It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

The Simple Truth In Three Sentences

page: 6
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in


posted on Apr, 3 2015 @ 10:34 AM

originally posted by: MrPlow

originally posted by: LewsTherinThelamon
a reply to: MrPlow

Were it not for Government stepping in, anybody who wasn't a land owning white christian male would be the only ones allowed to survive in this country.

Kind of like when the government stepped-in and killed 6 million Jews.

Or that one time the government enforced racial segregation.

There was also that one time when government burned heretics at the stake.

How about all those instances the government imprisoned people just because?

When you give someone the power to protect you, you also give them the power to abuse you.

Yea..kinda, but probably not. At all. Your false equivalency holds no weight. Sorry
The government protecting the poor, the elderly, veterans, and the disabled is in no way equal to the government committing atrocities.
It's almost laughable, if not completely ridiculous that you make such a delusional comment.

It's not a false equivalency. Government is in the lead for Most atrocious acts committed against humanity.

The logic that, if you place unlimited power into one source (government), you have placed someone into a position to use their power to protect and abuse. That reasoning is sound.

Your logic:

Humans are evil, so we need to give them unlimited power to protect us from the evil humans.
edit on 3-4-2015 by LewsTherinThelamon because: (no reason given)

edit on 3-4-2015 by LewsTherinThelamon because: (no reason given)

edit on 3-4-2015 by LewsTherinThelamon because: (no reason given)

posted on Apr, 3 2015 @ 10:55 AM
a reply to: MrPlow

Leave me alone to discriminate, step-on or harm whomever I want! The gubmament needs to stay out of it!

It is dumb for people to not realize how to utilize a market. If a bakery won't sell cakes to be used for gay weddings, start your own bakery and welcome gay couples. Most likely, you'd wind up putting your competitor out-of-business.

Not selling wedding cakes to group X doesn't infringe on the rights of group X, so no real crime has taken place.

You have the right to buy and sell, but you don't have the right to force someone to by and sell. The use of force initiated for frivolous reasons is repugnant, just like your fascist outlook.

posted on Apr, 3 2015 @ 04:17 PM
a reply to: MrPlow

I don't understand how that runs contrary to the concept of freedom. You're free to act in a certain way until it impacts another, and then the courts decide on a settlement, if any.

posted on Apr, 4 2015 @ 01:12 AM
a reply to: JimNasium

Do I really need to define truth? And do I really need to know you for me to be allowed to criticise your ideas?
I understand though, not agreeing with you is division.

I haven't really advanced any ideas of my own so I don't feel like I am defending anything. I am merely criticising one of your ideas in its mundane application, while also acknowledging the relative truth of it.

You're saying a lot but it doesn't amount to anything of substance. You're just playing around with semantics and vagueness.

You talk of this ethereal philosophical truth, I am talking of mundane down to earth truth. The truth of the moon being a celestial body, of blood being red and of water being wet. I'm not going to engage your dime store epistemology and handwaving in any drawn out discussion, I'm afraid there would be no end to the vagueness.

The truth of propositions can be ascertained, if you do not agree with this there is no use to discuss anything with you.

But I'll leave asking you this: is it not true that we have made millions of discoveries by using the scientific method? That we have put propositions to the test and discovered certain truths? And did we not labour for those discoveries? And when we finally discovered, were these truths instantly recognised and accepted by all of mankind or did we also labour to spread these truths far and wide? We even laboured to educate our populations so that anybody if willing, privileged and intelligent enough could learn, study and discover these truths themselves.

Hell, even Buddhists have historically been proselytizing. There'd be no Tibetan Buddhism without Padmasambhava, no Zen without Bodhidharma.

posted on Apr, 5 2015 @ 05:46 PM
a reply to: Metallicus

Very true metallicus very true

posted on Apr, 6 2015 @ 07:15 AM

originally posted by: Ironhawke
a reply to: johnwick

Ah, so in a Libertarian society, only those who are not pacifistic get to vote?

Are you seriously unaware that there are a ton of non-combat supportive roles that you could fill in the military?

What other groups do you exclude?

Objection - assumes facts not in evidence.

Who says that, as one committed to doing no violence, I cannot serve my country?

No one.

And what of an obligation to serve humanity as a whole?

No one, least of all libertarianism, is suggesting stopping you from volunteering to serve your local fellow inhabitants, or humanity - or the the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster if that is your thing - in any way you so chose.

