@averagejoe1 saidYou despise both; one cannot be the groveling bootlicker you are and have any concept of actual human freedom and/or liberty. You are too committed to having the elite rule over and economically dominate the People to be a supporter of such values.
People disagree all the time. Take you and me for instance. I like freedom and liberty, you have never written those words.
@no1marauder saidI’m sure every one will agree with you, but can you tell me if you are for liberty, that you believe in liberty at all costs? While you ponder, I will look up its definition.
You despise both; one cannot be the groveling bootlicker you are and have any concept of actual human freedom and/or liberty. You are too committed to having the elite rule over and economically dominate the People to be a supporter of such values.
@averagejoe1 saidNo, not at any cost: "“Your right to swing your arms ends just where the other man’s nose begins.” https://quoteinvestigator.com/tag/oliver-wendell-holmes/
I’m sure every one will agree with you, but can you tell me if you are for liberty, that you believe in liberty at all costs? While you ponder, I will look up its definition.
But liberty could be maximized IF we returned to a non-hierarchal society like Man existed in in his Natural State.
@no1marauder saidYes, your right to advance stops where I have aright to stop you. I have no idea how that applies here. Does it mean that your right to take something, like money, fro someone stops when you have no such right? Watcha mean?
No, not at any cost: "“Your right to swing your arms ends just where the other man’s nose begins.” https://quoteinvestigator.com/tag/oliver-wendell-holmes/
But liberty could be maximized IF we returned to a non-hierarchal society like Man existed in in his Natural State.
Funny you have the audacity to qualify liberty. It either is, or it ain’t. You must have worn your con law prof out. Did you pass that class?
So, you just can’t say you are for liberty. Maybe tomorrow? Don’t wet that bed while thinking it through.
The man cannot say he is for liberty. Another entry for my journal.
- Joined
- 06 May 15
- Moves
- 29080
@AverageJoe1
re: "You hate America, but want larger government?"
Wrong. I hate Earthlings and want a starship to get off this damn planet. A small one would suffice. 😉
@kevin-eleven said, Please don’t go we need everyone to be involved to get rich. The Duchess thinks I am a racist, but we need every color of persons in this country to be involved in our country. That is the only way that we can defeat China, if we can get everyone to believe in freedom and liberty, I think we can pull it off . Please rethink your leaving
@AverageJoe1
re: "You hate America, but want larger government?"
Wrong. I hate Earthlings and want a starship to get off this damn planet. A small one would suffice. 😉
@no1marauder saidMan in his natural state eats what he kills, Marauder. The men in ‘your’ ideal state eat what other people kill.
No, not at any cost: "“Your right to swing your arms ends just where the other man’s nose begins.” https://quoteinvestigator.com/tag/oliver-wendell-holmes/
But liberty could be maximized IF we returned to a non-hierarchal society like Man existed in in his Natural State.
So what are you talkin bout?. Aren’t you for the latter.? Confusing lot.
@no1marauder said"Liberty could be maximized if government could be minimized"
No, not at any cost: "“Your right to swing your arms ends just where the other man’s nose begins.” https://quoteinvestigator.com/tag/oliver-wendell-holmes/
But liberty could be maximized IF we returned to a non-hierarchal society like Man existed in in his Natural State.
I made that up!
@averagejoe1 saidMan in his Natural State eats what his group kills or gathers.
Man in his natural state eats what he kills, Marauder. The men in ‘your’ ideal state eat what other people kill.
So what are you talkin bout?. Aren’t you for the latter.? Confusing lot.
@no1marauder saidPray tell, what is his group?
Man in his Natural State eats what his group kills or gathers.
A classic post of one who reveres dependency. Can a man not be independent, (not member of a pitiful group) and go out and kill a rabbit or a deer for food? What are you meaning about a group? It is like a measure of comfort with libs, a ‘group’. I cannot imagine.
@averagejoe1 saidMan would have died out long before "civilization" if individuals had lived in a solitary manner. In fact, the evidence suggests that early primates starting banding together into groups of both sexes 50 million years ago! https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2011/11/how-humans-became-social
Pray tell, what is his group?
A classic post of one who reveres dependency. Can a man not be independent, (not member of a pitiful group) and go out and kill a rabbit or a deer for food? What are you meaning about a group? It is like a measure of comfort with libs, a ‘group’. I cannot imagine.
3 edits
@averagejoe1 saidYou are rather shockingly ignorant even for a right winger.
@AverageJoe1
Jesus. His group.
You seriously don't know that early Man lived in groups not in a solitary manner? This is something you should have been taught in middle school at the latest:
" Prehistoric hunter-gatherers lived in groups that consisted of several families resulting in a size of a few dozen people.[10] It remained the only mode of subsistence until the end of the Mesolithic period some 10,000 years ago, and after this was replaced only gradually with the spread of the Neolithic Revolution."
"The egalitarianism typical of human hunters and gatherers is never total, but is striking[......................] when viewed in an evolutionary context. One of humanity's two closest primate relatives, chimpanzees, are anything but egalitarian, forming themselves into hierarchies that are often dominated by an alpha male. So great is the contrast with human hunter-gatherers that it is widely argued by palaeoanthropologists that resistance to being dominated was a key factor driving the evolutionary emergence of human consciousness, language, kinship and social organization.[27][28][29]
Most anthropologists believe that hunter-gatherers do not have permanent leaders; instead, the person taking the initiative at any one time depends on the task being performed.[30][31][32] In addition to social and economic equality in hunter-gatherer societies, there is often, though not always, relative gender equality as well.[30]"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hunter-gatherer
@no1marauder saidHow does one respond to a post that compares today's society of individual and independent people (maybe you are not into independence, but rather dependent) with a society of thousands of years ago, campfires, caves and the like. Join together to fight off the lions!!!!
You are rather shockingly ignorant even for a right winger.
You seriously don't know that early Man lived in groups not in a solitary manner? This is something you should have been taught in middle school at the latest:
" Prehistoric hunter-gatherers lived in groups that consisted of several families resulting in a size of a few dozen people.[10] It remained the onl ...[text shortened]... not always, relative gender equality as well.[30]"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hunter-gatherer
Yeah, I heard in the 4th grade about neanderthals, etc, but usually debates of the day are about today. Even your man Marx is more in today than in in prehistoric times.
So, what is your perfect society, that of you and your 'links' sources? Dependency? Yuk.
@no1marauder saidA hierarchy is both desirable and necessary to a thriving society and perfectly "natural". Someone/s will/must rise to the top to lead whatever system is in place. Even in your utopian construct this may be a group or groups, this "is" a hierarchy. Society would be condemned without this "naturally" occurring event.
No, not at any cost: "“Your right to swing your arms ends just where the other man’s nose begins.” https://quoteinvestigator.com/tag/oliver-wendell-holmes/
But liberty could be maximized IF we returned to a non-hierarchal society like Man existed in in his Natural State.
I am sorry but it is nonsense to suggest otherwise. And trying to "create" this nonsensical non-hierarchal society would bring out more of mans corrupt nature and we would all be much worse off.
There will always be those that gravitate to positions of responsibility and those that want nothing to do with it whatsoever, again, this is hierarchy.
Capitalism is the best of all the systems, as long as it has social at its core. Averagejoe1 may differ with me on this but maybe not.