Total Posts:71|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Maybe you"re a libertarian. But an anarchist?

Wallstreetatheist
Posts: 7,132
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/4/2014 2:59:47 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
NO WAY.

Some day, however, you might be.

On the path to anarchism, there are five stages. And unlike conventional applications of the Kubler-Ross model (Grief) , the end result is not death or loss, but life and freedom.

5: Denial. To you, anarchism is silly. Untenable and impossible, it should be dismissed. On the other hand, your abstruse ideal of "limited government" should be upheld and relentlessly pursued. You may or may not think the phenomenon of "market failure" is real.

An anarchist friend of yours gives you a copy of Murray Rothbard's For a New Liberty. Proudly donning your faux-Che "Reagan Revolution" t-shirt, you assert, "I"ve learned everything I need to know from Ayn Rand and Milton Friedman, thank you very much."

4: Anger. Why are these pesky anarchists undermining the libertarian movement? Just when respectable liberty-minded politicians begin to influence their colleagues, some renegade anarchist sullies the gains. And as soon as libertarianism earns an iota of respect from the general public, anarchists remind everyone just how crazy freedom is.

If confronted by a particularly persistent anarchist, you quote F.A. Hayek, assuming that will shut the anti-stater up. "Probably nothing has done so much harm to the liberal [libertarian] cause as the wooden insistence of some... on certain rules of thumb, above all the principle of laissez faire."

Besides, even if private roads were indeed possible, surely the government is necessary to provide for the national defense. The Constitution says so, after all.

3: Bargaining. Alright, alright. Maybe the anarchists make some solid points. You're willing to concede that. Still, though, we live in a world of reality.

Your hero, Ludwig von Mises, knew this. For that reason, he rejected statelessness, noting that, "Anarchism misunderstands the real nature of man. It would be practicable only in a world of angels and saints."

Also, your statist girlfriend (or boyfriend, wife, husband) just came to terms with your inhuman belief in the institution of private property and is sleeping with you again. You're in no position to push the envelope. As long as the anarchists leave you alone, you leave them alone.

Upon further insistence from your anarchist friend, you begrudgingly read Rothbard"s For a New Liberty.

2: Depression. After reading the Rothbard, the world around you collapses. You call all your fundamental beliefs into question.

"Could I really be one of them?" you lament. "There's no hope for me now."

On the precipice of anarchism, you desperately cling to the last remaining tenet of state power you believe might be legitimate: justice. Even if the free market could supply adequate amounts of clean air, defense, and police, how would disagreements between private firms be settled?

1: Acceptance. One day, it just all comes together. Everything "clicks," so to speak. Any lingering cognitive dissonance evaporates and the fog lifts. Reading Hoppe had something to do with it, of course, but it was your ability to toss off the shackles of conventional thought that ultimately led to your complete rejection of the state.

You reach an intellectual apex of sorts. No longer does your conception of society include the retrospectively narrow constraint of the state and its progeny"war, oppression, tyranny, injustice. Individuals need not be circumscribed to be civilized.

You realize that the state is not a virus that can be inoculated by exposure in small doses. It is a cancerous tumor that feeds on those unaware of its true malignance. You conclude that "limited government" is an oxymoron.

Observing that a disproportionately high number of anarchists wear them, you succumb to an irresistible temptation to buy a bowtie.

Suddenly, you're an anarchist. You experience it--that awkward moment when you realize the state is superfluous.

And while it's probably not polite cocktail party conversation, you bring it up anyway. "I'm an anarchist," you blurt out at every opportunity, if for no other reason than to enjoy the quizzical looks that always ensue.

Then, over a three-and-a-half hour conversation, at least one of your interlocutors becomes intrigued enough to check out that kooky Rothbard character. The five stages begin in yet another individual, and for that, it was all worth it.

Inside every libertarian, there's an anarchist waiting to be set free. You're either a statist or you're not. There is no in-between.

Source: http://communities.washingtontimes.com...
DRUG HARM: http://imgur.com...
Primal Diet. Lifting. Reading. Psychedelics. Cold-Approach Pickup. Music.
Chimera
Posts: 178
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/4/2014 12:40:18 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/4/2014 2:59:47 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:

you begrudgingly read Rothbard"s For a New Liberty.

