Indeed he was a hero.
A hero in a time of European exploitation and colonialism, and domestic (over there) acquiescence to foreign powers; and a hero in a time of division and war.
Yes, very much a hero.
Splinter: Liberty and Fascism, Equality and Supremacy
- Thread starter Tiassa
- Start date
A hero in a time of European exploitation and colonialism, and domestic (over there) acquiescence to foreign powers; and a hero in a time of division and war.
Yes, very much a hero.
Being human makes us equall
Ha!
Being human makes us all extremely unequal. We are not equal at all; use your common sense!
Fine, so be decleration im better than you.
Shine my shoes, and allow me to cuss at you when I feel
No, no!
It is not by declaration; it is by action, and achievement, and scholastic accomplishment, and wealth, and everything too.
We are all equal before the law, but we are not equal beyond that. Nor should we be.
Tell the unwashed masses
Would you pretend that economy and justice are exclusive of one another? Stand in a Los Angeles sweatshop, or a Filipino or Malay or Chinese factory, and tell them about equality before the law. Tell them that they deserve to starve for all their labor. Tell them of the rich man's burden, having to pay out to the workers who make them rich. Stand on the courthouse steps and tell people how the poor deserve the death sentence more than the rich because they can't afford six lawyers at seven figures apiece. Stand over dying children in Rio or Calcutta or Kibungo and tell them that they don't deserve clean water because the rich in Europe and America deserve another vacation home.
When justice is bought with money, there is no equality before the law.
Norsefire said:
Would you pretend that economy and justice are exclusive of one another? Stand in a Los Angeles sweatshop, or a Filipino or Malay or Chinese factory, and tell them about equality before the law. Tell them that they deserve to starve for all their labor. Tell them of the rich man's burden, having to pay out to the workers who make them rich. Stand on the courthouse steps and tell people how the poor deserve the death sentence more than the rich because they can't afford six lawyers at seven figures apiece. Stand over dying children in Rio or Calcutta or Kibungo and tell them that they don't deserve clean water because the rich in Europe and America deserve another vacation home.
When justice is bought with money, there is no equality before the law.
Because justice should be blind.
Mobs can accomplish anything; that doesn't make them in the right.
No your a pro-corporate power pro money power shill pretending to be a libertarian and failing at it.
I've actually started using a modified definition of "libertarian" lately, when I encounter people on blogs or message boards or the media generally using it to describe themselves. To wit, the definition of "libertarian" is not "a person who is philosophically committed to the ideals and prescriptions of libertarianism" but rather "a person with some agenda they do not wish to argue openly (usually because it's indefensibly self-serving), who instead cherry-picks certain aspects of libertarianism for rhetorical convenience, and then promptly forgets all about outside of the immediately boundaries of the argument."
And it's easy to see why people do that: hysteria about "communist repression" and "theft from the productive" sounds a lot more impressive than "I would rather fuck everyone else over than pay my fair share of taxes." Doubly so if nobody is going to follow the "libertarian" around and hold him accountable for all of the various tax-funded state services he relies on every day, and which he'd never even dream of abolishing. As such, they get to present themselves as boldly principled, rather than what they are, which is cravenly selfish. And they get to do that at their convenience, without having to answer for their supposed principles when they don't suit.
So because you have more money youre better than me?
Before the law, we are not equal. Before humanity, we are the same. We deserve the same opprutunites, the same choices, the same freedoms. Absoulte freedom.
You are an example of the reason that this world is filled with hierarchist, murderers, and those who commit genocide.
You sound like Hitler and Stalin.
Sure. Like beard-trickle-down. The rich eat their fill, and we forage for the leavings that trickle down from their beards. It makes perfect sense.
If you think you're done with Tiassa, you may try me, comrade.
Can he get an amen?
Preach on, brother Quad! Amen!
Indeed, this is one of those "safe" positions by which one gets to pretend nobility, but will likely never be tested on the problems of their purported philosophy. It is functionally similar to some expressions of authoritarianism, in which the advocate, subjected to the same injustice, would complain loudly. And how many would turn their backs just because they view a given victim as priggish or boorish? The problem with leaving such people to suffer the injuries of their own advocacy is that we then expose everyone else to such damage through precedent.
And therein lies the safety.
With the libertarians, though, it's a variation on the theme. Fine. If they want to strike out on their own without the benefits of society, they're welcome to. I just hope they never reproduce, so that civilized society need not expend the effort of dealing with feral children deprived for the sake of their parents' egos.
The parent will hurt the child, blame society, and finally learn the purpose of justice. I'm not sure the return justifies the investment.
Quadraphonics said:
Preach on, brother Quad! Amen!
Indeed, this is one of those "safe" positions by which one gets to pretend nobility, but will likely never be tested on the problems of their purported philosophy. It is functionally similar to some expressions of authoritarianism, in which the advocate, subjected to the same injustice, would complain loudly. And how many would turn their backs just because they view a given victim as priggish or boorish? The problem with leaving such people to suffer the injuries of their own advocacy is that we then expose everyone else to such damage through precedent.
And therein lies the safety.
With the libertarians, though, it's a variation on the theme. Fine. If they want to strike out on their own without the benefits of society, they're welcome to. I just hope they never reproduce, so that civilized society need not expend the effort of dealing with feral children deprived for the sake of their parents' egos.
The parent will hurt the child, blame society, and finally learn the purpose of justice. I'm not sure the return justifies the investment.
What is society if not the collection of the individuals with in it?
Of course no man is an island! And so men must work together, but they do exactly that under libertarianism as in any other ideology. The difference is that libertarianism espouses the idea that all men, each and every individual one, ought to be able to choose exactly with whom, exactly how, and exactly to what extent they interact with other men.
The concept of "owing something to society" is abstract and, at the end of the day, nonsensical. You can only owe something to individuals, not to "society as a whole" because society as a whole is not one clear entity.
Of course no man is an island! And so men must work together, but they do exactly that under libertarianism as in any other ideology. The difference is that libertarianism espouses the idea that all men, each and every individual one, ought to be able to choose exactly with whom, exactly how, and exactly to what extent they interact with other men.
The concept of "owing something to society" is abstract and, at the end of the day, nonsensical. You can only owe something to individuals, not to "society as a whole" because society as a whole is not one clear entity.
That has a particular meaning in capitalism, Norsefire: "together" being "for me"
Without that society, you would not persist.
For me; sometimes I work for them; sometimes we work together on projects.
It all depends on the situation. You're always working for somebody, whether that somebody is you or somebody else.
Nonsense.
Without my mother, and my family, and my father that worked, and all the people in my immediate community, I would not persist.
"Society" has no clear identity; it is best, then, to deal with individuals on an individual basis. Society cannot be built from the top-down; only from the bottom up, dependent upon the voluntary and willing interactions of individuals. Therefore, some individuals will benefit from other individuals and compensate those individuals accordingly according to their agreement among each other. If I buy food from a farmer, I owe only the farmer; and he owes only me. Nobody else is involved in that transaction.
This idea that any certain person "owes" something to everyone else, including people he has never met and who have never done anything for him, is dangerous and immoral in the extreme. It's one more step toward collectivism.
You do know humanities roots are collectivist entities?
So now you support going back to roots, do you?
Do you know what else that would entail?