Total Posts:171|Showing Posts:121-150|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Is Libertarianism a Form of Asperger's?

Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,299
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/19/2011 1:25:14 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/19/2011 12:31:01 AM, FREEDO wrote:
At 7/17/2011 4:27:10 AM, belle wrote:
hmm. is a political position you disagree with a mental disorder? sounds like a fruitful question!

Yes. But my own opinions are a mental disorder as well. So I usually don't find cause to point it out.
You can't describe something as disordered unless there is order to compare it to.
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.
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/19/2011 1:34:03 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/19/2011 1:25:14 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 7/19/2011 12:31:01 AM, FREEDO wrote:
At 7/17/2011 4:27:10 AM, belle wrote:
hmm. is a political position you disagree with a mental disorder? sounds like a fruitful question!

Yes. But my own opinions are a mental disorder as well. So I usually don't find cause to point it out.
You can't describe something as disordered unless there is order to compare it to.

I can if my purpose is not to be coherent but conversational.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,299
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/19/2011 1:38:30 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/19/2011 1:34:03 AM, FREEDO wrote:
At 7/19/2011 1:25:14 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 7/19/2011 12:31:01 AM, FREEDO wrote:
At 7/17/2011 4:27:10 AM, belle wrote:
hmm. is a political position you disagree with a mental disorder? sounds like a fruitful question!

Yes. But my own opinions are a mental disorder as well. So I usually don't find cause to point it out.
You can't describe something as disordered unless there is order to compare it to.

I can if my purpose is not to be coherent but conversational.

Hmm, let's test this proposition. Turquoise bicycle shoe fins actualize radishes greenly. What conversation does that spur?
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.
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/19/2011 2:03:45 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/19/2011 1:38:30 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 7/19/2011 1:34:03 AM, FREEDO wrote:
At 7/19/2011 1:25:14 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 7/19/2011 12:31:01 AM, FREEDO wrote:
At 7/17/2011 4:27:10 AM, belle wrote:
hmm. is a political position you disagree with a mental disorder? sounds like a fruitful question!

Yes. But my own opinions are a mental disorder as well. So I usually don't find cause to point it out.
You can't describe something as disordered unless there is order to compare it to.

I can if my purpose is not to be coherent but conversational.

Hmm, let's test this proposition. Turquoise bicycle shoe fins actualize radishes greenly. What conversation does that spur?

Well, I started to type out that that was neither coherent nor conversational, whereas mine was one. Then I realized that it actually was, for I am talking bout it right now.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
Aaronroy
Posts: 749
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/19/2011 3:35:58 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
"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."

I wouldn't say it denounces social compassion, it only reinforces individual liberties, more or less.
turn down for h'what
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/19/2011 10:50:41 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/19/2011 3:35:58 PM, Aaronroy wrote:
"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."

I wouldn't say it denounces social compassion, it only reinforces individual liberties, more or less.

Hmm, I believe that this is what's known as spin-doctoring.
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
7/19/2011 10:53:26 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/18/2011 10:37:06 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 7/18/2011 10:12:35 PM, mongeese wrote:
At 7/18/2011 10:10:02 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 7/18/2011 9:40:42 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 7/18/2011 9:25:25 PM, charleslb wrote:
Okeydokey, I'll state some elementary facts for you. Capitalism is a system in which a relatively small faction of society, i.e. the fat cats, to use a technical term, control and lock up most of the economic wealth
No, capitalism is a system in which the creator of wealth decides what is done with it unless contracted otherwise, regardless of the resulting distribution.

If a society uses common currency to exchange commodities, and the only barrier to trade is the price decided by the buyer and seller, what would you call the economic system?

Capitalism. That seems easy enough.

That was towards charleslb.

You're merely continuing to insist on an idealistic ideological definition of capitalism.
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
7/19/2011 11:54:02 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/18/2011 9:39:36 PM, mongeese wrote:
At 7/18/2011 9:25:25 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 7/18/2011 5:53:24 PM, mongeese wrote:
If it is inherent, then you should be able to point out specific examples. You demanded proof from freedomsquared, so it is only fitting that you prove your own claim first. Your first claim is that capitalists coercively impose a status quo. How? Where in the free market does the coercion lie?

Okeydokey, I'll state some elementary facts for you. Capitalism is a system in which a relatively small faction of society, i.e. the fat cats, to use a technical term, control and lock up most of the economic wealth ...

They must first earn the wealth before locking it up, and if they earn the wealth, they have a right to it, not you or anyone else.

Hmm, so you're really going to maintain that capitalists become wealthy by "earning" it?! What about the three Es, exploitation, expropriation, and evildoing (you know, such as the evildoing that recently made a small number of Wall Streeters more obscenely rich at the expense of a painful global recession)?

Now then, this ability of capitalists to dominate the game of society with their money-power extends beyond the strictly economic sphere into the political,

Which is why this mix of socialism and capitalism only benefits big business; they are able to buy regulations and restrictions against their smaller competitors. It is hardly a reason for more regulation.