..... Wtf are you talking about? Anarchists don't read Rothbard.


2: Depression. After reading the Rothbard, the world around you collapses. You call all your fundamental beliefs into question.

...... Not really.


"Could I really be one of them?" you lament. "There's no hope for me now."

On the precipice of anarchism, you desperately cling to the last remaining tenet of state power you believe might be legitimate: justice. Even if the free market could supply adequate amounts of clean air, defense, and police, how would disagreements between private firms be settled?

Those two words don't belong in the same paragraph, let alone an 'ideology'.


1: Acceptance. One day, it just all comes together. Everything "clicks," so to speak. Any lingering cognitive dissonance evaporates and the fog lifts. Reading Hoppe had something to do with it, of course, but it was your ability to toss off the shackles of conventional thought that ultimately led to your complete rejection of the state.

....... Anarchism is more than a rejection of the state......


You reach an intellectual apex of sorts. No longer does your conception of society include the retrospectively narrow constraint of the state and its progeny"war, oppression, tyranny, injustice. Individuals need not be circumscribed to be civilized.

You realize that the state is not a virus that can be inoculated by exposure in small doses. It is a cancerous tumor that feeds on those unaware of its true malignance. You conclude that "limited government" is an oxymoron.

Observing that a disproportionately high number of Rothbardians wear them, you succumb to an irresistible temptation to buy a bowtie.

Fixed


Suddenly, you're a Rothbardian. You experience it--that awkward moment when you realize the state is superfluous.

Fixed


And while it's probably not polite cocktail party conversation, you bring it up anyway. "I'm a NOT AN ANARCHIST I JUST THINK ROTHBARD IS THE GREATNESS LOL LOL," you blurt out at every opportunity, if for no other reason than to enjoy the quizzical looks that always ensue.


Fixed again

Then, over a three-and-a-half hour conversation, at least one of your interlocutors becomes intrigued enough to check out that kooky Rothbard character. The five stages begin in yet another individual, and for that, it was all worth it.

Inside every libertarian, there's a Not anarchist waiting to be set free. You're either a statist or you're not. There is no in-between.

Fixed.... again.


Source: http://communities.washingtontimes.com...

Rothbardians are not anarchists. Nor have they ever been anarchists. Maybe you should read some Proudhon, Bakunin, and Kropotkin before you come back to me saying that Rothbard is an anarchist philosopher. Anarchism is anti-capitalist, get with the memo ancaps.
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/4/2014 4:11:22 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/4/2014 2:59:47 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:


Most anarchists don't start on this path. American anarcho-capitalism is but a minority variety of an already minority-movement. Most anarchists I've come across were formerly liberals who eventually took issue with reformism (think taking Luxembourg over Bernstein) or lit or philosophy students introduced to radical leftism through it's overlaps.
: 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.
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/4/2014 6:24:56 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
I reject anarchism, not because it is foreign to me or out of knee-jerk reaction. Rather, I was once an anarchist and now a minarchist.

In fact, Rothbard is one of my favorite economists, he has some of the best arguments I have ever seen. However, he's not as anarchist as you might think.

For one, he rejected the anarchist label because it is historically a left wing term for collectivist anarchism. He preferred "libertarian." He openly endorsed the idea of nations in his essay titled "Nations by Consent." He also supported several Republican politicians and even identified as an "Old-Right Taft Republican."
"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
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/4/2014 6:35:45 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/4/2014 6:24:56 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
I reject anarchism, not because it is foreign to me or out of knee-jerk reaction. Rather, I was once an anarchist and now a minarchist.

In fact, Rothbard is one of my favorite economists, he has some of the best arguments I have ever seen. However, he's not as anarchist as you might think.

For one, he rejected the anarchist label because it is historically a left wing term for collectivist anarchism. He preferred "libertarian." He openly endorsed the idea of nations in his essay titled "Nations by Consent." He also supported several Republican politicians and even identified as an "Old-Right Taft Republican."

