-
Join the MyBroadband community
South Africa’s biggest forum. Discuss, discover, and connect with thousands of members.
-
Question of the Day: Genuinely useful vs overrated camping gear?
Muslim extremism. Do they know something we don't?
- Thread starter JHatman
- Start date
Freshy-ZN
Executive Member
Pray tell then why its so popular in Islamic states? Im not trying to be funny but its hardly the in thing in the Western states.
Im willing to bet there are many Muslims that could be persuaded to do exactly that. Thankfully SA still subscribes to some semblance of western style law and its mostly the norm.
It's not that I have the need to figure it out, it was a question that I was hoping one of the Muslims here could answer, honestly.
That is most likely some of the reasons I'm sure, which would imply that most Islamic states are impoverished oppressive shirt holes.
Bearing in mind that that respect for the other party is also a must.
Generally, most people say if religon was taken out of the equation the world would be a better place - I say leave religon and take capitalism and all the other 'isms out of the equation and the world will be a better place.
capetownguy
Expert Member
- Joined
- Jun 25, 2007
- Messages
- 3,206
- Reaction score
- 0
Everybody just needs to have a few drinks and calm down.
Freshy-ZN
Executive Member
And look at women's hair , head hair that is.
You are a moron.
The answer is going back to true principles of freedom. Do not harm others or their property. Thats it. If that happens it works.
laissez faire economics or free-market capitalism is THE ONLY ECONOMIC system compatible with the libertarian axiom of non-aggression and strict property rights. FACT.
If you believe in true freedom then free-market capitalism is THE ONLY answer.
Japan has been in a recession for over 20 years.
bs - i dont believe that its the only one
Last edited:
Its a fact. Its the only system compatible with libertarian value and the axiom of non-aggression towards property and person.
Any other system basically requires laws that force people to do certain things or not to do certain things, regardless of whether aggression has been used or not. E.G. Drugs HAVE to be tested and given the go ahead by the FDA. You have to get permission to operate certain business. Central banking or fractional reserve banking and fiat money.
Besides all socialist system require centralist planning, which can only happen either through taxes, which is theft (Violates non-aggression axiom), or through slavery (People work but don't get the fruits of their labour, its pooled together then rationed out by "authorities")
So all socialist and central planning systems are out. The only way these systems can exist and not violate the non-aggression axiom is if people voluntarily agree to em, by that I mean everyone. If I agree to live a communal lifestyle with a bunch of others who agree, thats fine. But when I decide to leave and to take my land with me, I have that choice.
The only LAWs that should exists should be with respect to property rights, thats it.
Any other system basically requires laws that force people to do certain things or not to do certain things, regardless of whether aggression has been used or not. E.G. Drugs HAVE to be tested and given the go ahead by the FDA. You have to get permission to operate certain business. Central banking or fractional reserve banking and fiat money.
Besides all socialist system require centralist planning, which can only happen either through taxes, which is theft (Violates non-aggression axiom), or through slavery (People work but don't get the fruits of their labour, its pooled together then rationed out by "authorities")
So all socialist and central planning systems are out. The only way these systems can exist and not violate the non-aggression axiom is if people voluntarily agree to em, by that I mean everyone. If I agree to live a communal lifestyle with a bunch of others who agree, thats fine. But when I decide to leave and to take my land with me, I have that choice.
The only LAWs that should exists should be with respect to property rights, thats it.
Last edited:
So murder is fine as long as you dont take anything ?
McSack
Executive Member
Your body/life is your property isn't it?
As they other guy pointed out, your body is part of your property. Actually it is the foundation of property rights.
And it makes no difference what you'd like to call it/yourself, the Islamic terrorists will still target you if you're an infidel.
It's a misconception that Israel and the US are their only targets.
I haven't said US or Israel are their only targets, Mr Strawman.
The best we can do is defend ourselves. Are you saying that invading, bombing and preemptive "blind" attacks is the best way of defending ourselves? (I say blind because buildings are bombed, and they contain civilians to)
We have every right to defend ourselves, but this must be strictly confined to self-defense, I.E an aggressive act on us or our property must be taking place.
Justice means protection of each individual's liberty, or right, to work out his destiny free from interference or expropriation by others.
The function of government is to administer justice, that is, to preserve freedom, not to dictate activities. And government means, not "society" or "all of us," but those persons designated to prevent each individual from interfering with the liberty of any other.
So according to libertarian principles, governments are not allowed to interfere in the lives of "it's" citizens. How then can we justify governments (US State) interfering in the lives of people in other countries in the Middle East.
The best we can do is defend ourselves. Are you saying that invading, bombing and preemptive "blind" attacks is the best way of defending ourselves? (I say blind because buildings are bombed, and they contain civilians to)
We have every right to defend ourselves, but this must be strictly confined to self-defense, I.E an aggressive act on us or our property must be taking place.
Justice means protection of each individual's liberty, or right, to work out his destiny free from interference or expropriation by others.
The function of government is to administer justice, that is, to preserve freedom, not to dictate activities. And government means, not "society" or "all of us," but those persons designated to prevent each individual from interfering with the liberty of any other.
So according to libertarian principles, governments are not allowed to interfere in the lives of "it's" citizens. How then can we justify governments (US State) interfering in the lives of people in other countries in the Middle East.
It sure beats isolationism