Total Posts:171|Showing Posts:61-90|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Is Libertarianism a Form of Asperger's?

charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/17/2011 3:32:08 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/17/2011 12:53:02 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Now then, if you can muster the patience and self-discipline to spend a few minutes actually reading the post,
I've spent the time it takes to read similar posts from you in the past. Why expect different results?

Let's check here.

Hmm, yeah. You're explicitly declaring not just individualism but LOGIC to be proof of a MENTAL PROBLEM.

Why the hell did I read that? There is no purpose for such a device except exactly the one I declared before reading it-- an ad hoc excuse to throw the opposition in Siberia if you ever get the power.

If you don't think that there are genuine psychiatric conditions that can cause individuals to develop a certain intellectual style, and to logicize in a rigid and obsessive fashion, then you're quite uninformed about the human mind.

Oh, and you also say at the start that you're going to reference a scientific study, but you never actually reference a scientific study.

The study that I have in mind is the Haidt study. Here's a link, http://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk...

Also, read an abnormal psychology textbook, it should inform you that in order to call something a disorder you have to prove it to be maladaptive first-- it doesn't work the other way around.

Libertarianism, à la Asperger's, is most certainly maladaptive and psycho-ethically pathological, in terms of libertarians lacking an adequate capacity for empathy, socialization, and an intellectuality that's more humanly & humanely well-rounded than that of a Mr. Spock-like rationalist.

Correlation is not causation. What importance do you draw from these random disconnected comparisons?

They comprise a profile that indicates an interesting psychological similarity between libertarians and Aspies. Certainly I'm not in a position to clinically diagnose all libertarians as suffering from Asperger's, but the similarity is nonetheless interesting and arguably useful in interpreting the intellectual opinions, attitudes, and style of libertarians.
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
mongeese
Posts: 5,387
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/17/2011 3:33:49 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/17/2011 3:09:53 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 7/17/2011 12:12:13 PM, mongeese wrote:
At 7/17/2011 11:03:49 AM, Danielle wrote:
At 7/16/2011 10:23:46 PM, mongeese wrote:
1. Many people start out as liberals or conservatives, but over time become libertarians. How does that fit in to your analysis?

2. Many libertarians donate considerable portions of their income to charity, and still participate in fundraisers and such things. How does that fit into your analysis?

3. What percentage of libertarians do you think are libertarians because of a psychological self-centeredness?

Lrn 2 sarcasm. He's really drawing comparisons between Aspies and libs; not saying all libs are actually Aspies.

With charleslb, you can't be sure.

Does that mean that I at least make you think?

Literally, it means that I don't think Danielle is correct in saying that you aren't trying to actually claim that libertarians have psychological problems.

That makes these questions kind of irrelevant.

If he's accusing libertarians of being self-centered, it's refuted by the fact that many libertarians are as nice and charitable as their peers, but just less trustworthy of government. Charles, however, groups all libertarians as self-centered. It's a contradiction that needs clarification, so it's hardly irrelevant.

As for the vaunted private charitableness of libertarians, it no more proves that libertarians are basically compassionate human beings than the philanthropic donations of Colombian cocaine kingpins (such as Pablo Escobar, who's remembered by some in Medellin as a saint-like figure because of his generosity to the poor) prove that they're decent chaps deep down.

So to actually be tolerable in your eyes, charles, one mustn't give away that which they have worked for, but instead demand the use of force to take it away from others?

Also, your statement that libertarians are: "less trustworthy of government", was that just an innocent typo, or a Freudian one? Well, in either case, I for one certainly agree that libertarians would be less worthy of being trusted with running the government.

Well, my interpretation of my statement was that libertarians distrust the government. A Freudian slip doesn't seem possible in this case, as for one thing, the sentence was merely the incorrect use of a word, and for another, I actually do believe that a libertarian would run government best, as, to quote Thoreau, "that government is best which governs least."

If they were ever placed in such a position, a position to implement their ideology, I shudder to think of the consequences for the poor, for workingpeople, and for consumers.

We'll actually be able to use recently invented drugs and medicines without fear of being jailed by the FDA. Our tax dollars will no longer go towards fixing buildings that aren't being used or researching the effects of drugs on the sex drives of various species of birds, so that we can independently put them to better use. Children will not be forced into public schools, but can instead have the option to go to private schools through vouchers, forcing public schools to actually compete. It's already possible for the poor to develop eating problems with the private charities that are practically competing to feed them; a decrease in taxes will only lead to more donations and contributions to charity.

Plus, look at Dexter (the vigilante, serial killing tv character). He does a lot of good deeds as a front, but that doesn't mean he isn't actually a sociopath.

Are you suggesting that libertarians are charitable "as a front"? Otherwise, I'm missing the point of that statement.

