1 - 10 Next
Wayne Root!
In response to:

Atheists Steal Rights From God

kevin837 Wrote: Feb 06, 2015 10:37 PM
Exactly so! As I point out in my treatise at the Libertarian Defense Caucus website.
In response to:

Atheists Steal Rights From God

kevin837 Wrote: Feb 06, 2015 10:36 PM
Exactly so, except that war might be just and not mass murder.
In response to:

Atheists Steal Rights From God

kevin837 Wrote: Feb 06, 2015 10:35 PM
"Atheism" is not an ideology or philosophical system, like religion is. Atheism is a rejection of religious faith. That's it. A negation, not an affirmation. Religious faith is not a foundation for justice, either; because faith can lead us anywhere, anywhen, and anyhow. It is simply a method, not a destination. Neither rejection nor affirmation of faith can provide a foundation for human life. For that, we need to affirm the positive values of humanism. Which the author would know, if he knew how to think.
There is natural law and there is faith in other-than natural (called "God" or "Allah" or whatever). There is no "God's natural law". That would be like saying, night is day or black is white. Belief in other-than natural is positively correlated with inbreeding. Particularly among Muslims, like Pakistanis. The reason I use the phrase "other than natural" is that a natural language like English cannot communicate meaning about "God" or anything else alleged to exist outside of natural reality. Matt--you need to decide which way you want to go--with natural law or cultural medievalism. You are trying to straddle a fence that has slippery slopes.
This is good news for thinking conservatives and libertarians. Graham will divide the stupid vote with Christie, Bush, and Romney.
In response to:

Lessons from Paris

kevin837 Wrote: Jan 13, 2015 10:19 PM
Even if that were true, think about the implications of what you're saying. We can't attack anybody because they might attack us back?! If we adopted that policy, we would not be able defend ourselves because we could not respond to attack (for ideological reasons that have nothing to do with libertarianism). Ron Paul: time for you to retire and stop sucking $1million/year in funding from the libertarian movement. Please retire and spare us your foggy lack of thought.
In response to:

Get off Steve Scalise’s Case

kevin837 Wrote: Jan 05, 2015 5:36 PM
If your friends are John Ashcroft and George Allen, then your judgment is in doubt. We don't even share the same goals. I don't want, and America's founders didn't want, a political government under a supernatural "God". Your article doesn't even mention "liberty". David Duke and his front groups should be shunned by all intelligent people. If they want to hear about tax reduction, sell them a video. Don't meet them in person and have private conversations with these idiots. The Dems are already making political hay out of this. How are you qualified to be taken seriously on anything political or philosophical?
In response to:

Rand Paul’s Cluelessness on Cuba

kevin837 Wrote: Dec 27, 2014 8:02 PM
Murray Rothbard was not primarily a libertarian; he was primarily non-interventionist (with regard to US interventions only) and was more a Rothbardian than anything else. As I documented, classical libertarianism was born in the roman republic. After the fall of the roman empire, people wanted to restore the republic (as in "riense") but most no longer spoke Latin. They misinterpreted Jus Naturale; they treated rulers as if they were property owners (of all the property in their domain) and thus, revolution, invasion, or civil war was considered unjust. This policy of non-interventionism was enshrined in the Westphalia Treaty. You may read my article explaining this, at the Libertarian Defense Caucus website: www.defendliberty.net
Very insightful. thanks. However... Jus Naturale implies an objective system of natural justice. We moderns may say we have a right to this justice, but the fact remains and as is implied by your statements, the notion of a "right" to something which is natural seems contradictory. Natural justice already exists, objectively, while a "right" might be denied. Still, people may act against natural justice so this implies a right that might be denied in practice. The ancients did talk about the estate of nature. The Stoics said we should live in accord with human nature, and the Latin legal scholars took this to mean equity, the bridge between stoicism and Jus Gentium. The law of nations (Jus Gentium) approximates Jus Naturale. So it's not like we start with the non-aggression axiom and then apply to examples, deductively. Rather, we inductively arrive at an approximation of the non-aggression principle by abstracting the elements in common to all positive legal systems. This is explained in my magnum opus, found at: www.defendliberty.net How does this apply to the Garner case? Clearly, natural justice was violated by the anti-cigarette selling law. The non-aggression principle (not axiom) was violated by the law and it's enforcement. The NAP could be considered an axiom, since it is hard-wired in the human brain. When someone strikes us, the body/mind react automatically in self-defense. But even if not an axiom, it is a principle that can be approximated inductively.
1 - 10 Next