The following is the precursor that lead to this thread about Libertarianism and Socialism and any other  form of government others wish to add to the discussion. 

Views: 5166

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

I do not propose an anarchist state, I am an individual anarchist. I myself can design my own technology, fix my own tech, fix my own vehicles and even produce my own fuel (ethanol) I can also grow my own food, believe it or not as a Vegan I am even an excellent fisherman ( only in emergencies now days.), I also am more than capable of my own personal defence and that of the tribe. However I do not expect every one to be in that fortunate position, So I think most people need the structure of a system. I Think only state run medicine works properly, for the Viagra vs cancer cure reason. There are many areas I think entry barriers to small business could be worked on whilst also incorporating some of your more liberal ideas. However The biggest threat the world is facing is "climate change" and pollution, This must be sorted by a global co-operative of governments. At the moment for every one on the planet to live the american life would take the resources of three earths......it will take a leaf or two out of the communist manifesto to solve those problems.....

While I might applaud your lifestyle, your aggression and commitment to ideas that breed corruption and stifle innovation are unacceptable.

Do I come across aggressive? I try to subdue that rather dominant flaw in my brain. I do like rhetorical one liners and provocative retorts, But trust me if you came to my house, whilst you would eat Vegan, you would eat well and be shown respect....There are not many people fighting to defend the animals and therefore we need a good bark.......but away from political ideas I still try to accept others choices, even my family who are all very non ethical consumers.....

You did say that you wanted to kill me.

No I said under your system of freedom taken to the extreme you would be my natural enemy as I would be the animals only defence. In the wild west of your ideal future, you would fight for wealth, whilst I would fight against the atrocities caused by the global haulocaust that is animal exploitation. I merely point out that in your world you wan't you may find yourself on a side you may not wan't to be on. I like you, but in that world I fear we would be on opposite sides of what would be a global  war of ethics. Soon as people start to suffer from "climate change" those that still priorities there own personal excess over pratical resource sharing will be opposed with great force and I actually think you somewhere deep down would rather be ethical over wealthy. I think you just like to have an extreme point of view, but your choice of career possibly shows that money is not your prime motivator and that in a global uprising you would probably be on my side anyway......

In any case maybe if I learned to use those dammed emoticons more often :) I would convey better cheeky retorts......lol

Hey, I'm all for the protection of animals, just not at the expense of human rights. I would fight for an animals sake, to educate the mother f'r who is blatantly and irrationally, but if they wanted to kill a wild animal for food, clothing, or a tool, I do believe that is their right. I certainly do not want a central government to have any power over individual rights, but I would be willing to discuss having massive preserves protected by local governments or something of the like.

That is a better clarification of your position than "animals don't have rights" as you stated before. I will take it that the above explanation is your actual view and that "animals don't have rights" was you just being

facetious. Your above explanation is far better, not quite as far as I would go but that is another conversation.

 I would concluded that your position probably is "animals do have rights but they are prioritised in order of relative sentience, hence humans come first"  this is a perfectly valid point of view and follows a rational ethic.......

"MCT - well you're wrong about that - if you smoke marijuana then you are effecting those around you - either with passive smoking and / or with influence in terms of making it OK to socially smoke the stuff - or causing it to look appealing to others to try etc...."

-Only in a small enclosed area can passive smoke have an effect. And you seeing someone do something that might 'influence' your child is hardly a violation of your rights. You do not have the right to control my behavior in public because you erroneously think the drug itself is bad for you. So you think smoking cigarettes in the view of the public should be illegal then. Then to be consistent you think eating a triple cheeseburger with lots of cholesterol and trans-fat in public should be illegal. Also, you think that even way more serious and immoral is the public drinking of alcohol.

MCT - LOL - yes I agree with all of those..... :) ban them all.....

I have had a few fiends with drug induced schizophrenia and another commit suicide while another tried. All drug related, I have way more exp. in this area than I wish to admit and am so glad my 20's are over....But I do agree with freedom to choose, just don't kid yourself that you are immune to mental disorders yourself. It will hit you like a ton of bricks and you won't know where it came from..Then try and keep your sterling career.....These outcomes then surely do effect others....

Do not assume too much about me, friend. You seem to be doing that a lot today.

agreed.....I was mostly just sharing for what its worth

RSS

Support Atheist Nexus

Donate Today

Donate

 

Help Nexus When You Buy From Amazon

Amazon

AJY

 

© 2014   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: Richard Haynes.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service