Total Posts:35|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

This should get interesting: libertarianism

darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2011 11:52:44 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
stuffgeekslove
Libertarianism is a political belief that government leaves dirty fingerprints on everything it touches and is best when it does the absolute least. Libertarians oppose all taxes, and have a deep abiding belief in the power of the Free Market and guns. About the only thing they're interested in having the government do is have an army. By now you should be wondering what the difference is between a Libertarian and a Conservative, and the answer is: Libertarians enjoy smoking pot.

Geeks enjoy being Libertarians for two reasons. First, it allows them to be Conservative without having to belong to one of the two mainstream parties that the regular sheep are part of. Second, it gives them a political party that is just as self-absorbed as they are. Conservatives don't care if you think they're selfish pricks. Libertarians wonder why you don't admire them for it.

Since many geeks are unable to care about or even imagine the existence of the feelings of anyone other than themselves, the fact that Libertarianism ignores the unpleasant reality that we live in a society that requires certain things to function is not a problem to them. As far as geeks are concerned, society is lost anyway since it refuses to respect the geeks as the superior members. (The collapse of society is perfectly fine with the geek since it would allow him to act out his post-apocalyptic fantasies in which he would be a dune-buggy driving, grenade launching warlord, in defiance of all the evidence that demonstrates a more probable outcome.)

Libertarianism assures the white male upper-middle-class geek that he has gotten where he is solely because of his big brain and amazing talent for knowing the entire history of Middle-Earth. It assures him that he is the master of his destiny, the only force responsible for his fate. He owes no favors nor allegiance to anyone else. He is his own ideal. Most geeks reading that paragraph are now re-reading it slower and will soon achieve orgasm.

Of course, the other benefit to Libertarianism is that it doesn't come with all that religious baggage that the Republicans come with. Geeks love not being Christians (Spoiler!) so the Libertarian Party is a better fit for them. It also doesn't hurt that since the Libertarians never win anything, they can be an actually reviled minority instead of a pretend one like the Conservatives.

Some famous Libertarians are Penn Jilette, Matt Stone, Trey Parker, Robert Heinlein, Ayn Rand, Matt Drudge, and Howard Stern. Possibly related is the fact that all of the above are also @ssholes.

A political affiliation where they are the smartest people on Earth and everyone else can go screw themselves? No wonder geeks LOVE Libertarianism!

I was at first offended, but then laughed realizing how stupid it was.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
Fabian_CH
Posts: 232
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2011 2:31:13 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
What's funny about that is that at no point in his whole rant is there an actual definition of libertarianism.

It's easy to talk about something as long as it's just an undefined term floating around to be whatever you consider "bad"...

But, of course, that's been the main problem with promoting capitalism or libertarianism. The fact that almost all so-called criticism avoids the definition and attacks a straw man instead.
"What are we doing? Do we want to feed a starved humanity in order to let it live? Or do we want to strangle its life in order to feed it?"
- Andrei Taganov, We The Living (Ayn Rand)
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2011 2:35:05 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Sounded like a bunch of arm-chair psychology insults. It did nothing to refute the tenets of Libertarianism.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
Rob1_Billion
Posts: 1,300
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2011 3:07:57 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
I thought he made a few good points... us non-libertarians have to speculate, after all, as to how a group of people can be so disconnected with morality. As far as arguing libertarian tenets is concerned, there is no need - embracing main-stream economics as they do ensures that the discussion will be fruitless. They won't have any answers to solving ethical issues, solving environmental issues... It's just one big neoclassical economics orgy.
kfc
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2011 3:13:32 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/13/2011 3:07:57 PM, Rob1_Billion wrote:
I thought he made a few good points... us non-libertarians have to speculate, after all, as to how a group of people can be so disconnected with morality.
So disconnected as to not be a **** and take people's **** without permission? ^_^

embracing main-stream economics as they do ensures that the discussion will be fruitless.
This proves that you either have no idea what mainstream economics is, no idea what libertarian economics is, or both. Mainstream, i.e. keynesian, economics, is in strict opposition to Austrian economics, i.e. libertarian economics plus a few annoying assumptions that aren't really essential.