It doesn't have to be the case that libertarians are charitable as a consciously fraudulent front for their charitableness to fail to refute my thesis. Humans are multi-dimensional creatures, after all. A libertarian can have a decent dimension to his personality that gives to charity, and still have a predominantly uncharitable & unempathetic attitude. His ideology disposes of any cognitive dissonance, and voilà, he can be a living contradiction, an uncompassionate libertarian philanthropist without even realizing the inherent paradoxicality of what he is.

You're again assuming that if I don't want to force people to put their own capital towards whatever the majority of Americans or various special interest groups desire, I have some psychological lack of compassion. It's a rather blatant non sequitur,

Finally, a few comments:

One cannot force capitalism upon someone else; in fact, it's just about the only economic system that cannot be forced upon someone else

WHAAAT? You can't be serious. This is a joke, right? Typo maybe?

A capitalist economy does not prevent any group within the economy from setting up groups adhering to socialism or communism or whatnot. You could only really "force" capitalism if you consider that if just about everybody else around you is participating in capitalism, you're much better off participating in capitalism, but if that's the case, you really weren't going to get anywhere suggesting communism or socialism any way.

That's right, in your alternate libertarian universe the power of capitalists and the seriously asymmetrical status quo that inherently exists under capitalism doesn't exercise any coercive control over people's lives.

Do capitalists currently have any coercive control over your life? If so, feel free to go into the details.

Once again, I point out that the only problem is that apparently the laws of your universe differ significantly from ours.

I believe that you're the one who is mistaken in his economics.

Additionally, you say that libertarians are impatient, but I can assure you that an impatient person would not have the attention span necessary to read your posts.

Almost every person on this site lacks the patience to read Charles' posts by their own admission (except Cody). I usually do, but I thought this one was amusing :P

Can't disagree with that one.

And do you disagree with it's implication, that libertarians tend to be a tad intolerant, in an Aspergerian way?

How did "almost every person on this site" turn into libertarians? And I don't think that it's fair to call someone impatient on Aspergerian level just because they won't read your entire post.
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/17/2011 3:34:35 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Btw, I believe that I've responded to just about every reply in this thread, thus far. So, let it not be said that I don't respond to questions and criticisms. That's simply rubbish.
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/17/2011 3:38:10 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/17/2011 2:44:34 PM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
At 7/17/2011 2:11:40 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 7/17/2011 2:31:35 AM, Rockylightning wrote:
dont make fun of asspies. Its a serious condition, just like every other combination of chemicals in the brain.

Dont get me started on retards...

The word "retard" is unkind and should be deleted from the vocabulary of anyone who values kindness.:

Meanwhile, back in the U.S.S.R., Charles denigrates libertarians as "Aspies," because he'd never dare say that they go full retard. That would be just way too mean...

FAIL! "Aspie" is a term of endearment for those diagnosed with Asperger's Syndrome, not a derogatory term. I quote from the Urban Dictionary: "Aspie is an affectionate term, and is not meant as a put down."
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
mongeese
Posts: 5,387
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/17/2011 3:38:26 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/17/2011 3:34:35 PM, charleslb wrote:
Btw, I believe that I've responded to just about every reply in this thread, thus far. So, let it not be said that I don't respond to questions and criticisms. That's simply rubbish.

Post #43.
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/17/2011 3:40:40 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/17/2011 2:49:22 PM, mongeese wrote:
At 7/17/2011 2:45:30 PM, charleslb wrote:
Glad to be of service in providing a bit of amusement. And yes, most of those individuals who lack the patience to read my posts are in fact "libertarians". A little anecdotal confirmation of my thesis.

How do you know how many people lacked the patience to read your posts, or what political ideologies they had? Did everyone who didn't read the whole thing post, "Hey, I didn't read your post due to lack of patience, and I'm a <insert ideology here>"? You can't be serious to call this "confirmation" in any sense of the word.

Obviously I'm referring to individuals who've responded to say "Hey, I didn't read your post". Now then, of course they don't admit with self-critical honesty that the reason is their own lack of patience, they usually make some derogatory crack about my "verbosity".
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,299
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/17/2011 3:43:29 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/17/2011 3:32:08 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 7/17/2011 12:53:02 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Now then, if you can muster the patience and self-discipline to spend a few minutes actually reading the post,
I've spent the time it takes to read similar posts from you in the past. Why expect different results?

Let's check here.

Hmm, yeah. You're explicitly declaring not just individualism but LOGIC to be proof of a MENTAL PROBLEM.

Why the hell did I read that? There is no purpose for such a device except exactly the one I declared before reading it-- an ad hoc excuse to throw the opposition in Siberia if you ever get the power.

If you don't think that there are genuine psychiatric conditions that can cause individuals to develop a certain intellectual style, and to logicize in a rigid and obsessive fashion, then you're quite uninformed about the human mind.
Argument from intimidation.


Oh, and you also say at the start that you're going to reference a scientific study, but you never actually reference a scientific study.