It's funny when you stop to realize that libertarian has almost the same historical connotation as anarchist.
: 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.
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/4/2014 6:39:04 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
There's a thin line between these two ideologies. To me, it is thickened by my nationalism. I detest anarchism on the grounds that it would erase national borders. As much as state control and power very so often devours freedom, it, at the very least, keeps a state as it is defined by its people.
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/4/2014 6:49:07 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/4/2014 6:35:45 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 8/4/2014 6:24:56 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
I reject anarchism, not because it is foreign to me or out of knee-jerk reaction. Rather, I was once an anarchist and now a minarchist.

In fact, Rothbard is one of my favorite economists, he has some of the best arguments I have ever seen. However, he's not as anarchist as you might think.

For one, he rejected the anarchist label because it is historically a left wing term for collectivist anarchism. He preferred "libertarian." He openly endorsed the idea of nations in his essay titled "Nations by Consent." He also supported several Republican politicians and even identified as an "Old-Right Taft Republican."

It's funny when you stop to realize that libertarian has almost the same historical connotation as anarchist.

"One gratifying aspect of our rise to prominence is that, for the first time in my memory, we, 'our side,' had captured a crucial word from the enemy... Libertarians ... had long been simply a polite word for left-wing anarchists - that is for anti-private property anarchists - either of the communist or syndicalist variety. But now we have taken it over."
-- Murray Rothbard
"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
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/4/2014 6:57:20 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/4/2014 6:49:07 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 8/4/2014 6:35:45 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 8/4/2014 6:24:56 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
I reject anarchism, not because it is foreign to me or out of knee-jerk reaction. Rather, I was once an anarchist and now a minarchist.

In fact, Rothbard is one of my favorite economists, he has some of the best arguments I have ever seen. However, he's not as anarchist as you might think.

For one, he rejected the anarchist label because it is historically a left wing term for collectivist anarchism. He preferred "libertarian." He openly endorsed the idea of nations in his essay titled "Nations by Consent." He also supported several Republican politicians and even identified as an "Old-Right Taft Republican."

It's funny when you stop to realize that libertarian has almost the same historical connotation as anarchist.

"One gratifying aspect of our rise to prominence is that, for the first time in my memory, we, 'our side,' had captured a crucial word from the enemy... Libertarians ... had long been simply a polite word for left-wing anarchists - that is for anti-private property anarchists - either of the communist or syndicalist variety. But now we have taken it over."
-- Murray Rothbard

Lol revolution for nerds. But yeah it's literally still only used in that way in the U.S.
: 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.
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/4/2014 6:58:37 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/4/2014 6:39:04 PM, Mirza wrote:
There's a thin line between these two ideologies. To me, it is thickened by my nationalism. I detest anarchism on the grounds that it would erase national borders. As much as state control and power very so often devours freedom, it, at the very least, keeps a state as it is defined by its people.

What do you mean by nationalism?
: 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.
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/4/2014 7:24:20 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/4/2014 6:58:37 PM, socialpinko wrote:
What do you mean by nationalism?
Strong pride and devotion to one's country. I find the love and loyalty for one's homeland to be important for one's character.
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/4/2014 7:30:19 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/4/2014 7:11:16 PM, Agent_Orange wrote:
I'm libertarian but not anarchist. Similar ideals but not the exact same thing.

Totes different ideals. Anarchists are part of a broader tradition which is generally anti-hierarchal, espouses egalitarianism with focus on the marginalized, is suspicious of the state form and searches for modes of resistance under capitalism. Libertarians essentially oppose all of this. For libertarians, neoliberalism is bad only insofar as it doesn't go far enough. The marginalized (those who fail to assimilate under hegemonic capitalism and it's cultural offshoots) are seen as immoral or dangerous. The realities of late, monopolistic capitalism are ignored for the abstractly considered ideal of then-emerging eighteenth century embryonic capitalism. There is no look into the subjectivizing effects of our modern political ontology. That is, their only explanation for why everyone isn't a libertarian is that, basically, schools indoctrinate people and welfare is easier than hard work. Their conception of rights is presented as universal and value-free with added ignorance of the social and economic context which preceded their canon texts. etc. etc. etc. The two schools are a bit different I'd say.
: 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.
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/4/2014 7:30:38 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/4/2014 7:24:20 PM, Mirza wrote:
At 8/4/2014 6:58:37 PM, socialpinko wrote:
What do you mean by nationalism?
Strong pride and devotion to one's country. I find the love and loyalty for one's homeland to be important for one's character.

nasty but whatevs carry on
: 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.
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/4/2014 7:54:38 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/4/2014 7:40:17 PM, Mirza wrote:
At 8/4/2014 7:30:38 PM, socialpinko wrote:
nasty but whatevs carry on
You too, Ma'am.

