mikegordge@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
> George Dance wrote:
>
>>[This article was originally by the Ontario Libertarian Party under the
>>title "The Party of Choice', and opened with this paragraph: "The
>>Ontario Libertarian Party is proud to be known as 'The Party of
>>Choice.' Choice is what we stand for, and promoting choice is why we
>>exist." Permission is granted to any libertarian organization, list,
>>or website to reprint in full or part without changes (other than the
>>name of the organization)]
>
>
> The following is what I posted at another forum almost a year ago.
>
> I was reponding to the bits following the >s
>
>
>> The laws of nature
>>tells us nothing about how the world *should* be.
>
>
> Thats simply not true, in fact the exact opposite of what you have just
> said IS true.
>
> There are fundamental *natural* laws about man's nature that no man
> made law can change.
>
> eg It IS in the nature of man to choose his own values, which determine
> his own actions, CHOICE is man's nature, choice is to a human what
> wings are to the bird.
>
> Indeed, having choice ultimately determines man's freedom. No choice,
> no freedom.
>
> If one word is to replace freedom, Choice is that word.
>
> You remove CHOICE from a human being at your peril. It is immoral to
> remove something as natural as choice from a human being, just as it is
> absurd and cruel to remove the wings from a bird.
>
> Which is an argument for human beings having a right to defend their
> lives and their property, by at very least the same means by which they
> are threatened to be taken from him.
>
> The laws of man's nature do tell us exactly what standard laws of man's
> justice ought be based upon, or measured from.
There are indeed natural laws determining human nature, but it does not
follow that that determines what *should* be. If you claim that, it is
up to you to prove how this "should" is derived from the "is" of what
nature is.
Libertarianism is not based on the premise that a "should" can be
derived from an "is." Indeed, I would argue that, given the logical
arbitrariness of what "should" be (how people should act) and what value
judgments they make, the libertarian ethic--that each person should be
free to act as he chooses as long as he does not infringe on the rights
of others--is the most *reasonable* ethic. But you're on shaky ground
if you claim this can be established in the way we establish facts or
physical laws. And of course libertarianism is not and does not claim
to be a complete moral theory. As Murray Rothbard put it:
"Libertarianism does not offer a way of life; it offers liberty, so that
each person is free to adopt and act upon his own values and moral
principles."
>> We must have a goal
>>in mind.. such as human happiness, or whatever you think is the moral
>>purpose of man.
>
>
> Happiness is an emotion of the human individual, an emotion is a
> response of a value judgement.
>
> All emotions have a cause, the cause of happiness being, or the
> defintion of happiness being, the feeling of joy from the successful
> fulfilllment of one's own values.
>
> Each human being therefore must be left alone to determine his own
> values, because it is only HIS values that can be that cause of HIS own
>
> happiness.
>
> In other words the ONLY thing you can do to cause a human being's
> happiness is to leave him alone to persue and fulfill his own values.
>
>
>>The question is asked from the premise that puni****ng and imprisoning
>>violators of the law is necessary.
>
>
> Sends ****vers down my spine when I hear people use the *law* as the
> standard to be used to determine the imprisonment of people.
>
> Robbers, rapists, murderers fraudsters, people who initiate harm
> against peaceful defenceless and harmless human beings belong in jail.
>
> A robber who repays his victim to the satisfaction of the victim does
> not always belong in jail, plus there is plenty of evidence to show
> that a robber who is forced and or who chooses to repay his victims in
> full is less likely to reoffend.
>
>
>>What "private police force" are you reffering to?
>
>
> Have you never been to shopping centres and seen privately employed
> security gaurds? Have you not heard of private investigators?
>
>
>> After all the mafia
>>could be considered a private police force.
>
>
> Only if they dont **initiate** the harm. To police means to protect, to
>
> up-hold man's choice.
>
>
> Michael Gordge
>
|