The study that I have in mind is the Haidt study. Here's a link, http://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk...
That points more to a conclusion that libertarians are more honest or trust survey anonymity more than anything Haidt or you drew from the data.


Libertarianism, à la Asperger's, is most certainly maladaptive and psycho-ethically pathological, in terms of libertarians lacking an adequate capacity for empathy, socialization, and an intellectuality that's more humanly & humanely well-rounded than that of a Mr. Spock-like rationalist.
Most certainly?
I don't see any evidence in there.
Humanity IS defined by rationality. You want social creatures, find ants or elephants.

They comprise a profile that indicates an interesting psychological similarity between libertarians and Aspies. Certainly I'm not in a position to clinically diagnose all libertarians as suffering from Asperger's, but the similarity is nonetheless interesting
To you, perhaps. Anything that looks like an opportunity to post something about your opponents without having to address their ideas with reason probably interests you.

and arguably useful in interpreting the intellectual opinions, attitudes, and style of libertarians.
What the hell use?
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: 19,299
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/17/2011 3:44:40 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/17/2011 3:40:40 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 7/17/2011 2:49:22 PM, mongeese wrote:
At 7/17/2011 2:45:30 PM, charleslb wrote:
Glad to be of service in providing a bit of amusement. And yes, most of those individuals who lack the patience to read my posts are in fact "libertarians". A little anecdotal confirmation of my thesis.

How do you know how many people lacked the patience to read your posts, or what political ideologies they had? Did everyone who didn't read the whole thing post, "Hey, I didn't read your post due to lack of patience, and I'm a <insert ideology here>"? You can't be serious to call this "confirmation" in any sense of the word.

Obviously I'm referring to individuals who've responded to say "Hey, I didn't read your post". Now then, of course they don't admit with self-critical honesty that the reason is their own lack of patience, they usually make some derogatory crack about my "verbosity".

Or lack of content density.
Obviously you didn't read his much shorter post carefully enough, or you didn't care, because he's asking wtf makes you think it has to do with "patience" in the first place.
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: 19,299
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/17/2011 3:52:08 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
What's incredibly funny in this study is that they conclude

conservatives are likely to feel more strongly about social taboos revolving around purity, authority and ingroup loyalty, while liberals feel a stronger sense of obligation around issues of harm to animals and other people.
when
Asked about impaling a child's hand, 78 per cent of the conservatives responded that they would refuse to do this "for any amount of money," compared with 70 per cent of liberals

It appears, from the data given, that conservatives feel stronger about this too than liberals, leaving liberals only having animals as a special domain.

When what they say about the conservatives and liberals, who are the most prevalent and hence should be the easiest to figure out, is so moronic, why should we trust what they say about the less prominent data, let alone trust them to design the study well?

Also, the article title: "Reasons to avoid a libertarian babysitter"

No babysitter of any political affiliation has ever been told that they will be given "Any amount of money" for impaling a child's hand, nor ever shall they.
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.
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/17/2011 3:53:03 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/17/2011 3:14:06 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 7/17/2011 3:11:33 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 7/17/2011 12:28:59 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 7/17/2011 10:58:49 AM, Danielle wrote:
At 7/16/2011 10:14:30 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
>implying Charles' posts are useful.

Ad hominem.
More of an argument from history really.

Also, lol@ calling that in a thread constituting nothing else.

If you don't read my posts then you can't make such assertions, not with any real creditability, anyway.

Reading the post did nothing to alter this perception.

The title itself tells us everything we need to know in regard to its status as ad hominem.

To dismiss an analysis of the possible psychology concealed behind an ideology as merely "ad hominem" assumes that psychology is never relevant to politics and ideology. Of course it quite often is, and often flamingly so. For instance, would anyone dispute that subscribing to neo-Nazi ideology is largely motivated by psychology, i.e. by such psychological motives as the desire to feel superior to others, by overcompensation for deep feelings of personal inadequacy, by an us-them mentality, by the emotion of hate, by the psychological need for scapegoats, etc. Isn't it therefore legitimate to look at the psychodynamics of neo-Nazism, wouldn't it be quite mistaken to dismiss such an approach as "ad hominem"? And isn't the kosherness of psychoanalyzing neo-Nazism merely an obvious case of something that holds just as good for other ideologies, such as libertarianism? I, for one, of course answer in the affirmative.
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/17/2011 3:56:42 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/17/2011 2:51:24 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
coming from morons confusing the language...

Ah, here comes the liberpergertarian intolerance. And, incidentally, descending to outright name-calling like this is the most abject form of going ad hominem.
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,299
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/17/2011 3:57:39 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/17/2011 3:53:03 PM, charleslb wrote:

and often flamingly so. For instance, would anyone dispute that subscribing to neo-Nazi ideology is largely motivated by psychology
It doesn't matter if it's motivated, that is irrelevant to whether the ideology is CORRECT. This is a DEBATE site. It does you NO GOOD to publicly analyze why they hold the ideology, even in the unlikely event you were right, here. It might be slightly different if you were designing an ad campaign to convert or manipulate members of some ideology, but your analyses don't appear tailored to that sort of use.