They won't have any answers to solving ethical issues
Libertarians qua libertarians? No, just like conservatives qua conservatives won't, or socialists qua socialists. Why? Because those are political positions, not comprehensive philosophies. Multiple ethical positions are held by people fitting the label "libertarian."

solving environmental issues
Abolishing the commons in scarce resources is certainly a solution to the tragedy of the commons.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Grape
Posts: 989
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2011 8:58:07 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/13/2011 3:07:57 PM, Rob1_Billion wrote:
I thought he made a few good points... us non-libertarians have to speculate, after all, as to how a group of people can be so disconnected with morality.

Since when did you become the arbitrator of what is morality? I think that libertarianism rests primarily arguments regarding what is appropriate human conduct and not economic arguments. It is, too me, a moral philosophy first and a political philosophy second.

As far as arguing libertarian tenets is concerned, there is no need - embracing main-stream economics as they do ensures that the discussion will be fruitless.

As Ragnar said, libertarian economics is not mainstream economics; they are completely different.

They won't have any answers to solving ethical issues, solving environmental issues...

Have you read Murray Rothbard on environmentalism, for instance? His position is much more extreme than American liberals today. Anyone who damages the air or water that other people use is responsible to paying back every such person. In other words, if you try to pollute you will soon be bankrupt no matter how much money you have.
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2011 9:00:43 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/13/2011 3:07:57 PM, Rob1_Billion wrote:
I thought he made a few good points... us non-libertarians have to speculate, after all, as to how a group of people can be so disconnected with morality.:

Libertarianism is entirely based around rights, which is an ethic, which is a moral. What are you talking about?

I think it's that they just don't share your version of morality which, more often than not, includes theft.... a moral precept.

As far as arguing libertarian tenets is concerned, there is no need - embracing main-stream economics as they do ensures that the discussion will be fruitless. They won't have any answers to solving ethical issues, solving environmental issues... It's just one big neoclassical economics orgy.:

That's only one side of the house. Sure, libertarians tend to lean to the right on economic issues (often further to the right than Republicans), but libertarians generally go to the left on social issues, all of which is centered around a moral precept.

So, where is this indictment coming from?
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2011 9:07:09 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Someone should do one of those ridiculous posts for socialism. Although I am personally a socialist I love people strawmanning other's positions.
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
Grape
Posts: 989
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2011 9:13:18 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Like all college-aged liberals, the writer thinks everyone who disagrees with him on any issue is a "conservative" regardless of what their ideology really is. The fact that you are socially liberal amounts to little more than an inconsistency in your ideology if you are not also a communist, or at least a socialist. Let me make an example:

Me: "A am a pro-choice atheist who believes in drug legalization, open immigration, ending US military aggression, allowing gay marriage, privatizing garbage disposal, harsher consequences on those who damage the environment, and reducing the drinking age.

Any Politically Active College Student: "I'm sorry, but I'm just totally against conservative views like that. Privatizing garbage disposal would just lead to the downfall of society. You need to stop listening to Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck."

Me: "Your position is immigration is also economically rightist."

Politically Active College Student: "La la la I can't hear you!"
Grape
Posts: 989
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2011 9:14:26 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/13/2011 9:07:09 PM, socialpinko wrote:
Someone should do one of those ridiculous posts for socialism. Although I am personally a socialist I love people strawmanning other's positions.

This is what I was born to do (though I recall having read a pretty hilarious parody in a UC Berkeley publication). However, I don't have time for a while :(
J.Kenyon
Posts: 4,194
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2011 9:14:34 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/13/2011 9:07:09 PM, socialpinko wrote:
Someone should do one of those ridiculous posts for socialism. Although I am personally a socialist I love people strawmanning other's positions.

Just turn on Fox News.
djsherin
Posts: 343
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2011 10:11:49 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/13/2011 8:57:50 PM, J.Kenyon wrote:
At 4/13/2011 11:52:44 AM, darkkermit wrote:
stuffgeekslove
Trollolololololololol!!

Cool story.

+1
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2011 10:21:13 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/13/2011 10:11:49 PM, djsherin wrote:
At 4/13/2011 8:57:50 PM, J.Kenyon wrote:
At 4/13/2011 11:52:44 AM, darkkermit wrote:
stuffgeekslove
Trollolololololololol!!

Cool story.