Are you saying only my country is due service - which, by the standards you just set - means being prepared to do violence?

There is a huge difference in being prepared to do violence as a last resort in self-defense only, and the Democrat/Republican war machine we have now.

Please stop with the FUD...

Interestingly this particular concept of having to *earn* full citizenship by serving in the military - with one of the main privileges you earned being the privilege to vote - was front and center in one of my favorite sci-fi authors novels (and the movie), 'Starship Troopers', but it was also his - Robert Heinlein's - personal philosophy.

Best libertarian novel ever: The Moon is a Harsh Mistress.

posted on Apr, 6 2015 @ 07:21 AM

originally posted by: Ironhawke
a reply to: LewsTherinThelamon

Ah, mob rule, then.

What exactly do you think government is?

I'll tell you... a pure democracy is just that: mob rule. There are literally no limits on what the idiots in power can pass in the way of 'laws'.

A Constitutional Republic, on the other hand, has very well defined limits on what laws can be passed.

Too bad our Constitutional Republic has pretty much been demolished by ignorant voters who found they can vote themselves bread and circuses.

posted on Apr, 6 2015 @ 07:26 AM

originally posted by: Ironhawke
a reply to: johnwick

This is the wall Libertarianism keeps running into - it denies liberty. You simply cannot conceive that defense can also incorporate those who will not kill.

Well, since what you just said is absolutely positively not true, you are either simply misinformed, and at this point will stop and realize you have some more learnin to do, or you will continue spouting the same tired ridiculous falsehoods, thereby proving that you have no desire to have an honest discussion, but that you just want to wallow in your false conceptions.

So which is it?

posted on Apr, 6 2015 @ 07:34 AM
You forgot to add that libertarians are unrealistic.

posted on Apr, 6 2015 @ 08:27 AM

originally posted by: MrPlow
I am assuming you're one of the misguided folks who think that EVERYONE who receives a "handout" is just some lazy, 'urban' (read:non-white), welfare queen?

You are aware of what happens when you ass-u-me things like this?

No chatter of the disabled? The elderly? Children?

In the past - ie, before government usurpation of these kinds of things started occurring - these were very easily taken care of by true charities - mostly organized by - gasp! - churches and/or other religious organizations.


I can see an argument for care for Veterans - especially those wounded in battle - being provided for by taxpayers, but this would need to be in the contract - and it would also have to be only for service related injuries.

Anything else and they'd need to go to private charities for help if they needed it.

All government 'charity' does is allow the recipients to falsely believe that they are not the recipients of charity, but instead are receiving something they are 'entitled' to.

It doesn't matter to me what YOU say the Libertarian party has no problems with. The TRUTH is, again, HUMANS living in a winner takes all, capitalist society WILL walk right past these people in order to get to the top...and furthermore, PREVENT them from getting ahead

This is true only under a fascist society like we have today - but this is not what libertarianism is about, and no amount of false proselytizing will make these kinds of false claims any less false.

posted on Apr, 6 2015 @ 08:36 AM

originally posted by: MrPlow
Usually because "individual freedom" means let me do what the # ever I want and damn it all if it is in detriment to others.

Total, absolute, utter BULL!@#$.

That's just not how freedom works, in a civil society.

Agreed, and no one arguing for libertarian freedom is saying so.

Freedom isn't freedom unless ALL people are afforded it and left unmolested by predators.

Protecting private Rights is the main and primary purpose of government, and this is the primary philosophy of libertarianism.

A pizza shops "right" to deny business based on a persons sexual preference because religion is not freedom for all. While one side of that argument gets to say 'FREEDOM! LET ME DO WHATEVER I WANT!" The other side loses no, that is NOT Freedom with a capital F.

You fail to grasp the difference between 'Rights' and 'privileges'.

Yes, absolutely, a private business should be free to choose NOT to do business with someone else, for any reason, or no reason whatsoever.

But what you and others seem to be implying is that this is the end all/be all of libertarianism.

It is not. It is, in simple fact, purely a by-product of the respect for the Rights of individuals to do as they wish so long as they do not damage anyone else in their life or property.

What people like you seem to fail to grasp is that I do not have the Right to force you to associate with me, or anyone else, against your/their will.

top topics

<< 3  4  5   >>

log in