Isn't it therefore legitimate to look at the psychodynamics of neo-Nazism, wouldn't it be quite mistaken to dismiss such an approach as "ad hominem"?
When you were talking to the Nazi, they would not be mistaken to dismiss it as ad hominem.
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: 19,299
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/17/2011 4:00:56 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/17/2011 3:56:42 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 7/17/2011 2:51:24 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
coming from morons confusing the language...

Ah, here comes the liberpergertarian intolerance. And, incidentally, descending to outright name-calling like this is the most abject form of going ad hominem.

I didn't even say who the morons were. Don't be so solipsistic as to assume that you are the idiot who started the trend of conflating the psychological term empathy with compassion, let alone the person who decided that it was a distinct function from reason in general.

As I didn't premise any argument with the status of someone as an idiot, merely mentioned it in a passing aside to my actual argument (which you're evading), there is no ad hominem.
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.
mongeese
Posts: 5,387
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/17/2011 4:03:26 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/17/2011 3:40:40 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 7/17/2011 2:49:22 PM, mongeese wrote:
At 7/17/2011 2:45:30 PM, charleslb wrote:
Glad to be of service in providing a bit of amusement. And yes, most of those individuals who lack the patience to read my posts are in fact "libertarians". A little anecdotal confirmation of my thesis.

How do you know how many people lacked the patience to read your posts, or what political ideologies they had? Did everyone who didn't read the whole thing post, "Hey, I didn't read your post due to lack of patience, and I'm a <insert ideology here>"? You can't be serious to call this "confirmation" in any sense of the word.

Obviously I'm referring to individuals who've responded to say "Hey, I didn't read your post". Now then, of course they don't admit with self-critical honesty that the reason is their own lack of patience, they usually make some derogatory crack about my "verbosity".

Then you suffer from voluntary response bias, as libertarians are more likely to respond to a thread that attacks libertarianism. A liberal wouldn't respond to your post without reading it because a liberal isn't attacked by it.
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/17/2011 5:09:17 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
The word "retard" is unkind and should be deleted from the vocabulary of anyone who values kindness.:

Meanwhile, back in the U.S.S.R., Charles denigrates libertarians as "Aspies," because he'd never dare say that they go full retard. That would be just way too mean...

FAIL! "Aspie" is a term of endearment for those diagnosed with Asperger's Syndrome, not a derogatory term. I quote from the Urban Dictionary: "Aspie is an affectionate term, and is not meant as a put down.":

Oh, yes, we're all sure that you meant it so endearingly when you compared libertarians to people with Asperger's! Give me a f*cking break, Chuckie poo, you piece of sh*t.

Don't worry... I was being affectionate.
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/17/2011 5:17:00 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/17/2011 5:09:17 PM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
The word "retard" is unkind and should be deleted from the vocabulary of anyone who values kindness.:

Meanwhile, back in the U.S.S.R., Charles denigrates libertarians as "Aspies," because he'd never dare say that they go full retard. That would be just way too mean...

FAIL! "Aspie" is a term of endearment for those diagnosed with Asperger's Syndrome, not a derogatory term. I quote from the Urban Dictionary: "Aspie is an affectionate term, and is not meant as a put down.":

Oh, yes, we're all sure that you meant it so endearingly when you compared libertarians to people with Asperger's! Give me a f*cking break, Chuckie poo, you piece of sh*t.

Don't worry... I was being affectionate.

I certainly didn't use the term in the cruel manner that the word "retard" is colloquially used in. I suppose though that your sort of mentality finds it rather difficult to believe such a thing.
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/17/2011 5:52:15 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/16/2011 9:43:33 PM, charleslb wrote:
Have you ever found yourself exasperatingly embroiled in a political argument with a "libertarian" and felt like you were trying to reason a political Asperger's aflictee out of his "intense focus" on an idea that had captured his one-track interest? Well, perhaps your mind's slightly sarcastic interpretation of your exasperating interaction was actually cluing you into an authentic insight about libertarians and the psychology underlying their ideology. There's even a scientific study that suggests that this may be the case.

Okay, despite my reference to a scientific study, I'm not speaking entirely clinically here (which I'm sure will bug any fact-collecting libertarian Aspie reading this). However, the profile of the libertarian mind-set does in fact match up quite strikingly with that of people with the syndrome in question. Let's take a look.

