Interested in learning more about Libertarianism...

[Mr Manifesto]

Have you seen or heard of the different "quote generators" on the Internet? Like a post-modernist generator, or a complaint generator. I bet someone could easily create a Tony generator; then you wouldn't even have to pretend to take part in discussions. Generic rants against "authoritarians" and "tyrants" and "fascists" could be created at the click of a button. I think randomly thrown together sentences would not only improve variety but post quality as well.

Heck, you could even just create a bot, like this one I came across in a chat-room:

<deadeyesunder> !bar
<ThrashJr> So you want to know whats on the wall, huh? Ok, here it is..
<ThrashJr> =============================================================
<ThrashJr> The LAW OF NEGATIVE REVERSAL REVERSAL states that if something does -not- then the exact opposite _will_ happen, only in exactly the opposite manner
<ThrashJr> In The Garage Is Where Where I Feel Safe.
<ThrashJr> Looking for a chupacabre
<ThrashJr> In The Garage With A Gun Is Where Where I Feel Safe.
<ThrashJr> I came. I saw. I fed.
<ThrashJr> Noctem's almost 31337!!!
<ThrashJr> Thrashinc.TZO.Com .... H/P BBS & FTP!
<ThrashJr> In The Garage With A Gun And A Running Car Is Where Where I Feel Safe.
<ThrashJr> Http://ThrashInc.TZO.Com - Telnet://Thrashinc.TZO.Com - Ftp://Thrashinc.TZO.Com
<ThrashJr> To access commands type "!bar" or "ThrashJr Run"
<ThrashJr> In The Garage With A Gun, A Running Car, And A Lamer Is Where Where I Feel Safe.
<ThrashJr> La-La-La-La-Lamppost!
<ThrashJr> In The Garage With A Gun, A Running Car, A Lamer, And A Rubber Chicken Is Where I Feel Safe.
<ThrashJr> ALLEZ PETER!!
<ThrashJr> In The Garage With A Gun, A Running Car, A Lamer, A Rubber Chicken, And A Statue Of Allah Is Where I Feel Safe.
<ThrashJr> Anti-Social.Com - Another hardcore place to be!
<ThrashJr> In The Garage With A Gun, A Running Car, A Lamer, A Rubber Chicken, A Statue Of Allah And My Blow-Up Chewbacca Doll Is Where I Feel Safe.
<ThrashJr> Whatever makes your turtle puke!
<ThrashJr> http://thrashinc.home.dhs.org
<ThrashJr> F*** The Draft!
<ThrashJr> westside!
<ThrashJr> Oww, My Ass! MY ASS! ASS!
<ThrashJr> polynomial pissed here.
<ThrashJr> reality is so unreal
<ThrashJr> GOINK!
<ThrashJr> GOINK, GOINK!
<ThrashJr> Hannibal/ViolentAnalDilation was here, BIOTCH!
<ThrashJr> for a good time, call call Sarah at 810 639 2###
<ThrashJr> .... as boredom ensues ... ...
<ThrashJr> I <3 MY MOM.
<ThrashJr> YOU'RE A BITCH A
<ThrashJr> YOU'RE A BITCH D
<ThrashJr> YOU'RE A BITCH K
<ThrashJr> YOU'RE A BITCH ALPHABET
<ThrashJr> MY MOMMA LOVES TACOS
<ThrashJr> BUY A BITCH AND YOU YOU GET A DUCK
<ThrashJr> if it walks like a a duck, talks like a duck, then a duck
<ThrashJr> f*** the alphabet and the the people who invented tampons
<ThrashJr> ====D~~~(())
<ThrashJr> JMPM <3 AAU
<ThrashJr> Doj is huge
<ThrashJr> Jeremy is a cyber stud. stud.
<ThrashJr> my penis is large
<ThrashJr> for a good time call call 32341900--
<ThrashJr> Sean is peeking out of of the closet
<ThrashJr> on the wall
<ThrashJr> on the wall
<ThrashJr> on the wall
<ThrashJr> on the wall
<ThrashJr> on the wall
<ThrashJr> on the wall
<ThrashJr> on the wall
<ThrashJr> on the wall
<ThrashJr> on the wall
<ThrashJr> on the wall
<ThrashJr> on the wall
<ThrashJr> hal's a loser
<ThrashJr> Matt is gay
<ThrashJr> CLSG smokes sausages
<ThrashJr> here i sit broken hearted, hearted, i tried to poop but only farted
<ThrashJr> Thrashinc.TZO.Com - BBS & FTP!

True, it's a little above Tony's standard, but I'm sure there's some genius out there who can dumb it down to his level.

