Total Posts:171|Showing Posts:151-171|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
7/22/2011 2:38:56 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/22/2011 1:45:22 PM, charleslb wrote:
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".

Dude. Either take responsibility for Pol Pot, or stfu on this topic. You can't say "That's someone else's cake" and eat it too.
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
7/22/2011 3:01:41 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/22/2011 1:45:22 PM, charleslb wrote:
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".

It's not about distancing us from ugly character, it's about distancing us from people who ARE NOT US. The fact of the matter is that the libertarians here are protecting the base libertarian ideology while you are only attacking the fringes and other groups that are only loosely tied to libertarianism.
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
mongeese
Posts: 5,387
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/22/2011 3:31:38 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/22/2011 1:45:22 PM, charleslb wrote:
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".

Well, he supports aggressive war, so he's about as libertarian as Stalin was a communist. You can't accuse us of unfairly distancing ourselves from non-libertarians when you seem to be doing the exact same thing to non-communists.
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/22/2011 8:26:26 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/22/2011 3:31:38 PM, mongeese wrote:
At 7/22/2011 1:45:22 PM, charleslb wrote:
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".

Well, he supports aggressive war, so he's about as libertarian as Stalin was a communist. You can't accuse us of unfairly distancing ourselves from non-libertarians when you seem to be doing the exact same thing to non-communists.

Okay, so you're not a Neal Boortzian type of libertarian. That's wonderful, truly. It would be a rather dreadful thing to have a mentality like Neal Boortz. However, the fundamental ideology and mind-set of right-libertarianism is inherently & irredeemably egoistic and uncompassionate. That is, it advocates a form of society that would consist of self-interestedly individualistic individuals competitively pursuing personal gain and allowing those who aren't able to compete effectively to fall by the socioeconomic wayside, potentially into poverty and misery, with no social safety net whatsoever to catch them.

Mm-hmm, the libertarian worldview is a quite ruthless one indeed, in which "freedom" means being at liberty, in a licentious way, to seek to become an alpha capitalist in the "free market's" predatory food chain. Of course for the majority of human beings who would be peonized omega workers in a society run by an alpha capitalist elite (and such an elite would find a way to come into being, have no doubt about it), such freedom would not exactly be quality of life-enhancing! Nope, not at all the kind of freedom that I aspire to experience, but it's what appeals to the psychology behind the libertarian ideology that you and all right-libertarians espouse.

That said, I don't really wish to demonize you, so yes, you're not all be hatemongers à la a Neal Boortz, I'll give you that. But then again you all do have an insufficiently humane way of thinking about society and economics. One that can be quite chilling on a human level, and censurable on an ethical level (no matter how you try to intellectually legitimize it with rationalizations & rhetoric). So, although I do admit that you all shouldn't be tarred with the same brush as a Boortz, you all do merit a measure of rebuke and provoke my staunch opposition. I say this with all due respect.
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
7/22/2011 9:08:33 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/22/2011 2:38:56 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:

Dude. Either take responsibility for Pol Pot, or stfu on this topic. You can't say "That's someone else's cake" and eat it too.

As a rightist do you take responsibility for Suharto, the mass-murdering anti-communist dictator of Indonesia, who killed as many human beings as Pol Pot, and who was aided by the CIA and supported by the political right of this country? (Btw, for more on Suharto and the pronounced imbalance in the Western media's coverage of his crimes against humanity vs. those of Pol Pot, follow this link, http://www.fair.org...
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
7/22/2011 10:46:28 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/22/2011 9:08:33 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 7/22/2011 2:38:56 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:

Dude. Either take responsibility for Pol Pot, or stfu on this topic. You can't say "That's someone else's cake" and eat it too.

As a rightist do you take responsibility for Suharto, the mass-murdering anti-communist dictator of Indonesia, who killed as many human beings as Pol Pot, and who was aided by the CIA and supported by the political right of this country?
Good job totally missing the point. I was quite S'd TFU regarding conflating you with Pol Pot until YOU started the conflating on us. THAT is the part of the prong I advocate here.
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
7/22/2011 10:47:30 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
in which "freedom" means being at liberty
I should hope so.
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
7/22/2011 11:30:00 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/22/2011 8:26:26 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 7/22/2011 3:31:38 PM, mongeese wrote:
At 7/22/2011 1:45:22 PM, charleslb wrote:
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".