To begin with, there's the almost autistic individualism that libertarian philosophy frames in its own lofty political terms. That is, libertarian thought verges on advocating a form of society very much along the lines of the "one-sided" and "self-centered" social nature of Aspies. Yes, as anyone familiar with the condition would observe here, those with Asperger's aren't individualistic in a technically autistic sense, i.e. they're not asocially withdrawn. But they do have a style of social interaction that's very much on the autistic spectrum, and that tends to define them as "individualistic in outlook" and given to a "lack of interest in socialization". It's this kind of autistic individuality that libertarianism can easily be seen as ideologically enshrining, in the form of its tenet of "self-ownership", and its glorification of every-man-for-himself free-marketarian economics and its cornerstone principle of self-interest.

Self-ownership, self-interest, self-this and self-that indeed. Note the frequency of occurrence of the word self in the conversation and philosophy of libertarians. They do rather appear to think in terms centered on atomized selves. I really don't think that it would be an unfair exaggeration at all to say that they in fact seem to have taken a centered-on-radically-individualistic-selves, a thoroughly self-centered orientation, and parlayed it into a political orthodoxy that rationalizes and validates it for them.

And, moreover, contrary to their professed belief in freedom, libertarians yearn to impose this self-centered orientation & orthodoxy on the rest of us, by promoting capitalism in its most antisocially individualistic, Darwinianly competitive form. Quite like political Aspies, libertarians first superimpose their own social way of being in the world on their thinking about society, and the next move of course is to go from superimposing to imposing. The sociopolitical thinking that feels so right to the liberpergerarian, to coin an awkward term, feels like it would be right and best for society as a whole. Naturally enough then, the liberpergerarian becomes a proponent, often a utopian and zealous one, of ideologically purifying our current mixed form of capitalism and visiting a more inhumanely selfist system upon his neighbor.

Now then, the possible painful human consequences of creating a socioeconomic order based to such an extreme extent on individualism perhaps doesn't adequately register with libertarians because of another hallmark Asperger's trait. I'm referring to the Aspie's distinctive deficit in the empathy department. An empathy deficit, does this sound at all like something that's characteristic of libertarianism and its adherents? That was a rhetorical question, by the way.

Libertarian philosophy of course often places no emphasis or value on the qualities of empathy and social compassion at all. In its most extreme version it even explicitly denounces such touchy-feely ethical qualities. Predictably, it thoroughly intellectualizes this with some of its key social concepts and its free-marketarian economics. But this is all really quite a lot of ideological self-justification of unfeeling self-centeredness. Libertarians can try as they may, but the leave-everyone-to-his-own-devices-and-to-the-winners-go-all-and-the-losers-can-die-and-decrease-the-surplus-population ethos of the their not so dear movement certainly bespeaks a lack of empathy. A veritably clinical lack of empathy, one that is yet another nail in the diagnosis of libertarianism as politicized Asperger's.

Next on the list of shared symptoms, the linear logicality & rigid rationalism of both Aspies and libertarians. Ever noticed how libertarians tend to be intellectually rather like latter-day scholastic philosophers, intensely, logic-choppingly, and doctrinairely rationalizing their politico-economic articles of faith the way medieval thinkers used to take their theological rationalizations to the extreme of deductively proving how many angels can dance on the head of a pin? And have you ever noticed how downright obsessive libertarians can be about the concepts of their creed, and about defending their intellectual validity? A penchant to be tenaciously logical and intellectually obsessive, doesn't this sound at least a tad Asperger's-like?!

(And, while I'm on intellectual traits, don't forget about the "exceptional" memories of both Aspies and libertarians. A libertarian will fixate in quite Aspie-like fashion on the fine points under the bridge of an argument he's engaged in to a point that would put an elephant's memory to shame.)

Of course when one doesn't respect and play along with the stickling & quibbling logic of libertarians, well, that's when two more of their AS foibles come to the fore, their irritability and their intolerance of what they deem to be imperfection. It's certainly been my own experience that logicizing libertarians have precious little patience with anyone who is committed to an opposing sociopolitical point of view, and who's the least bit critical of their stock arguments.

Mm-hmm, the ideological ire of staunch liberpergerarians is certainly raised pretty readily when someone challenges the rationalistic bona fides of their beliefs. But what they have even less tolerance for is anything that falls short of their beau ideal of pristine and untainted-by-any-hint-of-interventionism capitalism. Their priggish perfectionism is full-on when it comes to upholding the integrity and inviolateness of their overesteemed "free market". And anyone who doesn't recognize and fall prostrate before the elegance of "free-market" theory is deemed to be a dolt worthy of unrestrained derision.

The liberpergerarian's lack of empathy, combined with this cocksureness about the superiority of his own ideological reasoning, equals a cold-bloodedly doctrinarian bent of mind that's chillingly capable of abolishing a social safety net that millions of people in need depend on, and allowing the human chips to fall wherever they may in the ferally dog-eat-dog system of pure capitalism that his philosophy touts. Which is to say that liberpergerarians have the very real potential to become the sort of lethally perfectionistic true believers that the Bolsheviks or the Khmer Rouge were. The implementation of their remorselessly quixotic politico-economic theories could indeed have genocidal-scale fallout for the poor, but their Asperger's prevents them from compassionately and morally appreciating this.