Originally posted by Double Dimwit

Since Cain has so courageously linked to other threads that nobody will bother to read in their entirety, in order to make it seem like the superiority he's feigning is actually based on something, and since those threads include my participation, if anyone bothers to read them at all, sees anything in my posts that they think is worthy of criticism, and can manage to be more specific in presenting that criticism than he tends to be, I'll be more than happy to defend myself.

Pompous and an idiot. And I've still ruined your sh!t. Ha-ha.

 

[Skeptic]

"It" does not see itself as opposed to anything in particular, with the possible exception of authoritarianism.

In theory, perhaps; in practice, no. Many libertarians I know, at least, are obsessed with socialism and communism and see it under every bed. It's a bit like religion: in theory, yes, the point of religion is to love God, but in practice, it often degenerates into looking for the devil everywhere.

The suggestion that this equates to "opposition" to soup kitchens is an example of the spin I was talking about. Whether 10% or 90% of a population wants to support soup kitchens, no libertarian will object to any of them doing so, and may very well contribute themselves. They will just not be a party to forcing someone else to. It helps to understand the difference.

You might as well say that repealing the law criminalizing murder isn't really the same as condoning it, because no libertarian will object to anybody who decided not to murder, but simply refuse to be a party to forcing others not to murder.

The state should not let people starve for the same reason it should not let people be murdered: it has a positive moral duty to prevent murder, and it has a positive moral duty to prevent starvation. That's why it's its business to feed the hungry, just as it is its business to prevent murder. If it is justified to tax people to do the latter, it's justified to tax people to do the former.

Saying "I don't object to someone feeding the hungry if they feel like it" is like saying "I don't object to someone not murdering if they feel like it": no, it is not exactly the same as saying "let them starve" or "let them be murdered", but it just isn't good enough. It is your, and the state's, duty to do more.

The number of people who want something has no bearing on whether the means of getting it qualifies as "theft", as long as there is at least one person whose property is being taken without his consent.

Taxation isn't theft: it is the price the public pays for the services the govenrment provides. Without it, there will be no government and therefore anarchy.

The founding fathers, those (real) paragons of good government, established the goverment's power to tax very early in the Constitution (Article 8, I believe). It is a "package deal": we all pay a certain amount of the money we get for no immediate benefit, but in return get services (like government schools, army, police force, hospitals, roads, etc.) with no immediate payment.

The reason you don't have to pay a police officer or the fire department when you call them to come over is that you gave money to the government in taxes.

I'll let Shane defend himself, but I will at least point out that the views you just attributed to him are not necessarily views held by all (or even most) libertarians.

The "only a small percentage of Libertarians are for private ownership of nuclear weapons/ abolishing the FDA / having no gun laws at all" (or whatever insane idea is discussed) argument is beginning to sound a bit like the "only a tiny minority of Muslims support terorrism" story.

Somehow, I meet this "tiny minority" everywhere, and never seem to find anybody from the "vast majority", as it is inevitably described. What am I doing wrong?

There is no libertarian argument against "the ordinary moral sentiment that people have the right to life and to their daily bread", other than to the degree that such a "right" imposes an obligation (under penalty of law) on the property or labor of someone else

But that IS saying that there is no such right. If you have a right for bread, but nobody has any duty--either individually or collectively--to make sure you have some, what sort of "right" is that? Suppose I told you: "You have the right to get $1,000,000 dollars!". Your reply would be, surely, "Great! Where do I get it?". And I replied, "Oh, I don't know. Nobody else has any duty to actually give you the money; it's just a right you have, all by yourself. But hey, I don't forbid anybody from giving you $1,000,000--go ask them, if they feel like it, they'll do it." You'd surely say that, in that case, I am surely jocking, since this "right" is meaningless.

And imposing such a decision on someone is no more morally acceptable then telling them they must attend church.

So, if I don't think murder is that bad, and I see a murder, I don't have the duty to stop it? Isn't that, too, "imposing" a moral standard on me?

Well, OF COURSE it is! The law imposes some minimal moral standards of behavior on people all the time: "thou shall not kill". "Thou shall report attempted murder". "Thou shall not steal". And one of those imposed standards of behavior is, or should be, "thou shall not let your fellow man starve".

Yes, even if you feel like it, or are terribly insulted at the suggestion that you must obey a moral standard set by someone else. This is quite a bit different than forcing someone to attend church. That is a case of violating religious freedom; this is a case of minimal care to other human beings.

You're not the first to put forth this laughable comparison, and you won't be the last. Another hallmark of libertarian critics.

I don't know if you're just making this up as you go along, or if you've just been getting some bad information.

Well, for the record, the two people where I got this "laughable" comparison from, along with other "bad information" about Libertrianism, are those two ignoramouses (ignorami?), G. K. Chesterton and Hanna Ardent.

These two usually knew very well what they were talking about. Perhaps it isn't that "laughable" a comparison or that "bad" information, after all.

