Ray Peat Believes That Libertarian Ideology Is Responsible For The Hatred Of Fructose

Joined
May 26, 2016
Messages
406
NAP is ******* stupid.

NAP is the foundation for all ethical behavior in the west. One could make the case that it's more fundamental than the principle of free speech; that is to say, NAP enables free speech.

Without NAP, might = right. This is why leftists denounce NAP; they want to forcefully silence, outvote, or literally physically overpower people that have more logical and well-reasoned arguments than them.

To prevent child slavery you need aggression from people willing to enforce children's rights, and it must include provisioning the children. With the use of a violent threat. Opposition to child slavery requires one to oppose the NAP.

False. Who defines what "children's rights" are? Many on the left believe children have the right to be "educated" in state-indoctrinated schools, funded by stolen money via taxation. What they call a "right" I would call a form of slavery that only exists because of government theft.
 
Last edited:

tara

Member
Joined
Mar 29, 2014
Messages
10,368
False. Who defines what "children's rights" are?
You make it sound as though you don't believe there is or should be such a thing as children's rights? Even if there are differences of opinion about exactly what those rights should be, I would hope that most people would support the protection of some basic rights.


False. Who defines what "children's rights" are? Many on the left believe children have the right to be "educated" in state-indoctrinated schools, funded by stolen money via taxation. What they call a "right" I would call a form of slavery that only exists because of government theft.
The solution to poor schooling and miseducation is to improve the education system, not abandon it.

There was a long time, before many of the current laws etc, before organised education was available to most people, and illiteracy was the norm. Education was valued and paid for and available only to the more privileged classes.
Personally, I think literacy, numeracy and wider education benefits both the individual and the society, and is worth some social investment.
I favor complete ability of a person like you or me to buy and use any chemical we want, whenever we want.
I occasionally get frustrated about [particular restrictions.
But I'm also concerned about the collateral damage by the chemicals that are currently unregulated, and don't like the idea of some of the nastier ones being less constrained than they are. Disposal and environmental pollution by artificial chemicals is becoming an increasing problem.
I think regulation has a role to play in protecting the commons from such tragedies.
 
Joined
May 26, 2016
Messages
406
You make it sound as though you don't believe there is or should be such a thing as children's rights?

Correct, if we're talking about children's (or adult's) rights enforced by a government.

Even if there are differences of opinion about exactly what those rights should be, I would hope that most people would support the protection of some basic rights.

Governments don't "protect rights." Governments violate rights, such as the right to one's property for example, which governments violate by stealing peoples' money.

The solution to poor schooling and miseducation is to improve the education system, not abandon it.

ROFL. There's no way to improve the socialist dumpster fire that is the public education system aside from de-funding it entirely. Public schools, unlike private companies, lack the necessary incentive structures to be cost-efficient and innovative. They are thus incapable of providing a quality product.

There was a long time, before many of the current laws etc, before organised education was available to most people, and illiteracy was the norm.

Economic growth (which has been stunted by government taxation and regulation), not the laws, is what has made people more literate.

Education was valued and paid for and available only to the more privileged classes.

In your sentence above, replace the word "education" with "just about every economic good that has ever existed in the history of capitalism" and it should be obvious that economic growth is the only means by which higher quality goods have ever become cheaper and more widely available to the masses. Again, governments have only ever hindered this process.

Personally, I think literacy, numeracy and wider education benefits both the individual and the society, and is worth some social investment.

LMFAO. Just because you value those things doesn't mean other people should have to value them. And by "social investment," all you really mean is stealing other peoples' money to pay for the things that you want. If you really think those things are so valuable, donate your own money.

I occasionally get frustrated about [particular restrictions.
But I'm also concerned about the collateral damage by the chemicals that are currently unregulated, and don't like the idea of some of the nastier ones being less constrained than they are. Disposal and environmental pollution by artificial chemicals is becoming an increasing problem.
I think regulation has a role to play in protecting the commons from such tragedies.

Regulation has made environmental problems worse than they'd otherwise be. The solution to such problems is more capitalism and more economic growth, which will yield better and cheaper technological solutions.
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom