OK to OUT Politicians?

[turtle]

Bullshit.

They can "make it" their business all they want -- but your response is to want to make it everybody's business. You want to impose a mythical "responsibility" from the realms of some authoritarian fantasy on people who have no such thing! A person's ONLY responsibility is to his/her self-sovereignty and the corollary respect for that of others. YOU have none, apparently -- which, at root.... well, read on.

When a man stands up in front of me, asking me for my vote, claiming honesty and integrity, then it is very much my business to test those claims.

I have not made it "everybody's business", he has, and not because of his party's anti-gay platform, but because he stood up and claimed to be honest.
-D

[Toriko]

When did we start talking about Wendy's?????

I don't go often myself; I can't afford fast food -- the cost of one meal at Wendy's is my daily food budget.

It's a running joke from another thread; just like my being so rich. However, if you eat fast food, be sure to eat at Wendy's because they voluntarily removed trans fat from their menu! If you try to stay away from dairy, though, don't order a burger unless you are interested in going back once or twice.

[iman]

Where does this nasty little phrase "You own yourself" come from? Can one rent oneself out or sell oneself? No, you can sell your time or talent or even rent your body out, but not your self. You can be chained to a wall, but your self is still free to think or dream or whatever. How can yourself own itself? That's like a tree "owning" it self. The tree just is and you just are. Trying to impose a 19th century economic view on yourself (you as your own property, as if you owned an old obstinate mule) is simply an avoidance of the fact that you are free to make your own choices.

To choose to be a libertarian is an attempt to avoid the inevitable feedback and judgement of others. It is safe, you do not have to take any responsibility for the society you live in, you can deflect all criticism by saying that you have opted out of the system. It is a defensive position, you have sacrificed your freedom to choose, for a political closet. You have no responsibilities because you have chosen to avoid them.

The next time your at Wendys, just take whatever they give you, tell them you have abdicated your right to choose between cheese or no cheese. Or, maybe a libertarian should just order something not on the menu.

[iman]

^The point is that libertarianism is a bogus philosophy and politically unworkable. Who wants to live in a country with no social safety net, affordable unregulated drugs, unaffordable medicine, few basic safety considerations, and a population armed to the teeth?

Therefore, one is voting for nothing and allowing the party in power do as it wishes.

[Toriko]

Where does this nasty little phrase "You own yourself" come from? Can one rent oneself out or sell oneself? No, you can sell your time or talent or even rent your body out, but not your self. You can be chained to a wall, but your self is still free to think or dream or whatever. How can yourself own itself? That's like a tree "owning" it self. The tree just is and you just are. Trying to impose a 19th century economic view on yourself (you as your own property, as if you owned an old obstinate mule) is simply an avoidance of the fact that you are free to make your own choices.

You know it isn't folly to be wise, right?

The only possible way to promote freedom is to promote natural rights. For to be free - that is, to own oneself, implies that one is free to act (control over oneself), and is free to own (owning being one type of action). The freedom to own resources is useless without the capacity to use them, and likewise the capacity to use resources is useless without the freedom to own them. Thus economical freedom and social freedom are two sides of the same coin.

http://www.suite101.com/lesson.cfm/17330/633/4

Libertarianism holds that agents initially fully own themselves and have moral powers to acquire property rights in external things under certain conditions. It is normally advocated as a theory of justice in the sense of the duties that we owe each other. So understood, it is silent about any impersonal duties (i.e., duties owed to no one) that we may have.

Libertarianism can be understood as a basic principle or as a derivative one. For example, one might defend libertarianism on the basis of rule utilitarianism or rule contractarianism (see, e.g., Narveson 1988 ). Here, however, we shall focus on libertarianism as a natural rights doctrine.

Libertarianism is often thought of as “right-wing” doctrine. This, however, is mistaken for at least two reasons. First, on social—rather than economic—issues, libertarianism tends to be “left-wing”. It opposes laws that restrict consensual and private sexual relationships between adults (e.g., gay sex, non-marital sex, and deviant sex), laws that restrict drug use, laws that impose religious views or practices on individuals, and compulsory military service. Second, in addition to the better-known version of libertarianism—right-libertarianism—there is also a version known as “left-libertarianism”. Both endorse full self-ownership, but they differ with respect to the powers agents have to appropriate unappropriated natural resources (land, air, water, etc.). Right-libertarianism holds that typically such resources may be appropriated by the first person who discovers them, mixes her labor with them, or merely claims them—without the consent of others, and with little or no payment to them. Left-libertarianism, by contrast, holds that unappropriated natural resources belong to everyone in some egalitarian manner. It can, for example, require those who claim rights over natural resources to make a payment to others for the value of those rights. This can provide the basis for a kind of egalitarian redistribution.