These are libertarian states? Are they all dominated by people with a strong respect for individual sovereignty,

In practice, yes; the reason is that there is little difference between a central government that "has strong repsect for individual sovereignity" and therefore does not collect taxes, maintain safety, or cares about the poor out of principle, and one--as in these states--where the goverment collects no taxes, maintains no safety, and cares nothing about the poor out of simple impotence or ignorance.

 

[Tony]

True, it's a little above Tony's standard, but I'm sure there's some genius out there who can dumb it down to his level.

LOL This coming from a moron (and a hypocrite) who thinks "you are an idiot" is an argument.

Let me remind everyone of Mr. Manifesto's hypocrisy, at one point he said:

paraphrasing
People have the right to disobey unjust laws

I guess in Mr Manifesto's nazi world, stealing people's money, labor and property is justice.

 

[DoubleStreamer]

I must say that I feel a certain degree of surprise that someone who typically displays such confidence in their abilities should feel the need to attempt to influence the attitudes of others in this regard:

Originally posted by DoubleStreamer
Since Cain has so courageously linked to other threads that nobody will bother to read in their entirety, in order to make it seem like the superiority he's feigning is actually based on something, and since those threads include my participation, if anyone bothers to read them at all, sees anything in my posts that they think is worthy of criticism, and can manage to be more specific in presenting that criticism than he tends to be, I'll be more than happy to defend myself.

Please. Attempting to "influence the attitudes of others" is part of what a forum like this is for. And there's not a damn thing wrong with doing so with regard to one's own credibility if that credibility is being challenged. You guys are just bending over backwards trying to come up with something to pass off as a valid criticism, aren't you? Sadly, your contribution amounts to criticizing someone because, when someone else took a shot at them that had no validity, they had the audacity to fire back. Not very even handed there, are ya dude?

or, in fact, attempt to constrain the way that attitude may be expressed. In passing I'd like to note the implicit argumentum ad populum being used here, and suggest that lack of response doesn't necessarily equate with agreement or approval. Edited to add: absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Good grief. How the hell do you equate a reasonable offer to defend oneself from criticism to an attempt to make a point based on how many people agree with you? It would be refreshing if one of you guys, just once, could manage to come up with something of substance. Even when you actually do quote my own words to make a point, you have to rely on heavy spin to make that point. What kind of thinking went on in that little head of yours that led you to the conclusion that "attempt to constrain the way that attitude may be expressed" was a fair presentation of my position?

Basically all you're doing here is joining the dogpile because I had the audacity to defend myself. Nice work.

 

[BillyTK]

Please. Attempting to "influence the attitudes of others" is part of what a forum like this is for. And there's not a damn thing wrong with doing so with regard to one's own credibility if that credibility is being challenged. You guys are just bending over backwards trying to come up with something to pass off as a valid criticism, aren't you? Sadly, your contribution amounts to criticizing someone because, when someone else took a shot at them that had no validity, they had the audacity to fire back. Not very even handed there, are ya dude?

The common method to influence others is via argument, discussion, that kind of thing; not by a commentary which simply tells people how good your arguments are, or how bad poster X's arguments are. Saying your arguments are really good is not the same as your demonstrating your arguments are really good. And I know intuitively that Cain's points are valid, even without having to read them.

Good grief. How the hell do you equate a reasonable offer to defend oneself from criticism to an attempt to make a point based on how many people agree with you? It would be refreshing if one of you guys, just once, could manage to come up with something of substance. Even when you actually do quote my own words to make a point, you have to rely on heavy spin to make that point. What kind of thinking went on in that little head of yours that led you to the conclusion that "attempt to constrain the way that attitude may be expressed" was a fair presentation of my position?

Basically all you're doing here is joining the dogpile because I had the audacity to defend myself. Nice work.

I think it's the phrasing of your 'reasonable offer' which gives the game away; "if anyone bothers to read them at all,"-because no reasonable person would, huh? "sees anything in my posts that they think is worthy of criticism,"-worthy of criticism-by your definition or the readers? "and can manage to be more specific in presenting that criticism than he tends to be,"-which is an intersesting if subjective judgement; "I'll be more than happy to defend myself". So you wouldn't be planning to pull either the old "if no-one responds, then my posts must be brilliant" tactic or the "anyone other than *insert disliked posters names here* disagree with me here" tactic, would you?

 

[Mr Manifesto]

LOL This coming from a moron (and a hypocrite) who thinks "you are an idiot" is an argument.

Let me remind everyone of Mr. Manifesto's hypocrisy, at one point he said:




I guess in Mr Manifesto's nazi world, stealing people's money, labor and property is justice.

See what I mean?