+1

Anybody realize that all the troll topics tend to get the most amount of posts and have a longer life?
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
djsherin
Posts: 343
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2011 10:23:11 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
In regards to mainstream economics: that term really has no meaning. First it matters whether you're talking about micro or macro. Neoclassical is definitely mainstream in micro, but even there, not all neoclassicals have the same views about things like perfect competition, externalities/market failure, utility functions, etc. Likewise you can have two neoclassicals supporting vastly different levels of government.

And macro is all over the place (Keynesianism, Austrian, Monetarism, etc. all of which have their own subdivisions). There really is no one "mainstream", unless you consider the mainstream to contain a fairly wide spectrum of thought.

Some of it may seem like semantics or small disagreements, but they are nonetheless important. Just look at the free banking vs. 100% reserve banking in the Austrian school.
Rob1_Billion
Posts: 1,300
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2011 12:41:43 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/13/2011 3:13:32 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 4/13/2011 3:07:57 PM, Rob1_Billion wrote:
I thought he made a few good points... us non-libertarians have to speculate, after all, as to how a group of people can be so disconnected with morality.
So disconnected as to not be a **** and take people's **** without permission? ^_^

There are things one makes, and there are things one is given. Most goods and services are not produced by the user even indirectly.

embracing main-stream economics as they do ensures that the discussion will be fruitless.

This proves that you either have no idea what mainstream economics is, no idea what libertarian economics is, or both. Mainstream, i.e. keynesian, economics, is in strict opposition to Austrian economics, i.e. libertarian economics plus a few annoying assumptions that aren't really essential.

Oh, you mean non-essential assumptions like growth is limitless?

They won't have any answers to solving ethical issues
Libertarians qua libertarians? No, just like conservatives qua conservatives won't, or socialists qua socialists. Why? Because those are political positions, not comprehensive philosophies. Multiple ethical positions are held by people fitting the label "libertarian."

Multiple ethical positions that do not happen to identify greed as a vice, perhaps.

solving environmental issues
Abolishing the commons in scarce resources is certainly a solution to the tragedy of the commons.

Who is abolishing the commons?
kfc
Rob1_Billion
Posts: 1,300
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2011 1:19:11 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/13/2011 8:58:07 PM, Grape wrote:
At 4/13/2011 3:07:57 PM, Rob1_Billion wrote:
I thought he made a few good points... us non-libertarians have to speculate, after all, as to how a group of people can be so disconnected with morality.

Since when did you become the arbitrator of what is morality? I think that libertarianism rests primarily arguments regarding what is appropriate human conduct and not economic arguments. It is, too me, a moral philosophy first and a political philosophy second.

That's funny when you contrast it to Ragnar's comment. At any rate, could you give a brief explanation on how I should view libertarianism as a good moral code?

As far as arguing libertarian tenets is concerned, there is no need - embracing main-stream economics as they do ensures that the discussion will be fruitless.

As Ragnar said, libertarian economics is not mainstream economics; they are completely different.

Again, limitless growth is a problem to me.

They won't have any answers to solving ethical issues, solving environmental issues...

Have you read Murray Rothbard on environmentalism, for instance? His position is much more extreme than American liberals today. Anyone who damages the air or water that other people use is responsible to paying back every such person. In other words, if you try to pollute you will soon be bankrupt no matter how much money you have.

Libertarians would have us create a private entity to police the environmnent. I have a problem with this. We have two entities, bent on profits, with the ability to cooperate. Collusion is not good for business. Or the environment. Besides, it's a public resource, and trying to charge for environmental protection is a bit absurd. I mean it's a question of science; we are having so much trouble with it right now because it's a political issue, and you're suggesting we turn it into a profit issue. Companies trying to protect the environment are going to have no incentive to provide scientifically sound evidence.

Their incentives will instead be for profits. "But good scientists will provide the most accurate results and thus make the most profits, Rob." Not really. If you go to the store and pick out the product that strikes you as most environmentally friendly, it doesn't mean that the product you chose came from a more environmentally friendly company. How does the consumer know which one is the best? Because one will be called "eco-something" and have a white box with green trim? For all you know the worst environmental companies owns the best one and you didn't even have a say from the get-go. Now we could hire third-parties to police them for us and give us reports to follow, and start creating a private bureacracy and more work for us to do, but now we've got to try and keep the third parties from colluding as well. And the effect snowballs some more because now the third parties are competing and marketing and people are going to be so confused as to who is the best that it's really a complete meltdown.