So, your remedy for capitalist greed is to totally unleash it on workingpeople who will no longer receive even a semblance of protection from government regulation? I suppose that in your philosophy the remedy for the high murder rate would likewise be to abolish all laws against homicide and carrying a concealed weapon, theoretically freeing good citizens up to waste the "bad guys" before the "bad guys" waste them? Wow, what an unlovely world your philosophy, if ever put into effect, would inflict upon us.

into society's media and means of communication,

There are more than enough means of communication and media for you to have free choice. No business can force its website, product, or news upon you, because it has competitors.

When most of the mass media is owned & controlled by the capitalist establishment, then ipso facto and inescapably the public is going to find itself imbibing said capitalist establishment's worldview.

into education and academia,

Education is currently largely a monopoly due to government control, forcing a single curriculum upon entire states. More vouchers allows for more options of schooling, cutting into the coercion of government. How this is the fault of capitalism, you do not say.

Firstly, who says that only public, "government controlled" schools indoctrinate children with society's dominant ideology? Even the materials that some parents use to "home-school" their children inculcate the dominant ideology. Secondly, vouchers are just a dishonest ploy to do away with public education. Thirdly, capitalism and belief in the capitalist status quo is going to be promoted in the educational curriculum, regardless of whether children are schooled in a public system, in private schools, or at home. This is because we live in a capitalist society under the economic-social-political-cultural hegemony of a capitalist elite.

Academia has numerous private sources of funding so that no one group can fund a large portion of it. Besides, they cannot force this academia on you, so why does it matter?

Blah, blah, under capitalism ordinary people are supremely empowered and have nothing but choice and freedom, blah. No, dear mongeese, the money-power of the capitalist establishment most certainly does give it considerable influence over education & academia, that's a simple and hard fact.

into technology and its ability to shape our modern lives.

Capitalism has forced technology upon you? How so?

I didn't say that capitalism forces technology on people. Rather, my point was quite clearly that the capitalist establishment has a dangerous amount of control over technology & the technocracy its given rise to. This in turn enhances its ability to exercise unbenevolent influence over our lives.

That is, the economic hegemony of the rich enables them to purchase politicians and subvert the democratic process,

All the more reason to weaken lobbyists and politicians, rather than strengthen them.

I'm all for weakening lobbyists and politicians, but this doesn't at all mean doing away with the ability of ordinary people to protect themselves from capitalist greed through the means of government and government regulation. I too look forward to a day when government as we know it, and legislative regulations are no longer necessary, but as long as capitalism & capitalists still exist, I'm afraid that some measure of "interventionist government" & regulation will remain necessary evils to safeguard society from the predators of "big business".

to use the mass media to mold our worldview and behavior,

Mass media is currently a competitive marketplace with numerous major stations, none of which you have to watch.

Yeah, a competitive marketplace dominated by big business, aka the corporatocracy, aka the capitalist establishment. None of whose dominance is that easy to escape.

to use our public schools and institutions of higher learning in the same way,

That's because they're public and forced upon students. Vouchers would open up more private schools that big business cannot control.

I've addressed these points above.

and to control the technology that increasingly controls our world.

How do they exert coercion through this technology.

Are you seriously suggesting that technology doesn't have applications for influencing and controlling people's lives? And that capitalists are so saintly that they don't take advantage of these applications?! Weapons and surveillance tech of course have the most crudely obvious ability to be used to exercise coercive control over our lives. Also, the electronic media is quite useful for manipulating our worldview and behavior. And of course technology locks people into a coercive dependency on it, which business exploit and profiteer from. Etc.


It is not "de facto." The "capitalists" earn their wealth by producing goods and services that the people want. I can only earn a million dollars to purchase resources with if I have contributed a million dollars worth of goods and services to the economy.

I've addressed this above. It was actually the first point that I addressed.

How do the police disguise these acts, then?

The primary function of the police and military is to protect & serve the state and the business-political complex whose interests & will the state codifies. We witness the police and military performing this function whenever the people become too uppity in asserting their own interests and needs.

Mm-hmm, capitalism's status quo can be subtly or crudely coercive,

You've only listed speculation and generalization, not facts.

Correction, I've listed facts that don't register in your ideological worldview.


As a student, I guess I wouldn't be considered to live in the "empirical world."

I doubt that you literally live in an "ivory tower". No, I'm sure that your body resides in the "empirical world". However, your mind apparently dwells up in the cloud-cuckoo-land of your pro-capitalist creed. Which is of course why so many genuinely empirical realities of capitalist society don't seem to register with you. (And by the way, this does not implicitly disparage you intelligence. No, one can be quite smart and still get intellectually locked into a dogma.)
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
7/19/2011 11:57:11 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/18/2011 9:59:31 PM, mongeese wrote:
I find it odd that you went straight to Ragnar_Rahl's shorter post rather than tackle my longer one...

See my response above.
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
7/20/2011 12:20:54 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/19/2011 10:53:26 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 7/18/2011 10:37:06 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 7/18/2011 10:12:35 PM, mongeese wrote:
At 7/18/2011 10:10:02 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 7/18/2011 9:40:42 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 7/18/2011 9:25:25 PM, charleslb wrote:
Okeydokey, I'll state some elementary facts for you. Capitalism is a system in which a relatively small faction of society, i.e. the fat cats, to use a technical term, control and lock up most of the economic wealth
No, capitalism is a system in which the creator of wealth decides what is done with it unless contracted otherwise, regardless of the resulting distribution.