Although it is interesting isn't it? I think it's a good question to ask what makes nationalism possible and what sustains it. Is it, as a cynical anarchist might put it, simply a way of subjectivizing a population into servitude to some larger, grab for power? Or is it, as a conservative would say, a necessary way of preserving order and guaranteeing the superiority of one population over another (or others)? I dunno. It seems economic. Not in the sense of being purely reductive to economic interests (which is why I think Adorno goes a bit far at times) but perhaps the creation of a social body of the type which we generally identify as nationalistic was born out of the need to create a population which materially sustained a given society (that is, nationalism represents a flow of significations originating in such a need but evolving naturally from within the social and economic matrix of a given population). I mean racism, religious and national myths, the idea of national destiny, and various other ideas are all obviously also present. But they seem to be non-primary. I'd figure they were anterior (or co-options) rather than primary causes of this sentiment. Although I'm not really well understood with semiotics, I'd probably wager that an analysis would find that those ideas were unified by such an originary economic interest (contingent as it may be to the given social system being examined). What do you think?
: 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.
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/4/2014 8:22:43 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/4/2014 7:54:38 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 8/4/2014 7:40:17 PM, Mirza wrote:
At 8/4/2014 7:30:38 PM, socialpinko wrote:
nasty but whatevs carry on
You too, Ma'am.

Although it is interesting isn't it? I think it's a good question to ask what makes nationalism possible and what sustains it. Is it, as a cynical anarchist might put it, simply a way of subjectivizing a population into servitude to some larger, grab for power? Or is it, as a conservative would say, a necessary way of preserving order and guaranteeing the superiority of one population over another (or others)? I dunno. It seems economic. Not in the sense of being purely reductive to economic interests (which is why I think Adorno goes a bit far at times) but perhaps the creation of a social body of the type which we generally identify as nationalistic was born out of the need to create a population which materially sustained a given society (that is, nationalism represents a flow of significations originating in such a need but evolving naturally from within the social and economic matrix of a given population). I mean racism, religious and national myths, the idea of national destiny, and various other ideas are all obviously also present. But they seem to be non-primary. I'd figure they were anterior (or co-options) rather than primary causes of this sentiment. Although I'm not really well understood with semiotics, I'd probably wager that an analysis would find that those ideas were unified by such an originary economic interest (contingent as it may be to the given social system being examined). What do you think?
That is an aggressive, irrational form of nationalism that you have correctly discussed from a historical perspective. The philosophy I adhere to is not the same. It is not akin to racism - for that would mean I inherently dislike and find inferior people of other nationalities. I don't. Nor do I think any sort of expansion of my country would be justified for the sake of increasing its influence and power on the world stage. In brief (I'm busy currently) - nationalism, as I adhere to it, is a form that requires - not by force - the individual to identify with his homeland and people, and be loyal to these. While similar to mere patriotism, it has more deep attachments to it.

I'd oblige to discuss further at some point. Here's a description of a nationalist ideology as written by Vojislav Seselj, a Serb from Bosnia who wants a Greater Serbia established in Croatia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Kosovo, Macedonia, and Montenegro, because he argues that we are one ethnic group. It's an interesting read: http://www.vseselj.com... It paints a good imagine in its first pages as to what nationalism entails. It is specific to Serbs, but the definition is clear.

"A Serb's primeval being is connected to the deep feeling of belonging to this highest form of collective consciousness and to identification with its system of values, strength of the spirit, the project of national unity within the entire established state, solidarity, the love of justice and tolerance based on the highest humanistic ideals and traditional principles of the good and humane."