The conclusion is located directly below

So....I'm guessing you just read what wikipedia said about the DSM and not the actual DSM?

If "DSM" means nothing to you, please stop talking about clinical diagnoses.
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/17/2011 5:55:02 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/17/2011 5:17:00 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 7/17/2011 5:09:17 PM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
The word "retard" is unkind and should be deleted from the vocabulary of anyone who values kindness.:

Meanwhile, back in the U.S.S.R., Charles denigrates libertarians as "Aspies," because he'd never dare say that they go full retard. That would be just way too mean...

FAIL! "Aspie" is a term of endearment for those diagnosed with Asperger's Syndrome, not a derogatory term. I quote from the Urban Dictionary: "Aspie is an affectionate term, and is not meant as a put down.":

Oh, yes, we're all sure that you meant it so endearingly when you compared libertarians to people with Asperger's! Give me a f*cking break, Chuckie poo, you piece of sh*t.

Don't worry... I was being affectionate.

I certainly didn't use the term in the cruel manner that the word "retard" is colloquially used in. I suppose though that your sort of mentality finds it rather difficult to believe such a thing.

Do you think Ron Paul has Aspergers (remember, Asperers is not the same as "ignorant b@st@rd)?
mongeese
Posts: 5,387
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/17/2011 10:34:44 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/17/2011 3:38:26 PM, mongeese wrote:
At 7/17/2011 3:34:35 PM, charleslb wrote:
Btw, I believe that I've responded to just about every reply in this thread, thus far. So, let it not be said that I don't respond to questions and criticisms. That's simply rubbish.

Post #43.

Ping.
Rockylightning
Posts: 2,862
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/18/2011 1:48:40 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/17/2011 2:12:22 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
At 7/17/2011 2:11:40 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 7/17/2011 2:31:35 AM, Rockylightning wrote:
dont make fun of asspies. Its a serious condition, just like every other combination of chemicals in the brain.

Dont get me started on retards...

The word "retard" is unkind and should be deleted from the vocabulary of anyone who values kindness.

I actually agree with that. :/

I forgot to put retard in quotation marks. It seems very harsh this way. Oops.
freedomsquared
Posts: 450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/18/2011 12:47:58 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
"And, moreover, contrary to their professed belief in freedom, libertarians yearn to impose this self-centered orientation & orthodoxy on the rest of us, by promoting capitalism in its most antisocially individualistic, Darwinianly competitive form."

I profess I am a bit confused by the above statement. I do not understand how promoting one's views in a non-coercive way constitutes imposing one's will on others.
But it's Norway, sort of the Canada of Europe."
-innomen

http://www.debate.org...
-humorous debate with brian_eggleston

http://www.debate.org...
-tournament debate, need votes
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/18/2011 4:06:45 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/17/2011 4:00:56 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 7/17/2011 3:56:42 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 7/17/2011 2:51:24 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
coming from morons confusing the language...

Ah, here comes the liberpergertarian intolerance. And, incidentally, descending to outright name-calling like this is the most abject form of going ad hominem.

I didn't even say who the morons were. Don't be so solipsistic as to assume that you are the idiot who started the trend of conflating the psychological term empathy with compassion, let alone the person who decided that it was a distinct function from reason in general.

As I didn't premise any argument with the status of someone as an idiot, merely mentioned it in a passing aside to my actual argument (which you're evading), there is no ad hominem.

Wow, "solipsistic" and "conflating", when I use intellectually hoity-toity words like that I get accused of everything from being too proud of my vocabulary to having a thesaurus-addiction. Hmm, I guess it's okay though for a rightist to show off his intellectuality with educated-sounding words. No double standard here!
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/18/2011 4:08:39 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/17/2011 5:52:15 PM, Wnope wrote:
So....I'm guessing you just read what wikipedia said about the DSM and not the actual DSM?

If "DSM" means nothing to you, please stop talking about clinical diagnoses.

I don't believe that I claimed to be making a clinical diagnosis.
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/18/2011 4:25:55 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/18/2011 12:47:58 PM, freedomsquared wrote:
"And, moreover, contrary to their professed belief in freedom, libertarians yearn to impose this self-centered orientation & orthodoxy on the rest of us, by promoting capitalism in its most antisocially individualistic, Darwinianly competitive form."

I profess I am a bit confused by the above statement. I do not understand how promoting one's views in a non-coercive way constitutes imposing one's will on others.

Capitalism is an inherently coercive system, i.e. it's inherently inclined to coercively impose an unequal & unjust status quo on ordinary people. Now then, right-libertarians and other pro-capitalists promote such a coercive system, ergo they can't be held to be untainted with the sin of coerciveness.