If a society uses common currency to exchange commodities, and the only barrier to trade is the price decided by the buyer and seller, what would you call the economic system?

Capitalism. That seems easy enough.

That was towards charleslb.

You're merely continuing to insist on an idealistic ideological definition of capitalism.

So you admit that the example above is the definition of capitalism?

I could just say that communism is defined as a system of authoritarians, and that Marx's interpretation was "the idealistic ideological defintion."
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/20/2011 12:41:39 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/20/2011 12:20:54 AM, Wnope wrote:
At 7/19/2011 10:53:26 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 7/18/2011 10:37:06 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 7/18/2011 10:12:35 PM, mongeese wrote:
At 7/18/2011 10:10:02 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 7/18/2011 9:40:42 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 7/18/2011 9:25:25 PM, charleslb wrote:
Okeydokey, I'll state some elementary facts for you. Capitalism is a system in which a relatively small faction of society, i.e. the fat cats, to use a technical term, control and lock up most of the economic wealth
No, capitalism is a system in which the creator of wealth decides what is done with it unless contracted otherwise, regardless of the resulting distribution.

If a society uses common currency to exchange commodities, and the only barrier to trade is the price decided by the buyer and seller, what would you call the economic system?

Capitalism. That seems easy enough.

That was towards charleslb.

You're merely continuing to insist on an idealistic ideological definition of capitalism.

So you admit that the example above is the definition of capitalism?

I could just say that communism is defined as a system of authoritarians, and that Marx's interpretation was "the idealistic ideological defintion."

No, my statement is quite explicit. It says, quite simply, that you're trying to insist, to the exclusion of empirical reality, on an idealistic definition of capitalism that's to your liking and ideological purposes.

As for your negative definition of "communism", it certainly does apply to Soviet-style "communism", which is why I'm no fan of that form of "communism". Nope, I have no problem whatsoever with you stating such a derogatory definition of the dreadful ideology of the happily defunct Soviet Union the systems lamentably inspired by it. Although I do sometimes use the word "communism" to describe my sociopolitical worldview, I don't identify with ole Joe Stalin's and Mao's type of "communism" at all, and disapprove every bit as much as you do of the despotism that it was intrinsically disposed to produce.
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
7/20/2011 12:53:26 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
Although I do sometimes use the word "communism" to describe my sociopolitical worldview, I don't identify with ole Joe Stalin's and Mao's type of "communism"
Gee, ya think MAYBE we might not identify with the Tom Delay brand of "capitalism"?

http://www.straferight.com...
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.
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/20/2011 12:55:18 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/20/2011 12:41:39 AM, charleslb wrote:
At 7/20/2011 12:20:54 AM, Wnope wrote:
At 7/19/2011 10:53:26 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 7/18/2011 10:37:06 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 7/18/2011 10:12:35 PM, mongeese wrote:
At 7/18/2011 10:10:02 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 7/18/2011 9:40:42 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 7/18/2011 9:25:25 PM, charleslb wrote:
Okeydokey, I'll state some elementary facts for you. Capitalism is a system in which a relatively small faction of society, i.e. the fat cats, to use a technical term, control and lock up most of the economic wealth
No, capitalism is a system in which the creator of wealth decides what is done with it unless contracted otherwise, regardless of the resulting distribution.

If a society uses common currency to exchange commodities, and the only barrier to trade is the price decided by the buyer and seller, what would you call the economic system?

Capitalism. That seems easy enough.

That was towards charleslb.

You're merely continuing to insist on an idealistic ideological definition of capitalism.

So you admit that the example above is the definition of capitalism?

I could just say that communism is defined as a system of authoritarians, and that Marx's interpretation was "the idealistic ideological defintion."

No, my statement is quite explicit. It says, quite simply, that you're trying to insist, to the exclusion of empirical reality, on an idealistic definition of capitalism that's to your liking and ideological purposes.

As for your negative definition of "communism", it certainly does apply to Soviet-style "communism", which is why I'm no fan of that form of "communism". Nope, I have no problem whatsoever with you stating such a derogatory definition of the dreadful ideology of the happily defunct Soviet Union the systems lamentably inspired by it. Although I do sometimes use the word "communism" to describe my sociopolitical worldview, I don't identify with ole Joe Stalin's and Mao's type of "communism" at all, and disapprove every bit as much as you do of the despotism that it was intrinsically disposed to produce.

I'm establishing the basic definition of a capitalist society.

I never said that accurately describes the American economy.
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/20/2011 3:42:27 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/20/2011 12:55:18 AM, Wnope wrote:

I'm establishing the basic definition of a capitalist society.

I never said that accurately describes the American economy.

Alas, your idealized definition of capitalism will never accurately describe any real-world economy. This of course is one of the fundamental, damning rubs for all free-marketarian capitalist theory.
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
7/20/2011 3:48:08 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/20/2011 3:42:27 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 7/20/2011 12:55:18 AM, Wnope wrote:

I'm establishing the basic definition of a capitalist society.

I never said that accurately describes the American economy.