...

Libertarianism holds that agents are, at least initially, full self-owners. Agents are (moral) full self-owners just in case they morally own themselves in just the same way that they can morally fully own inanimate objects. Full ownership of an entity consists of a full set of the following ownership rights: (1) control rights over the use of the entity: both a liberty-right to use it and a claim-right that others not use it, (2) rights to compensation if someone uses the entity without one's permission, (3) enforcement rights (of prior restraint if someone is about to violate these rights), (4) rights to transfer these rights to others (by sale, rental, gift, or loan), and (5) immunities to the non-consensual loss of these rights. Full ownership is simply a logically strongest set of ownership rights over a thing.[1] There is some indeterminacy in this notion (since there can be more than one strongest set of such rights), but there is a determinate core set of rights (see below).

At the core of full self-ownership, then, is full control self-ownership, the full right to control the use of one's person. Something like control self-ownership is arguably needed to recognize the fact there are some things (e.g., various forms of physical contact) that may not be done to a person without her consent, but which may be done with that consent.

Full-self ownership is sometimes thought to guarantee that the agent has a certain basic liberty of action, but this is not so. For if the rest of the world (natural resources and artifacts) is fully (“maximally”) owned by others, one is not permitted to do anything without their consent—since that would involve the use of their property. The protection that self-ownership affords is a basic protection against others doing certain things to one, but not a guarantee of liberty. Even this protection, however, may be merely formal. A plausible thesis of self-ownership must allow that some rights (e.g., against imprisonment) may be lost if one violates the rights of others. Hence, if the rest of world is owned by others, then anything one does without their consent violates their property rights, and, as a result of such violations, one may lose some or all of one's rights of self-ownership. This point shows that, because agents must use natural resources (occupy space, breathe air, etc.), self-ownership on its own has no substantive implications. It is only when combined with assumptions about how the rest of the world is owned (and the consequences of violating those property rights) that substantive implications follow.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/libertarianism/

Self-ownership (or individual sovereignty) is the condition where an individual has the exclusive moral right to control his or her own body and life. The writers William Rees-Mogg and James Dale Davidson described this condition as being a sovereign individual, in which individuals have supreme authority and sovereignty over their own choices, without the interference of governing powers. This notion is central to individualistic political philosophies such as abolitionism, ethical egoism, anarchism, classical liberalism and libertarianism. Those who support the product of labor as private property often premise their position on self-ownership, reasoning that if an individual owns himself then he personally owns his labor and the resulting products. Sovereign individuals hold to the premise that government only has authority and power which is given to it by the individual, with decentralized administrative organizations acting as servants to the individual and never their master.

...

The Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution is sometimes viewed as an implementation of the concept of self-ownership, as are some portions of the Bill of Rights.

...

Self-ownership could be viewed as a decentralized bottom-up philosophy, as opposed to totalitarianism being a centralized top-down system. Henry David Thoreau regarded self-ownership as a key component in achieving utopia, while Robert Nozick, an influential political philosopher, based his theory of property-ownership on the premise of self-ownership.

It has been argued by Hans-Hermann Hoppe that self-ownership is axiomatic. His reasoning is that a person contradicts himself when he argues against self-ownership because an individual must presuppose ownership of himself when he attempts to refute the position.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-ownership

To choose to be a libertarian is an attempt to avoid the inevitable feedback and judgement of others.

Doesn't seem to stop you, now does it?

It is safe,...

Not from the likes of you.

...you do not have to take any responsibility for the society you live in,

How do you support that?

...you can deflect all criticism by saying that you have opted out of the system.

The system seems to be rejecting it as opposed to us having to opt out of it. The philosophy remains valid and is quite entrenched into American history. Argue against it all you wish, just try and put up an actual argument for once as opposed to wailing against it because it condemns your absolutist, authoritarian partisan false dichotomy.

It is a defensive position, you have sacrificed your freedom to choose, for a political closet.

The freedom to think outside of the box and to choose to support philosophies and idealogies outside of the false paradigm that you are intending to shame others back inside seems to ask who is on the wrong side of the closet door. I'm thinking it is you that wish to restrain thought with your political 'absolute moralism'.

