Subpage under development, new version coming soon!
Subject: United States: Election Time
A private property is related to a lack of liberty... Why ? Because as soon as private property has been decided by someone, it obstructs the liberty of the other. If someone takes control of some space, it obstructs liberty of the other. How can we define the ability to have some private property ? Or by being the stronger and it destroys the liberty of the other or by creating rules defined by some people (always the stronger) who declare who has the liberty to have some space and it destroys again the liberty of the other.
If you follow this logic, your right to live is a violation of my liberty (in which I could kill you). This is a libertine logic that makes a society impossible. That's why I prefer not to follow this logic.
If you follow this logic, your right to live is a violation of my liberty (in which I could kill you). This is a libertine logic that makes a society impossible. That's why I prefer not to follow this logic.
You did offer that freedom to everyone. That some people don't have the money to use a car/train/whatever is irrelevant to the question. You gave him the opportunity to go wherever he wants. I don't have the money to go into space, does that make me less free than the ones that do have the money? No. It limits my movement, of course, but that limitation is not due to a collectivist institution.
Having or not having money is a collectivist institution too.
money is a instituion that has value until a state is..
so that freedom is a state-given one as the other!
So yes, freedom is not the same for everyone. Some people have more money to use their liberties more/better than other people. So what? Is that unequal? Yes. Is that unfair? No.
Fair or unfair is a personal and moral answer to give.
but,..
The point is not being equal, the point is that STATE gives them more freedom.
You always miss it, people are rich because of the state!
What is important value? For me, a church isn't, for others, it is. For me, museums are important, for others, they aren't. Who are you (or me) to determine what is important value and what is not? There is no public value. Their is only private, individual value. What people like you call public value is just what a certain group (you inclusive) think is important. Their is no truth however about what is important value and what is not, so don't impose your idea about important value on others.
Those who want to go to museums, must pay for it. Why should people who don't like museums pay for museums (museums get subventions which are paid by the tax payers, so the people who don't like museums pay for the museums too)?
exscuse me but, what an ignorant speech!
Start study those questions from "contract social" until now, what philosopher and politician have written/done until today. Unless it you are wasting my time!
What people like you call public value is just what a certain group (you inclusive) think is important.
just a note about it: I agree there's no "absolute" value, but we had another way to defy what is a public value, we call it "democracy"...
Hail the free market ;-)
story said free market doesn't exist/doesn't run (come with us in our century, those are spechees of 100 years ago!!!)
That's what I say. I say their is no 'us'. That's why we need as less rules as possible. The only rules (apart from organizational rules, for police, justice) should be the ones who protect the liberties of the people.
Rules realize objectives, I give up my power to kill my king , but in exchange I want a public school (or hospital) paid with taxes.
It realize my freedom!
:D
(seriously you need to study politic philosophie before to talk about it!)
Having or not having money is a collectivist institution too.
money is a instituion that has value until a state is..
so that freedom is a state-given one as the other!
So yes, freedom is not the same for everyone. Some people have more money to use their liberties more/better than other people. So what? Is that unequal? Yes. Is that unfair? No.
Fair or unfair is a personal and moral answer to give.
but,..
The point is not being equal, the point is that STATE gives them more freedom.
You always miss it, people are rich because of the state!
What is important value? For me, a church isn't, for others, it is. For me, museums are important, for others, they aren't. Who are you (or me) to determine what is important value and what is not? There is no public value. Their is only private, individual value. What people like you call public value is just what a certain group (you inclusive) think is important. Their is no truth however about what is important value and what is not, so don't impose your idea about important value on others.
Those who want to go to museums, must pay for it. Why should people who don't like museums pay for museums (museums get subventions which are paid by the tax payers, so the people who don't like museums pay for the museums too)?
exscuse me but, what an ignorant speech!
Start study those questions from "contract social" until now, what philosopher and politician have written/done until today. Unless it you are wasting my time!
What people like you call public value is just what a certain group (you inclusive) think is important.
just a note about it: I agree there's no "absolute" value, but we had another way to defy what is a public value, we call it "democracy"...
Hail the free market ;-)
story said free market doesn't exist/doesn't run (come with us in our century, those are spechees of 100 years ago!!!)
