Just one question though, are you aware that some of your writings come forward as a tad right wing?

Just one question though, are you aware that some of your writings come forward as a tad right wing?

Maybe, mostly because most here don't really understand them.

They aren't right or left, they're libertarian.

Just one question though, are you aware that some of your writings come forward as a tad right wing?

Maybe, mostly because most here don't really understand them.

They aren't right or left, they're libertarian.

From my point of view, they indeed are right-wing even though I understand them. It's just a matter of where you stand. Most libertarians are right-wing in my eyes.

I was more thinking about you saying that people are left-wing:-)

So thusly I surmise that you do not want to wear clothes around sausage-blowers and hemp-growers, but that you wish to be fully clothed around hawks (feathered or not)?

From my point of view, they indeed are right-wing even though I understand them. It's just a matter of where you stand. Most libertarians are right-wing in my eyes.

Libertarians aren't any more right than they are left. They would shut down corporate welfare just as fast as they would shut down individual welfare.

I was more thinking about you saying that people are left-wing:-)

I don't think I've said that. Maybe.

So thusly I surmise that you do not want to wear clothes around sausage-blowers and hemp-growers, but that you wish to be fully clothed around hawks (feathered or not)?

Ummmmm... Yes?

But Kant has been thoroughly bashed on the front of Universal values a long time ago. What is universal is just culturally derived from common practice in the beforementioned culture. For instance it is okay for an american leader to be pro executions, but that is not okay for a european leader since in europe consensus is against the procedure. So for that there is no universal value. And I would be seriously surprised if you or anyone else could come up with something that is a universal value, because that would also have to be TRUE for ALL.

Surprise: Truth, Righteousness, Reliability are three out of many universal values which are appreciated in every culture.

Is truth really universal? And what is truth? For instance an author who is writing a fictional book is not stating something that is in a strict sense true, but it is still upheld in many societies as something good. The theory behind a nuclear bomb is in many ways TRUE, but most people do not see it as something "good".The only things that are universally true is well-formed formal sentence logic. Some mathematicians do not agree on this and says that mathematics in a closed system based on mathematical logics is also true.
Righteousness? Whose righteousness are you talking about? George Bush certainly believe that he is that. You do so, and so does many others. Problem is that their definition of it is not the same. I do not think I am righteous, I know I am not. So that can't be universal.
Reliability? If that was something universal, how come then that most things and people break when either the warranty or the contract has run out, the rest break their reliabality thingy before that date.

Normally here a swede for instance will come up with that it is a universal value to not spank children. An american will come up with that it is not okay to eat children. Most cultures will come up with that sex is not okay with children. But there is probably somewhere out there a spanking cannibalistic pedophile who will go "Oh yeah! Says who?".

IMHO a too exaggerated example to be taken serious.

Yes it is exaggerated, but obviously you couldn't prove it wrong.

So the only viable option is to say "that freedom is the abillity to live by the majority values". Which is actually the system behind most cultures way of instigating laws. But it is not TRUE freedom in every sense of the word. And thusly true freedom is a chimera sought after by lesser souls without contact with reallity.

Sad that you are believing this. I think that many of the people who don't wish to see (and even fight for) a better world are just slaves of greed and envy or of ignorance.

And now you are putting words in my mouth that I never said. Stop doing that. I find that it is a large infringement on my personal freedom that your doing.

I do fight for a better world in more ways than you would understand. But that does not make me into a such an idealistic person that I do not see how the world is. By better understanding it I can actually do more.
Question: What have you done personally to make the world a better place for other people without being egoistic while doing it?
Answer: Nothing. (And I can prove it)

You are well meaning young man. But you are seriously lacking in knowledge. I suggest that you study philosophy to get your argumentation straightened out. Because you are right now just reinventing a wheel that was finnished in constructing more than 2000 years ago. And if I might add, it is fun like heck to study philosophy, but not easy.
If you want to read up some more I suggest John Rawls "A Theory of Justice". I found that book really good.

Carl

Is it liberty to stop people and corporations from doing welfare? I thought that was totaliarism.

So your libertarianism is all about you being against everything else for the sake of it? And wanting to force everything to your view?

I guess that you do like speed and moving pistons and rushing steem to? Read the futurist manifesto man.

I think any person (also the poor ones) do have the right to have a place to live, to get educated, to get medical treatment, to get enough food, - all in all to have the same opportunities as every other person in the entire country.

And I believe that any society which allows poverty among their citizens has to care that these basic rights are granted to everybody. Security means are second priority.

But the arguments of the both of you, R/B and Rush, sound similar to some ideas I've read about: of Ben Tucker and Murray Rothbarth - ideas I absolutely cannot agree with. Also the "Objectism" ideas of Ayn Rand are contrary to my convictions. These three philosophers' ideas I only can call egocentric.

In my opinion, social acts like welfare or others are absolutely necessary in a country which allows poverty. I think each society needs the opposite of being egocentric: to help those in need, to strengthen the the week, to live together instead of coincidentally side by side.

If it's OK for you to use force to make me pay for your silly education programs, you can understand why it's OK for others to make you pay for the WHISC and the CIA and War in Iraq.

What on earth are you talking about? I'm probably speaking for a couple of others when I ask this...your comments coming from a german, after you earlier made a sort of eugenics claim on people with illnessess, that you lack a certain credibility here.

There was one excuse you gave about not having a facility with english that may have been the culprit but since then you have clearly shown skills in the english language that rival most college graduates in our country. You clearly know what you're saying.

Had you said this right from the beginning, I never would have commented.

Your earlier comments about people having 'diseases inside of themselves' don't need further references.

Your earlier comments about people having 'diseases inside of themselves' don't need further references.

"I'm trying to maintain a shred of dignity in this world." - Me