Whatever you may think of Rand Paul...

[reverendjeremiah]

Every decision taken by government on social matters is at some level enforcing morality, and even this situation doesn't sit well with me.

It doesnt sit well with me either, but all legislation is merely an opinion being enforced. All morality is an opinion. Sure, there are some social urges that we, as an evolved animal, have gained through the millenia. This is far from morality.
Example: Government legislates that capitalism is the economic system. You claim it is fine. I claim that economics are also a social matter and enforcing the concepts of "rich" and "poor" are oppressive. Which one of us are correct? Neither. Why? Because it is merely opinion and not inherent systems in the universe. If one of us were correct, then why has capitalism and those who oppose it fight and fight and fight and still fight over it. They are merely opinions, neither right nor wrong universally. As a nihilist, you should understand and openly admit this. As a nihilist you should be openly opposed to any type of government or any type of system period.

I don't want the government to be enforcing morality, but at the same time I understand that if we didn't have this to some degree, society wouldn't function.

Citation needed on the claim that "morality" is needed "to some degree" for society to function.

Abortion is a complicated case, because it involves the lives of two beings (I think we can both agree on that). What bothers me with abortion is where you'd draw the line, and I think I showed how indefensible your position gets when you say that line is at birth. To myself, and the rest of the medical community, there is little difference between a baby who has just been born, and a baby who is due to be born in 2 weeks. Abortion ultimately boils down to what makes us human, because we oppose the killing of humans, but not many other things. It is a double standard to oppose the killing of humans but also support abortions where the mother can abort her pregnancy any time before birth.

I challenge you to a formal debate on this. In no way have you shown that my position is indefensible

I think since abortion is such a hot topic, it is easy to simply pick a side without thinking things through properly. I disagree with such actions; if anything, the hot topics are the ones where you must think the most, which is why I'm still not decided on where I stand on abortion. In some aspects, I agree with it, in others, I don't. Whatever I do, I can't reconcile abortion completely with what I regard as "logically moral", because at some point, someone loses out.

Oh, I have thought my system through all right, and I can see that you have thought yours through. In no way would I suggest on this topic that you have done no less. I merely disagree with your conclusions. There is no need to be accusing me, or me accusing you, of not thinking things deeply... I believe we have gone beyond that point in our current friendly relations, or at least I would hope so.

Not at all. It means I support freedom of expression; the freedom to express any idea, even if it is offensive. I say that Muslims should be free to build mosques wherever they can, but that doesn't mean I support Islam; on the contrary, I find Islam to be absurd and in some places downright evil. I hold the same view of most religions, and I find racism to be entirely evil. Part of being a libertarian is accepting that we have no right over other people's ideas..

Noted. I disagree a bit on your notion of libertarianism if you are speaking of libertarianism in general.

That is up to you, but you would be arrested for destroying someone else's property, just as you would if you destroyed any sign. Being vocal about the owners is free speech, so I have no problem with that (in fact I encourage it).

Okay, so now you have thrown an anti-racism activist in jail. Sure, it was the mans property according to legislation and if the laws are made that way then I go to jail. There is neither right nor wrong in this part of the discussion, merely clarifying the extent to which you will go to legislate this. Step one, if someone destroys a racist sign, you support them going to jail.

No, it would be the enforcement of property rights through government. It boils down to this: if you own / control a property, you have the last say on who gets to use this property.

Careful..You are about to slip down the slope.

Shops today even do it; they have the ability to ban individuals from their premises for whatever reason they want.

Wrong. Dead wrong. A shop cannot turn away someones business or purchases merely for the color of their skin. There is legislation that can be shown to prove this. They have to have a legitimate reason other than prejudice.

At the end of the day, you have no right to go onto their property if they don't like it. The government should ideally be blind to any social reasons behind such a ban, and instead focus on the violation of the law (i.e. trespassing). Of course, this means that black people are free to open up stores and put up "blacks only" signs or "non-racists only" signs, etc. As I said before, I doubt very many black people would want to go inside a store with a sign saying "whites only", unless as you pointed out they were there to cause trouble.

And when the mass majority of societys whites come together, not through the government, but by their mere property rights, they will oppress the minorities. By allowing the racism, and enforcing laws against those who actively oppose this, you have allowed racism to florish. Dont tell me that it will not happen. What you are describing is EXACTLY how America was for the longest time.
Step two: enforce racism through the back door through the government. By not SPECIFICALLY legislating racism, but instead calling it another, you have now supported racism in suberterfuge.

I doubt very much that would happen, but then it really depends on how violent the group of blacks is. Nobody should be above the law.

Its shit like this that gives libertarians a bad name. This isnt civil libertarianism. This is support of the destruction of civil liberties through the back door. It can be compared to the creationism/Intelligent design afront to science. By changing the name, and removing any mention of racism, you have allowed it to to flourish socially and economically...over something as idiotic as skin tone.

I've thought about this issue many times, and whilst I would personally object to such stores or businesses, I accept that I have no right whatsoever to support freedom of expression and then say "Oh, but apart from you guys, because we all think your ideas are evil". Only a moral absolutist could be in support of such a statement, and I am a moral relativist.

And you would passively sit back and allow such racism to flourish? That isnt true. You said yourself you would have no problem with the police breaking out the dogs and the firehoses on a group of blacks trying to enter such an establishment veiling it in a slightly racist remark of " depends on how violent the group of blacks is". So if the group is non violent, then you would let them in the "whites only" building, or you would still support them being arrested? And if they refused to leave because they are starving and all the other shops refuse to serve them food then what? Yup, out come the dogs and the firehoses.
This is NOT libertarianism. This is NOT civil libertarianism.
And when all of the food stores have "whites only" signs up, what are the blacks to do? Starve or leave the city? Honestly dude, you are supporting racism through the back door, which means you support racism without wanting to be called a racist. America is FULL of people who make these same arguments you do. When sober and in public they are very careful of letting their thoughts be known. After getting a few beers in them, they start railing "nigger this...nigger that...I wish this bar was whites only..." Now, Im not saying that YOU go off saying "nigger this or that" but you have DEFINITELY put the side of the law in their favor all in the name of greedy property rights above all else.

Someone owning a peice of paper saying they own land, to you, is justification for them to be the biggest prick in the world.

There are no inherent positive human rights, but I would argue that form a logical standpoint, there are inherent negative human rights.

What? Sure. Have at it. Please show me the evidence that inherent negative rights exist in the cosmos and NOT merely in the opinions of the human who holds them.

An inherent negative right would be that nobody has the right to interfere with what restrictions someone puts on their own property. Moral Nihilism means there are no objective morals. I'm not arguing that there are objective morals. The concept of negative rights and nihilism are perfectly compatible.

I await your explanation on this.

[The Grand Nudger]

Can you source the part about him supporting indefinite detention? Also, are you talking about Rand Paul here or Ron Paul? What is nutball about his foreign policy? Which two civil liberty issues is he against?

Why is there a need for a department of education when all the individual states can handle it separately?

Rand, not Ron, Rand, my senator, here in Kentucky. His foreign policy, (though he apparently hates having it characterized as such) is that of isolationism. The guy is perfectly capable of talking out of both sides of his mouth on any given issue, we call that pandering over here. He has criticized our military bases over seas (but is absolutely for military tribunals for "terrorists caught on the battlefield"...in Gauntanamo Bay). Maybe he thinks we own Cuba? Perhaps he thinks that the our armed forces are in the habit of releasing terrorists? Maybe he's unclear on the fact that prisoners held such facilities will most likely die there, without ever being brought to trial or having charges brought against them? Maybe, just maybe, he missed the fact that this is exactly what these facilities (and the surrounding personnel and isolation) are designed for? He's firmly opposed to abortion in every circumstance (including rape). He completely opposes same sex marriage. The man has been repeatedly quoted criticizing the Civil Liberties Act.

As far as the Dept of Ed goes... We tried to "handle it" at a local and state level for about 200 years...that didn't work very well. States can't even keep their roads in good repair.....He and his father both are far right wing christian fundamentalists, I'm sorry R, but it is what it is. The Tea Party is not what you think it is.

[Ryft]

No, it would be the enforcement of property rights through government. It boils down to this: if you own and/or control a property, then you have the last say on who gets to use this property.

Property rights. That would be the abortion angle here, yes? The mother owns her body; therefore, she has the final say over it. And the government should enforce her rights over her own body, yes? As a libertarian, should not that be your stance as well? Defending the mother's right to do with her own body whatever she wills? "Nobody has the right to interfere with what restrictions someone puts on their own property," after all.

Should unborn children have rights? It depends on what the majority of people think.

What about the opinion of the minority? Too bad for them, is it?

I will throw in my lot with unalienable rights, republican form of government, and moral arguments—so that women can be allowed to vote, for example, regardless of what the majority happens think.

Okay, so now you have thrown an anti-racism activist in jail.

No, he has thrown a property vandal in jail. The person's anti-racism activism was irrelevant to why he was thrown in jail.

[KichigaiNeko]

At the end of the day surely YOU have the right over your OWN BODY??

[Tiberius]

@Ryft: Just because you have rights over your own property does not somehow override the rights of those who are inside your property. If you kill a person inside your property, you've still breached their right to life, and should pay for the crime.

Same with abortion in some cases. Yes, the mother owns her body, but if there is another human life inside her, does that not have the same right to life as she does? I say "some cases" because there are obvious circumstances where killing a human in your property isn't immoral or against their rights. If such a person was going to kill you for instance.

[reverendjeremiah]

@Ryft: Just because you have rights over your own property does not somehow override the rights of those who are inside your property. If you kill a person inside your property, you've still breached their right to life, and should pay for the crime.

So basically rift, to Tiberius, A white man owns his store, and can hang "whites only" on his premesis, and even have the police forcefully remove non-violent blacks from the store who merely want to buy a sandwich and have them imprisoned..

...BUT...

Even though a woman owns her own womb, she is NOT allowed to have the baby booted out of her very own body. In fact if she tries to boot the unwanted baby from her body, Tiberius is all for imprisoning her and forcing her to keep the baby until she goes into labor.


...and R calls himself a Libertarian. These arent civil libertarian concepts. These are neo-conservative/ American Republican concepts.

Thanks Ryft...never thought I would find myself agreeing with you.

---

R doesnt care if blacks are unable to buy food because of all of the "whites only " signs everywhere. Its okay if black people starve to death in the name of property rights....

...but a womans right to boot a baby out of her womb is not an option. Even a black woman living in a society of "whites only" that will not be able to feed her child because the racism is so open and supported throough the back door by R's laws. No, that woman will be thrown in jail and forced to carry to term.

Then I guess the baby gets put into an orphanage, in a "whites only" society (again, thanks to R) where the child will grow up until the age of manhood never having known a parent. Once he is set out into society, the black man will quickly realize how unwanted he is in this society (again, thanks to R's supposed "libertarian" views) starting the cycle completely over again. Eventually blacks will cease to exist in this community... as the law will always be in favor of the majority property rights...thanks to R...all it takes is a handful of white racists to run an entire neighborhood of blacks out of their home, causing the property value to plummet, making it easier for the racist whites to reclaim the neighborhood.

Yeah R...we have gone your way in America before. It doesnt work and is cruel and racist.

---

Same with abortion in some cases. Yes, the mother owns her body, but if there is another human life inside her, does that not have the same right to life as she does? I say "some cases" because there are obvious circumstances where killing a human in your property isn't immoral or against their rights. If such a person was going to kill you for instance.

..and that is where you are wrong. You automatically call it a killing. Its not to the mother. All the mother wants is to get rid of the baby from her body, and if the mother had an option that DIDNT kill the baby dont you think they would choose it?

It is not the mothers fault that the technology is limited, nor is it the mothers fault that the baby is killed in the process.She merely does not want the baby. Just like you dont support racism, you just want white people to hang up "whites only" signs" Accusing the woman of murder is over simplifying the system, and I will be calling you on this in the official debate we will be having.

If you accuse a pregnant woman having an abortion of murder, then I can just as easily accuse you of being a racist for supporting "whites only" signs. You dont get to have your cake and eat it too.

If you are not a racist for supporting a persons freedom for kicking blacks off their property, then abortion is not murder because the woman is merely kicking the unwanted phoetus from her body. It is not the "whites only" business owners fault if the black man dies from starvation, then it is not the womans fault if the baby cannot survive outside of her womb.

Best prepare for it bro...this is your only warning...abortion is one of my best debating topics. I have converted several pro-life evangelical people to pro-choice and I wear them conversions openly as a badge of honor. You are not going up against a n00b on this topic.

[Ryft]

Just because you have rights over your own property does not somehow override the rights of those who are inside your property. If you kill a person inside your property, you've still breached their right to life, and should pay for the crime. Same with abortion in some cases. Yes, the mother owns her body, but if there is another human life inside her, does that not have the same right to life as she does? I say "some cases" because there are obvious circumstances where killing a human in your property isn't immoral or against their rights. If such a person was going to kill you for instance.

What if the pregnancy is a product of rape or incest (i.e., the woman did not herself wish to become pregnant)? That represents a very small percentage of the cases but, since it does happen, how do you respond to her plight? An unfortunate bit of luck, that? Since the human life inside her has the same right to life that she does, she must carry it to term regardless? (I am assuming arguendo that carrying to term will not kill her.)

---

---

Thanks, Ryft. Never thought I would find myself agreeing with you.