And all this assumes the consumer is thinking of the environment and weighing that concern over their own wallet when they enter the store. Perhaps some day this will be forced, but it will be a shame if that transition is realized.
kfc
Rob1_Billion
Posts: 1,300
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2011 1:24:19 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/13/2011 9:00:43 PM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
At 4/13/2011 3:07:57 PM, Rob1_Billion wrote:
I thought he made a few good points... us non-libertarians have to speculate, after all, as to how a group of people can be so disconnected with morality.:

Libertarianism is entirely based around rights, which is an ethic, which is a moral. What are you talking about?

Again, why does your statement differ than Ragnars? Don't you chaps agree on what your damned philosophy states?

I think it's that they just don't share your version of morality which, more often than not, includes theft.... a moral precept.

Communists are thieves?

As far as arguing libertarian tenets is concerned, there is no need - embracing main-stream economics as they do ensures that the discussion will be fruitless. They won't have any answers to solving ethical issues, solving environmental issues... It's just one big neoclassical economics orgy.:

That's only one side of the house. Sure, libertarians tend to lean to the right on economic issues (often further to the right than Republicans), but libertarians generally go to the left on social issues, all of which is centered around a moral precept.

So, where is this indictment coming from?

There's plenty of immorality wound up in their economic views. Besides, I don't see them as necessarily left on social issues; they seem more to me like Republicans that want to dodge the Neoclassical Christian transformation.
kfc
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2011 2:06:35 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/14/2011 12:41:43 AM, Rob1_Billion wrote:
At 4/13/2011 3:13:32 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 4/13/2011 3:07:57 PM, Rob1_Billion wrote:
I thought he made a few good points... us non-libertarians have to speculate, after all, as to how a group of people can be so disconnected with morality.
So disconnected as to not be a **** and take people's **** without permission? ^_^

There are things one makes, and there are things one is given. Most goods and services are not produced by the user even indirectly.
They are traded for, with the things the user does produce, or the things they got from trading the things they produce.

This proves that you either have no idea what mainstream economics is, no idea what libertarian economics is, or both. Mainstream, i.e. keynesian, economics, is in strict opposition to Austrian economics, i.e. libertarian economics plus a few annoying assumptions that aren't really essential.

Oh, you mean non-essential assumptions like growth is limitless?
No. That isn't an assumption in either Keynesian or Austrian economics, just in strawman economics. If it were, there would be no point in economics, I'd just masturbate and my sperm would grow into an entire economy worth of goods in 0 seconds flat.


They won't have any answers to solving ethical issues
Libertarians qua libertarians? No, just like conservatives qua conservatives won't, or socialists qua socialists. Why? Because those are political positions, not comprehensive philosophies. Multiple ethical positions are held by people fitting the label "libertarian."

Multiple ethical positions that do not happen to identify greed as a vice, perhaps.
Some libertarians would identify it as a vice, and are simply libertarian because their policy is to deal with people as they are rather than to dream.
I on the other hand do not identify it as a vice.

solving environmental issues
Abolishing the commons in scarce resources is certainly a solution to the tragedy of the commons.

Who is abolishing the commons?
The legal project of libertarianism is, to the greatest extent possible, to clarify private property rights and thus abolish the commons.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2011 2:07:50 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/14/2011 1:24:19 AM, Rob1_Billion wrote:
At 4/13/2011 9:00:43 PM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
At 4/13/2011 3:07:57 PM, Rob1_Billion wrote:
I thought he made a few good points... us non-libertarians have to speculate, after all, as to how a group of people can be so disconnected with morality.:

Libertarianism is entirely based around rights, which is an ethic, which is a moral. What are you talking about?

Again, why does your statement differ than Ragnars? Don't you chaps agree on what your damned philosophy states?
This is just a guess, but he probably disagrees with me on where one draws the line between ethics and politics.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Rob1_Billion
Posts: 1,300
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2011 9:16:52 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/14/2011 2:06:35 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 4/14/2011 12:41:43 AM, Rob1_Billion wrote:
At 4/13/2011 3:13:32 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 4/13/2011 3:07:57 PM, Rob1_Billion wrote:
I thought he made a few good points... us non-libertarians have to speculate, after all, as to how a group of people can be so disconnected with morality.
So disconnected as to not be a **** and take people's **** without permission? ^_^

There are things one makes, and there are things one is given. Most goods and services are not produced by the user even indirectly.
They are traded for, with the things the user does produce, or the things they got from trading the things they produce.