That's what I say. I say their is no 'us'. That's why we need as less rules as possible. The only rules (apart from organizational rules, for police, justice) should be the ones who protect the liberties of the people.
Rules realize objectives, I give up my power to kill my king , but in exchange I want a public school (or hospital) paid with taxes.
It realize my freedom!
:D
(seriously you need to study politic philosophie before to talk about it!)
Having or not having money is a collectivist institution too. money is a instituion that has value until a state is..
so that freedom is a state-given one as the other!
This will need further explanation if you want me to understand. Having money or not is not a collectivist institution. The collectivist institution is the state.
Fair or unfair is a personal and moral answer to give.
but,..
The point is not being equal, the point is that STATE gives them more freedom.
You always miss it, people are rich because of the state!
No, state doesn't give freedom. It limits freedom.
exscuse me but, what an ignorant speech!
Start study those questions from "contract social" until now, what philosopher and politician have written/done until today. Unless it you are wasting my time!
I have learned about the social contract (I had (political) philosophy as a course at my university) etc. So what?
just a note about it: I agree there's no "absolute" value, but we had another way to defy what is a public value, we call it "democracy"...
The question is: do we need a way to defy what is 'public' value and what is not? I think we don't. Why do you want to impose the will of a majority on the minority? I agree we need democracy (parliament), but democracy is limited. We cannot vote democratic if we want to kill certain people, agreed? So democracy IS limited. I prefer to put 'public value' outside democracy, I prefer to determine it individually. If you call that ignorant, I'm pleased to be ignorant.
story said free market doesn't exist/doesn't run (come with us in our century, those are spechees of 100 years ago!!!)
What? I don't understand.
Rules realize objectives, I give up my power to kill my king , but in exchange I want a public school (or hospital) paid with taxes.
It realize my freedom!
:D
I'm not wasting my time on such nonsense.
so that freedom is a state-given one as the other!
This will need further explanation if you want me to understand. Having money or not is not a collectivist institution. The collectivist institution is the state.
Fair or unfair is a personal and moral answer to give.
but,..
The point is not being equal, the point is that STATE gives them more freedom.
You always miss it, people are rich because of the state!
No, state doesn't give freedom. It limits freedom.
exscuse me but, what an ignorant speech!
Start study those questions from "contract social" until now, what philosopher and politician have written/done until today. Unless it you are wasting my time!
I have learned about the social contract (I had (political) philosophy as a course at my university) etc. So what?
just a note about it: I agree there's no "absolute" value, but we had another way to defy what is a public value, we call it "democracy"...
The question is: do we need a way to defy what is 'public' value and what is not? I think we don't. Why do you want to impose the will of a majority on the minority? I agree we need democracy (parliament), but democracy is limited. We cannot vote democratic if we want to kill certain people, agreed? So democracy IS limited. I prefer to put 'public value' outside democracy, I prefer to determine it individually. If you call that ignorant, I'm pleased to be ignorant.
story said free market doesn't exist/doesn't run (come with us in our century, those are spechees of 100 years ago!!!)
What? I don't understand.
Rules realize objectives, I give up my power to kill my king , but in exchange I want a public school (or hospital) paid with taxes.
It realize my freedom!
:D
I'm not wasting my time on such nonsense.
I can' t explain everything, I'll try to be clear:
Having money or not is not a collectivist institution. The collectivist institution is the state.
without state you don't have money/richness.
You owe the richness to the state, so the freedom the money give you , you owe it to the state.
So this is not a freedom you were having that state take from you, but something you owe to it, that regulated by ITS rules.
You always miss it, people are rich because of the state!
No, state doesn't give freedom. It limits freedom.
You miss it again:
ricnhess i given by state!
The question is: do we need a way to defy what is 'public' value and what is not? I think we don't.
OK, I quit. This is simply stupid.
I can't believe you studied this question and still talk like this.. this is a nosense.
Rules realize objectives, I give up my power to kill my king , but in exchange I want a public school (or hospital) paid with taxes.
It realize my freedom!
I'm not wasting my time on such nonsense.
Ehhm, this is a classic school example to explain "contract social" and its relation to freedom..
Having money or not is not a collectivist institution. The collectivist institution is the state.
without state you don't have money/richness.
You owe the richness to the state, so the freedom the money give you , you owe it to the state.
So this is not a freedom you were having that state take from you, but something you owe to it, that regulated by ITS rules.
You always miss it, people are rich because of the state!
No, state doesn't give freedom. It limits freedom.
You miss it again:
ricnhess i given by state!
The question is: do we need a way to defy what is 'public' value and what is not? I think we don't.
OK, I quit. This is simply stupid.
I can't believe you studied this question and still talk like this.. this is a nosense.
Rules realize objectives, I give up my power to kill my king , but in exchange I want a public school (or hospital) paid with taxes.
It realize my freedom!
I'm not wasting my time on such nonsense.
Ehhm, this is a classic school example to explain "contract social" and its relation to freedom..
without state you don't have money/richness.
You owe the richness to the state, so the freedom the money give you , you owe it to the state.
So this is not a freedom you were having that state take from you, but something you owe to it, that regulated by ITS rules.
Without a state, you do have the money. However, everyone will be able to claim it as theirs.
It's not because the state provides a system of justice that maintains property rights that you owe it to the state.
You miss it again:
ricnhess i given by state!
Nope, it really isn't. What's the point of this discussion?
OK, I quit. This is simply stupid.
I can't believe you studied this question and still talk like this.. this is a nosense.
Believe what you want, you're free to do so. I sense that you don't get at all what I mean, so maybe it's better to quit indeed.
You owe the richness to the state, so the freedom the money give you , you owe it to the state.
So this is not a freedom you were having that state take from you, but something you owe to it, that regulated by ITS rules.
Without a state, you do have the money. However, everyone will be able to claim it as theirs.
It's not because the state provides a system of justice that maintains property rights that you owe it to the state.
You miss it again:
ricnhess i given by state!
Nope, it really isn't. What's the point of this discussion?
OK, I quit. This is simply stupid.
I can't believe you studied this question and still talk like this.. this is a nosense.
Believe what you want, you're free to do so. I sense that you don't get at all what I mean, so maybe it's better to quit indeed.
Without a state, you do have the money. However, everyone will be able to claim it as theirs.
You really don't understand the basics of socio-economic system you live in. State literally creates money. Its value even depends on the credibility of state's economy and the amount of money it puts into circulation. Money is practically the key tool a state provides to its citizens. If you ever lived in a hyperinflationary economy, you might begin to understand the connection between the state and its money.
You really don't understand the basics of socio-economic system you live in. State literally creates money. Its value even depends on the credibility of state's economy and the amount of money it puts into circulation. Money is practically the key tool a state provides to its citizens. If you ever lived in a hyperinflationary economy, you might begin to understand the connection between the state and its money.
Did somebody say something?
Oh, it's you! You became a master of disguise.
That's strange. I didn't recognise you by your writing. You are not that stupid. Are you also impersonating a character today? Oh, now I get it! Inconsequential! You're doing it well.
That's strange. I didn't recognise you by your writing. You are not that stupid. Are you also impersonating a character today? Oh, now I get it! Inconsequential! You're doing it well.
Too bad. That diminishes the chances on a brokered convention, which was the only way Paul could actually stand a chance. Santorum for VP?
[4] USA 179 6 0
179 users and barack has 220+ votes already hahaha.
people here just vote for him caus they know him. hes grand, imo hes improving stuff, but america is 30trillion in debt.
also changing healthcare as he has done, yes it works for so many people but so many others will be against it. the people who have the power to influence the elections and peoples decisions...
we wait and see the outcome anyway
179 users and barack has 220+ votes already hahaha.
people here just vote for him caus they know him. hes grand, imo hes improving stuff, but america is 30trillion in debt.
also changing healthcare as he has done, yes it works for so many people but so many others will be against it. the people who have the power to influence the elections and peoples decisions...
we wait and see the outcome anyway
maybe it would be better talk here (link down), so even people who like this theme can talk about it, not everybody is interesting in election time in US :-)
http://online.sokker.org/forum_topic.php?ID_forum=1260&ID_topic=2642108&pg=0#new
http://online.sokker.org/forum_topic.php?ID_forum=1260&ID_topic=2642108&pg=0#new
How is connected totalism with Barrack Obama, I didnt read all pages back :-)
Ron Paul: libertarianism, against collectivism as that often leads to totalitarian systems (like in (Western) Europe).
I would vote Ron Paul if I am US citizen :-)