Convoluted I’m a human citizen of the US which through its
Constitution grants its citizens a certain set of rights & privileges. It
has 3 branches-Executive, Legislative & Judicial and a border that is
“generally” respected and would be defended militarily if aggressively attacked.
I consider myself fortunate to be a citizen of a country that confers human
rights on its citizens- a rare thing. A human without a nation has no
rights-privileges or security.
As I tried to point out before being a libertarian means protecting the
liberties of all people, otherwise a dictator could be a libertarian. If one
thinks that nations do not allow people to have the same liberties , like an
immigrant or an american citizen , then he might be right but he surely is not
libertarian.
But should I adress you Natalie as an American or as a human? Do your
liberties derive as a consequence of your american heritage or is it because you
are human?
And how does a nation has more privileges than another? Who gave it the
priviledges to begin with?
Who decided whose property is each thing in the world?
Aren't all people equal in their effort to pursue their happiness?
Can we own things?
We can only loan things in an equalitarian way so that each person has
equal opportunity in life. To this end, noone should disallow the unprivileged a
better life because nothing makes someone better than another.
But when was the word nation first started to be used with the current
meaning? Did private property as a concept always exist?
Thank you Devin. While I appreciate Kevin’s sincerity-I see him in an
alternate universe. If it came to fruition, I think the unintended
consequences would be a “Mad Max” world of gang violence as opinions wavered
on the legitimacy of Big D or little d rights/privileges depending on the
location &moment- or govt imposed tyranny. Nation States exist, and they
have borders that are much more than mathematical crosshairs on the globe. You
can’t throw away thousands of years of civilizations’ attempt to codify
property and human rights & obligations. The best we can do is
encourage/support individuals to be more responsible citizens (of their
respective nations)which includes reining in the corrupt
govt/corporatist/military collusion that restrains all our progress.
Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2011 9:42 AM
Subject: Re: [P2P-F] Libertarians
Just
some quick thoughts:
Michel - I'd imagine - would rather the
government have all the guns and trust that they'll use them to enforce
equality than to have faith in the people and their capacity to
organize.
If you have communautarian feelings then express them through
actions - not taxes.
Ron Paul finds the federal government an
unacceptable entity to force people to use their private property in a
particular way. I might disagree with the extent to which he applies his
philosophy but I respect it enough not to demonize it.
Every
nation has a unique history and identity. I think we should encourage
political differentiation within the framework of increasing people's access
to technologies that enable them to escape coercion by becoming more self
sufficient.
On Mon, Oct 17, 2011 at 2:38 PM, Michel Bauwens
<michel@p2pfoundation.net>
wrote:
I think that this is the heart of the matter and an
obvious difference between 'left' and 'right' approaches'
it's
really about how far you extend the circle of care .. for right-minded
people it's nearly always about 'just for us' and they can have deep
communautarian feelings (except probably for committed anarcho-capitalists
who only believe in individual contracting and full commodification of all
things), by contrast the left wants to extend it. ron paul finds it
acceptable to refuse entry to black people on the basis of property rights,
something no person on the left could tolerate ... natalie explicetely
rejects the quest for equality even thought the revolt against inequality is
at the heart of this movement .. but we can find commonality around freedom
..
though of course, freedom without equality is a chimera, as you need a
gun to protect you from your neighbour ...
and the greatest the differential, the greater number of guns needed
(now nearly a quarter of the workforce ?)
Michel
On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 12:05 AM, Apostolis
Xekoukoulot cakis
<xekoukou@gmail.com>
wrote:
That is what a conservative libertarian
would say. ''Protect the liberty of a certain group of people, for example
the american people. This is how the greek athenian democrarcry worked as
well. It wars a democracy for menr. But if we start thinking about liberty
to a set of people we end up with the conclusion that everyone is a
libertarian (take as a set only yourself ). That would make the use of the
word libertarian unnecessary (as we all are libertarians). Since the word
is used to differentiate between people, we end up through Reductio ad absurdum that your defintion of
libertarian is wrong.
--
P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net
Connect: http://p2pfoundation.ning.com;
Discuss: http://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation
_______________________________________________
P2P
Foundation - Mailing list
http://www.p2pfoundation.net
https://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation
--
Devin Balkind
Director, Sarapis Foundation
_______________________________________________
P2P Foundation - Mailing
list
http://www.p2pfoundation.nethttps://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation
_______________________________________________
P2P Foundation - Mailing
list
http://www.p2pfoundation.net
https://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation