Rerum Novarum

On June 22 2015 14:28 thezanursic wrote:
Uhmmm. There are words and then there are even more words, words that I understand, but your writing makes zero fucking sense.

Don't try to write as if you were some sort of apex intellectual because you clearly aren't and you're completely missing the point.

On June 22 2015 07:42 Jerubaal wrote:
Did you purposely give this the same title as Leo XIII's encyclical?

The only other comment I'll make about your statements is that it's dangerous to create inaccurate dichotomies, like libertarian and communitarian.

On June 22 2015 18:12 Bannt wrote:
Perhaps you should ask yourself who your intended audience is. Does a blog setting and your writing style fit?

On June 22 2015 05:55 YokoKano wrote:
From its inception, civilization has been characterized by asymptotic distribution. On the one hand, there is the libertarian and on the other, the communitarian. What will it take to realize ideal positive and negative liberties for the individual? It seems we must err on the side of a rigid communitarian teleology, enforcing absolute essences as universals. Yet if Aquinas is to have his way, the sovereign must establish law beneficent with the community in mind. Is the libertarian always to be confined by the strictures of the human law and if the human law is too broadly encompassing, can the individual recover sought-after negative liberty?

I do not wish to be banned again. Perhaps it would be more expedient for my reform to receive targeted critique.

On June 23 2015 11:09 hoby2000 wrote:


The libertarian is not confined to the structure of human law, or else they wouldn't be much of a libertarian - at least not confined in terms of understanding their free will. They are however, as I think you're suggesting, subject to the will of the communitarian especially in modern times where the most effective ideal is "equality". This in turn means that the libertarian is in a way limited to the social confines brought upon him by communitarian thoughts. I however would still say that even given a structure not mean to allow for much liberty at all, a libertarian can still flourish as long as there is some aspect of privacy which remains.

I think over time even sought-after negative liberties disappear. They're described as negative liberties for a reason - Their consequences do not enhance a person's ability to live. In most cases, these are dependencies ranging from drugs to societal programs that promote the use of community resources instead of one's own. There other examples, but these things will either be rid of or have a use that brings about a positive change for enough individuals that choosing to use such a thing would still be an option.

On June 23 2015 11:48 YokoKano wrote:


Well, suppose I want to race marbles on a sidewalk. Marbles are not bicycles, and so are not ineligible for sidewalk traversing. But nor are skateboards bicycles. A sidewalk is rival in consumption, the child and his marbles and the teen on her skateboard compete on the walk. Whether this constitutes harmony is a relative question. The mother of one and the father of one, each a libertarian or communitarian respectively, will express an opinion concerning the right of way. I am not sure even the most enlightened of communities will side with the libertarian mother whose child endangers itself (and others) by rolling marbles without permission. The reality has it, community resources side with the communitarian willingly and the libertarian grudgingly, but it is a challenge to draw a distinction between the two advancing closer to a "corporate" social hierarchy.