Wow! Maybe I am a conservative by this definition and not a libertarian.

Seems so simple. One eats; one lives with one less meal. One creates a meal; one can eat, or one can trade for something worth a meal.

I must have missed the chapter where one plays, but one eats anyhow.

Individuals cause their own thoughts and actions and are responsible for what they do regardless of the political system they live in, which may or may not hold them accountable for actual crimes. It does not "come from freedom", which is a conservative slogan trying to limit our freedom. Our rights are philosophical principles stemming from our nature as human beings. Our right to freedom is not contingent on serving society or whatever freedom a government may or may not allow.

Like I said, If one accepts freedom, one accepts responsibility for owns own actions.

I have no idea what these other responsibilities you assign to the whims of conservatives, but if one gets to pick (buying, eating, infusing, aggressing, gambling, fucking, teasing, saying, etc), one gets to live with the consequences of ones own choices. Anything else is a state-led menagerie. NO FREEDOM CAN EVER COME WITHOUT THE RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE CONSEQUENT OUTCOME...EVER.

With ALL Freedom comes responsibility, or the system fundamentally fails. If Ayn didn't say this, she failed.

CG is apoplectic now, seeking the socialist version of this fundamental assertion.

I dare the entirety of the site to refute this simple assertion.

If a person can't pay his mortgage he loses his house regardless of why he can't pay. It has nothing to do with his "freedoms"; he borrowed money and violated the contract requiring payments.

Conservative statists tell us we have duties to 'society' in exchange for its gifts allowing us some freedoms, such as the ones who have told us we have a duty to be conscripted in the military and serve society as a price of being allowed to be "free". Those who do that are tribalists with no concept of reason and egoism as the basis of natural rights to freedom. We hear their "responsibility" (duty) rhetoric constantly. It does not mean that individuals are responsible for their own lives, thoughts and actions. To the extent they appeal to that it's a vicious package deal.

Don't follow you. Let's take a simple example. A person takes all their money to Las Vegas and gambles it away. They are now financially broken and can not pay their mortgage.

In my world, that person is responsible, and must take care of the mess, step back in their lives, and rebuild.
In your scenario, what happens?

We don't say the "same thing" as conservatives who demand their "responsibilites" (duties) in exchange for our allowing rights.

Sounds to me like we are saying the same thing and mincing words. See CG response.

It is not a fine line at all. It is completely fundamental.
Children have fewer freedoms because they are irresponsible. When one gets the freedom to decide what to do with your money, and one:
- Invests it wisely,
- Buys a sports car,
- Gambles it away,
- Spends it all on drugs,
that one takes responsibility for the consequences of the decision, not everyone else via social programs.
Same goes for applying oneself in school, eating, shooting someone. Without complimentary responsibility, freedom is a disastrous childish notion.

Freedoms aren't supposed to come with "responsibility"; that is a conservative notion. Freedoms are rights. You are responsible for specific actions. You are held accountable to someone else only if you violate his rights under law. More generally you are responsible and accountable only in how others choose to judge you and decide how to relate to you as a result of what they judge you to be.

"we don't assign responsibility to the freedoms we have, but rather impose on others "
It's a fine line. Clearly some people who would impose do it under the guise of assigning responsibility.

The problem is we don't assign responsibility to the freedoms we have, but rather impose on others to deal with the consequences.

I haven't been listening to him but did use the term femi-nazis.

Eco-fascists, eco-nazis, eco-socialists, eco-freaks, viros -- anything that withholds respect from their misanthropic nihilism posturing as moral idealism.

"the environmentalist from any group have not advocated to control population"
I think they have. It's the Malthusian question. So far we've escaped the Malthusian trap by increasing production. We're causing global warming and mass-extinction event, but maybe technology will deal with the effects of those things. I actually suspect they will. The more of us there are, though, the harder it is for us not to make a mess for one another. It seems to me there need to be vehicles that make people pay for their own mess, and hopefully market forces would take care of it. Right now we tax work and give tax breaks for kids.

If people could be freer and more educated, that tends to cut the birth rate. How to make people freer, of course, is the whole thing. Humans freely pursuing happiness is the only reason the environment matters.

Maybe I was misconstruing Rush's "FemiNazis" term, which I have not heard him say for a long time.
Femi-fascists better? Whatever. I'm easy.

Another one is "eco-fascists", which is more exact.

No idea what this means, so I will ignore it.

Rush calls them EcoNazis.

I'm hoping for violent volcanic eruptions that will change the climate so those Enviro's will be freezing their butts oof along with the rest of us. Then they can see they were very wrong.

First no religious argument here.
Second if a premise is made on a subject on which the premise has no bearing I will ignore it. Which I did.
Third with the clarification that individual choice is the the first, and correct approach for everything I think we are on the same page in any meaningful way that will count.

That is spot-on.

See also the report from the Heartland Institute on how Greenpeace works.
Authors are Patrick Moore a Greenpeace founder, and Willie Soon who was smeared by the NYT about a year ago.

From the summary-
" Greenpeace is a very successful business. Their business model can be summarized as follows:
Invent an environmental problem which sounds plausible. Provide anecdotes in support with emotional imagery.
Invent a simple solution which sounds plausible and emotionally appealing, but is unlikely to be implemented.
Pick an enemy and blame them for obstructing the solution. Imply that anybody who disagrees with you is probably working for this enemy.
Dismiss any alternative solutions to your problem as completely inadequate. "

See- heartland.org/
or to download the report-
heartland.org/publications-resources/...

