Jump to content

SOCALHUSKER

Members
  • Content Count

    1,568
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

SOCALHUSKER last won the day on March 24 2010

SOCALHUSKER had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

1 Neutral

About SOCALHUSKER

  • Rank
    Scout Team
  • Birthday 02/23/1980

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=17008953&ref=profile

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    San Diego, CA
  • Interests
    Nebraska Football, Yankees Baseball, Hiking, Camping, Rugby, Tennis, Golf, Austrian Economics, Anti-Political Thought, and Anything Competitive.
  1. Why would anyone want to live like that? Besides, how anyone can equate or offer the failures and intervention of government; along with the poverty, irresponsibility and destruction it entails; as proof against anarchy is beyond me. Anarchy is not, as your article and Hobbs claim; a society void of order, a "poor, nasty or brutish life" or any other depiction of violence, but rather the radical notion that nobody else is your property and that you have no right to initiate violence or theft against anyone to fulfill your subjective whims. If you somehow disagree, here's a good one for you
  2. Intellectual Property and Libertarianism, a great piece by Stephan Kinsella, a patent attorney and one of the leading libertarian IP experts.
  3. That's a big issue for a lot of libertarians. However, I don't think IP should be protected because once someone purchases or make some kind of voluntary exchange with another individual, whether it is for a book, music, classes, or an ipad that product becomes the purchasing person's property. When it becomes their property they can do with it however they choose and if that means copying it and producing similar, or better products, they are well within their rights. What they cannot do though is turn around and try to sell someone else's products as their own. Not because it would infringe
  4. Why We Don’t Compromise A few years after the founding of The Future of Freedom Foundation some 20 years ago, a donor who had been giving us $1,000 a year telephoned me and asked me to write an op-ed in favor of school vouchers and send it to newspapers in his state. I told him that we could never do such a thing. FFF’s mission, I reminded him, was to present an uncompromising case for libertarianism, which included an end to all government involvement in education. He bluntly told me that if I would not write such an op-ed, he would cease his support of FFF. He never donated to us again.
  5. I'd go with the following: "the form or system of rule by which a state, community, etc., is governed" So, it governs a territorial or geographical area? How does it govern? How does it derive consent? How is it funded?
  6. Yeah, that's exactly what this is all about, what I want to hear!! You care to add anything valuable to the conversation or are sarcastic and meaningless posts all that you strive for? BTW, I don't think you've ever expressed your definition of government either. Care to enlighten us?
  7. Thanks, I think it could also.
  8. over, simply because there will be people like me just posting to say over or under... No input on definitions Cacti?
  9. knapplc, Do you care to appease us with your definitions? From the numerous posts and opinions you've shared in this section, you must have at least one? Or is topic derailment and the threat of merging threads your way of sweeping eye-opening issues, or conversation you disagree with, under the table?
  10. After reading the following article, Historic Preservation vs. Private-Property Rights, and after much discussion/debate in this section in regards to situations involving property rights, I'd like to know what your opinions are pertaining to this matter, and also how did you come up with them? I believe it is paramount and vital for the case of justice, peace, morality, prosperity and basic civility that property rights be upheld to the fullest. If not, there is absolutely zero objective standard to base any of our laws, exchanges or agreements on; and we are then left with a case of mig
  11. So, after knapplc pointed out that he and I have many conflicting definitions and therefore could not possibly compromise on any arguments as it pertains to government, I thought it would be beneficial and insightful to have a thread that pertained strictly to political and/or religious definitions. In the SOCAL's Razor thread I stated, I have yet to see an answer and thought that maybe others might want to chip in their two cents.
  12. A couple of commentaries on this debacle. The first, This is War The second, How We Lost Our Souls
×
×
  • Create New...