Well, he supports aggressive war, so he's about as libertarian as Stalin was a communist. You can't accuse us of unfairly distancing ourselves from non-libertarians when you seem to be doing the exact same thing to non-communists.

Okay, so you're not a Neal Boortzian type of libertarian. That's wonderful, truly. It would be a rather dreadful thing to have a mentality like Neal Boortz.

I'm actually not familiar with the mentality of Neal Boortz.

However, the fundamental ideology and mind-set of right-libertarianism is inherently & irredeemably egoistic and uncompassionate.

How many times must I repeat this? Ideologies do not have mindsets. It's also rather bizzare to judge one's compassion on how much he is willing to force others to give instead of how much he is willing to give himself. A libertarian believes that government should not take so much; he does not believe in stopping compassion, and can easily be compassionate himself, but through a private charity instead of through a rather wasteful government.

That is, it advocates a form of society that would consist of self-interestedly individualistic individuals competitively pursuing personal gain and allowing those who aren't able to compete effectively to fall by the socioeconomic wayside, potentially into poverty and misery, with no social safety net whatsoever to catch them.

The social safety net will be formed by private charity, not the government. Under libertarianism, we would also not see anybody legally banned from braiding other people's hair because she didn't spend 2,000 hours in a cosmology class. I'd rather see everybody compete than government choose which people may participate in the economy and which people may not.

Mm-hmm, the libertarian worldview is a quite ruthless one indeed, in which "freedom" means being at liberty, in a licentious way, to seek to become an alpha capitalist in the "free market's" predatory food chain.

The free market is not predatory; as I've said before, predatory pricing is a myth. Businesses are usually able to monopolize the economy because of government regulation, not in spite of it. Additionally, as I learned recently, unions and government were not the cause of lowered worker fatalities; it was caused by advancements in wealth and technology that allowed for greater efficiency, and thus greater wages, some of this being put towards greater safety.
http://www.cato.org...

Of course for the majority of human beings who would be peonized omega workers in a society run by an alpha capitalist elite (and such an elite would find a way to come into being, have no doubt about it), such freedom would not exactly be quality of life-enhancing! Nope, not at all the kind of freedom that I aspire to experience, but it's what appeals to the psychology behind the libertarian ideology that you and all right-libertarians espouse.

In a society in which many businesses compete, one can choose which business to work for, or be a private contractor. It is preferable to a single government tyranny of control.

That said, I don't really wish to demonize you, so yes, you're not all be hatemongers à la a Neal Boortz, I'll give you that. But then again you all do have an insufficiently humane way of thinking about society and economics.

Your fault is in assuming that government is necessary to protect the people, when history indicates that it really just makes a mess of everything. The government that governs best, after all, governs least. Government action also leads to many unintended consequences that are sometimes worse than the problems that were supposed to be fixed.

One that can be quite chilling on a human level, and censurable on an ethical level (no matter how you try to intellectually legitimize it with rationalizations & rhetoric).

The refusal to authorize a central authority to steal from some groups to give to other groups is unethical, now? That doesn't make much sense at all.

So, although I do admit that you all shouldn't be tarred with the same brush as a Boortz, you all do merit a measure of rebuke and provoke my staunch opposition. I say this with all due respect.

Well, it would be better if you try to rebute the arguments behind libertarianism than the variety of mindsets that could motivate it.
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/23/2011 11:08:33 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/22/2011 11:30:00 PM, mongeese wrote:

How many times must I repeat this? Ideologies do not have mindsets...

This is one of the most psychologically naive things I've read on an internet forum to date!
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.
mongoose
Posts: 3,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/23/2011 11:32:40 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/23/2011 11:08:33 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 7/22/2011 11:30:00 PM, mongeese wrote:

How many times must I repeat this? Ideologies do not have mindsets...

This is one of the most psychologically naive things I've read on an internet forum to date!