I believe he wrote the book in prison - currently being accused of war crimes. Nonetheless, he's certainly one the most intelligent people alive.
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/4/2014 9:01:43 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/4/2014 8:22:43 PM, Mirza wrote:
At 8/4/2014 7:54:38 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 8/4/2014 7:40:17 PM, Mirza wrote:
At 8/4/2014 7:30:38 PM, socialpinko wrote:
nasty but whatevs carry on
You too, Ma'am.

Although it is interesting isn't it? I think it's a good question to ask what makes nationalism possible and what sustains it. Is it, as a cynical anarchist might put it, simply a way of subjectivizing a population into servitude to some larger, grab for power? Or is it, as a conservative would say, a necessary way of preserving order and guaranteeing the superiority of one population over another (or others)? I dunno. It seems economic. Not in the sense of being purely reductive to economic interests (which is why I think Adorno goes a bit far at times) but perhaps the creation of a social body of the type which we generally identify as nationalistic was born out of the need to create a population which materially sustained a given society (that is, nationalism represents a flow of significations originating in such a need but evolving naturally from within the social and economic matrix of a given population). I mean racism, religious and national myths, the idea of national destiny, and various other ideas are all obviously also present. But they seem to be non-primary. I'd figure they were anterior (or co-options) rather than primary causes of this sentiment. Although I'm not really well understood with semiotics, I'd probably wager that an analysis would find that those ideas were unified by such an originary economic interest (contingent as it may be to the given social system being examined). What do you think?
That is an aggressive, irrational form of nationalism that you have correctly discussed from a historical perspective. The philosophy I adhere to is not the same. It is not akin to racism - for that would mean I inherently dislike and find inferior people of other nationalities. I don't. Nor do I think any sort of expansion of my country would be justified for the sake of increasing its influence and power on the world stage. In brief (I'm busy currently) - nationalism, as I adhere to it, is a form that requires - not by force - the individual to identify with his homeland and people, and be loyal to these. While similar to mere patriotism, it has more deep attachments to it.

I'd oblige to discuss further at some point. Here's a description of a nationalist ideology as written by Vojislav Seselj, a Serb from Bosnia who wants a Greater Serbia established in Croatia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Kosovo, Macedonia, and Montenegro, because he argues that we are one ethnic group. It's an interesting read: http://www.vseselj.com... It paints a good imagine in its first pages as to what nationalism entails. It is specific to Serbs, but the definition is clear.

"A Serb's primeval being is connected to the deep feeling of belonging to this highest form of collective consciousness and to identification with its system of values, strength of the spirit, the project of national unity within the entire established state, solidarity, the love of justice and tolerance based on the highest humanistic ideals and traditional principles of the good and humane."

I believe he wrote the book in prison - currently being accused of war crimes. Nonetheless, he's certainly one the most intelligent people alive.

I'll be brief (in that my six paragraph response just got erased) in my responses:

I think we're talking about different things here. I'm not exactly interested in navigating the inner-textual space of any nationalistic discourse. I have no intention of arguing over what form of nationalism suits this or that and my intention isn't to make moral condemnations of any practices, lines of dialogue, or points made from within a nationalistic grid of reference. To be honest I don't really care much about what yer nationalism means at face value. It's interesting to me insofar as it is indicative (or could be indicative) of the ways in which narratives, behavioral norms, actions, rituals, etc. are mediated (whether through a network of sign systems or what have you) or constructed (as per my initial inquiry into a possible material genesis of certain nationalistic sentiments- materially originated though mediated through signification thereafter).
: 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.
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/4/2014 9:45:14 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/4/2014 9:32:53 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
Anarchism is probably the silliest ideology.

Yer like a mix of CMTU and Objectvisim lol
: 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.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/4/2014 9:56:17 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/4/2014 9:45:14 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 8/4/2014 9:32:53 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
Anarchism is probably the silliest ideology.

Yer like a mix of CMTU and Objectvisim lol

And you say "yer" so...

But actually, I'm not an Objectivist anymore.
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/4/2014 9:57:28 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/4/2014 9:56:17 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 8/4/2014 9:45:14 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 8/4/2014 9:32:53 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
Anarchism is probably the silliest ideology.

Yer like a mix of CMTU and Objectvisim lol

And you say "yer" so...