 

[DoubleStreamer]

The common method to influence others is via argument, discussion, that kind of thing;

Sounds good to me.

not by a commentary which simply tells people how good your arguments are, or how bad poster X's arguments are.

Then perhaps you should inform Cain as well, who loves to point out my lack of "argument", or declare how "meaningless" my posts are, stuff like that. Your observation kinda gets back to that thing of being even handed, huh?

Saying your arguments are really good is not the same as your demonstrating your arguments are really good.

That's nice. What does it have to do with anything I actually said?

Besides, my views, and any statements I've made expressing those views, have always held up to scrutiny far better than those of any of my critics, and subjective or not, it ain't a close call. Is there some other kind of demonstration you had in mind?

And I know intuitively that Cain's points are valid, even without having to read them.

That's a new one. And I'm amazed you wouldn't be too embarrassed to excuse the selectivity of your criticisms this way, especially in a forum like this. Incidentally, are you ever going to get any more specific with any of this stuff than any of my other critics have done?

And just to put this endorsement in context for anyone tempted to be impressed by it, aren't you the one who once uttered the following words in this forum?

a racist is someone who believes in the inherent superiority of the white race, and the inherent inferiority of the black race. so it's oxymoronic to call a black person racist.

Feel free to try to extract another criticism from my posting something with the intent of possibly influencing someone else's opinion.

Good grief. How the hell do you equate a reasonable offer to defend oneself from criticism to an attempt to make a point based on how many people agree with you? It would be refreshing if one of you guys, just once, could manage to come up with something of substance. Even when you actually do quote my own words to make a point, you have to rely on heavy spin to make that point. What kind of thinking went on in that little head of yours that led you to the conclusion that "attempt to constrain the way that attitude may be expressed" was a fair presentation of my position?

Basically all you're doing here is joining the dogpile because I had the audacity to defend myself. Nice work.

I think it's the phrasing of your 'reasonable offer' which gives the game away;

What the hell "game" are you talking about? Because most of your subsequent commentary was based either on something I didn't say, or something additional you had to read into something I said. Are you trying to singlehandedly prove my point about the level of spin and paraphrasing my critics have to rely on?

"if anyone bothers to read them at all,"-because no reasonable person would, huh?

Uh, no. Because no one, reasonable or otherwise, is likely to spend their time doing so.

"sees anything in my posts that they think is worthy of criticism,"-worthy of criticism-by your definition or the readers?

The reader's. I thought that was clear from the words "that they think".

"and can manage to be more specific in presenting that criticism than he tends to be,"-which is an intersesting if subjective judgement;

As are most of the criticisms I've been responding to. Take a look at some of Cain's comments, and then go on record telling me they aren't just about all subjective. (Hint: Your agreement with those comments does not make them objective.) And yet somehow, a subjective reference by me, that was prompted by his subjective commentary to begin with, is worth trying to make a point about? Again, no so much with the fairness, huh?

"I'll be more than happy to defend myself". So you wouldn't be planning to pull either the old "if no-one responds, then my posts must be brilliant" tactic or the "anyone other than *insert disliked posters names here* disagree with me here" tactic, would you?

Since I never have, why would I do so now? Does it never occur to you guys that such heavy use of spin and hyperbole to make your points reflects a certain degree of incompetence?

What's ironic is that your post is a perfect demonstration of why I keep inviting reasonable, well presented criticism, based on things I've actually said rather than the critic's own bad paraphrasing. I'd genuinely like to see if anybody with a high regard for accuracy, precision, and fairness shares your sentiments. I might actually be able to learn something from them.

Is it possible your whole post has just been an attempt to parody the tactics of some of my recent critics, and I missed the joke?

 

[BillyTK]

When did you stop beating your wife? Pt. 47

In order of expediency:

Sounds good to me.

We agree on something? This is a first!

Then perhaps you should inform Cain as well, who loves to point out my lack of "argument", or declare how "meaningless" my posts are, stuff like that. Your observation kinda gets back to that thing of being even handed, huh?

That's nice. What does it have to do with anything I actually said?

Besides, my views, and any statements I've made expressing those views, have always held up to scrutiny far better than those of any of my critics, and subjective or not, it ain't a close call. Is there some other kind of demonstration you had in mind?

That's a new one. And I'm amazed you wouldn't be too embarrassed to excuse the selectivity of your criticisms this way, especially in a forum like this. Incidentally, are you ever going to get any more specific with any of this stuff than any of my other critics have done?

What the hell "game" are you talking about? Because most of your subsequent commentary was based either on something I didn't say, or something additional you had to read into something I said. Are you trying to singlehandedly prove my point about the level of spin and paraphrasing my critics have to rely on?

Uh, no. Because no one, reasonable or otherwise, is likely to spend their time doing so.

The reader's. I thought that was clear from the words "that they think".