Alas, your idealized definition of capitalism will never accurately describe any real-world economy. This of course is one of the fundamental, damning rubs for all free-marketarian capitalist theory.

Where is your specific evidence that the free-market capitalist theory will not work in the real world. I don't want rhetoric.
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
7/20/2011 3:48:38 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/20/2011 3:42:27 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 7/20/2011 12:55:18 AM, Wnope wrote:

I'm establishing the basic definition of a capitalist society.

I never said that accurately describes the American economy.

Alas, your idealized definition of capitalism will never accurately describe any real-world economy. This of course is one of the fundamental, damning rubs for all free-marketarian capitalist theory.

You can't make this argument without fist establishing how your vision of communism will ever exist.
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.
mongeese
Posts: 5,387
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/20/2011 4:27:30 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/19/2011 11:54:02 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 7/18/2011 9:39:36 PM, mongeese wrote:
At 7/18/2011 9:25:25 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 7/18/2011 5:53:24 PM, mongeese wrote:
If it is inherent, then you should be able to point out specific examples. You demanded proof from freedomsquared, so it is only fitting that you prove your own claim first. Your first claim is that capitalists coercively impose a status quo. How? Where in the free market does the coercion lie?

Okeydokey, I'll state some elementary facts for you. Capitalism is a system in which a relatively small faction of society, i.e. the fat cats, to use a technical term, control and lock up most of the economic wealth ...

They must first earn the wealth before locking it up, and if they earn the wealth, they have a right to it, not you or anyone else.

Hmm, so you're really going to maintain that capitalists become wealthy by "earning" it?! What about the three Es, exploitation, expropriation, and evildoing (you know, such as the evildoing that recently made a small number of Wall Streeters more obscenely rich at the expense of a painful global recession)?

I think you'd need to expound on the three E's before I can refute them in turn, but the evildoing of Wall Street required government intervention and bailouts to properly work. Otherwise, the market would have kicked them out. If you think the cause and effect is different, I suggest a source describing the exact occurence you're trying to reference.

Now then, this ability of capitalists to dominate the game of society with their money-power extends beyond the strictly economic sphere into the political,

Which is why this mix of socialism and capitalism only benefits big business; they are able to buy regulations and restrictions against their smaller competitors. It is hardly a reason for more regulation.

So, your remedy for capitalist greed is to totally unleash it on workingpeople who will no longer receive even a semblance of protection from government regulation?

No, the remedy is to stop government from allowing people to fulfill their greed by abusing the system rather than benefitting it.

I suppose that in your philosophy the remedy for the high murder rate would likewise be to abolish all laws against homicide and carrying a concealed weapon, theoretically freeing good citizens up to waste the "bad guys" before the "bad guys" waste them? Wow, what an unlovely world your philosophy, if ever put into effect, would inflict upon us.

Homicide laws do protect people's right to life, and are therefore justified. Now you're just strawmanning, and doing a rather poor job of it, too.

into society's media and means of communication,

There are more than enough means of communication and media for you to have free choice. No business can force its website, product, or news upon you, because it has competitors.

When most of the mass media is owned & controlled by the capitalist establishment, then ipso facto and inescapably the public is going to find itself imbibing said capitalist establishment's worldview.

There is no "capitalist establishment" that controls the media. It's many different individual stations and companies. Additionally, if there is enough interest in communism in America, I'm sure a station will exist to feed this demand of news explaining communist issues. The market will supply the service to meet the demand.

into education and academia,

Education is currently largely a monopoly due to government control, forcing a single curriculum upon entire states. More vouchers allows for more options of schooling, cutting into the coercion of government. How this is the fault of capitalism, you do not say.

Firstly, who says that only public, "government controlled" schools indoctrinate children with society's dominant ideology?

Well, a public school is guaranteed to be based on the dominant ideology. Private schools offer more variety. It's almost impossible to avoid indoctrination in schools, but it's best to leave that choice up to the parents.

Even the materials that some parents use to "home-school" their children inculcate the dominant ideology.

Well, if it's the dominant ideology, many of them probably agree with it.

Secondly, vouchers are just a dishonest ploy to do away with public education.

Not really, although if students stop going to public schools because private schools do so much better, I guess the states would drop the pubic schools and just offer vouchers. With so much demand, schools would pop up with a variety not avaliable before.

Thirdly, capitalism and belief in the capitalist status quo is going to be promoted in the educational curriculum, regardless of whether children are schooled in a public system, in private schools, or at home. This is because we live in a capitalist society under the economic-social-political-cultural hegemony of a capitalist elite.

You do realize that modern-day colleges are practically overrun by anti-market liberals, right?

Academia has numerous private sources of funding so that no one group can fund a large portion of it. Besides, they cannot force this academia on you, so why does it matter?

Blah, blah, under capitalism ordinary people are supremely empowered and have nothing but choice and freedom, blah.

Well, they have freedom, a capacity for enjoyment, a capacity for pain, and a need to survive. Is there anything I missed?

No, dear mongeese, the money-power of the capitalist establishment most certainly does give it considerable influence over education & academia, that's a simple and hard fact.

It certainly has a considerable influence, but it doesn't even come close to the coercive power that you attribute to it.

into technology and its ability to shape our modern lives.