Also, I would mention that I've been in conversations with libertarians in which they've quite bluntly pointed out that the libertarian form of "non-aggression" is not at all the same thing as Thoreauvian civil resistance or Gandhian non-violence. Some libertarians, it seems, are actually itching to use force to express their commitment to their free-marketarian principles, they just need to be given an excuse, some provocation so they can plausibly claim to be non-aggressors and innocent of coercive tactics. In other words, libertarians are quite the self-fooling hypocrites when it comes to their vaunted non-aggressiveness.
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
freedomsquared
Posts: 450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/18/2011 4:31:40 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/18/2011 4:25:55 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 7/18/2011 12:47:58 PM, freedomsquared wrote:
"And, moreover, contrary to their professed belief in freedom, libertarians yearn to impose this self-centered orientation & orthodoxy on the rest of us, by promoting capitalism in its most antisocially individualistic, Darwinianly competitive form."

I profess I am a bit confused by the above statement. I do not understand how promoting one's views in a non-coercive way constitutes imposing one's will on others.

Capitalism is an inherently coercive system, i.e. it's inherently inclined to coercively impose an unequal & unjust status quo on ordinary people. Now then, right-libertarians and other pro-capitalists promote such a coercive system, ergo they can't be held to be untainted with the sin of coerciveness.

I refute your claim that capitalism is an inherently coercive system, and in fact, I believe it is the exact opposite. Capitalism in its purest form is complete economic freedom. It is the freedom to chose what you want to buy and what you want to sell. It gives you complete mastery over your own property.

Also, I would mention that I've been in conversations with libertarians in which they've quite bluntly pointed out that the libertarian form of "non-aggression" is not at all the same thing as Thoreauvian civil resistance or Gandhian non-violence. Some libertarians, it seems, are actually itching to use force to express their commitment to their free-marketarian principles, they just need to be given an excuse, some provocation so they can plausibly claim to be non-aggressors and innocent of coercive tactics. In other words, libertarians are quite the self-fooling hypocrites when it comes to their vaunted non-aggressiveness.

You are classifying a whole political group by a few extremists. You are criticizing libertarian doctrine base on the beliefs of a couple libertarians. Just because someone is libertarian does not mean that they have all the views of a libertarian. The whole of libertarian doctrine is against coercion and the use of force, so any libertarian that advocates such aggression is not a libertarian at all.
But it's Norway, sort of the Canada of Europe."
-innomen

http://www.debate.org...
-humorous debate with brian_eggleston

http://www.debate.org...
-tournament debate, need votes
mongoose
Posts: 3,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/18/2011 4:49:03 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/18/2011 4:25:55 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 7/18/2011 12:47:58 PM, freedomsquared wrote:
"And, moreover, contrary to their professed belief in freedom, libertarians yearn to impose this self-centered orientation & orthodoxy on the rest of us, by promoting capitalism in its most antisocially individualistic, Darwinianly competitive form."

I profess I am a bit confused by the above statement. I do not understand how promoting one's views in a non-coercive way constitutes imposing one's will on others.

Capitalism is an inherently coercive system, i.e. it's inherently inclined to coercively impose an unequal & unjust status quo on ordinary people. Now then, right-libertarians and other pro-capitalists promote such a coercive system, ergo they can't be held to be untainted with the sin of coerciveness.

What is your ideal, noncoercive system then?

Does it involve magic?
It is odd when one's capacity for compassion is measured not in what he is willing to do by his own time, effort, and property, but what he will force others to do with their own property instead.
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/18/2011 4:49:41 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/18/2011 4:31:40 PM, freedomsquared wrote:
I refute your claim that capitalism is an inherently coercive system, and in fact, I believe it is the exact opposite. Capitalism in its purest form is complete economic freedom. It is the freedom to chose what you want to buy and what you want to sell. It gives you complete mastery over your own property.

Saying something doesn't make it so. Declaring that you refute my claim that capitalism is inherently coercive is only the first step, you now need to proceed to somehow do so. On the side of my critique of capitalism I have all of the empirical evidence of how capitalist systems actually work in the real world. What pray tell, besides ivory-tower free-marketarian theory, do you have to introduce that would rebut and eclipse the empirical evidence?

You are classifying a whole political group by a few extremists. You are criticizing libertarian doctrine base on the beliefs of a couple libertarians. Just because someone is libertarian does not mean that they have all the views of a libertarian. The whole of libertarian doctrine is against coercion and the use of force, so any libertarian that advocates such aggression is not a libertarian at all.