But actually, I'm not an Objectivist anymore.

Thank god. Still into the CMTU thing tho?
: 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.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/4/2014 10:01:48 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/4/2014 9:57:28 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 8/4/2014 9:56:17 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 8/4/2014 9:45:14 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 8/4/2014 9:32:53 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
Anarchism is probably the silliest ideology.

Yer like a mix of CMTU and Objectvisim lol

And you say "yer" so...

But actually, I'm not an Objectivist anymore.

Thank god. Still into the CMTU thing tho?

What would give you that impression? lol

(Yes. The answer is yes.)
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/4/2014 10:05:43 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/4/2014 10:01:48 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 8/4/2014 9:57:28 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 8/4/2014 9:56:17 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 8/4/2014 9:45:14 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 8/4/2014 9:32:53 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
Anarchism is probably the silliest ideology.

Yer like a mix of CMTU and Objectvisim lol

And you say "yer" so...

But actually, I'm not an Objectivist anymore.

Thank god. Still into the CMTU thing tho?

What would give you that impression? lol

The fact that you talk about it constantly.

(Yes. The answer is yes.)

I'm sorry to hear that. You should try real philosophy. It's so much fun.
: 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.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/4/2014 10:09:37 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/4/2014 10:05:43 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 8/4/2014 10:01:48 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 8/4/2014 9:57:28 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 8/4/2014 9:56:17 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 8/4/2014 9:45:14 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 8/4/2014 9:32:53 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
Anarchism is probably the silliest ideology.

Yer like a mix of CMTU and Objectvisim lol

And you say "yer" so...

But actually, I'm not an Objectivist anymore.

Thank god. Still into the CMTU thing tho?

What would give you that impression? lol

The fact that you talk about it constantly.

Oh.


(Yes. The answer is yes.)

I'm sorry to hear that. You should try real philosophy. It's so much fun.

I'm sorry, but Langan puts other philosophers to shame. It's not even close really.
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/4/2014 10:12:10 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/4/2014 10:09:37 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 8/4/2014 10:05:43 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 8/4/2014 10:01:48 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 8/4/2014 9:57:28 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 8/4/2014 9:56:17 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 8/4/2014 9:45:14 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 8/4/2014 9:32:53 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
Anarchism is probably the silliest ideology.

Yer like a mix of CMTU and Objectvisim lol

And you say "yer" so...

But actually, I'm not an Objectivist anymore.

Thank god. Still into the CMTU thing tho?

What would give you that impression? lol

The fact that you talk about it constantly.

Oh.


(Yes. The answer is yes.)

I'm sorry to hear that. You should try real philosophy. It's so much fun.

I'm sorry, but Langan puts other philosophers to shame. It's not even close really.

I really don't think you have much experience in reading most past or present philosophers (or relating them to any overarching intellectual tradition). Although you might have been joking I can't tell over the Internet.
: 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.
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/4/2014 10:26:12 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/4/2014 9:01:43 PM, socialpinko wrote:
I think we're talking about different things here.
Indeed. Here's some vanishing powder.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/4/2014 10:34:05 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/4/2014 10:12:10 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 8/4/2014 10:09:37 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 8/4/2014 10:05:43 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 8/4/2014 10:01:48 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 8/4/2014 9:57:28 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 8/4/2014 9:56:17 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 8/4/2014 9:45:14 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 8/4/2014 9:32:53 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
Anarchism is probably the silliest ideology.

Yer like a mix of CMTU and Objectvisim lol

And you say "yer" so...

But actually, I'm not an Objectivist anymore.

Thank god. Still into the CMTU thing tho?

What would give you that impression? lol

The fact that you talk about it constantly.

Oh.


(Yes. The answer is yes.)

I'm sorry to hear that. You should try real philosophy. It's so much fun.

I'm sorry, but Langan puts other philosophers to shame. It's not even close really.

I really don't think you have much experience in reading most past or present philosophers (or relating them to any overarching intellectual tradition). Although you might have been joking I can't tell over the Internet.

The CTMU is self-contained and airtight. I don't need to have extensive knowledge of bad philosophy to know good philosophy when I see it.