Capitalism has forced technology upon you? How so?

I didn't say that capitalism forces technology on people. Rather, my point was quite clearly that the capitalist establishment has a dangerous amount of control over technology & the technocracy its given rise to. This in turn enhances its ability to exercise unbenevolent influence over our lives.

People tend to control the implementation of the technology that they invent, although the people ultimately determine what happens to it and whether or not it will catch on. If you take bad economic advice from your television, that's your problem.

That is, the economic hegemony of the rich enables them to purchase politicians and subvert the democratic process,

All the more reason to weaken lobbyists and politicians, rather than strengthen them.

I'm all for weakening lobbyists and politicians, but this doesn't at all mean doing away with the ability of ordinary people to protect themselves from capitalist greed through the means of government and government regulation. I too look forward to a day when government as we know it, and legislative regulations are no longer necessary, but as long as capitalism & capitalists still exist, I'm afraid that some measure of "interventionist government" & regulation will remain necessary evils to safeguard society from the predators of "big business".

Big businesss tends to get big precisely because of government. Predatory pricing is also a rather widespread myth that almost no economist believes has occured.

to use the mass media to mold our worldview and behavior,

Mass media is currently a competitive marketplace with numerous major stations, none of which you have to watch.

Yeah, a competitive marketplace dominated by big business, aka the corporatocracy, aka the capitalist establishment. None of whose dominance is that easy to escape.

It's difficult to not watch CNN, or Fox News, or ABC?
mongeese
Posts: 5,387
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/20/2011 4:38:04 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/19/2011 11:54:02 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 7/18/2011 9:39:36 PM, mongeese wrote:
At 7/18/2011 9:25:25 PM, charleslb wrote:
and to control the technology that increasingly controls our world.

How do they exert coercion through this technology?

Are you seriously suggesting that technology doesn't have applications for influencing and controlling people's lives?

"Control"? I don't think your television or your computer "controls" you. Sure, it could influence, but how is that in any way coercion?

And that capitalists are so saintly that they don't take advantage of these applications?! Weapons and surveillance tech of course have the most crudely obvious ability to be used to exercise coercive control over our lives.

I'm fairly sure companies don't use weapons to attack people. Surveillance tech is also even more dangerous in the hands of government, and I'm not aware of any company that tried to sneak a security camera into people's houses or anything.

Also, the electronic media is quite useful for manipulating our worldview and behavior.

Perhaps you just don't know what the word "coercion" means?

And of course technology locks people into a coercive dependency on it, which business exploit and profiteer from. Etc.

So that you can't live without Facebook? Sure, living without a computer is difficult, but there is plenty of competition in manufacturing and programming computers that lowers prices.

How do the police disguise these acts, then?

The primary function of the police and military is to protect & serve the state and the business-political complex whose interests & will the state codifies. We witness the police and military performing this function whenever the people become too uppity in asserting their own interests and needs.

If that were true, you wouldn't be advocating for more government regulation.

Mm-hmm, capitalism's status quo can be subtly or crudely coercive,

You've only listed speculation and generalization, not facts.

Correction, I've listed facts that don't register in your ideological worldview.

No, you've listed statements that have no sources and little reason behind them.
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/20/2011 4:38:46 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/20/2011 3:48:38 PM, mongoose wrote:
At 7/20/2011 3:42:27 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 7/20/2011 12:55:18 AM, Wnope wrote:

I'm establishing the basic definition of a capitalist society.

I never said that accurately describes the American economy.

Alas, your idealized definition of capitalism will never accurately describe any real-world economy. This of course is one of the fundamental, damning rubs for all free-marketarian capitalist theory.

You can't make this argument without fist establishing how your vision of communism will ever exist.

It can and may one day exist because it's consistent with human nature – contra the conservative's negative estimation of man's nature, a negative estimation that goes back to the negative Judeo-Christian doctrine of original sin. That is, human beings most certainly do, and have amply demonstrated that they possess the ethical-psychological-spiritual potential to live together in communities based on sharing, cooperation, and reverse dominance.

Laissez-faire capitalism, on the other hand, is predicated on a totally unrealistic theory regarding human nature and greed. I.e., one of the creedal cornerstones of capitalist ideology is the naive belief that our greed can be harnessed for good, and that it can be harnessed for good by removing any form of governmental and legal harness!

Sorry, nope, you can't set selfish self-interest loose and realistically expect positive, pro-social results. That's entirely delusional, on an ideological if not clinical level. This dogmatic delusionality of free-marketeers is what ineluctably dooms and damns their ideal system to disastrous failure.

Now then, rather than making such a fundamental and fatal mistake regarding human nature, what you're terming "communism" would promote a different, more pro-social ethos, axiological orientation, and set of social expectations which people would adapt their behavior to. This is what the majority of human beings do, after all. It's our nature to conform to group expectations and internalize societal norms. If you have a society in which the cultural and axiological zeitgeist is selfishness, well of course people are going to be found to be selfish little SOBs, and you're going to get all the confirmation you want of the cynical conservative view of humanity. However, in a "communist" form of society a different, more ethical & empathetic dimension of our man's character would be encouraged and reinforced. Would we all become saints, certainly not. But would enough of us be pro-social, enough of the time, for "communism" to prove practicable? Yes we would.