I'm glad that you disown all potentially coercive and violent libertarians. However, merely because you don't identify with them doesn't mean that they aren't a part of the baggage of being a libertarian. Or are you only willing to acknowledge saintly and sinless individuals as fellow "libertarians", rather like the evangelical Christians who seek to absolve their faith of its historical crimes by arguing that none of the pious perpetrators of inquisitions and crusades were "real Christians"? This is really the lamest way of dealing with the existence of unpleasant people in one's ideological camp. We all need to own up to the fact that our philosophy attracts "coercive" types, rightists expect leftists to do so, why can't leftists expect the same from you-all on the right?
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
freedomsquared
Posts: 450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/18/2011 5:23:58 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/18/2011 4:49:41 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 7/18/2011 4:31:40 PM, freedomsquared wrote:
I refute your claim that capitalism is an inherently coercive system, and in fact, I believe it is the exact opposite. Capitalism in its purest form is complete economic freedom. It is the freedom to chose what you want to buy and what you want to sell. It gives you complete mastery over your own property.

Saying something doesn't make it so. Declaring that you refute my claim that capitalism is inherently coercive is only the first step, you now need to proceed to somehow do so. On the side of my critique of capitalism I have all of the empirical evidence of how capitalist systems actually work in the real world. What pray tell, besides ivory-tower free-marketarian theory, do you have to introduce that would rebut and eclipse the empirical evidence?

I completely agree that someone has to back up their arguments to make them of any significance. So "pray-tell", give me the exact examples of "how capitalist systems actually work in the real world." I cannot refute evidence that has not been given.

You are classifying a whole political group by a few extremists. You are criticizing libertarian doctrine base on the beliefs of a couple libertarians. Just because someone is libertarian does not mean that they have all the views of a libertarian. The whole of libertarian doctrine is against coercion and the use of force, so any libertarian that advocates such aggression is not a libertarian at all.

I'm glad that you disown all potentially coercive and violent libertarians. However, merely because you don't identify with them doesn't mean that they aren't a part of the baggage of being a libertarian. Or are you only willing to acknowledge saintly and sinless individuals as fellow "libertarians", rather like the evangelical Christians who seek to absolve their faith of its historical crimes by arguing that none of the pious perpetrators of inquisitions and crusades were "real Christians"? This is really the lamest way of dealing with the existence of unpleasant people in one's ideological camp. We all need to own up to the fact that our philosophy attracts "coercive" types, rightists expect leftists to do so, why can't leftists expect the same from you-all on the right?

First off, I'm not on the right, and leftists can have whatever expectations they want, I don't really care. My point is that EVERY group has extremists that don't represent the core values of that group. I believe that Libertarian doctrine itself is sound, even if some of those who claim to believe in it are not. Just because someone claims to believe something doesn't matter. What matters is if they actually follow up on their beliefs, or as you have rightly pointed out, are just self-righteous hypocrites. There are many such hypocrites and I don't believe Libertarians are particularly partial or immune to these types of people. However, it is unfair to say because these couple hypocrites support coercion, that Libertarian doctrine if flawed.
But it's Norway, sort of the Canada of Europe."
-innomen

http://www.debate.org...
-humorous debate with brian_eggleston

http://www.debate.org...
-tournament debate, need votes
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,299
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/18/2011 5:25:35 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/18/2011 4:06:45 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 7/17/2011 4:00:56 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 7/17/2011 3:56:42 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 7/17/2011 2:51:24 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
coming from morons confusing the language...

Ah, here comes the liberpergertarian intolerance. And, incidentally, descending to outright name-calling like this is the most abject form of going ad hominem.

I didn't even say who the morons were. Don't be so solipsistic as to assume that you are the idiot who started the trend of conflating the psychological term empathy with compassion, let alone the person who decided that it was a distinct function from reason in general.

As I didn't premise any argument with the status of someone as an idiot, merely mentioned it in a passing aside to my actual argument (which you're evading), there is no ad hominem.

Wow, "solipsistic" and "conflating", when I use intellectually hoity-toity words like that I get accused of everything from being too proud of my vocabulary to having a thesaurus-addiction. Hmm, I guess it's okay though for a rightist to show off his intellectuality with educated-sounding words.

Do you know of less intellectual-sounding words with the same meaning?

Generally I only complain if you're using words that are, you know-- French or German or something. :P.

I don't believe that I claimed to be making a clinical diagnosis.
That's the only kind of diagnosis available for Asperger's.

Freedomsquared wrote:
The whole of libertarian doctrine is against coercion and the use of force
Umm, no, that's pacifism dude. Libertarianism is against the use of initial force.
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.
freedomsquared
Posts: 450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/18/2011 5:29:07 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/18/2011 5:25:35 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 7/18/2011 4:06:45 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 7/17/2011 4:00:56 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 7/17/2011 3:56:42 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 7/17/2011 2:51:24 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
coming from morons confusing the language...


Freedomsquared wrote:
The whole of libertarian doctrine is against coercion and the use of force
Umm, no, that's pacifism dude. Libertarianism is against the use of initial force.

I'm sorry, my first quote was unclear. What I meant was that libertarians are against the use of coercion in the context of property (and thus rights) or the market.
But it's Norway, sort of the Canada of Europe."
-innomen

http://www.debate.org...
-humorous debate with brian_eggleston

http://www.debate.org...
-tournament debate, need votes