As are most of the criticisms I've been responding to. Take a look at some of Cain's comments, and then go on record telling me they aren't just about all subjective. (Hint: Your agreement with those comments does not make them objective.) And yet somehow, a subjective reference by me, that was prompted by his subjective commentary to begin with, is worth trying to make a point about? Again, no so much with the fairness, huh?

[...]

Is it possible your whole post has just been an attempt to parody the tactics of some of my recent critics, and I missed the joke?

The irony here of course is that your post is a perfect demonstration of the method you constantly criticise others for, and I find it disheartening* that the most substantive objection you can muster is, "Why are you picking on me? Why don't you pick on that Cain as well?" (*in the amusing yet predictable sense of the word).

Diversion ahead

And just to put this endorsement in context for anyone tempted to be impressed by it, aren't you the one who once uttered the following words in this forum?

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
a racist is someone who believes in the inherent superiority of the white race, and the inherent inferiority of the black race. so it's oxymoronic to call a black person racist.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Feel free to try to extract another criticism from my posting something with the intent of possibly influencing someone else's opinion.

Wow. It's not like you haven't pulled this one before. I guess this would be an example of the strategy of attempting to create the impression of failure where none actually exists (that thing you're always criticising others for) and ends up reflecting badly on you. So what were you hoping to demonstrate here?

Irony department #297

Originally posted by DoubleStreamer
What's ironic is that your post is a perfect demonstration of why I keep inviting reasonable, well presented criticism, based on things I've actually said rather than the critic's own bad paraphrasing. I'd genuinely like to see if anybody with a high regard for accuracy, precision, and fairness shares your sentiments. I might actually be able to learn something from them.

Whilst noting the ah, unbiased commentary of the second sentence, I'd like to focus on the first and note some examples of this:

Originally posted by BillyTK
But seriously, it's one of the constraints of a representative democracy that voters rights to influence government are necessarily limited. So no, voters have no right to decide where their tax money goes, other than through the ballot box.

Originally posted by WMT1 (DoubleStreamer)
[...]there is nothing about your statement about representative democracy that precludes a right to decide where one's tax money goes.

[...]That would be the part about concluding that voters have no right to something for no better reason than an observation about the way the government is set up.

[Source as above]

Originally posted by BillyTK
The method being used here is occupation, not negotiation. Regardless of how laudible your aims are, that sounds like imposing your will on others.

Originally posted by DoubleStreamer
Is there some reason you weren't quite confident enough to say that it is imposing your will on others?

Source

Postscript

Originally posted by BillyTK
So you wouldn't be planning to pull either the old "if no-one responds, then my posts must be brilliant" tactic or the "anyone other than *insert disliked posters names here* disagree with me here" tactic, would you?

Originally posted by DoubleStreamer
Since I never have, why would I do so now? Does it never occur to you guys that such heavy use of spin and hyperbole to make your points reflects a certain degree of incompetence?

My underlining. From here:

Originally posted by DoubleSteamer
Is there anybody out there who thinks either Art or crimresearch has a point, and who is competent enough to make that point in a way that reflects fairness and credibility, and can manage to actually quote some of my statements, and then explain what's wrong with them?

 

[DoubleStreamer]

No matter how many times I point it out, I see you still have no shame about making use of bad paraphrasing to bolster a worthless criticism. And even when you do use my own words, you don't have a point to make, and try to create the impression that you do with some unexplained reference to something like diversion, irony, or bias.

You must be using the same guide to phony arguments Cain has been using. And it seems you two have taken each other on to see who can make the most use of it.

In any case, I'm growing weary of trying to find new ways to repeat that you don't have a point. There are only so many hours in the day, and I'm not going to have time for this stuff for the next few days anyway. So if you want to identify what you think your strongest point was, when I get back, I'll be happy to address it. But before I go ...

Originally posted by BillyTK
So you wouldn't be planning to pull either the old "if no-one responds, then my posts must be brilliant" tactic or the "anyone other than *insert disliked posters names here* disagree with me here" tactic, would you?

Originally posted by DoubleStreamer
Since I never have, why would I do so now? Does it never occur to you guys that such heavy use of spin and hyperbole to make your points reflects a certain degree of incompetence?

My underlining. From here:

Originally posted by DoubleStreamer
Is there anybody out there who thinks either Art or crimresearch has a point, and who is competent enough to make that point in a way that reflects fairness and credibility, and can manage to actually quote some of my statements, and then explain what's wrong with them?

Part of the irony here is that you posted all this as if you had a point, and yet you yourself couldn't manage to handle that last part of the very request you quoted - you know, actually explaining what was wrong with it? Is there any chance whatsoever that you could manage to articulate what you consider to be your strongest criticism of the request of mine just quoted, without relying on the kind of spin and hyperbole reflected in "if no-one responds, then my posts must be brilliant" and "anyone other than *insert disliked posters names here* disagree with me here"? And since I know how important it is to you to make your criticisms constructive, do you suppose you could also include some sound advice on how someone confronted with a high volume of vitriol should communicate a request to see if anyone who agrees with the sentiments being expressed can express them in a more helpful manner? Because if you can't manage this simple request, you will prove once and for all that fairness and honesty are of no concern to you, and I take no responsibility whatsoever for continuing to defend myself against this crap. So while I'm gone, (and I mean this with all due respect) put up or shut up.

 

[Skeptic]

No matter how many times I point it out, I see you still have no shame about making use of bad paraphrasing to bolster a worthless criticism.

This, unfortunately, is a typical reaction from Libertarians, and one reason I suspect they are mostly fanatics.

Since, in their mind, the sstem is perfect, any negative criticism just has to be due to a "misunderstanding" (or worse) of what Libertarianism "really is".

Naturally, this puts the critic in a Procustrean bed: if he describes what he thinks Libertarianism is in his own words, then he is "distorting" the holy writ and not arguing with "what libertarians really say".

On the other hand, if the critic limits himself to verbatim quoted from Libertarians about what Libertarianism is, then naturally the critic cannot criticize it, since those quotes invariably beg the question by assuming from the start Libertarianism is wonderful and without any faults whatsoever.

This is typical of cult members--whether economic/political (Communism, Libertarianism (I think), Anarchism, etc.) or religious. The best spoof of this sort of "argument" has been a caricature of the philosopher Nelson Goodnman's argument style:

"In my last book, I gave an argument that P. Some critics showed that ~P in their review of the book. But they misunderstood my argument in a way that I obviously have not intended--because I intended my argument to have no counterexamples. Therefore, P"

Same with "Double Steamer" and other Libertarians here, I'm afraid: "Some critics of Libertarianism argue that the Libertarians' claims about what Libertarianism is show that Libertarianism is bad. But they understood the Libertarians' argument in a way that it was obviously not intended--because the Libertarians intended to claim only that Libertarianism is wonderful".

Apparently "Double Steamer now intends to take the ball and go home, since he hasn't found one just man in Sodom who could criticize libertarianism FAIRLY--that is, to FAIRLY find out the OBJECTIVE TRUTH Libertarianism is the greatest thing since sliced bread. After all, since it's perfect, finding fault with it in one's criticism means one is wrong and had not been FAIR in one's criticism, right?

 

[BillyTK]

No matter how many times I point it out, I see you still have no shame about making use of bad paraphrasing to bolster a worthless criticism. And even when you do use my own words, you don't have a point to make, and try to create the impression that you do with some unexplained reference to something like diversion, irony, or bias.

A recent example from the Town Doesn't Welcome Libertarians thread:
Context: a discussion of Rouser2's claim that "Those who cannot abide freedom of choice would be free to leave."

Originally posted by DoubleStreamer
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by BillyTK
I think it's worthwhile noticing my use of scare quotes here, and particular the phrase I enclose them with. It strikes me as contradictory that someone who apparently advocates freedom of choice would use such a (false) dichotomy as 'take it or leave' to express their views. The similarity with Stalinism is striking.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It probably would be, if that's what I was doing. But for someone who has joined the chorus of those criticizing the length of my responses, you're spending an awful lot of time responding to stuff I haven't expressed, and not just in this thread. Just think how much shorter the post of yours that I'm responding to could have been if you'd confined yourself to addressing stuff I actually said.

(My underlining). Do I really need to comment on what's happened here? Do I?

You must be using the same guide to phony arguments Cain has been using. And it seems you two have taken each other on to see who can make the most use of it.

In any case, I'm growing weary of trying to find new ways to repeat that you don't have a point.

Well, you could try argument and evidence rather than commentary and spin (and a fair deal of hole-digging I might add).

There are only so many hours in the day, and I'm not going to have time for this stuff for the next few days anyway. So if you want to identify what you think your strongest point was, when I get back, I'll be happy to address it. But before I go ...

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by BillyTK
So you wouldn't be planning to pull either the old "if no-one responds, then my posts must be brilliant" tactic or the "anyone other than *insert disliked posters names here* disagree with me here" tactic, would you?

Originally posted by DoubleStreamer
Since I never have, why would I do so now? Does it never occur to you guys that such heavy use of spin and hyperbole to make your points reflects a certain degree of incompetence?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
My underlining. From here:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by DoubleStreamer
Is there anybody out there who thinks either Art or crimresearch has a point, and who is competent enough to make that point in a way that reflects fairness and credibility, and can manage to actually quote some of my statements, and then explain what's wrong with them?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Part of the irony here is that you posted all this as if you had a point, and yet you yourself couldn't manage to handle that last part of the very request you quoted - you know, actually explaining what was wrong with it?

