My micro-rant against Libertarianism

Skeptic Ginger said:
There is no doubt the line on the continuum is difficult to find. But I'm pretty sure there's no reason to spy on every war protestor and there is reason to spy on people wanting to learn to fly without caring about taking off and landing.
Click to expand...
.
I saw a guy who owned an Ercoupe. Had no pilot's license, nor any desire to get one. He got his jollies by sitting in it on the weekend and running the motor.
Now, anyone can fly an Ercoupe, it's intended to be the simplest and safest possible plane.
I never found out if the guy ever untied the plane to taxi it around.... and then maybe lift off for a short time, and then extend the flights. This was over 50 years ago.
Different strokes for different folks, but back when the terrorists were taking flying lessons, eccentric and rich Arabs would be expected to behave eccentrically, right?
 
I Ratant said:
.
Just what identifies a "potential criminal"?
Click to expand...

A puse I think.

Speeding through school zones?
Click to expand...

No longer potential at that point.

Casing the joint before a possible robbery?
Click to expand...

conspiracy to burgle

Crossing against the red light?
Click to expand...

What does that even mean?

There's a universe of possible "criminal activities" a controlling society might identify.
Click to expand...

However they don't. Free societies indentify criminal activities. Non-free ones don't have to.
 
Last edited:
I Ratant said:
.
I saw a guy who owned an Ercoupe. Had no pilot's license, nor any desire to get one. He got his jollies by sitting in it on the weekend and running the motor.
Now, anyone can fly an Ercoupe, it's intended to be the simplest and safest possible plane.
I never found out if the guy ever untied the plane to taxi it around.... and then maybe lift off for a short time, and then extend the flights. This was over 50 years ago.
Different strokes for different folks, but back when the terrorists were taking flying lessons, eccentric and rich Arabs would be expected to behave eccentrically, right?
Click to expand...

I fail to see why you think that facebook would avoid collecting information on either group.
 
Mr. Scott said:
I'm convinced Libertarians have no respect for the social contract, that outlaws are the purest libertarians, and the fatal flaw of it's cousin, objectivism, is the assumption that humans generally behave rationally. Somebody try and change my mind. I'm listening.
Click to expand...

No, you should convince me you are correct. Prove to me that Objectivism assumes humans generally behave rationally. I've never seen or heard an Objectivist say that humans generally behave rationally.
 
I Ratant said:
.
I saw a guy who owned an Ercoupe. Had no pilot's license, nor any desire to get one. He got his jollies by sitting in it on the weekend and running the motor.
Now, anyone can fly an Ercoupe, it's intended to be the simplest and safest possible plane.
I never found out if the guy ever untied the plane to taxi it around.... and then maybe lift off for a short time, and then extend the flights. This was over 50 years ago.
Different strokes for different folks, but back when the terrorists were taking flying lessons, eccentric and rich Arabs would be expected to behave eccentrically, right?
Click to expand...
No, not right. You've cited some oddball that doesn't appear to me to be doing anything suspicious. My example referred to the request Colleen Rowley made to her supervisors for a warrant to search a computer that was ignored prior to 9-11-01.

PBS interview with Rowley
When Coleen Rowley was an FBI agent in Minneapolis, her office got a lead just three weeks before 9-11: A known Islamic extremist named Zacarias Moussaoui had paid $8000 in cash for lessons to fly a Boeing 747. Rowley's team arrested him and wanted a warrant to search his laptop computer but Rowley's superiors at FBI headquarters said "no."

After 9/11, when it became clear that more could have been done, Rowley wrote FBI Director Robert Mueller a letter pointing out that "no one will ever know" the impact the computer search would have had calling his defense of the agency a "rush to judgment to protect the FBI at all costs." She testified in a Senate hearing a few weeks later. She was chosen by TIME magazine as one of their Persons of the Year in 2002.
Click to expand...
 
I heard him myself say the thing I said he said. He said it publicly. Objectivists are close enough to Libertarians for drill.
Click to expand...
Probably true. However, I've heard many O'ists, including Leonard Peikoff, basically call him Dr. Pritchet. In fact, one O'ist ethical philosopher DID call him that. So no, he DOES NOT represent the views of Objectivist philosophy.

No Din, that is not what I believe. I believe we live within a group. Everyone cannot have everything they want. Sometimes what I want interferes with what you want and vice versa. There is both the individual and the individual is also part of the community.

Deal with it.
Click to expand...
I do. I deal with it by refusing to violate your property rights, and refusing to allow you to violate mine. People like OWS "deal with it" by taking what they want.

You don't have a right to anything I own, and taking it from me without my consent is theft. Deal with it.
 
Craig24 said:
No, you should convince me you are correct. Prove to me that Objectivism assumes humans generally behave rationally. I've never seen or heard an Objectivist say that humans generally behave rationally.
Click to expand...

It's not so much about the official published stance of libertarians and objectivists as it is what I see them do and hear them say and the strange ways they argue their points. I've read Ayn Rand.

As much as I like "freedom" there's a passivity and anarchy I see in libertarians that's disturbing -- what's sometimes called vulgar Darwinism, e.g. Rand Paul recommending that people without health insurance be allowed to die if they develop life threatening but treatable illnesses.

Rigid ideologies bother me, because they are maintained not by evidence or rational discourse, but by confirmation bias and cognitive dissonance. It should be easy to observe various types of societies and discern which has the best results for measures like general well being. Evidence should trump ideology.

Where's the evidence that either libertarianism or objectivism result in better societies? Current Libertarian trends in America appear to be turning us into a banana republic.
 
Dinwar said:
....
I do. I deal with it by refusing to violate your property rights, and refusing to allow you to violate mine. People like OWS "deal with it" by taking what they want.

You don't have a right to anything I own, and taking it from me without my consent is theft. Deal with it.
Click to expand...
The OWS thread is that way>

Property rights are not as simple as you imply. If you build some giant building in the middle of my middle class suburban neighborhood, your building lowers the property value of everyone else's properties. Maybe that meets your standard of your property rights, but it doesn't meet mine. Everyone benefits from planned cities and building codes.

If the community does not set aside wilderness and wetlands all of our standards of living can be degraded. Again, the community needs to do certain things we all benefit from. If not, we all suffer and I consider that you causing me to suffer if your idea is your rights include anything you want on property you own.
 
I Ratant said:
.
Just what identifies a "potential criminal"?
Pants buckled below the ass?Speeding through school zones?
Casing the joint before a possible robbery?
Living on the wrong side of the tracks?
Crossing against the red light?
There's a universe of possible "criminal activities" a controlling society might identify.
Click to expand...

This qualifies as a crime in my book. I find it far more vulgar and offensive than walking around nude (which by contrast I don't find all that vulgar or offensive).

Anyway, I'm admittedly diverting off topic; Carry on.
 
Last edited:
NewtonTrino said:
If you believe freedom is more important than security then you are likely a libertarian.
Click to expand...

You can't have freedom without a measure of security. It isn't about one being more important than the other, it is about finding a balance between the two.
 
Mr. Scott said:
Rigid ideologies bother me, because they are maintained not by evidence or rational discourse, but by confirmation bias and cognitive dissonance. It should be easy to observe various types of societies and discern which has the best results for measures like general well being. Evidence should trump ideology.

Where's the evidence that either libertarianism or objectivism result in better societies? Current Libertarian trends in America appear to be turning us into a banana republic.
Click to expand...

I was once a libertarian, but I was turned off at the rigid idealism and lack of clear evidence supporting their case. Don't get me wrong, Libertarianism does have some good stuff. We can keep the personal freedoms for individuals and discard the rigid ideals that put business interests over the the needs of individuals.
 
Dinwar said:
Not really. Lefty-lib nutcase democrats are always concerned for "the poor", or "the sick", or "the underprivelaged". They never concern themselves with Bob down the street.
Click to expand...


These days it's more likely that "Bob down the street" is poor and sick (under-insured).

Your "Lefty-lib nutcase democrats" don't just fight for amorphous concepts, they fight for Bob.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom