IntenseDebate - Deep

10 years ago @ The Heritage Foundry - Cost of Amnesty to U.S... · 1 reply · +2 points

Maybe instead of pointing out that immigration is the problem, maybe Heritage should point out the programs that give immigrants and other individuals money in this country... Problem solved!

But honestly, fora "liberty" think tank like Heritage, they should understand that I can have whomever I want live on my property, despite anyone elses objections.

And lastly I had to laugh today when I heard on Bloomberg radio a quote by the heritage spokeswoman "Free markets need secure borders.” HA. In other words, we need to have unfree movement of workers in order to have a free market.. Ya, ok. Typical statist nonsense.

11 years ago @ Ludwig von Mises Insti... - Libertarian Anarchy - ... · 0 replies · +1 points

Ownership means 100% control over property. Property has an owner. Whomever that owner is has 100% control.

11 years ago @ Ludwig von Mises Insti... - Libertarian Anarchy - ... · 0 replies · 0 points

Absolutely true!

11 years ago @ Ludwig von Mises Insti... - Libertarian Anarchy - ... · 0 replies · 0 points

Respectfully I have to agree and disagree with you. Every argument has a conclusion. Your conclusion is that something is logically invalid. Whether something IS or IS NOT, that still produces a conclusion, again, yours being something is logically invalid. This is an argument, as every argument has a conclusion. But the premises you have chosen do not prove that conclusion. So to say that you don’t need a true premise is somewhat true. There are most definitely the correct premises that make a true conclusion, true. I could say something is true, we all know it is, and have the wrong premises in trying to prove it.

And to add to this, what you are implying is that something being just or unjust is subjective. I could believe that you writing articles is unjust, but that does not make it so, nor does that make it true. Just as if someone thinks that if I own too much property is unjust does not make it so. So if we have no truth here, what is the point? Do you believe in things being relatively just?

Lastly, to add to my first paragraph with regards to your conclusion I would kindly invite you to come up with some true premises to prove your conclusion, as I see none that exist.

11 years ago @ Ludwig von Mises Insti... - Libertarian Anarchy - ... · 1 reply · 0 points

I agree with Seguso's analysis. I want to point out what I believe is false about your statement: “Suppose, e.g., that one thinks that no one ought to possess in excess of 25 percent more property than anyone else. Then, Andrew's acquisition of property might be unjust, although it does not violate the rights of one person to the resource acquired as against others whose rights are not violated. I hasten to add that I do not favor such a rule.”

It is still not unjust because “one thinks that no one out to possess…”. You can’t base a conclusion (Andrew’s unjust acquisition) on a false premise (no one can own more than 25% of property). Especially when that false premise is unjust in itself. So you’ve taken an unjust premise, to come up with a conclusion that you deem unjust.. Logical nonsense.

11 years ago @ Antiwar.com Blog - Iran's Nuclear Program... · 0 replies · +6 points

And actually he did not, what he said was ""this regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time" just as the Shah's regime in Iran had vanished.

Notice the word "regime" and not Israel??

Taken a little out of context don't you think?

11 years ago @ Antiwar.com Blog - Iran's Nuclear Program... · 0 replies · +5 points

Again, a threat is just that, nothing more.

A threat doesn't give someone the right to invade their lands and murder their citizens.

And WTF does Israel have to do with the US? Nothing!

11 years ago @ Antiwar.com Blog - Iran's Nuclear Program... · 0 replies · +5 points

I browsed your little direct democracy blog and I must say, based on the morality, 51% and other tabs you have everything as bass ackwards as any neocon I have ever seen...

11 years ago @ Antiwar.com Blog - Iran's Nuclear Program... · 0 replies · +2 points

"Illegal aliens" - I didn't know aliens existed??

11 years ago @ Antiwar.com Blog - You Just Can't Trust T... · 0 replies · +4 points

You had it almost right, but it should have been - "...of any other nation--absent a concurrent [ATTACK ON] American citizens or American sovereignty." You see, a "threat" is a subjective arbitrary concept that any of our warmongering leaders can determine is real, without proof.

IntenseDebate Comment System

Connect with Deep_Thinker

People I'm following

Deep_Thinker