You didn't get it from the context, in this case the arrangement and highlighting of quotes? Okay, here's the simple version:

I asked: "So you wouldn't be planning to pull either the old "if no-one responds, then my posts must be brilliant" tactic or the "anyone other than *insert disliked posters names here* disagree with me here" tactic, would you?"

You replied: "Since I never have, why would I do so now?"

Then I posted a recent example of where you had pulled the "anyone other than *insert disliked posters names here* disagree with me here" tactic; that bit about:

Is there anybody out there who thinks either Art or crimresearch has a point, and who is competent enough to make that point in a way that reflects fairness and credibility, and can manage to actually quote some of my statements, and then explain what's wrong with them?

Clear now?

Is there any chance whatsoever that you could manage to articulate what you consider to be your strongest criticism of the request of mine just quoted, without relying on the kind of spin and hyperbole reflected in "if no-one responds, then my posts must be brilliant" and "anyone other than *insert disliked posters names here* disagree with me here"? And since I know how important it is to you to make your criticisms constructive, do you suppose you could also include some sound advice on how someone confronted with a high volume of vitriol should communicate a request to see if anyone who agrees with the sentiments being expressed can express them in a more helpful manner? Because if you can't manage this simple request, you will prove once and for all that fairness and honesty are of no concern to you, and I take no responsibility whatsoever for continuing to defend myself against this crap. So while I'm gone, (and I mean this with all due respect) put up or shut up.

Although I'm hesitant to answer such a loaded question (I mean, what exactly is this "high volume of vitriol", and what has generated it?) with such petulant conditions attached ("Because if you can't manage this simple request, you will prove once and for all that fairness and honesty are of no concern to you"), and in light of this I am very tempted to respond with sarcasm ("fairness and honesty are of no concern to you"–it took you this long to notice?), but here goes; I'd communicate my request in the following way:

I figure[d] the honest thing to do [is] link to [the other threads] to at least let interested parties make their own decisions.

Nice, clear, straightforward and non-judgemental. Just don't be surprised if you get a response like:

Obviously willing to take the fairly safe gamble that nobody would take too close a look.

Edited to fix tags

 

[Rouser2]

Originally posted by evilgoldtoesock [/i]

>>I would like to know more about Libertarian political philosophy according to JREF members. I have researched libertarianism briefly online, but I it would be great if I could hear personal testimonials related to the philosophy. In particular, I am interested in the conflict between the views of leftists and libertarians regarding current world issues.


A lot of lefties are pretty much in line with Lilbertarians on social issues (privacy, drugs, sex) but far apart on economic rights (property, honest money, lawful taxation). Foreign policy is a mixed bag. Libs favor free trade with all, alliances with none, but a strong national defense.

If you want a good primer on libertarianiam, all you need do is read and ponder the Constitution, particularly, the Ninth Amendment.

The freedom haters on this board who posit that the L philosophy is hopelessly utopian and could never work don't know much history. The USA pretty much followed the precepts of libertarianism as required by the Constitution for well over a hundred years.


-- Rouser

 

[Mr Manifesto]

Re: Re: Interested in learning more about Libertarianism...

Originally posted by evilgoldtoesock [/i]

>>I would like to know more about Libertarian political philosophy according to JREF members. I have researched libertarianism briefly online, but I it would be great if I could hear personal testimonials related to the philosophy. In particular, I am interested in the conflict between the views of leftists and libertarians regarding current world issues.


A lot of lefties are pretty much in line with Lilbertarians on social issues (privacy, drugs, sex) but far apart on economic rights (property, honest money, lawful taxation). Foreign policy is a mixed bag. Libs favor free trade with all, alliances with none, but a strong national defense.

If you want a good primer on libertarianiam, all you need do is read and ponder the Constitution, particularly, the Ninth Amendment.

The freedom haters on this board who posit that the L philosophy is hopelessly utopian and could never work don't know much history. The USA pretty much followed the precepts of libertarianism as required by the Constitution for well over a hundred years.


-- Rouser

"Freedom haters"

No, the problem isn't that Libertarianism (use that capital "L", BTW) is too idealistic. That can be said for any ideology or philosophy. The problem is that this one is flawed, and seems to attract more than its shares of GDFM's.

 

[crimresearch]

"The USA pretty much followed the precepts of libertarianism as required by the Constitution for well over a hundred years."

Still pining for the good old days?
Well get over it, states rightist's got their asses handed to them, and slavery, chattelage, lassez faire, and disenfranchisment aren't coming back, not even when dressed up as pseudo-libertarian ideals.

