The Libertarian Atheist

Post edited 1:12 am – October 19, 2009 by mdr

Virtues Of An Individual That Contribute Toward Freedom And How To Encourage Them

by M. D. Roe

In order to ascertain what virtues would best contribute to freedom in general and, to a larger extent, to a free society, we must define each article of the question. What is an individual? What is a free society? What is a virtue? After we define each of these we can come to a greater understanding of the virtues contributory to freedom.

(. . . continued. . . )

Read original blog post

Oh and let me apologize ahead of time for subjecting you guys to this garbage of mine. . . : ^)

upgrade01a said:

An individual is a human being – a person separate from other persons. This may sound funny, but a person has self-ownership because that person was there, in control of that person's body first. Person A owns person A's body.  Person B may not come along and take (make a slave of) person A, nor visa versa.

Yes, I do elaborate on this in the full article. . .

Post edited 11:45 pm – January 20, 2010 by mdr

Otis Tetric. said:

[replies to my post without reading the actual article]

Welcome to the forums, might I suggest you read the article before replying with your preconceived notions of what I'm speaking about?

Anything else would be idiotic, here is the link again:

****CLICK ON THIS LINK RIGHT HERE TO READ THE ACTUAL ARTICLE****

LAST PARAGRAPH OF ARTICLE:
The best thing that civil organizations can do is to educate. Not simply to educate adults but also children. Petitions should be made to the publishing companies of children’s school textbooks, especially social studies, to include more information about natural rights, the individualist principle, and the overlying political tradition in the United States. If they are unable to comply, then steps should be taken to encourage other publishers to create competing books. It is not too much to ask, in the opinion of this author, that there might be a complete replacement of the general studies programs of “social studies” in schools with curriculum entitled “natural rights” in which the current and historical trends from around the world are taught from the lens of individualism. College students who are concerned about the plight of the homeless or have concerns about the current state of the environment should be taught that they have other means to impact change, possibly even more change, outside of lobbying the government for aid or more regulation. Environmentalists could easily argue that any one company, by polluting the environment, negatively influences the current and future welfare and enabling rights of others, and as such should face incredibly harsh penalties for their culpability. The end result of this is more effective with longer lasting impact than largely worthless bureaucratic regulation from government to save the environment for the sake of the environment. Save the environment because it is the home of individuals whose lives are adversely affected by its destruction. A company should not be required by regulation to install safety equipment, it should do so out of the desire to avoid being held financially responsible for the damages and deaths of individuals that could have been prevented by more stringent safety testing and equipment, and with less regulation, you encourage more companies to enter the market, driving up competition and possibly raising the standards of safety in general. If you make the threat of litigation based on the importance of the individual real and apparent, companies will go out of their way to avoid it. A person concerned with the plight of the homeless should collect information regarding the effects of homeless on the streets on commerce and economy in particular areas and use it to encourage local, well-to-do businesses to finance homeless shelters. When the individualist principle is understood and applied correctly, it can be an effective and positive instrument, too few people know or realize this. Only through education can we hope that the virtue of individualism will inspire others to respect their own liberties and those of others.

Let me define ignorance: to believe the first and most simple explanation for something and ignore every subsequent piece of information based upon that first explanation without digging any farther into it than what crossing your eyes to stare at your nose will allow.

Until you learn to investigate the roots of our problems in society beyond what the mass media tells you, you will forever be ignorant.

The epitome of retardation is to think that personal freedoms equal corporate enslavement. Newspeak much? LMFAO.

Here's the big piece of the puzzle that you're missing: Large Overbearing Corporations and Big Overbearing Government? They are the same thing, you can't have one without the other.

PS might I suggest you follow the advice in your signature?

Post edited 11:45 pm – January 20, 2010 by mdr

Otis Tetric. said:

You are right I should have read your article before replying. I am currently unable to open your article for some reason thou. But when I fix the problem I could try again.

Thank you

Here, just paste this in your address bar:

libertarianatheist.com/articles-books/articles/libertarian/virtues-of-an-individual-for-freedom

Might I also suggest that you take a look around this site and read the postings? In general I think you'll find the opinions nowhere near what you may have conceived of Libertarians. Particularly read the about page up top, a little about yours truly.

Libertarians != Conservatives. . . in fact Libertarians are the original Liberals before socialists redefined the term Liberal from meaning protect individual rights and protecting social equality to simply enforcing economic equality and pretending to cater toward the masses while accepting campaign contributions from the largest corporations due to public works contracts being guaranteed in return. Socialists started calling themselves Liberals. The only safe harbor after this transition for many Libertarians was to be "left wing Republican".

The problem is that both Democrats and Republicans want larger government, out of the two, of course, if you want to expand government, Democrats are more logical. Republicans are slow growth and (particularly with "neo-cons") more concerned with everyone else in the world's business than our own. If I HAD to choose between large government with smaller military and more domestic concern and large government with large military and less domestic, I think the choice is clear. Republicans piss me off regularly, in a small consistent pattern, Democrats piss me off more sporadically but when they do they REALLY piss me off (considering my utopia would be the smallest amount of government necessary to protect natural rights). Though lately, Republicans (with these fucking wars) have been pissing me off in just as big amounts.

The biggest problem of course is that our government is owned by the banks, the Fed prints the money. Remember the golden rule, he who makes the gold makes the rules. You want to talk about corporatism? We will NEVER have anything close to a Utopia in this environment.

Post edited 2:49 pm – January 22, 2010 by mdr

Natural Rights is just another term for inalienable rights, the RIGHTS we are ALL born with. Nothing more, nothing less. These are the rights that cannot be bestowed and or taken away by anyone.

They are outside of the realm of jurisprudence saving for violations of the same on your part (recompense).

I care as much about where some philosopher 300 years ago said they come from as I do about where some religious kook 2,500 years ago said we come from.

The bible and other canons claim that the EARTH came from God, doesn't matter, the Earth still exists regardless of what someone somewhere at some point said about its origins.

Post edited 5:38 pm – January 23, 2010 by mdr

The rule of inalienable rights, if you bring it all the way down to the bare metal, is one of consequence.

If you took one of my possessions, I would want to take it back, if you killed a person with whom I shared common survival (a loved one, though that being a simple construct to increase bonding, the main purpose is one of common benefit) or even genetic strains, I would want to kill you or one with whom you shared common benefit. This is expected, it's survival. This is human nature, only a slight modification and extension of the nature of almost any living being on the planet. In the end it comes down to survival and dependability of future resources, again, for the sole purpose of survival.

It is NOT for the benefit of individuals for which I would have this rule of inalienable rights (Natural Rights), it is for the benefit and long term survival of government. Stability. If governments do NOT respect these inalienable rights, they will be dismantled, eventually. Just as I would reciprocate if you were to steal from me, or kill a member of my family, so the same works for government and social contract.

These rights do not come from a social contract, they come from the simple nature of things, they are inalienable not because they can't be taken away but because they cannot be taken away for very long.

Two books that expound on Natural Rights minus "god" so much you'll be sick of it:

Anarchy State and Utopia

The Libertarian Alternative

Sometimes, I think, it takes a huge scandal and a revolution for things to change and for people to realize the wrong inherent in a system.

I can only hope that we're not there because I DO NOT want to see blood shed, which will happen eventually. Do not want it to happen at all but a huge government has no choice. It will eventually step on too many toes and all the spin and damage control in the world won't help, by then it will only make it worse.

I would love to see a Libertarian society peacefully evolve, I have a feeling that it would last much much longer.