Well, at any rate, a system of society that takes account of and seeks to discourage anti-social selfishness in favor of more pro-social values and behaviors is arguably a good deal more sensible and workable than one that unrealistically & wishfully indulges our selfish side without appreciating the clear & present risk of it taking over our nature and destroying the characterological fabric that binds society together. Which of course is precisely what will always happen with the selfishness-validating ethos of capitalism. This is the big, filthy fly buzzing in the ointment of capitalist theory and fouling it. It's the reason that capitalist theory is morally disgusting, and why it's morally fated to never work. And it's why "communism" is hands-down the more realistic alternative, despite its undeserved rep for being totally and quixotically unrealistic about human nature.
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.
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/20/2011 4:55:13 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
It can and may one day exist because it's consistent with human nature – contra the conservative's negative estimation of man's nature, a negative estimation that goes back to the negative Judeo-Christian doctrine of original sin.:

Are 3-year olds influenced by those Judeo-Christian ethics? If not, then you have to consider the fact that we're dealing with instincts of self-preservation, just like any other animal.
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
freedomsquared
Posts: 450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/20/2011 4:59:50 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/20/2011 4:38:46 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 7/20/2011 3:48:38 PM, mongoose wrote:
At 7/20/2011 3:42:27 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 7/20/2011 12:55:18 AM, Wnope wrote:


Laissez-faire capitalism, on the other hand, is predicated on a totally unrealistic theory regarding human nature and greed. I.e., one of the creedal cornerstones of capitalist ideology is the naive belief that our greed can be harnessed for good, and that it can be harnessed for good by removing any form of governmental and legal harness!
It is not greed that is being harnessed, it is people's own individual interests.

Sorry, nope, you can't set selfish self-interest loose and realistically expect positive, pro-social results. That's entirely delusional, on an ideological if not clinical level. This dogmatic delusionality of free-marketeers is what ineluctably dooms and damns their ideal system to disastrous failure.
Have you ever played "Prisoner's Dilemma"? If so, I think it should adequately show how self-interest can promote pro-social results.

Now then, rather than making such a fundamental and fatal mistake regarding human nature, what you're terming "communism" would promote a different, more pro-social ethos, axiological orientation, and set of social expectations which people would adapt their behavior to. This is what the majority of human beings do, after all. It's our nature to conform to group expectations and internalize societal norms.

It's in our nature to look out for our own self-interests and for those of whom we care about. However, we can often best promote our own self-interest through necessary amounts of cooperation. For example:

Businessman Al and Farmer Fred want to make as much profit as they can. Al has the contacts with different markets and gives Fred a way to transport his produce, in return, Fred has the actual product. They will haggle out a deal where Fred and Al both get as much as they can, giving each of them a higher profit. If Al demands too high a percentage of the profit, then Fred will not trade with him and instead with make deals with various other businessmen. Conversely, if Al is not happy with the deal he can make, he will go to other farmers to find one who will agree with him. In this case, Al and Fred will only succeed if they are willing to cooperate with someone else for the betterment of everyone.

Could you explain how people will receive an income in your ideal communistic society? Who decides the amount of payment, who gets paid, why, etc...
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
7/20/2011 10:14:40 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/20/2011 12:53:26 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Although I do sometimes use the word "communism" to describe my sociopolitical worldview, I don't identify with ole Joe Stalin's and Mao's type of "communism"
Gee, ya think MAYBE we might not identify with the Tom Delay brand of "capitalism"?

Well, you seem to be suggesting that I should realize that if it's unfair to tar all leftists with the same brush that's used to tar a Stalin, ergo it's likewise unfair to tar all right-libertarians with the same brush, such as that used to tar a creepy conservative like Tom DeLay. But the reason that "leftist" is a genus whose members can't all fairly be tarred with the same brush is that "leftist" is too loose & vague a rubric.

However, if you were to suggest that all Soviet Union-touting, old-school Marxist-Leninists be tarred with the same brush, then I'd actually have to concede the legitimacy of doing so. For all Soviet Union-touting, old-school Marxist-Leninists did have certain unfortunate tenets and traits in common. For instance, they all believed in a vanguard party and the dictatorship of the proletariat, which of course were rationalizations for the tyranny of the state. And they all seemed to be psychologically disposed to dogmatism and Eric Hoffer's "true believer's" mentality.

So yes then, if I were a Soviet Union-touting, old-school Marxist-Leninist then I'd be legitimately liable to being tarred with the same brush as ole Uncle Joe Stalin. But of course I'm not this ilk of leftist or "communist" and so it isn't fair & proper to tar me with the same brush used against their likes.

On the other hand though, right-libertarians are more analogous to Marxist-Leninists in being an identifiable group with certain fundamental ideological tenets and psychological traits in common. This does in fact allow one to fairly make categorical statements about them. Yes, when we're dealing with a group defined more surely & distinctly by a shared credo and cognitive make-up, then "profiling" them becomes a permissible thing to do.