Do you not read over your stuff after writing it?
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.
mongoose
Posts: 3,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/23/2011 11:35:25 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
In regards to your defense that attacking an ideology's "mindset" is justified using the evidence of Nazis, I would say that you may not discard his ideas for the twisted mindset of whoever came up with them. You must instead point out how awful it is that they are brutally murdering innocent people. You don't need the mindset to determine such, you just look at the ideology itself.
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
7/23/2011 11:35:25 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/23/2011 11:08:33 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 7/22/2011 11:30:00 PM, mongeese wrote:

How many times must I repeat this? Ideologies do not have mindsets...

This is one of the most psychologically naive things I've read on an internet forum to date!

Argument from intimidation. You might want to try responding to the rest of the post instead.
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/24/2011 2:20:26 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/24/2011 9:04:41 AM, Thaddeus wrote:
The real question is whether Asperger's is a form of libertarianism.

Same difference, so to speak.
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
7/24/2011 3:27:16 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/22/2011 11:30:00 PM, mongeese wrote:
I'm actually not familiar with the mentality of Neal Boortz.

That's good on you.

How many times must I repeat this? Ideologies do not have mindsets. It's also rather bizzare to judge one's compassion on how much he is willing to force others to give instead of how much he is willing to give himself. A libertarian believes that government should not take so much; he does not believe in stopping compassion, and can easily be compassionate himself, but through a private charity instead of through a rather wasteful government.

As I said, quite psychologically naive and superficial. Some Aspergerian libertarians may aspire to be Mr. Spock, but their logic isn't all that's going on in their minds that leads to the formation of their sociopolitical worldview.

The social safety net will be formed by private charity, not the government. Under libertarianism, we would also not see anybody legally banned from braiding other people's hair because she didn't spend 2,000 hours in a cosmology class. I'd rather see everybody compete than government choose which people may participate in the economy and which people may not.

So, a libertarian society would be one in which the whole cultural ethos would be geared to promoting self-interest, and one in which a relatively few aggressively self-interested alpha capitalists would end up sitting pretty on top of the socioeconomic heap, i.e. in control of most of society's wealth, but nonetheless we'd be able to count on people organizing and adequately funding private charities to help the millions of capitalism's innocent victims. I'll just let the unrealism of this speak for itself.

The free market is not predatory; as I've said before, predatory pricing is a myth. Businesses are usually able to monopolize the economy because of government regulation, not in spite of it. Additionally, as I learned recently, unions and government were not the cause of lowered worker fatalities; it was caused by advancements in wealth and technology that allowed for greater efficiency, and thus greater wages, some of this being put towards greater safety.

The real and verifiable suffering of the poor, which lamentably is not a myth, contradicts and refutes you. And, by the way, although labor unions have certainly not always lived up to being the champions of the interests of workingpeople that they should be, they have done more than a thing or two to enhance the material quality of life of capitalism's toilers. Without them in our society's history many of us would probably still be toiling in sweatshops today. That you're inclined to dismiss the contribution of unions to the well-being of the working class just goes to indicate how deeply steeped your thinking is becoming in the right-libertarian worldview. I would suggest that you step back and self-critically examine where you're headed intellectually-politically.

In a society in which many businesses compete, one can choose which business to work for, or be a private contractor. It is preferable to a single government tyranny of control.

This is an idealized picture of the situation that real working-class people find themselves in under capitalism. Alas no, the unfair and unequal status quo of capitalism does not afford most ordinary people this ideal kind of freedom to become captains of their own economic ships, so to speak.

That is, the business establishment certainly does exercise a great deal of control, one might even say "tyranny", over the economy and over access to resources and opportunity, thus limiting people's hypothetical "freedom". I.e., government isn't the only tyranny out there, and in fact the tyranny of big government merely fronts for that of big business to a serious extent. And so if you think that doing away with big government alone will prevent the business elite from finding a way to unduly exercise power in a "free market", dream on my friend. Just don't try to pull the rest of society into your dream, for if ever actualized it would prove to be a waking nightmare.

Your fault is in assuming that government is necessary to protect the people, when history indicates that it really just makes a mess of everything...

What's really necessare to protect ordinary people is to abolish capitalism per se, private ownership of society's resources, and to establish instead equal and universal access to all economic resources. Until that day arrives, however, we must use our democratic input with government to make it function, as much as possible, as our protector from the predatory fat cats of the private sector.

The refusal to authorize a central authority to steal from some groups to give to other groups is unethical, now? That doesn't make much sense at all.

Lol, of course it doesn't make much sense at all, phrased and framed the way you've phrased and framed it! But if one remembers and acknowledges that the wealth of superrich corporations and individuals is largely ill-gotten, gotten by expropriating it from and by exploiting workers, and by socking it to the pocketbooks of consumers, and by all manner of shady shenanigans, well, then it becomes more a matter of justly returning to the little guy what's been stolen from him in the first place.

Also, if we remember that no one has an inalienable right to function like a selfish individualist, that we're all a part of the interdependent gestalt of society and existence, and that we do in point of social, ethical, and ontological fact have certain obligations to one another, and to contribute one another's well-being, then a humanitarian redistribution of wealth through taxation and the funding of social welfare programs is merely a matter of actualizing our obligations to our fellow human beings, to society, and to life. Socially and spiritually unenlightened individuals may not wish, on a conscious level, to participate in such humanitarianism, but their social and spiritual ignorance doesn't exempt them. And their participation is certainly never truly "coerced", rather it's simply inexorably inherent in the condition of being in the world.

Well, it would be better if you try to rebut the arguments behind libertarianism than the variety of mindsets that could motivate it.

Yes, I'm sure that "libertarians" would prefer that people gloss over their mind-set.
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.
mongoose
Posts: 3,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/24/2011 3:36:06 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/24/2011 3:27:16 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 7/22/2011 11:30:00 PM, mongeese wrote:
How many times must I repeat this? Ideologies do not have mindsets. It's also rather bizzare to judge one's compassion on how much he is willing to force others to give instead of how much he is willing to give himself. A libertarian believes that government should not take so much; he does not believe in stopping compassion, and can easily be compassionate himself, but through a private charity instead of through a rather wasteful government.

As I said, quite psychologically naive and superficial. Some Aspergerian libertarians may aspire to be Mr. Spock, but their logic isn't all that's going on in their minds that leads to the formation of their sociopolitical worldview.

It does not matter how they form their ideology. The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
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
7/24/2011 3:36:41 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/23/2011 11:35:25 PM, mongeese wrote:
At 7/23/2011 11:08:33 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 7/22/2011 11:30:00 PM, mongeese wrote:

How many times must I repeat this? Ideologies do not have mindsets...

This is one of the most psychologically naive things I've read on an internet forum to date!

Argument from intimidation. You might want to try responding to the rest of the post instead.

It's not anything as highfalutin as an argument from intimidation, it's merely a plain ole statement of fact. As for replying to the rest of your post, I just did. Look above this reply.
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
7/24/2011 4:01:24 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/24/2011 3:27:16 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 7/22/2011 11:30:00 PM, mongeese wrote:
I'm actually not familiar with the mentality of Neal Boortz.

That's good on you.

How many times must I repeat this? Ideologies do not have mindsets. It's also rather bizzare to judge one's compassion on how much he is willing to force others to give instead of how much he is willing to give himself. A libertarian believes that government should not take so much; he does not believe in stopping compassion, and can easily be compassionate himself, but through a private charity instead of through a rather wasteful government.

As I said, quite psychologically naive and superficial. Some Aspergerian libertarians may aspire to be Mr. Spock, but their logic isn't all that's going on in their minds that leads to the formation of their sociopolitical worldview.

And you claim that you can fill in the holes with Aspergers. I claim that there are many other mindsets that you can fill the holes with; for example, one can rather easily conclude that the country is better off with small government by simply observing cause and effect.

The social safety net will be formed by private charity, not the government. Under libertarianism, we would also not see anybody legally banned from braiding other people's hair because she didn't spend 2,000 hours in a cosmology class. I'd rather see everybody compete than government choose which people may participate in the economy and which people may not.

So, a libertarian society would be one in which the whole cultural ethos would be geared to promoting self-interest, and one in which a relatively few aggressively self-interested alpha capitalists would end up sitting pretty on top of the socioeconomic heap, i.e. in control of most of society's wealth,

The "cultural ethos" would not necessarily be self-interest; that would assume that culture is derived directly from government. People can derive their own culture in the absence of government; the elimination of government welfare would not lead people to conclude that giving away to charity is a negative.

but nonetheless we'd be able to count on people organizing and adequately funding private charities to help the millions of capitalism's innocent victims. I'll just let the unrealism of this speak for itself.

Many of the world's top businessmen and CEOs are also leading philanthropists, and I've already posted a video before in which a homeless person concluded that one could develop an eating problem with all of the food avaliable from the private charities near him.

The free market is not predatory; as I've said before, predatory pricing is a myth. Businesses are usually able to monopolize the economy because of government regulation, not in spite of it. Additionally, as I learned recently, unions and government were not the cause of lowered worker fatalities; it was caused by advancements in wealth and technology that allowed for greater efficiency, and thus greater wages, some of this being put towards greater safety.

The real and verifiable suffering of the poor, which lamentably is not a myth, contradicts and refutes you.

If it is so verifiable, then verify it.

And, by the way, although labor unions have certainly not always lived up to being the champions of the interests of workingpeople that they should be, they have done more than a thing or two to enhance the material quality of life of capitalism's toilers. Without them in our society's history many of us would probably still be toiling in sweatshops today.

History tends to refute that. America was much less unionized than Europe during the late 1800s, but advanced for the workers much more quickly. For a more in-depth analysis of why you're so wrong: http://www.lewrockwell.com...

That you're inclined to dismiss the contribution of unions to the well-being of the working class just goes to indicate how deeply steeped your thinking is becoming in the right-libertarian worldview. I would suggest that you step back and self-critically examine where you're headed intellectually-politically.

At least my beliefs are consistent with empirical observations. What good is a worldview if neither history nor economics nor logic agree with it?

In a society in which many businesses compete, one can choose which business to work for, or be a private contractor. It is preferable to a single government tyranny of control.

This is an idealized picture of the situation that real working-class people find themselves in under capitalism. Alas no, the unfair and unequal status quo of capitalism does not afford most ordinary people this ideal kind of freedom to become captains of their own economic ships, so to speak.

As long as there are competing employers, yes, there is a choice.

That is, the business establishment certainly does exercise a great deal of control, one might even say "tyranny", over the economy and over access to resources and opportunity, thus limiting people's hypothetical "freedom". I.e., government isn't the only tyranny out there, and in fact the tyranny of big government merely fronts for that of big business to a serious extent. And so if you think that doing away with big government alone will prevent the business elite from finding a way to unduly exercise power in a "free market", dream on my friend. Just don't try to pull the rest of society into your dream, for if ever actualized it would prove to be a waking nightmare.

Argument from intimidation.
mongeese
Posts: 5,387
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/24/2011 4:17:11 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/24/2011 3:27:16 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 7/22/2011 11:30:00 PM, mongeese wrote:: : Your fault is in assuming that government is necessary to protect the people, when history indicates that it really just makes a mess of everything...

What's really necessare to protect ordinary people is to abolish capitalism per se, private ownership of society's resources, and to establish instead equal and universal access to all economic resources.

So if I want to use a given plot of land to grow food, you want to use it to build a windmill, and Bob wants to use it to set up a theme park, what happens? If I want to use a piece of wood to build a rocking horse, you want to use it to build a bridge, and Bob wants to use it to built a robot, what happens? You'll rather quickly run into a tragedy of the commons.

Until that day arrives, however, we must use our democratic input with government to make it function, as much as possible, as our protector from the predatory fat cats of the private sector.

"Protection" like how a woman recently sued McDonalds because it included toys in its Happy Meals, forcing her to actually say "no" to her children? Or like how businesses who have lobbyists in Washington are able to exterminate businesses who do not?

The refusal to authorize a central authority to steal from some groups to give to other groups is unethical, now? That doesn't make much sense at all.

Lol, of course it doesn't make much sense at all, phrased and framed the way you've phrased and framed it! But if one remembers and acknowledges that the wealth of superrich corporations and individuals is largely ill-gotten, gotten by expropriating it from and by exploiting workers,

Exploitation? It is exploitation to offer a man money to do work? How does that figure?

and by socking it to the pocketbooks of consumers, and by all manner of shady shenanigans,

"Shady shenanigans" would quite possibly be illegal under laissez-faire as well, depending on exactly what would qualify to you as "shady."

well, then it becomes more a matter of justly returning to the little guy what's been stolen from him in the first place.

You have a very strange definition of "stolen," I must say.

Also, if we remember that no one has an inalienable right to function like a selfish individualist,

Everyone has the inalienalbe right to function as they want, so long as they don't violate the rights of others in the process. You may not like it when someone behaves selfishly, but right do you have to force him to do otherwise?

that we're all a part of the interdependent gestalt of society and existence,

If we're interdependent, then the selfish individualist isn't going to get very far in life, so there's no need to force him out of it.

and that we do in point of social, ethical, and ontological fact have certain obligations to one another,

I say we let every individual decide what obligations they do or do not have, rather than allow society to force such obligations down their throats.

and to contribute one another's well-being, then a humanitarian redistribution of wealth through taxation and the funding of social welfare programs is merely a matter of actualizing our obligations to our fellow human beings, to society, and to life.

This "obligations" thing sounds like practically the antithesis of natural rights.

Socially and spiritually unenlightened individuals may not wish, on a conscious level, to participate in such humanitarianism, but their social and spiritual ignorance doesn't exempt them.

You're just going to force them to go along with your major social planning scheme anyway? It sounds like you're trying to get society to enslave itself.

And their participation is certainly never truly "coerced", rather it's simply inexorably inherent in the condition of being in the world.

Just listen to yourself. If their obligation is truly inherent, they'll do it without needing a governing force. If you have to bring force into the equation, it is by definition coercion. You're starting to sound even more extreme now that you're trying to fight the dictionary to avoid the negative aspects of your plan.

Well, it would be better if you try to rebut the arguments behind libertarianism than the variety of mindsets that could motivate it.

Yes, I'm sure that "libertarians" would prefer that people gloss over their mind-set.

As long as you're getting it so terribly wrong, then yes, it is best if you stop trying to analyze it.
mongeese
Posts: 5,387
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/24/2011 4:18:32 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/24/2011 3:36:41 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 7/23/2011 11:35:25 PM, mongeese wrote:
At 7/23/2011 11:08:33 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 7/22/2011 11:30:00 PM, mongeese wrote:

How many times must I repeat this? Ideologies do not have mindsets...

This is one of the most psychologically naive things I've read on an internet forum to date!

Argument from intimidation. You might want to try responding to the rest of the post instead.

It's not anything as highfalutin as an argument from intimidation, it's merely a plain ole statement of fact. As for replying to the rest of your post, I just did. Look above this reply.

It's a statement unsupported by evidence or reasoning, functioning only as an insult. Therefore, it is an argument from intimidation.
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/24/2011 6:48:38 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/24/2011 4:18:32 PM, mongeese wrote:
At 7/24/2011 3:36:41 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 7/23/2011 11:35:25 PM, mongeese wrote:
At 7/23/2011 11:08:33 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 7/22/2011 11:30:00 PM, mongeese wrote:

How many times must I repeat this? Ideologies do not have mindsets...

This is one of the most psychologically naive things I've read on an internet forum to date!

Argument from intimidation. You might want to try responding to the rest of the post instead.

It's not anything as highfalutin as an argument from intimidation, it's merely a plain ole statement of fact. As for replying to the rest of your post, I just did. Look above this reply.

It's a statement unsupported by evidence or reasoning, functioning only as an insult. Therefore, it is an argument from intimidation.

I thank you, mongeese, for at least arguing intelligently, something that a great many other forum-visiting rightists seem disinclined to attempt, or incapable of accomplishing.
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.