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.



page: 8
<< 5  6  7   >>

log in


posted on Oct, 2 2010 @ 10:50 AM

Originally posted by Neo_Serf
Since you dont know why hitting people is bad, i suggest you go back to kindergarten and relearn basic morality.

You suggest re-education because I don't subscribe to your own personal morality? How very...totalitarian.

Aggression violates personal ownership. I own my body and i also own the consequences of body ownership. If I dont own my body or the effects I will it to have on my enviroment, than I am nothing and can be acted upon by anyone else for whatever reason as I have no claim to myself and also cannot be held responsible for my actions, as none of my effects are mine at all. Without personal ownership there can be no rules besides the rule of force which always degrades and collapses.

Using force against those who violate those which cannot defend themselves is not a bad thing in my book.

If I do own my body than no one else has a right to infringe on my personal ownership.

Ideally, yes. Sadly, our world is far from ideal and it's a choice between an accountable and democratic government infringing on your 'ownership' or anybody stronger or better armed than yourself doing the same and even worse.

Since body ownership must be applied universally if it is to be a rule


no person can willingly initiate force against anyone or their property if they wish to be an ethical person

Not everyone does wish to be your version of an 'ethical person'. It amazes me that the entire individualist-anarchist utopia you envisage relies on a set of morals, ethics and principles which are almost exactly the same across every member of the Human race.

Since this cannot be justified logically or ethically you rely on propaganda and force.

It can be justified logically when you realise that Humanity is not a large group of friendly pacifists and a large number of people actively seek to do harm to others for their own personal gain. A group of people are thus elected (and anybody can be elected - even yourself) to focus on keeping people from exploiting each other as much as possible. Sometimes they will screw up (after all, people make mistakes) and you have the opportunity to speak against them, run against them, vote against them, etc.

edit on 2-10-2010 by LeftWingLarry because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 2 2013 @ 11:08 PM
reply to post by saltheart foamfollower

U r right! The left refuses to admit they are fascists as well. The reason is that they never mention the central banks control government so big goverment socialist serves the central banks it eliminates the banks competition in the free maket Its much easier to contol the free market through socialism than capitalism competition thats why the epa fda irs n all thse government instituion to control the little guys while exempting the big boys This is the info the refuse to discuss about.
edit on 2-9-2013 by amfirst1 because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 16 2013 @ 07:02 PM
reply to post by saabacura


Expreme left is ideal communism and extreme right is neo-liberalism(individualism).

Anarchism can be either left(noam chomsky) or right(rothbard,me, ayn rand).

The united states is center left libertarian.

posted on Sep, 16 2013 @ 07:25 PM
reply to post by saabacura

Traditionally, for the most part the right wing has had more of a fascist bent. We see it here today in the US in states where the conservative party is in the majority moving hell and high water with a plethora of laws being enacted to restrict women's rights.

top topics
<< 5  6  7   >>

log in