own country.
>
>> but you cannot argue that they have not been given the chance,
>
> Corse I can when their personal circumstances ended
> up MUCH LESS FREE as a result of the stupid invasion.
Ignorance is bliss.
>
> They werent even free to go down the market without a severe risk of
> getting killed, fuckwit.
Freedom does not guarantee safety. In order to be both free and safe, you
have to fight for your freedoms.
>
>> that they did not have when Saddam was in control of that country.
>
> Thanks for that completely superfluous proof that you have
> never ever had a fucking clue about anything at all, ever.
Huh? Did they have more freedom when Saddam was in power, or do they have
more freedom now?
>
>>>> Are you saying that he made the right decision?
>
>>> Nope, I have said repeatedly that he didnt.
>
>> Obama is making the wrong decision?
>
> He hasnt made any decision that matters except to continue what the shrub
> did on the bailouts etc.
Yep, and therefore, he agrees that Bush did the right thing?
>
>>> Separate matter entirely to whether your dreaded 'big
>>> govt' delivered real freedom to MILLIONS in WW2.
>
>>>>> And completely eliminated world wars as well.
>
>>>> That is a downright silly statement.
>
>>> Nope.
>
>>>> No one can ELIMINATE world wars.
>
>>> Its just happened, with your dreaded 'big govt' delivering nukes.
Relevance to what I said?
>
>> Which means what?
>
> That nukes completely eliminated any possibility of another world war.
Reading tea leaves again?
>
> No one like the Japs or the krauts will ever be stupid enough to try it
> again.
First of all, by using those words, you have proven to everyone who reads
your posting that you are a racist. Second, obviously they Japanese and
Germans would not start another war, why should they, as a result of having
been defeated, they were given a chance to be free, and as a result they
used that right to make their country prosper.
>
>>> And your dreaded 'big govt' delivered the 'green revolution' that
>>> delivered real freedom from starvation for countless millions in spades.
>
>> At the cost of the "freedom" of someone else?
>
> Nope, most who were free to starve were free to not starve, fuckwit.
How many Americans are not going to starve as a result of the green
revolution? What has the green revolution done to prevent people from
starving?
>
>>>>> Thats REAL freedom, fuckwit.
>
>> No REAL freedom is when EVERYONE is free, not some with more FREEDOM and
>> some with less FREEDOM.
>
> You aint established that anyone had less FREEDOM as a result of that
> particular big govt activity, fuckwit.
Do I really have to establish that? Big government, menas more government
programs, and more spending. What government programs gives us more
freedoms, and what government program gives us less freedom. If the
government "confiscates" our money to feed the beast, do we have more
freedom or less freedom?
>
> You aint established that anyone had less FREEDOM as
> a result of big govt completely eliminating smallpox from
> the wild either except in the peurile sense that you are
> no long free to contract smallpox and die of it anymore.
Ignorance is bliss
Michael Gordge
> The allies granted real freedom to hordes as a result of WW2, fool.
Ewe fucking idiot, their freedom had been removed violated and it was
restored, the restoration of freedom is NOT granting freedom, freedom
can never be granted by anyone but a dishonest moronic leftist thug.
Returning man to his natural state is not granting that man anything,
freedom can only ever be violated and never granted.
MG
Michael Gordge
> To deny this is to deny a fundamental of biology.
You are in denial of your fundamental biological natural state, an
ability as a human being to think and act for yourself, to think
independently, its the ability that your parents were meant to hold in
trust for you while your body grew and your mind matured, they were
morally obliged as rational beings to nurture and to encourage your
natural state, and never to take total control manipulate and violate
it, as has obviously happened in yours and every other brain dead
socialist's case.
MG
Michael Gordge
> ---- well at least..............
Context dropping cockhead, both left and right wing politics sanction
and demand violations of the human individual's liberty, in which case
there is no fundamental difference between them.
MG
Rod Speed
> Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote
>> Jerry Okamura wrote
>>> Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote
>>>> Jerry Okamura wrote
>>>>> Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote
>>>>>> Jerry Okamura wrote
>>>>>>> Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote
>>>>>>>> Jerry Okamura wrote
>>>>>>>>> Michael Gordge <mikeg...@xtra.co.nz> wrote
>>>>>>>>>> Jerry Okamura <okamuraj...@hawaii.rr.com> wrote
>>>>>>>>>>> Too much thinking and too little common sense. It is really
>>>>>>>>>>> simple. Libertairans believe that people should be free.
>>>>>>>> Libertarians are terminal fuckwits.
>>>>>>> Libertarians believe in freedom.
>>>>>> Libertarians wouldnt know what real freedom was if it bit them on their lard arses.
>>>>> No, you got it backwards.
>>>> Nope, you have.
>>>>> Democrats don't give a damn about our freedoms, or they would not be trying to "force" everyone to have health
>>>>> insurance.
>>>> It aint just democrats that force everyone to have liability insurance with their cars.
>>> That is a true statement, that does not mean they are right.
>> You get no say what so ever on what is right, EVER.
> Don't approve of the First Amendment to the Constitution?
That doesnt give you a say on what is right, fool.
Just lets you make a fool of yourself mindlessly
and brainless raving on about FREEDOM.
>>>>>> Most obviously when their dreaded 'big govt' delivered real freedom for MILLIONS in WW2.
>>>>> Ah, and Bush delivered real freedom for MILLIONS, when he went to war with Iraq.
>>>> No one but a fool ever claimed anything like that.
>>> Once again you got it backwards.
>> You're lying, as always.
>>> The Iraqi people were not free when Saddam was in control of that country.
>> They aint free NOW, fuckwit.
> That is a lie.
Nope, its a fact. They aint even free to go down the market and not end up dead in the process.
> They have a whole lot more freedom than the citizens of Iran or North Korea,
Thanks for that completely superfluous proof that you have
never ever have a fucking clue about anything at all, ever.
Those are much freer to go down the market without risking ending up dead, fuckwit.
> to name two countries where the people have less freedom.
Only in your pathetic little pig ignorant fantasyland.
They had much more freedom to not end up DEAD before the invasion.
>>> As a result of our actions, the peole have a chance to be free.
>> They always did, they could have overthrown Saddam, fuckwit.
> Meaningless statement. The fact is, they DID NOT overthrow Saddam
Because not enough cared about doing that, fuckwit.
>>> Now, what they will do about that chance is still an unknwon,
>> Like hell it is, we already know that they told americans to fuck off out of their country.
> Free people can do what they want for their own country.
They arent even free to go down the market and not end up dead, fool.
>>> but you cannot argue that they have not been given the chance,
>> Corse I can when their personal circumstances ended
>> up MUCH LESS FREE as a result of the stupid invasion.
> Ignorance is bliss.
A rolling stone gathers no moss.
>> They werent even free to go down the market without a severe risk of getting killed, fuckwit.
> Freedom does not guarantee safety.
The invasion drastically reduced their safety, fool.
> In order to be both free and safe, you have to fight for your freedoms.
I'm both and I didnt need to fight for a damned thing to get both.
>>> that they did not have when Saddam was in control of that country.
>> Thanks for that completely superfluous proof that you have
>> never ever had a fucking clue about anything at all, ever.
> Huh? Did they have more freedom when Saddam was in power,
They certainly had the freedom to go down the market and not end up dead.
> or do they have more freedom now?
They certainly have more freedom to end up dead in a bigger variety of ways.
>>>>> Are you saying that he made the right decision?
>>>> Nope, I have said repeatedly that he didnt.
>>> Obama is making the wrong decision?
>> He hasnt made any decision that matters except to continue what the shrub did on the bailouts etc.
> Yep, and therefore, he agrees that Bush did the right thing?
Corse he does on the stimulus and bailouts, but not on the invasion of Iraq.
Even someone as stupid as you should have noticed that he pulled out of Iraq
with his tail between his legs, just like the US did out of Vietnam the same way.
And will do so with Afghanistan too, you watch.
>>>> Separate matter entirely to whether your dreaded 'big
>>>> govt' delivered real freedom to MILLIONS in WW2.
>>>>>> And completely eliminated world wars as well.
>>>>> That is a downright silly statement.
>>>> Nope.
>>>>> No one can ELIMINATE world wars.
>>>> Its just happened, with your dreaded 'big govt' delivering nukes.
> Relevance to what I said?
Thats how they eliminated world wars, fool.
>>> Which means what?
>> That nukes completely eliminated any possibility of another world war.
> Reading tea leaves again?
Even someone as stupid as you should have noticed that we aint had one in quite a while.
>> No one like the Japs or the krauts will ever be stupid enough to try it again.
> First of all, by using those words, you have proven to everyone who reads your posting that you are a racist.
You're a silly little pathological liar. Thats no more racist than calling americans yanks, fuckwit.
> Second, obviously they Japanese and Germans would not start another war, why should they, as a result of having been
> defeated, they were given a chance to be free, and as a result they used that right to make their country prosper.
Try telling that to Adolf. Dont be TOO surprised when he just laughs
in your stupid pig ignorant face, just like everyone else does.
>>>> And your dreaded 'big govt' delivered the 'green revolution' that
>>>> delivered real freedom from starvation for countless millions in spades.
>>> At the cost of the "freedom" of someone else?
>> Nope, most who were free to starve were free to not starve, fuckwit.
> How many Americans are not going to starve as a result of the green revolution?
Americans are completely irrelevant to that.
> What has the green revolution done to prevent people from starving?
By producing enough food so they dont starve, fuckwit.
>>>>>> Thats REAL freedom, fuckwit.
>>> No REAL freedom is when EVERYONE is free, not some with more FREEDOM and some with less FREEDOM.
>> You aint established that anyone had less FREEDOM as a result of that particular big govt activity, fuckwit.
> Do I really have to establish that?
YOU made that stupid claim about less freedom.
So yes, you do have to establish that.
> Big government, menas more government programs, and more spending.
You quite sure you aint one of those rocket scientist terminal fuckwits ?
> What government programs gives us more freedoms,
WW2, the green revolution, great swathes of scientific
research, a decent military that ensures that the country
cant be invades and so lose your freedom that way, the
freedom to not get smallpox etc etc etc.
> and what government program gives us less freedom.
Not very many, just a few that ensure that terrorists
cant do another 9/11 or even just hijack an aircraft etc.
> If the government "confiscates" our money to feed the beast,
It doesnt do that. The voters decide what they want govt to do and
what taxes will be raised to do what they decide they want govt to do.
> do we have more freedom or less freedom?
It aint that binary. You are free to see if you can
find enough who prefer smaller govt to get that done.
>> You aint established that anyone had less FREEDOM as
>> a result of big govt completely eliminating smallpox from
>> the wild either except in the peurile sense that you are
>> no long free to contract smallpox and die of it anymore.
> Ignorance is bliss
Your sig is supposed ot have a line with just -- on it in front of it, fool.
Michael Gordge
> That is really a silly statement. When anyone wants people to be free, that
> does not mean that you can do anything you want to do with that freedom.
What the fuck are you on about? Responsibility is the flip side of
freedom, they are the two sides of the same coin, they come stuck fast
together whether you want it / like it or not. Your natural state is
freedom and that means you have no choice but to learn the
consequences of your own ideas / actions, that process is called
learning your responsibilities, not to others but to yourself.
> Independence and freedom are not necessarily the same thing.
Thinking means to think independently, no-one can think for you, just
as no-one can digest your food or breath for you.
Yes yes I know, both leftist and right wing retards, (thats all of
them) do insist a human being's body be shackled and their minds
indoctrinated by their parents and or the state and that no thinking
(independence / freedom ) be involved.
MG
Poetic Justice
> On Nov 6, 7:59 am, "Jerry Okamura" <okamuraj...@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
>
>> That is really a silly statement. When anyone wants people to be free, that
>> does not mean that you can do anything you want to do with that freedom.
>
Sure, what would freedom be if people actually used it.
--
Rod Speed
> Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote
>> Jerry Okamura wrote
>>> Mark M. <ma...@ztech.com> wrote
>>>> Jerry Okamura wrote
>>>>> Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote
>>>>>> Jerry Okamura wrote
>>>>>>> Michael Gordge <mikeg...@xtra.co.nz> wrote
>>>>>>>> Jerry Okamura <okamuraj...@hawaii.rr.com> wrote
>>>>>>>>> Too much thinking and too little common sense. It is really
>>>>>>>>> simple. Libertairans believe that people should be free.
>>>>>> Libertarians are terminal fuckwits.
>>>>> Libertarians believe in freedom. If that makes them "terminal
>>>>> fuckwits", then I would be proud to be called a libertarian..
>>>> Libertarianism is consumerism wearing a powdered wig and knee breeches.
>>> If you are free, you get to choose what you want or need.
>> Wrong when things are setup very badly so you cant get to choose an appropriate way to deal with
>> a serious medical problem when you are incapable of working due to that serious medical problem.
> Yep, that person is just a "victim" who had no control over what happens.
So they dont get to choose what you want or need.
Michael Gordge
> The allies granted real freedom to hordes as a result of WW2, fool.
Waiting for ewe to reply to the simple fact that restoring what was
taken / violated is NOT granting man his freedom, ewe fucking commie
brain dead knuckle-dragging jackass.
If your husband was taken against his will and you found away to get
him free - have ewe granted him his freedom or have ewe given back
what he had? Answer the question ewe fucking retard.