You have no responsibilities because you have chosen to avoid them.

There are no direct responsibilities because they fall on those that refuse to join the rest that prefer to change the entrenched flawed two-party paradigm.

The next time your at Wendys, just take whatever they give you, tell them you have abdicated your right to choose between cheese or no cheese. Or, maybe a libertarian should just order something not on the menu.

The sad, pathetic thing is how "wrong and ignorant" your condemnation of libertarianism really is. Rights are not abdicated through self-ownership and natural law, they begin with them.

[iman]

^There is no such thing as "self ownership" there is no "natural law" that governs humans and Ayn Rand should have been buried in a lead coffin with a stake through her heart.

No, she should have been chopped up, battered and served as chicken nuggets to self deceiving Wendys customers.

[-live-]

i think it should only be up to the person who is gay. if someone outed me without my will id be devastated! being gay shouldnt be so much of an issue! it doesnt stop the person doing there job well! so why should they have to make it clear to everyone there gay and face homophobic people!

[Toriko]

^There is no such thing as "self ownership" there is no "natural law" that governs humans and Ayn Rand should have been buried in a lead coffin with a stake through her heart.

No, she should have been chopped up, battered and served as chicken nuggets to self deceiving Wendys customers.

Not a fan of John Locke, the Enlightenment and the Age of Reason either, huh? You can irrationally hate all you want; I expect as much from those that purposely know little of history and knowledge, but the stereotype usually applies to right-wing Republicans... guess that's why one shouldn't go by generalizations alone. There are a couple of posters that come to mind that should learn from this example.

[iman]

i think it should only be up to the person who is gay. if someone outed me without my will id be devastated! being gay shouldnt be so much of an issue! it doesnt stop the person doing there job well! so why should they have to make it clear to everyone there gay and face homophobic people!

Well, maybe because homophobic people are your enemies? Maybe because you should not allow homophobic people to intimidate you? Because there is nothing wrong with you, there is something wrong with them.

[iman]

Not a fan of John Locke, the Enlightenment and the Age of Reason either, huh? You can irrationally hate all you want; I expect as much from those that purposely know little of history and knowledge, but the stereotype usually applies to right-wing Republicans... guess that's why one shouldn't go by generalizations alone. There are a couple of posters that come to mind that should learn from this example.

I didn't know there was a Locke Fan Club, at least not in the past two centuries. I'm sure they have no "original ideas". I see from the rest of your post that you, like Locke, assume a great deal, or is that just a defensive reaction?

There is nothing irrational about hate, one chooses to hate, and there are things worth hating (I mean besides cheese on your burger).

[Kulindahr]

When a man stands up in front of me, asking me for my vote, claiming honesty and integrity, then it is very much my business to test those claims.

I have not made it "everybody's business", he has, and not because of his party's anti-gay platform, but because he stood up and claimed to be honest.
-D

You're not talking about testing claims, you're talking about violating someone's privacy and integrity. The ONLY logical basis for such a move is the notion that you have ownership over that person.
Who made you the slave-master, the Fuhrer?

[Toriko]

I didn't know there was a Locke Fan Club, at least not in the past two centuries. I'm sure they have no "original ideas". I see from the rest of your post that you, like Locke, assume a great deal, or is that just a defensive reaction?

Pick and choose to what you reply aids you quite a bit, hm? It is you that makes a bunch of fallacious assumptions about libertarianism and seems to have a sad disdain about philosophy and history. You offer nothing constructive, just all this bitching and whining and hating.

There is nothing irrational about hate, one chooses to hate, and there are things worth hating (I mean besides cheese on your burger).

One can choose to do things that are irrational, so your point isn't proven by your follow-up. That's not the first time you've done that---you make an assertion and then make another as if that backs up anything. As for tastes, which is similar to aesthetics, there is the "eye of the beholder" argument so that is why some won't eat cheese or any other food. Also, there are those that don't eat dairy at all for good reason.

I've noticed you've given up on your original assertions, btw. Now, as typical, you just spot random ass things as if you are going to "get" me on something. You've not succeeded with that tactic yet... I suppose WC Fields' suggestion didn't stick, hm? What about what Einstein said about insanity?