Don't worry, you still don't agree with me. I am firmly against abortion. All I am doing is asking Adrian some questions to find out how he might square his view on abortion within a libertarian framework; it is my questions you agreed with, nothing more. Your views and mine are antithetical here too. It's all good.

So basically, Ryft, as far as Tiberius is concerned a white man who owns a store can hang "whites only" on his premesis...

Right. The property-owner certainly would be within his rights to do that—as would a property-owner hanging a "blacks only" sign and so forth. It is difficult to imagine who would wish to do business with such flaming racists and bigots, except other racists and bigots, and it would not bother me at all if they were unable to maintain economic viability (particularly in the 21st century with mass media and social networking which would ostracize them with shamed exposure, boycotts, and protests).

... and even have the police forcefully remove non-violent blacks from the store who merely want to buy a sandwich and have them imprisoned.

Not exactly. He would be forcefully removed by reason of trespass, which is a tort offense ("wrongful interference with one's possessory rights in [real] property"); but if he is indeed violent, causes a breach of peace, or injures property, then it rises to a criminal offense. And yeah, you sort of expect law enforcement officers to, well, enforce the law.

Tiberius doesnt care if blacks are unable to buy food because of all of the "whites only " signs everywhere. It's okay if black people starve to death in the name of property rights.

You know, I reviewed what Adrian has posted in this thread so far and didn't see him say that anywhere. Are you attempting to mind-read?

The fact that you think there even could be whites-only signs "everywhere" suggests an unfair and unrealistic view of the people of the United States, extending the flaming racist and bigoted views of those in certain southern localities to everyone in all fifty states (or at least the continental U.S.); it also suggests a rather naive view about the remarkable power of the internet and mass media to impact socially and economically such racist business practices using shaming exposure, economic boycotts, and visible protests. From my 21st century vantage point I believe there is good reason to think that "whites-only signs everywhere" is a practical impossibility.

Yeah, Tiberius, we have gone your way in America before.

Actually, no you haven't. You went from having laws that enforced mandatory segregation to laws that prohibited it. The libertarian proposal has not been attempted.

If you are not a racist for supporting a person's freedom for kicking blacks off their property, then abortion is not murder because the woman is merely kicking the unwanted phoetus from her body.

Correct, Adrian is NOT racist for supporting libertarian property rights—because, first, Adrian is strongly opposed to racism, and second, property rights is not racist. But how do you conclude from this that therefore abortion is not murder? In the first case, Adrian is not the property-owner at issue. In the second case, the woman is the property-owner at issue. Apart from some very crucial and necessary steps missing from your argument, it is an extraordinary non-sequitur.

[reverendjeremiah]

The fact that you think there even could be whites-only signs "everywhere" suggests an unfair and unrealistic view of the people of the United States, extending the flaming racist and bigoted views of those in certain southern localities to everyone in all fifty states (or at least the continental U.S.); it also suggests a rather naive view about the remarkable power of the internet and mass media to impact socially and economically such racist business practices using shaming exposure, economic boycotts, and visible protests. From my 21st century vantage point I believe there is good reason to think that "whites-only signs everywhere" is a practical impossibility.

Where do you live again?

Oh yeah, Canada.

I live in America, in the south, in North Carolina...

so of course YOUR view of the American south must be much more better than mine.


and yet another who says a woman has no right over her womb, but would gladly allow racists to be racist and have it enforced through the back door.

[Ryft]

I gladly support private property owners to enjoy private property rights, whether this person wants to be racist on his property or those people want to end racism on theirs. But it's private property rights that I support, not racism. So maybe some people are acutely incapable of grasping the difference; I also support their freedom of speech to blather as retardedly as they like, and the freedom of speech of others to critically expose how retarded it is.

[reverendjeremiah]

I gladly support private property owners to enjoy private property rights, whether this person wants to be racist on his property or those people want to end racism on theirs. But it's private property rights that I support, not racism. So maybe some people are acutely incapable of grasping the difference; I also support their freedom of speech to blather as retardedly as they like, and the freedom of speech of others to critically expose how retarded it is.

Still not convinced. Besides, land is something that NOBODY can own. So we as a society enjoy the land together.

So you are opposed to telling people what to do with their "property"? Fine. You think that racism would stay the same WITHOUT the law? Then fine, leave the law intact. No since in changing something that is obviously working.

I mean, removing the law might encourage people to put whites only signs up...right? And you arent supporting racism right? So just leave it alone since it is working so well.

Here...let me ask you this...what is the anti-racism law HURTING?

BTW, do you think your next door neighbors house (that just happens to be 5 foot away from your house) should be forced to follow the fire code?