I have heard the phrase "Pets are People Too" -- along with the notion that the family dog is really just another member of the family, just like everyone else. To which I say, can your dog solve a differential equation or perhaps something simpler - a linear algebra problem with two variables and two unknowns? Does your dog know what a contradiction is and can this be demonstrated? This tends to dampen the enthusiasm for folks to invite me back for dinner and cards . . .

I think that all of this social programming is done so that humans and animals are made to be indistinguishable. We are to elevate dogs (and cats, rats, pigs, horses ...) to have the same value and respect as human beings. But the real program is to devalue humans to the level of dogs ... and horses ... and other animals that are "put down" when the need arises.

When I hear these monsters spouting their nonsense regarding the good in the elimination of the Human Race, what I see is the rot in their core -- they are displaying their self-hatred.

Of all the different species, the diversity between individuals within the human species is the greatest. And it is this vast spectrum that showcases the huge middle -- the rather bland -- that would be perfectly happy to be fed and entertained ... and that far left end of the spectrum populated by the dolts. At the far right of the curve reside that statistically small set of individuals whose creativity, vision, ambition and intellect propels them, in context of a relatively free society where free markets are allowed to operate, to the stratosphere of success. Some people, in the middle or perhaps even a bit offset to the right, see this success as illuminating their own shortcomings. Instead of taking part in being lifted by the advances of their superiors, their resentment takes the form of envy-intoxication. They choose to speak and act in a manner that would denigrate the entire species, when in fact, they are the very self-loathing cancer that the world would be better off without.

Calling man's domination of nature "arrogance" and "tremendous damage" through the imagery of a pet dog and appeals to unnecessary cruelty is a vicious package deal denouncing humanity as such. It is a non-answer to Craig Biddle's TOS article.

Every living creature follows its own nature to live. Animals routinely savage each other as part of their nature, and no one calls them "arrogant". They do not have rights, which is moral concept for rational beings. Rights do not come from emotions. Man's domination of nature, following his nature to use his rational mind to alter his environment in order to live is not a metaphysical "arrogance".

Denouncing mankind as such as morally inferior to wild animals is disgusting misanthropic nihilism. No other species can be "wise" at all, let alone the wisest on the planet. None of us live to be "beneficial" to nature, which is the lowest -- viro -- form of altruism.

Ayn Rand gave her characteristically principled, philosophically moral answer to the misanthropic nature-worshipers in her 1971 "The Anti-lndustrial Revolution", reprinted in the anthology Return of the Primitive: The Anti-Industrial Revolution.

The difference between the Marxist collectivists and the viros is that Marxists at least in the beginning claimed to be for the "people" in their forced sacrifices. They reified the abstraction of a collection of people resulting in the sacrifice of the only real people there are -- the individual -- in the name of the collective, but at least had some semblance of connection to humanity in their warped way. The viros don't.

But the viros didn't need modern tyrants to tell them they wanted absolute power. The modern viro movement rose politically out of the New Left of the 1960s. Before they changed their name to "Environmentalist movement" in the early 1970s they called themselves the "Ecology movement".

The American public didn't know what "ecology" meant or why they should identify with it. But the viro leaders knew the intellectual tradition they came from. The ecology movement was founded in 1860s Germany by Ernst Haeckel, an Hegelian biologist who coined the term "ecology". He wanted individuals and our values to be subservient to "ecosystems". The ecologists lived in compulsive fear that man was destroying the earth, with a primary hand-wringer being loss of the soil to erosion.

The political expression was to be rule by "scientists" whose "expert" permission was required for all individual action -- just as today the viros demand that everything be regulated in advance with permission required from permanent bureaucracies, with Nature as the standard superseding individual values and freedom.

That was the modern viros' source for their disgusting misanthropic evil proclaiming humans to be "arrogant" for daring to put our own values above raw nature, and their immoral imperative that we strive to "leave no footprint" on the earth -- they reject man as the source of moral value and reject the moral necessity that man reshape his environment to further his own life: Animals can routinely brutally savage each other as their natural state, but man's nature requiring using his mind to alter the environment in order to live is to be rejected as "outside nature" and "arrogant".

Hegel's Absolute became the Ecosystem and his Organic Theory of the State became Environmentalism. The 19th and early 20th century back-to-the land German Green movement was a prominent contributor to the fascist takeover and rise of Hitler. They didn't need 21st century "globalist" tyrants to tell them to seize absolute power.

It's not a joke. They are minsanthropic nihilists who worship nature as an intrinsic value held as superior to human values and choices. They don't have to literally advocate human extinction for their perverted ethics to be destructive.

If that these environmental morons but knew that it is the Sun is in charge. CO2 was an Al Gore get rich hoax. I love literature, and Worodsworth in particular. He was a panentheist, who honored nature. That is easy enough, far better than falling for the UN scheme to move everyone to Gaia worship, then state worship. As Objectivists, it stands to reason that if people were self responsible, pollution would be less and animals would be thriving, as part of our own best interest, not to enrich or salve the insanity of some deranged group. They UN would wipe out real religion, red meat consumption (cow hating UN), capitalism, reproduction without license, and more. They would make being a human as we know it extinct, via control. Violence by some clone of these people solves noting. Common sense and reason solves problems. The UN makes up problems. Idiots listen to non problems. Seems simple I have a swail on my property, shelter for critters of the wild, I chase off any hunters (my land), I grow trees and plants that feed the animals. I love sports cars, red meat, and leather boots, Get over it wakos.