Now yes, I'm aware that there are sub-sects within the libertarian camp, that libertarians aren't monolithic and disagree strongly on the fine points of ideology. But, nonetheless, libertarians do subscribe to the same core credo and its accompanying attitude of mind. The differences that divide libertarians really are just fine points after all. Rather like the fine points that once upon a time divided Christians who believed in homoiousios vs. those who believed in homoousios. At the end of the day spent battling over theology, they were all still Christians with the same basic exclusivistic, my-religion-is-the-only-true-religion mentality. Likewise, despite their theoretical disagreements, all right-libertarians are still right-libertarians, with the same Aspergerian, egoistically individualistic mentality, and it's perfectly fair to profile them as such.
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
7/20/2011 10:25:26 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/20/2011 10:14:40 PM, charleslb wrote:
Likewise, despite their theoretical disagreements, all right-libertarians are still right-libertarians, with the same Aspergerian, egoistically individualistic mentality, and it's perfectly fair to profile them as such.

Please stop generalizing mentalities to such an extreme extent. I based my ideology around natural rights, not individualism, and I'm sure many other libertarians had similar origins. It is also in part because I believe that government has a tendency to disrupt instead of improve our lives, a belief shared by another large portion of libertarians. Few libertarians are libertarians because of egocentrism.
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/20/2011 10:35:15 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/20/2011 10:14:40 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 7/20/2011 12:53:26 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Although I do sometimes use the word "communism" to describe my sociopolitical worldview, I don't identify with ole Joe Stalin's and Mao's type of "communism"
Gee, ya think MAYBE we might not identify with the Tom Delay brand of "capitalism"?


Well, you seem to be suggesting that I should realize that if it's unfair to tar all leftists with the same brush that's used to tar a Stalin, ergo it's likewise unfair to tar all right-libertarians with the same brush, such as that used to tar a creepy conservative like Tom DeLay. But the reason that "leftist" is a genus whose members can't all fairly be tarred with the same brush is that "leftist" is too loose & vague a rubric.

However, if you were to suggest that all Soviet Union-touting, old-school Marxist-Leninists be tarred with the same brush, then I'd actually have to concede the legitimacy of doing so. For all Soviet Union-touting, old-school Marxist-Leninists did have certain unfortunate tenets and traits in common. For instance, they all believed in a vanguard party and the dictatorship of the proletariat, which of course were rationalizations for the tyranny of the state. And they all seemed to be psychologically disposed to dogmatism and Eric Hoffer's "true believer's" mentality.

So yes then, if I were a Soviet Union-touting, old-school Marxist-Leninist then I'd be legitimately liable to being tarred with the same brush as ole Uncle Joe Stalin. But of course I'm not this ilk of leftist or "communist" and so it isn't fair & proper to tar me with the same brush used against their likes.

On the other hand though, right-libertarians are more analogous to Marxist-Leninists in being an identifiable group with certain fundamental ideological tenets and psychological traits in common. This does in fact allow one to fairly make categorical statements about them. Yes, when we're dealing with a group defined more surely & distinctly by a shared credo and cognitive make-up, then "profiling" them becomes a permissible thing to do.

Now yes, I'm aware that there are sub-sects within the libertarian camp, that libertarians aren't monolithic and disagree strongly on the fine points of ideology. But, nonetheless, libertarians do subscribe to the same core credo and its accompanying attitude of mind. The differences that divide libertarians really are just fine points after all. Rather like the fine points that once upon a time divided Christians who believed in homoiousios vs. those who believed in homoousios. At the end of the day spent battling over theology, they were all still Christians with the same basic exclusivistic, my-religion-is-the-only-true-religion mentality. Likewise, despite their theoretical disagreements, all right-libertarians are still right-libertarians, with the same Aspergerian, egoistically individualistic mentality, and it's perfectly fair to profile them as such.

So, I'm thinking all Communists have Fibromyalgia because they feel the need to take their pain out on others using silly rhetorical gestures.
mongoose
Posts: 3,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/20/2011 11:25:01 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/20/2011 10:14:40 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 7/20/2011 12:53:26 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Although I do sometimes use the word "communism" to describe my sociopolitical worldview, I don't identify with ole Joe Stalin's and Mao's type of "communism"
Gee, ya think MAYBE we might not identify with the Tom Delay brand of "capitalism"?


Well, you seem to be suggesting that I should realize that if it's unfair to tar all leftists with the same brush that's used to tar a Stalin, ergo it's likewise unfair to tar all right-libertarians with the same brush, such as that used to tar a creepy conservative like Tom DeLay. But the reason that "leftist" is a genus whose members can't all fairly be tarred with the same brush is that "leftist" is too loose & vague a rubric.

However, if you were to suggest that all Soviet Union-touting, old-school Marxist-Leninists be tarred with the same brush, then I'd actually have to concede the legitimacy of doing so. For all Soviet Union-touting, old-school Marxist-Leninists did have certain unfortunate tenets and traits in common. For instance, they all believed in a vanguard party and the dictatorship of the proletariat, which of course were rationalizations for the tyranny of the state. And they all seemed to be psychologically disposed to dogmatism and Eric Hoffer's "true believer's" mentality.

So yes then, if I were a Soviet Union-touting, old-school Marxist-Leninist then I'd be legitimately liable to being tarred with the same brush as ole Uncle Joe Stalin. But of course I'm not this ilk of leftist or "communist" and so it isn't fair & proper to tar me with the same brush used against their likes.

On the other hand though, right-libertarians are more analogous to Marxist-Leninists in being an identifiable group with certain fundamental ideological tenets and psychological traits in common. This does in fact allow one to fairly make categorical statements about them. Yes, when we're dealing with a group defined more surely & distinctly by a shared credo and cognitive make-up, then "profiling" them becomes a permissible thing to do.

Now yes, I'm aware that there are sub-sects within the libertarian camp, that libertarians aren't monolithic and disagree strongly on the fine points of ideology. But, nonetheless, libertarians do subscribe to the same core credo and its accompanying attitude of mind. The differences that divide libertarians really are just fine points after all. Rather like the fine points that once upon a time divided Christians who believed in homoiousios vs. those who believed in homoousios. At the end of the day spent battling over theology, they were all still Christians with the same basic exclusivistic, my-religion-is-the-only-true-religion mentality. Likewise, despite their theoretical disagreements, all right-libertarians are still right-libertarians, with the same Aspergerian, egoistically individualistic mentality, and it's perfectly fair to profile them as such.

Conclusion: It is impossible to possibly identify charles as a member of one of these leftist groups because what he says is so insane that not even they accept him.
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.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,299
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/20/2011 11:41:02 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
On the other hand though, right-libertarians
Tom Delay is not any sort of libertarian.

The ruling regime of the United States is not any sort of libertarian.

It's not a question of tarring all right-libertarians with the same brush, it's a question of tarring the entire "Right-wing" with the same brush-- which is PRECISELY analogous to tarring the entire "left-wing" with the same brush.

Your enormous post was irrelevant, QED.
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
7/21/2011 8:33:54 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/20/2011 11:41:02 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
On the other hand though, right-libertarians
Tom Delay is not any sort of libertarian.

The ruling regime of the United States is not any sort of libertarian.

It's not a question of tarring all right-libertarians with the same brush, it's a question of tarring the entire "Right-wing" with the same brush-- which is PRECISELY analogous to tarring the entire "left-wing" with the same brush.

Your enormous post was irrelevant, QED.

Point taken, but you're the one who introduced Tom DeLay in a thread about right-libertarians, as if to say "Hey, don't judge us all by him". As a result I responded to your "Hey, don't judge us all by so-and-so" defense with my rationale for why it's sometimes legitimate to judge an ideological camp by some of its representative members. If Tom DeLay isn't a libertarian (and of course I realize that he isn't), then merely substitute someone who is, such as Neal Boortz, an especially ugly standard-bearer for right-libertarianism, and then apply the argument that I make in my previous reply. You'll find that it then makes quite a bit of sense and can even be flourished with a QED.
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
7/21/2011 8:47:34 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Neal Boortz is actually more like a "republitarian" than a libertarian, according to Wikipedia, at least. Perhaps you'd also like to take the time to repsond to some of my rebuttals?
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,299
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/21/2011 10:01:20 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/21/2011 8:33:54 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 7/20/2011 11:41:02 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
On the other hand though, right-libertarians
Tom Delay is not any sort of libertarian.

The ruling regime of the United States is not any sort of libertarian.

It's not a question of tarring all right-libertarians with the same brush, it's a question of tarring the entire "Right-wing" with the same brush-- which is PRECISELY analogous to tarring the entire "left-wing" with the same brush.

Your enormous post was irrelevant, QED.

Point taken, but you're the one who introduced Tom DeLay in a thread about right-libertarians, as if to say "Hey, don't judge us all by him".
You're the one who sought to define capitalism in terms of "The present regime" (that run by the Tom Delays of the world," in a thread supposedly about right-libertarians, as though we have anything to do with the present regime.

If Tom DeLay isn't a libertarian (and of course I realize that he isn't), then merely substitute someone who is, such as Neal Boortz, an especially ugly standard-bearer for right-libertarianism
I don't think you understand that there are the bandwagon libertarians and then the ones who stand up to the definition of the word... sort of like how not only are there the Soviet communists and your kind, but also teenagers in Che Guevara shirts who have no idea that Guevara ever performed an execution nor read a word of Marx.

Wiki sez about this stranger:
"Boortz is perhaps most widely known for his enthusiastic support of the FairTax "
A supporter of something they themselves admit without more qualification than a vague "fair" is a TAX has disqualified themselves from the label libertarian. One might as well have a communist who supports "Fair Corporate Profits," a pacifist who supports "Fair war," a vegan who supports "Fair Hunting," a Christian who supports "Fair crucifixions."
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
7/22/2011 1:45:22 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/21/2011 8:47:34 PM, mongeese wrote:
Neal Boortz is actually more like a "republitarian" than a libertarian, according to Wikipedia, at least...

Ha!, is this another libertarian genus that you're conveniently inventing to taxonomically distance yourself from an ugly character? This reminds me of arch conservative Russell Kirk's observation, that libertarians are "an ideological clique forever splitting into sects still smaller and odder, but rarely conjugating".
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.