[Kulindahr]

Where does this nasty little phrase "You own yourself" come from? Can one rent oneself out or sell oneself? No, you can sell your time or talent or even rent your body out, but not your self. You can be chained to a wall, but your self is still free to think or dream or whatever. How can yourself own itself? That's like a tree "owning" it self. The tree just is and you just are. Trying to impose a 19th century economic view on yourself (you as your own property, as if you owned an old obstinate mule) is simply an avoidance of the fact that you are free to make your own choices.

If you don't own yourself, you don't have to make choices -- someone else will do it for you. Self-ownership is the logical basis for freedom of choice, responsibility, individual dignity -- all those things the Democrats don't believe in.
The other choice is that someone else owns you. The U.S. of A. had a bit of a war over that issue, you know -- apparently your way of thinking comes from before, because you, as a Democrat, believe someone besides you own you, someone besides me owns me.
"Self ownership" is another way of saying "personal sovereignty", which is another way of saying "I'm in charge of myself", which is another way of saying "I'm responsible for myself" -- and that's a good place to stop, because it leads right into the reason that the Democrats are the enemy: the Democrat party does not believe a person is responsible for himself, or capable of being so; he is the product of his environment, so things aren't his fault, and he can't take care of himself, so we need tons of regulations.
What you're advocating is an abandonment of choice to a source of authority outside one's self. I call that tyranny, a fellow libertarian calls it authoritarian, but either way, it's part and parcel of "Democrat" as well as of "Republican" in this suffering country.

To choose to be a libertarian is an attempt to avoid the inevitable feedback and judgement of others. It is safe, you do not have to take any responsibility for the society you live in, you can deflect all criticism by saying that you have opted out of the system. It is a defensive position, you have sacrificed your freedom to choose, for a political closet. You have no responsibilities because you have chosen to avoid them.

Being a libertarian is hard work, O ignorant one. You have to be ready to give a reasonable answer to members of both major parties who come to harrass you into abandoning your principles and joining their patchwork quilt of compromises and deceptions. And only an imperiatlist would make the accusation "you have opted out of the system. To remind you of reality:

Personally, at a time when civil liberties are under attack and people are dying in the Iraq mess and the country has a disastrous foreign policy, I don't think it is particulary responsible for you chicken nugget eating libertarians to avoid your responsibility by voting for some Disneyesque third party. If you lived in France during the Nazi occupation would you tell the Resistance that you were a Libertarian and could not take sides?

But that's not the situation. If you want a parallel, we live in Poland, and every few years we can't tell whether the Germans or the Russians are going to oppress us, but we know it will be one of them.
You're telling me I have to vote for the German oppressors, or the Russian oppressors -- I'm saying, "No! I'm a POLE, and I'll vote for a Pole, until the oppressors are gone! And if they're never gone, I will at least have lived as a POLE, not as a collaborator!"

Of course you think it's my responsibility to vote Democrat -- but there are gays out there who will insist it's my responsibility to vote Republican. Both assume that since THEIR way is the RIGHT way, anyone not toeing their line has some sort of responsibility to line up and do so!
I've spent far too much time in my life bashing up against oppression and tyranny from both Republicans and Democrats to ever vote for either.

To me it's the Republicans and Democrats who are cowardly brainwashed wimps too cowed by prophecies of doom to look around and see that they're perpetuating it all, and to stand up and say "No more!" to the philosophy that says, "We own you." It's those who have awakened from the hypnotic trance who have become Libertarians (what all Americans once were) and Constitutionalists (what most Americans became) and Reform (what most Americans were a few generations back). It's those few who form alternative parties who are the Poles insisting on not being Russian collaborators OR German collaborators -- rather, who are the Americans who refuse to cooperate further with destroying the true American Dream.

You, and the Republicans, assume that you are right and they are wrong. Along with others, I'm telling you that you are BOTH wrong. When you say, "We need a change!", you mean ditch the Republicans and put your guys in. I agree that America needs a change, but when I say it, I mean that both of those options are like dirty diapers, and when a diaper is dirty, you change it -- to a clean one, not another dirty one.

I'm not in the market for dirty diapers, and I'm not in the market for kneeling down to some inconsistent authoritarian ideology that says it owns me, or at least a piece of me -- it can't have a piece of me (I got none to spare, thank you).

The next time your at Wendys, just take whatever they give you, tell them you have abdicated your right to choose between cheese or no cheese. Or, maybe a libertarian should just order something not on the menu.

That last remark almost comes close to the truth:
what libertarians are ordering is common sense and freedom -- but it isn't on YOUR menu.