Reality/existence (in the the universe and all thats in it meaning) is the source of everthing that can possibly be….unless you know of a supernatural one in which case that becomes part of reality…………

I root your Queen…while you are at work

You have totally missed the point…or more likely willfully evaded it…that the fact that its his property is neither hete nor there when it comes to the VALIDITY of his position….but the fact that it is HIS property gives him the right to have and expouse that position….get it? He has the right to be wrong…and if we want to have the same right upheld for us we must defend it for him…

“And if we want to talk about what should or should not be legal -
then at least have the decency to discuss it in terms of whether it feels right to a reasonable human being who has imagined themselves on both sides of the proposed law and thought about whether it’s fair.”

Irrelavant…truth and falsehood,right and wrong are objective absolutes…the wishs and whims of people,while needing to be treated with sensitivity if we are to get along and retain civility are not factors in what should be legal and what shouldn’t.

“DON’T frame the argument in terms of “Under these circumstances, it must be cool to treat innocent harmless people like shit even if they’ve done nothing wrong to me, because the principles of libertarianism as they apply to property ownership say it is ok to behave like this.”

Who said that? You are making shit up. No ones saying its cool to treat people like shit…we are saying that people have the right to be wrong and to hold opposing views and to use their lawfully owned property to back up those views…no one has their rights violated by any of that. Its all contained in the classic statement….”I disagree with what you do but I defend to the death your right to do it…”

This defending mans rights to be man…

But then, I have never had much time for Stephen Franks!

Me either…too conservative….but it seems hes getting better.

Existence isn’t a cause. It’s a state. But this discussion only underlines the reason for my rule. I tip my king.

Where did I calim that…? Rand herself never claimed that either….she knew that objestive reality existed independant of her wishs and wants.

“But if you need a response, God is the source of all objective reality, and he wants us to have free ice cream. So I must have a right to it.”

If you need a “God” to be a starting point for everything thats your business….as an Atheist and a beliver in reason I start at the only place we can ….existence itself…if you can prove a prior first cause to that then stump up the evidence…..and if God stumps up with that ice cream let us know…;-)

Games set and match…

Return of service.

I have a simple rule – I don’t argue with scientologists, and I don’t argue with people who claim Ayn Rand as the source of objective truths. I find it saves a lot of time all round.

But if you need a response, God is the source of all objective reality, and he wants us to have free ice cream. So I must have a right to it.

Return of service.

Dare I say it: Anyone who finds himself constructing elaborate arguments about why it’s ok to blame someone for, or judge someone because of, the actions of other people of their race (or even the actions of their country’s leadership) that are outside his/her control, arguments based on the idea that doing so must be OK because it fits with some political ideology he subscribes to, probably needs to have a good hard think about who he is!

Know what basic human decency and compassion are, and how they illuminate all life. Then develop some political ideology based on that if you must. Don’t just sign up to the school of (something)ism and then reason “Oh but it MUST be OK to do this, because the principle of property rights says___ ….

And if we want to talk about what should or should not be legal –
then at least have the decency to discuss it in terms of whether it feels right to a reasonable human being who has imagined themselves on both sides of the proposed law and thought about whether it’s fair.
DON’T frame the argument in terms of “Under these circumstances, it must be cool to treat innocent harmless people like shit even if they’ve done nothing wrong to me, because the principles of libertarianism as they apply to property ownership say it is ok to behave like this.”

But then, I have never had much time for Stephen Franks!

Translation…”Oh shit! He replied with examples and arguments I can’t answer!..I had better deliver a typical Lefty sneer whilst avoiding any reference to his points and slither away….”

You are served doophus….;-)

This is nonsense not on stilts, but on a bleeding 10 story high crane!”

How so…? Whats your definition of “good law” then…?

“Would you happen to have a list of such “pre-existing natural rights” handy, along with a source so as I can check them for myself? Because I sure hope free ice-cream is on it. That would be scrummy!

Those rights are to Life,liberty,property and to pursue happiness as you see fit….with the only restriction being that you must respect these exact same rights in regard to every other person.Genuine rights are negative…meaning they place no unchosen obligation on any non consenting other…they say in effect “Do nothing ….leave me alone.

Bogus “rights”…as championed by socialists are positiive claims….they require someone else to have to supply you with what you are claiming…this is a straight contradiction if we all have the same rights.

The source of these rights is mans nature AS man,the source of man is objective reality…the one all about us and that we can’t remive ourselves from or its laws and boundries….these rights are moral sanctions to freedom of action in a social context for it is only other huamn beiings that can violate your rights so good law only deters and punishers acts of force against a non consenting other….nothing else.

“”Rights are conditions of existence required by man’s nature for his proper survival. If man is to live on earth, it is right for him to use his mind, it is right to act on his own free judgment, it is right to work for his values and to keep the product of his work. If life on earth is his purpose, he has a right to live as a rational being: nature forbids him the irrational.” Ayn Rand

“Individual rights are the means of subordinating society to moral law.” — Ayn Rand

“The function of rights is to keep society from riding roughshod over the individual. … Individual rights are inalienable–which means, they were not transferred to you by anyone or any government.” — Wayne Dunn.

Well….?

This is nonsense not on stilts, but on a bleeding 10 story high crane!

Would you happen to have a list of such “pre-existing natural rights” handy, along with a source so as I can check them for myself? Because I sure hope free ice-cream is on it. That would be scrummy!

And then theres the little matter that if we don’t stand up for this guys right to do what hes done who will bother to stand up for us when its our turn….? If we allow this guy to go down we have helped load a gun that may very well be pointed at our own heads in the future…..don’t give the State a sniff.

“First they came for the….etc etc”

Hmmmm! Quote:…”You blindly follow an ideology like a fundamentalist Christian or Muslim.”…

and ….”Look at what the vast majority think”

Anyone what the pleasure of pointing out to Chuck what a tit that has made him look…?

Chuck….just because you can’t present a non contradictory argument that doesn’t invole the violation of real individual rights is your problem….

New Zealand needs tourism more now than ever. We cannot do much quickly about the vicious attacks on tourists. However, the government could quickly do something about this form of economic sabotage main by immigrants bringing their disputes to these shores.

You don’t think Chuck…..zing!

No we can’t.

The purist libertarian argument is that all the past decades of civil rights legal effort should be repealed as immoral and unprincipled.

That’s what it comes down to.

# joeAverage (97) Vote: Add rating 9 Subtract rating 3 Says:
January 18th, 2009 at 8:46 pm

Seems a reasonable ratio, mickysavage

Can’t agree with that.

13 is far too big a price to pay.