MG
Michael Gordge
wrote:
>
> Sure, what would freedom be if people actually used it.
A choice to pursue happiness or misery, for right wing leftist commie
retards like Rod Speed his choice is obviously misery.
MG
Zinnic
Hold in trust? Meant to? Morally obliged? Whose laws are you now
allowing to restrain your individual freedom?
You make no more sense than the inanities one sees pronounced by your
Ayn Queen of contradictions. Try parsing her contradictions in the
following:
"audacious anti-climax",
"Like a sentry in a storm who knows he has to take it and has to
remain there even though he can take it no longer",
"the barriers proving to her that no barriers could exist" .
Jeez! Enough, no more!
Keep the Faith old man, keep the Faith! Embrace it in a clasp so
certain and strong that all doubt is crushed out.
Zinnic
> If your husband was taken against his will and you found away to get
> him free - have ewe granted him his freedom or have ewe given back
> what he had? Answer the question ewe fucking retard.
>
Jeez! You are channelling Ayn Rand again. Infantile play on words.
Shallow profundities from the grave?
Jerry Okamura
Of course it does. You can say what you think is right and I can say what I
think is right.
>
> Just lets you make a fool of yourself mindlessly
> and brainless raving on about FREEDOM.
>
I cannot do anything about someone who does not place a high value on their
freedom. If they do not think their freedom is important, that is their
decision to make, but you can only do that if you are free.
Jerry Okamura
Jerry Okamura
On Nov 6, 7:59 am, "Jerry Okamura" <okamuraj...@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
> That is really a silly statement. When anyone wants people to be free,
> that
> does not mean that you can do anything you want to do with that freedom.
What the fuck are you on about? Responsibility is the flip side of
freedom, they are the two sides of the same coin, they come stuck fast
together whether you want it / like it or not. Your natural state is
freedom and that means you have no choice but to learn the
consequences of your own ideas / actions, that process is called
learning your responsibilities, not to others but to yourself.
That is what I said.
> Independence and freedom are not necessarily the same thing.
Thinking means to think independently, no-one can think for you, just
as no-one can digest your food or breath for you.
yep, it sure does, you should practice that.
Yes yes I know, both leftist and right wing retards, (thats all of
them) do insist a human being's body be shackled and their minds
indoctrinated by their parents and or the state and that no thinking
(independence / freedom ) be involved.
That is what we are both doing, trying to "indoctrinate" each other to
believe as we do.
Rod Speed
>>>>>>>>>> Libertarians are terminal fuckwits.
>>>>>>>>> Libertarians believe in freedom.
>>>>>> Nope, you have.
> Of course it does.
Of course it doesnt.
> You can say what you think is right and I can say what I think is right.
Doesnt let you rule on what is right, fool.
>> Just lets you make a fool of yourself mindlessly and brainless raving on about FREEDOM.
> I cannot do anything about someone who does not place a high value on their freedom.
You cant do anything about anything, just mindlessly and brainless bay at the moon to no effect what so ever.
> If they do not think their freedom is important, that is their decision to make, but you can only do that if you are
> free.
Wrong, as always.
Rod Speed
>>>>>>>> Libertarians are terminal fuckwits.
You have always been, and always will be, completely and utterly irrelevant.
What you might or might not want in spades.
You're so stupid that you cant even manage to grasp that there
are plenty of example of where your dreaded 'big govt' delivers
real freedom to many who didnt have that before that.
Michael Gordge
> Whose laws are you now
> allowing to restrain your individual freedom?
restrained freedom? Check your premises ewe fucking commie idiot.
MG
Michael Gordge
> On Nov 8, 2:59 am, Michael Gordge <mikegor...@xtra.co.nz> wrote:
>
> > If your husband was taken against his will and you found away to get
> > him free - have ewe granted him his freedom or have ewe given back
> > what he had? Answer the question ewe fucking retard.
>
> Jeez!
Answer the question ewe fucking commie retard, how is giving something
back / restoring to someone "granting" them anything?
MG
Michael Gordge
> ............. there
> are plenty of example of where your dreaded 'big govt' delivers
> real freedom to many who didnt have that before that.
Speaking of idiots, what makes ewe fucking brain dead Kantian
cockheads believe that preceding freedom with the adjective "real"
changes anything about the meaning of freedom?
Still waiting for ewe to explain how the fuck ewe come to the
conclusion that restoring freedom, removing the shackles and or
killing the foe, has the identical meaning as granting freedom.
If your car is stolen from you and retruned to you, how, or since
fucking when does that process become known granting you your car
back?
MG
Michael Gordge
> Wrong, as always.
He's wrong for repeating in a different form your mindless fucking
anti-human diatribe? ewe fucking hypocrite.
Ewe haven't explained how returning your stolen car to you is granting
you your car back.
MG
Jerry Okamura
not alone in wanting all of us to be free.
Michael Gordge
>
> yep, it sure does, you should practice that.
Get fucked ewe rude commie cunt.
> That is what we are both doing, trying to "indoctrinate" each other to
> believe as we do.
In your fucking dreams moron, you are the dishonest cowardly moron who
is throwing knives into the backs of those on the front line of
freedom, pretending ewe care about freedom when in reality you're a
fucking fraud, the evidence is ewe're a conservative retard.
MG
Rod Speed
>>>>>>>>>> Libertarians are terminal fuckwits.
Wrong, as always.
> I am betting that I am not alone in wanting all of us to be free.
There arent enough of you rabid pig ignorant loons to matter a damn.
Immortalist
Isn't "grant" a synonym of "give?"
admission, allocation, allotment, alms, appropriation, assistance,
award, benefaction, bequest, boon, bounty, charity, concession,
contribution, dole, donation, endowment, fellowship, gratuity,
handout, lump, present, privilege, reward, scholarship, stipend,
subsidy
Jerry Okamura
If there are not enough of people like me, who place a high value on our
freedoms, then someday, someone is going to wake up and ask themselves "what
happen to our freedoms"?
Jerry Okamura
On Nov 9, 3:12 am, "Jerry Okamura" <okamuraj...@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
>
> yep, it sure does, you should practice that.
Get fucked ewe rude commie cunt.
A communist does not respect peoples freedom. I put a very high value on
individual freedom.
Rod Speed
> Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote
>> Jerry Okamura wrote
>>> Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote
>>>> Jerry Okamura wrote
>>>>> Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote
>>>>>> Jerry Okamura wrote
>>>>>>> Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote
>>>>>>>> Jerry Okamura wrote
>>>>>>>>> Mark M. <ma...@ztech.com> wrote
>>>>>>>>>> Jerry Okamura wrote
>>>>>>>>>>> Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote
>>>>>>>>>>>> Jerry Okamura wrote
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Michael Gordge <mikeg...@xtra.co.nz> wrote
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jerry Okamura <okamuraj...@hawaii.rr.com> wrote
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Too much thinking and too little common sense. It is really simple. Libertairans believe that people
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should be free.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Libertarians are terminal fuckwits.
>>>>>>>>>>> Libertarians believe in freedom. If that makes them "terminal fuckwits", then I would be proud to be called
>>>>>>>>>>> a libertarian..
>>>>>>>>>> Libertarianism is consumerism wearing a powdered wig and knee breeches.
It isnt even consumerism.
>>>>>>>>> If you are free, you get to choose what you want or need.
>>>>>>>> Wrong when things are setup very badly so you cant get to choose an appropriate way to deal with a serious
>>>>>>>> medical problem when you are incapable of working due to that serious> medical problem.
>>>>>>> Yep, that person is just a "victim" who had no control over what happens.
>>>>>> So they dont get to choose what you want or need.
>>>>> I don't want anything from "them" other than to fight for our freedoms.
>>>> You have always been, and always will be, completely and utterly irrelevant.
>>> only if no one takes up the battle for our freedom.
>> Wrong, as always.
>>> I am betting that I am not alone in wanting all of us to be free.
>> There arent enough of you rabid pig ignorant loons to matter a damn.
> If there are not enough of people like me, who place a high value on our freedoms, then someday, someone is going to
> wake up and ask themselves "what happen to our freedoms"?
Nope, everyone else will continue to have enough of a clue to realise
that they aint lost any freedoms and gained quite a few like the
freedom to not have to kill themselves when they end up with a
serious medical problem when they dont have health insurance etc.
Jerry Okamura
Anyone who says that we have not lost our freedoms are living in a cave.
Anyone who does not believe that we are about to lose even more of our
freedoms if this healthcare reform is passed, does not know what they are
talking about.
Rod Speed
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Libertarians are terminal fuckwits.
>> It isnt even consumerism.
>>>> Wrong, as always.
Anyone who claims we have lost any freedoms that matter is a pig ignorant fool/terminal fuckwit.
> Anyone who does not believe that we are about to lose even more of our freedoms if this healthcare reform is passed,
> does not know what they are talking about.
Anyone who claims we will any freedoms that matter is a pig ignorant fool/terminal fuckwit.
You qualify in spades.