Trading is inefficient. It requires a system of currency which is in itself another entire country to run. If we kept things simpler then people wouldn't have to do as much work and we'd still be as well off with less things. We work jobs that we hate to buy sh*t we don't need.

This proves that you either have no idea what mainstream economics is, no idea what libertarian economics is, or both. Mainstream, i.e. keynesian, economics, is in strict opposition to Austrian economics, i.e. libertarian economics plus a few annoying assumptions that aren't really essential.

Oh, you mean non-essential assumptions like growth is limitless?
No. That isn't an assumption in either Keynesian or Austrian economics, just in strawman economics. If it were, there would be no point in economics, I'd just masturbate and my sperm would grow into an entire economy worth of goods in 0 seconds flat.

Economic growth must end. Your system promotes it to grow out of control. I personally would rather turn back before the carrying capacity of the land turns us back. Because that is not going to be pretty.

They won't have any answers to solving ethical issues
Libertarians qua libertarians? No, just like conservatives qua conservatives won't, or socialists qua socialists. Why? Because those are political positions, not comprehensive philosophies. Multiple ethical positions are held by people fitting the label "libertarian."

Multiple ethical positions that do not happen to identify greed as a vice, perhaps.
Some libertarians would identify it as a vice, and are simply libertarian because their policy is to deal with people as they are rather than to dream.
I on the other hand do not identify it as a vice.

Yes Ragnar you are consistent if nothing else. But someone who admits greed is a vice and then subscribes to American Libertarianism has got some consistency problems in my eyes.

solving environmental issues
Abolishing the commons in scarce resources is certainly a solution to the tragedy of the commons.

Who is abolishing the commons?
The legal project of libertarianism is, to the greatest extent possible, to clarify private property rights and thus abolish the commons.

I thought that was a dig at communism OK nevermind
kfc
Rob1_Billion
Posts: 1,300
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2011 9:29:36 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/14/2011 2:07:50 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 4/14/2011 1:24:19 AM, Rob1_Billion wrote:
At 4/13/2011 9:00:43 PM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
At 4/13/2011 3:07:57 PM, Rob1_Billion wrote:
I thought he made a few good points... us non-libertarians have to speculate, after all, as to how a group of people can be so disconnected with morality.:

Libertarianism is entirely based around rights, which is an ethic, which is a moral. What are you talking about?

Again, why does your statement differ than Ragnars? Don't you chaps agree on what your damned philosophy states?
This is just a guess, but he probably disagrees with me on where one draws the line between ethics and politics.

Well, it seems to me that ethics are your ideas about what is right and wrong, and your politics would be based upon your ethics. Saying that libertarianism <is> your system of ethics is kind of scary to me. Like I said Ragnar I will give you the credit that I don't give most of these other berts and that is that you are consistent, at least. But you are essentially morally relative by maintaining that position, at least when it comes to anything that isn't immediately economic or political in nature.
kfc
Aaronroy
Posts: 749
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2011 11:36:04 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/13/2011 3:07:57 PM, Rob1_Billion wrote:
I thought he made a few good points... us non-libertarians have to speculate, after all, as to how a group of people can be so disconnected with morality. As far as arguing libertarian tenets is concerned, there is no need - embracing main-stream economics as they do ensures that the discussion will be fruitless. They won't have any answers to solving ethical issues, solving environmental issues... It's just one big neoclassical economics orgy.

"Non-libertarian"? You're either libertarian, moderate, or authoritarian.
Take a pick.
turn down for h'what
Fabian_CH
Posts: 232
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2011 11:55:15 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/14/2011 12:41:43 AM, Rob1_Billion wrote:
I thought he made a few good points... us non-libertarians have to speculate, after all, as to how a group of people can be so disconnected with morality.
So disconnected as to not be a **** and take people's **** without permission? ^_^

There are things one makes, and there are things one is given. Most goods and services are not produced by the user even indirectly.
Oh, which gives you the right to extort it from others?

They won't have any answers to solving ethical issues
Libertarians qua libertarians? No, just like conservatives qua conservatives won't, or socialists qua socialists. Why? Because those are political positions, not comprehensive philosophies. Multiple ethical positions are held by people fitting the label "libertarian."

Multiple ethical positions that do not happen to identify greed as a vice, perhaps.
Any ethical position that does not "happen to" identify greed as a vice is invalid? That's what's your implying...
Why is greed a vice?

Communists are thieves?
Oh hell yes, they are. Robbers, actually. (The difference being that a thief uses his intelligence while the robber uses raw force.)

Besides, I don't see them as necessarily left on social issues; they seem more to me like Republicans that want to dodge the Neoclassical Christian transformation.
Haha, that's very interesting to know about you, but what importance do your messed-up definitions of terms have? What's "conservative" about our social views?

I don't believe in the social-economic dichotomy anyway. You either have freedom or you don't.
"What are we doing? Do we want to feed a starved humanity in order to let it live? Or do we want to strangle its life in order to feed it?"
- Andrei Taganov, We The Living (Ayn Rand)
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2011 12:08:58 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/14/2011 9:16:52 AM, Rob1_Billion wrote:
At 4/14/2011 2:06:35 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 4/14/2011 12:41:43 AM, Rob1_Billion wrote:
At 4/13/2011 3:13:32 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 4/13/2011 3:07:57 PM, Rob1_Billion wrote:
I thought he made a few good points... us non-libertarians have to speculate, after all, as to how a group of people can be so disconnected with morality.
So disconnected as to not be a **** and take people's **** without permission? ^_^

There are things one makes, and there are things one is given. Most goods and services are not produced by the user even indirectly.
They are traded for, with the things the user does produce, or the things they got from trading the things they produce.

Trading is inefficient. It requires a system of currency
No, though it can be facilitated by a currency
which is in itself another entire country to run.
No, it's a business if the currency isn't fiat.
If we kept things simpler then people wouldn't have to do as much work and we'd still be as well off with less things.
Incomplete, if we kept things simpler people would work even less than that cause their **** would get jacked and no one would be as well off.

We work jobs that we hate to buy sh*t we don't need.
Maybe you do. I only buy things worth the (admittedly future as I'm a student) labor.

Economic growth must end.
That's a rebuttal of eternal, not your unlimited strawman. Two different things.

Your system promotes it to grow out of control.
In other words, delaying the end of the human species?
Yes, economic growth must end. Humanity is likely to end too. I think there might be a relation there, don't be so eager to bring about the apocalypse.

I personally would rather turn back before the carrying capacity of the land turns us back.
That has more to do with population growth, not growth in per capita standards of living, the latter of which is what really matters in economics. Furthermore, there's something called technology for increasing the carrying capacity of land.

Some libertarians would identify it as a vice, and are simply libertarian because their policy is to deal with people as they are rather than to dream.
I on the other hand do not identify it as a vice.

Yes Ragnar you are consistent if nothing else. But someone who admits greed is a vice and then subscribes to American Libertarianism has got some consistency problems in my eyes.
Lay it out in reductio.

Well, it seems to me that ethics are your ideas about what is right and wrong, and your politics would be based upon your ethics.
That's not drawing a line at all, though I would agree that politics is derived from ethics. Politics refers specifically to the ethical principles one has in regard to the situation "holy **** there're other people who may not share my interests" (Ethics as one applies in one's solitude or to which the presence of other people is irrelevant is thus not politics). Fundamental to it is the nonaggression principle in libertarianism, and an Objectivist would add the trader principle.

But you are essentially morally relative by maintaining that position, at least when it comes to anything that isn't immediately economic or political in nature.

????

The difference being that a thief uses his intelligence while the robber uses raw force
Using force takes intelligence, unless you are in a bar brawl.

The difference is stealth, not intelligence.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2011 12:23:17 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
"Libertarianism assures the white male upper-middle-class geek that he has gotten where he is solely because of his big brain and amazing talent for knowing the entire history of Middle-Earth. It assures him that he is the master of his destiny, the only force responsible for his fate. He owes no favors nor allegiance to anyone else. He is his own ideal. Most geeks reading that paragraph are now re-reading it slower and will soon achieve orgasm."

Lol.
President of DDO