/liberty/ - Liberty

>>97973

natural rights are spooks

>>97973

Shitposts aside, it's an interesting question. However, while intelligence would be highly correlated to whatever definition you end up using, I think it's more accurate to say that a high or low level of intelligence would only be a signal for other factors in this case. Specifically, rather than asking about intelligence, the real question we're asking is "can this man participate in the economy?'"–as whether or not he has rights determines whether he is an actor or merely a good in the economy. As all Austrian economics is built upon a single, self-evident axiom [man acts purposefully to minimize his unease], we need only ask if the man in question falls under that axiom. Does he act purposefully, or is he driven purely (not mostly, not 99.95%, but purely) by instinct? If he is not capable of acting, then by definition he is not an economic actor. Although it should be noted that this group will not include those who have not self-actualized their rights, i.e. children. A young child may not have self-actualized his self-ownership, but given the passage of time for development he will, so children cannot be considered property and may not be aggressed upon.

>How can I justify being a racist /pol/tard and pretending that my complete failure of a life is okay because I'll always be better than the niggers

I'm going to say the threshold comes at one IQ point above where you are.

>>97994

I've found an answer to this question long ago. What constitutes a person, someone capable of acting and cooperation and not treated explicitly like an inanimate object(even if it can move) is the mental capacity to interact, cooperate and uphold long-term agreements. That's not to say it allows an entry in some kind of morality system, just minimal requirement to distinguish "life" from its imitation somewhat scientifically without going into moralistic and philosophical debate. This also happens to be a threshold that determines whether someone or something can be a legal actor in an ancap , i.e. do anything not on the premise of one's own sheer force.

After that is determined, you could actually try to personally interact with the subject and determine the value of your interactions.

if people have preference of interests then they have rights, it's a simple as that.

Any system that doesn't drive rights from man being made in the image of God is arbitrary. Niggers are made in the image of God just like you and me, they're just dumber.

>>98005

But I thought the Chinese weren't real communists.

>>98006

Humanity is about FAR more than intelligence. It has to do with temperament, morality, and so on. Blacks dont really exceed the level of, say, a favored family pet, and a dangerous one, at that.

There are lots of animals I would prefer to have in my home over and above blacks. That should tell you everything you need to know about black "humanity."

If you would prefer a black roommate to, say, a Labrador or a cat, then I would say you're an idiot. I'd trust a dog around my children far sooner than I'd trust an average black man. That about settles the matter as far as my view of blacks being considered "human," that many (I'd say "most sane people") people would prefer a dog's companionship over a nigger's.

>>98005

When did Singapore become commies?

>>98014

b&r

>>98024

Don't be jelly ;-)

>>98006

Niggers are NOT Human. NOT mad in the Image of God. They are humanoid. Giving them Human Rights or treating them as Human is the start of the slippery slope that destroys Civilization.

>>98000

Orangutans and dogs are economic actors then?

>>98077

Um, yes they are, sweaty.

>>97973

When they are nescient and incapable of IGNOREance

>>98077

you're welcome to think that but I recommend you behave as if you thought they were, because killing a nigger makes you just as deserving of execution.

>>98089

dont forget killing in selfdefence is ok

>>97973

The criteria for abolition of human rights is a lack of a Y chromosome.