Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz wrote: ↑Mon Jan 15, 2018 11:21 am
In that case, Libertarians ought to be inherently anti-capitalist, as it has violated other humans' rights throughout history and is doing so today. Especially their property rights as the money that rightfully belongs to the worker is being taken by the capitalist parasite.
Libertarians are for freedom to choose. How many people in the DPRK get to choose where they work? What happens if they make the little fat guy mad? (anti-aircraft guns/ wild dogs)
You are parroting imperialist propaganda here, especially the bit about wild dogs which has already been shown to be fake news. Jang Song-thaek was not eaten by wild dogs. This claim originated from a Chinese satirist.
Jang Song-thaek was killed by being shot. He was also killed for a legitimate reason in that he was conspiring with the CIA in order to bring about regime change within the country. I personally think that he should have been given life imprisonment rather than the death penalty, however, you have already established that you support the death penalty for people who violate the N.A.P. which Jang Song-thaek most certainly did.
"How many people in the DPRK get to choose where they work?"
I assume that you are referring to the Songbun system, the system of ascribed status that supposedly exists within the DPRK. There is no evidence for such a system actually existing other than refugees from the DPRK who are most of the time pushed to give the most sensationalist accounts of how harsh life was in the country that they can. I have pointed out numerous examples of this on this forum, but if you would like more information about this then I am happy to deliver it to you.
It is safe to say that the DPRK, with a people-oriented socialist system centered around self-reliance, does allow people to choose where they work.
Regardless, pointing to the DPRK as an example of a socialist country where people do not get to choose where they work is a "Proof by example" fallacy as it ignores the socialist countries where people could choose where they worked and a "Red Herring" fallacy as it is diverting attention away from the fact that in every single capitalist country people do not have freedom to choose. This is because they are forced to either work in any of the places where the majority of the money which is rightfully theirs will be taken by capitalist parasites, or they will starve and die on the streets.
They have no more choice than you do between remaining in a country where you will be taxed, going to another country where you will be taxed, going to North Korea (which you know to be evil because the CIA-funded media told you so and therefore it must be true), going to jail for not paying your taxes, or killing yourself so that you don't have to pay any taxes.
If Libertarians believe that taxation is immoral because the money that rightfully ought to be yours is taken and you don't really have a choice in it, then they should believe the same for capitalism.
For fucks sake if you want to troll, go back a page or two and pretend to be that person again. It was both entertaining and informative, and actually put forth valid reasons for your "position". (And likely seemed more realistic that this latest post, which seems more like the older post...and it makes me dizzy. )
I am not the one who repeated an erroneous claim and used fallacies. I am sure that this was unintentional, I would be very surprised if this was actually intentional. However, if I was a troll, making erroneous claims and fallacies is exactly what I would be doing.
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz wrote: ↑Mon Jan 15, 2018 11:21 am
I am also not sure how stealing a car ought to incur the death penalty. It seems very extreme to me. Would there also be a death penalty for stepping on somebody else's front law (their property)?
A car is a large financial purchase, that provides someone with the ability to commute to a job. If someone takes another persons car, the person whose car was stolen can't commute to their job, and cannot provide for their family or themselves. Taking their car hurts them not just financially, but possibly in a way that leads to them or their family starving/ being forced onto the streets. I (and most Libertarians) are peaceful people who don't want to hurt anybody. We just want to be allowed to succeed or fail based on our own merits. But if someone tries to violate our personal space, we should be able to counteract with appropriate force.
If you step on my lawn, I'll tell you to please stop that. If you don't, I'll call you an asshole and go back inside. But if you try to steal my car, .357 magnum lead flying your way.
[/quote]
I understand now why the lawn would not be as serious as the car. However, I still do not see any reason for the death penalty to be incurred on somebody for stealing a car. This person could easily be rehabilitated to see the error of their ways. I agree that stealing the car is definitely immoral and the thief ought to go to prison, pay financial compensation, do community services, etc. However, the death penalty is an unnecessarily extreme measure to take.
As well as that, imagine somebody was mistaken for being a car thief and it was later found out that they were innocent. If that person was sent to prison, you can just free them and give them financial compensation. If that person was given the death penalty, then there is nothing you can do and you have just killed an innocent man for no reason.