[Fangrim]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready Ok, what is a society for the purpose of this thread? A soverign nation? How many soverign nations do you know that will "tolerate" their nation being divided on this premise?

Had people begun bonding into pure democratic governments since time began, I have no idea what type of instititutions of bindings they might have created.
Given that we have sovereign nations now, if we were to transform into a populist government, yes, that is likely.

Of course, in this age where governments assume liens of ownership of their lands, people would not be able to take their real estate with them. They would have to relocate.

A collective will is like a vague poll. You say you are ok with the "government" or "society" sacrificing lives at the will of the majority, to please the will of the majority, at the expense and cost of minority lives?

The collective will is brought to bear with elections and popular referenda. If you want to consider those "vague polls," then even a libertarian democracy rests on them.
Correct. "Majority rule; no minority rights."
The people could very well vote in a bill of rights though.

I would rather die, and would intend to take as many of those oppressors with me as possible on my way out. They have the right to disagree, naturally and legally(in the U.S.), and I, like many, would make the "majority" pay a VERY steep price in lives for such types of action. The collective will takes no precedence over individual will, or rights, certainly by nature, and assuredly in our laws.

The right to disagree? You seem to come up with these rights every post. Where do you come up with them?

I'm sure you would resist considerably. But who exactly are the "oppressors" but your own neighbors who voted on how they want their society run?
Do you consider others "oppressors" when they vote in a president you don't like? Are they "oppressors" when elect representatives you oppose? Don't tell me that you would try to kill as many people as you can simply because you got outvoted!

It is no fault of the majority, if that well armed minority wipes them out in their path to oppression by force, by ever means necessary, up to and including guerilla war, terror and mass bombings.

Why the assumption that force will be used?

You assume many things Osborn. What rights you have, what path this populist government would take...
You assume that "the majority" is an entity of evil tyranny, and "the minority" a band of freedom fighters.
We HAVE majorities and minorities ALREADY in the United States, and the majorities overrule the minorities. The only difference is that in a populist state, democracy becomes more direct with additional use of popular referenda, and that noone has any "rights" beyond what they legislate as rights.

“It only stands to reason that where there's sacrifice, there's someone collecting the sacrificial offerings. Where there's service, there is someone being served. The man who speaks to you of sacrifice is speaking of slaves and masters, and intends to be the master.” -Ayn Rand

Why the assumption of sacrifice?
Osborn, most of this legislation will quite possibly be simply what we already DO in the United States. Taxes...military spending...energy bills, immigration reforms, whatever. Standard fare.

That sounds like "fuzzy logic". Without objective, defined justice, there can be no respect nor representation of the individual. Many people, myself included, view all the rights enumerated, as well as others, as "non-negotiable" and requisites to a satisfying life.

Yes, you and others view them as such. And others beyond you may not.
You have decided what rights everyone should have, regardless of what rights the rest of the public actually WANTS everyone to have. Rights are nothing more than characteristics recognized as being in accordance with some standard or principle, with the presumption that these characteristics' integrities should be protected.

What "right" do you have to decide what rights EVERYONE has?
You are putting people in cages, Osborn.

If a person tries to remove those rights, they are in essence trying to remove my ability to live a satisfying life, which makes me directly value their life, much less, and would put them directly at risk by the abject threat of force against me, my liberty, my rights.

And that is the great inherent contradiction in libertarianism.

Your liberty, your rights, against YOU.

What if legislation that is fine with YOU and in keeping with YOUR conception of rights infringes on someone ELSE's conception? What if one individual thinks he has the RIGHT to kill anyone he pleases? Anti-murder laws would infringe on that personal right.
Why do you find the right to murder ridiculous but the right to life inalienable?
And why must your personally made distinction hold true for everyone?


I'm going to have to go now; hopefully I'll respond to the rest of the post later today.