File[PhilosophyOfLiberty.swf] - (1.02 MB)
[_] [?] Philosophy Anonymous 10/04/10(Mon)15:01 No.1388524
i'm in yur /f/
makin' you think
Marked for deletion (old).
>> [_] Anonymous 10/04/10(Mon)15:55 No.1388553
Fine hats give you the right to do anthing
>> [_] Anonymous 10/04/10(Mon)16:03 No.1388556
>implying you can't take people's things by force
>implying that isn't what 99% of human history is about with things like justly acquired property
being relatively new concepts
>implying property is as important as life
OP, you're fucking retarded. Give me my 5 minutes back.
>> [_] Anonymous 10/04/10(Mon)16:19 No.1388575
jesus christ, did you just read ayn rand or something?
>> [_] Anonymous 10/04/10(Mon)16:24 No.1388577
>>1388556
>implying you can't take people's things by force
Everything in society is kept in check by force.
Impunity leads to destruction.
>> [_] Anonymous 10/04/10(Mon)17:20 No.1388599
> >implying property is as important as life
Try living without any property.
Anyway, importance isn't the issue. Your property is a representative for values acquired in the
past, so your property *is* your life.
>> [_] Anonymous 10/04/10(Mon)17:22 No.1388602
>>1388599
Or, conversely, your life IS your property.
Quite simply, who owns you?
Who's responsible for you?
>> [_] Anonymous 10/04/10(Mon)17:34 No.1388605
>>1388599
>your property *is* your life
Uh huh. 'Scuse me while I go be a human being.
>> [_] Anonymous 10/04/10(Mon)17:40 No.1388609
>>1388602
>>1388599
>>1388577
Stop self-bumping
>>1388605
Stop bumping this crap. Yeah, sage works in /f/ now.
>> [_] Anonymous 10/04/10(Mon)17:52 No.1388618
>>1388602
In the same way a Volvo *is* a car. And one owns oneself, of course.
>> [_] Anonymous 10/04/10(Mon)18:09 No.1388624
no one disagrees that all people are autonomous and do not have the right to repress nor can give
the right to be repressed. the thing is, history has been so fraught with inequity, oppression,
and overall disregard for this inherently egalitarian viewpoint that human relationships are not
as simple as this flash points out. white privilege exists, gross socioeconomic disparity results
in unequal playing fields, etc.
>> [_] Anonymous 10/04/10(Mon)18:09 No.1388625
>>1388624
the underlying postulates of this flash are so broad that they can argue for almost anything -
randian objectivism allowing "the invisible hand" to guide economic relations, socialist
governments compensating for the iniquities of the past to allow for a society that actually can
be made up of individuals that can provide for themselves, or even complete anarcho-syndicalism
allowing for a society without power structures that remove sovereignty. thus, the idea that
liberty requires individual property and a lack of governmental representation is specious and
only one side of the story.
>> [_] Anonymous 10/04/10(Mon)18:10 No.1388627
>>1388625
tl;dr: establishing a definition of liberty can result in any number of equally valid
interpretations of ideal society, and this particular one seems incomplete
also, fine hats override all liberty
>> [_] Anonymous 10/04/10(Mon)18:19 No.1388631
Every fucking pretentious assertion in this flash can be countered with a simple asking "why".
also:
Sure is alienated in here!
>> [_] Anonymous 10/04/10(Mon)18:30 No.1388641
>>1388631
please give something that can't be countered with "why"
all knowledge, from math to language to science to anything else, is based on assumptions
>> [_] Anonymous 10/04/10(Mon)18:41 No.1388651
>>1388631
> Why does one own ones own life?
Ownership is exclusive control over a limited resource. To say that someone owns you is
equivalent to saying you're a puppet on strings controlled by someone else, and consequently any
opinion you have is not your own and any argument absurd. It's like saying reality doesn't exist.
Also, it can often be assumed as most people agree that slavery isn't moral.
> Why does one exist in time?
It is self-evident.
> Why is past, present and future manifested in property, liberty and life?
I find this adequately explained in the video.
> ... more self-evident things...
>> [_] Anonymous 10/04/10(Mon)18:42 No.1388652
cont.
> Why can trade only be between consenting parties?
As ownership is exclusive control, if it didn't have ones consent it would be theft.
> ... things that are true per definition ...
> It is just as immoral if murder, theft, or slavery is committed by one person against another
or by the many against the few.
Because it violates your right to your own life just as much.
I got bored.
>>1388641
Axioms sounds nicer. Also, what makes an axiom true is that is cannot be argued against without
first assuming that it's true.
>> [_] Anonymous 10/04/10(Mon)19:42 No.1388692
induring shitstorm
>> [_] Anonymous 10/04/10(Mon)20:37 No.1388722
This flash is obvious 101. Why not just say don't do drugs, drugs are bad and give me my time
back.
>> [_] sage sage 10/04/10(Mon)20:40 No.1388725
pretty fucking shitty OP.
Spelling out a whole bunch of obvious shit with bad fonts and bad pan flute music.
>> [_] Anonymous 10/04/10(Mon)20:52 No.1388730
>>1388722
Because pot's a drug, and I don't know many people who have died from pot.
>> [_] Anonymous 10/04/10(Mon)20:57 No.1388733
>>1388730
YOU'RE RIGHT I'M SORRY POT IS OKAY AND IN NO WAY HARMFUL TO THE BODY
>> [_] Anonymous 10/04/10(Mon)21:04 No.1388739
>>1388733
If you can cite some research or proof to any assertion or claims that pot has some detrimental
effects, you are welcome to present it and refute my claim that pot is, by and large, harmless.
Otherwise, you are just throwing stones; ad lapidem.