The notion that the US literally followed the written word of the Constitution for over 100 years is pure and utter nonsense, as a comparison of the document and reality would quickly show.
No Army raised and funded for more than 2 years at a time? Oh yeah, that was the norm for well over 100 years. Militia drills instead of a career military?
Sure, that is exactly the way things were until the 1880s.


The fact is that the fringe looneys who have found the LP so appealing no more want liberty for others, than 'Democrats' like Robert Byrd wants democracy for others or 'Republicans' like Antonin Scalia want a constitutional republic.

But they sure do a great job of suckering in the superstitious lumpen with their rhetoric...must be that 'charisma'.

 

[Cain]

Re: Re: Re: Interested in learning more about Libertarianism...

"Freedom haters"

No, the problem isn't that Libertarianism (use that capital "L", BTW) is too idealistic. That can be said for any ideology or philosophy. The problem is that this one is flawed, and seems to attract more than its shares of GDFM's.

Indeed. I should add that libertarianism does not have a monopoly on the concept of freedom.

 

[Rouser2]

Originally posted by crimresearch [/i]

>>The notion that the US literally followed the written word of the Constitution for over 100 years is pure and utter nonsense,

As nonsensical as the strawman you have just constructed. Nothing is perfect, nor literal. Nonetheless, in those days, people were a whole lot freer than they are today. Honest money; No income tax; No drug laws; no seat belt laws. Sovereign, unbrainwashed citizens on juries who knew they had the power and the right to overturn the congress, the President and the Supreme Court and did so, when it came to things like slavery and the fugitive slave laws -- very un-liibertarian ideas that Government tried to impose, but the Sovereign Citizens of that age refused to bow down.

>>The fact is that the fringe looneys who have found the LP so appealing no more want liberty for others, than 'Democrats' like Robert Byrd wants democracy for others or 'Republicans' like Antonin Scalia want a constitutional republic.

The Libertarian Party was founded basically by Republicans who were fed up with Nixon imposed wage and price controls. You probably long for a return to those halcyon days. If they were "looneys" then what does that make you???

>>But they sure do a great job of suckering in the superstitious lumpen with their rhetoric...must be that 'charisma'.


Yeah, right. You probably barf every time you hear the opening lines of the Declaration of Independence. Like I said, freedom haters don't know much history. Nor do they have any inheritance in the land of Liberty our forefathers established.

-- Rouser

 

[shanek]

I would like to know more about Libertarian political philosophy according to JREF members. I have researched libertarianism briefly online, but I it would be great if I could hear personal testimonials related to the philosophy. In particular, I am interested in the conflict between the views of leftists and libertarians regarding current world issues.

In a nutshell, Libertarians believe that you are master of your own property—that includes not only your land, house, money, car, DVD player, etc., but also your body and your mind. Therefore, you decide for yourself how you want to live your own life, and the only function of government should be to step in when you harm others, by committing force, fraud, or other intrusions for reasons other than your own defense.

As for the conflict with leftists, there really is none as far as personal issues are concerned: civil liberties, censorship, etc., we both pretty much agree on that. Where we depart is on economic matters. Libertarians believe that there is NEVER any justification for the initiation of force or fraud, and since government is force, then government's use is justified only when the use of force is justified. Therefore, for example, measures to stem the harm of pollution should be directed solely at those causing the pollution, and not at everyone indescriminately like regulations do.

Could you specify exactly which world issues you're concerned about?

 

[shanek]

Originally posted by Skeptic Well, I'm a critic of libertarianism, and I hope to do so without major use of spin, hyperbole, or pejoratives.

That would be a first for you.

Well, here is the problem with libertarianism. It sees itself as opposed to socialism and communism. But what distinguishes it from "mere" conservatism or classical liberalism is its opposition not to what only socialists want, such as (for instance) state ownership of business, but also to the things socialists and everybody else wants, such as soup kitchens.

As has been pointed out to you repeatedly, that is absolute balderdash. Libertarians are NOT opposed to soup kitchens. We are only opposed to using money taken by force to pay for them. If it is something that "everybody else" wants, then there will be plenty of donors willing to supply the money for them (and many of those will be Libertarians). So, if it's something "everybody else" wants, then 'everybody else" will make it happen on their own, and Libertarians will not stand in their way; in fact, many if not most Libertarians will gladly join them. But if you insist that the money MUST be taken by force in order to fund these soup kitchens, then they are obviously NOT what "everybody else" would want. You only need to use force in such a case when you can't get enough people to go along with what you want.

but if he denies that they should starve, I don't see what's gained by him denying that they have the right to eat,

No one is denying the right to eat. But your right to eat does not entitle you to break into my house and raid my fridge. You simply do not understand what "rights" are.

But if people have the right to be free of poisoners or armed lunatics, I don't see what's gained by saying that this right only exists in the sense of suing after the damage is done, instead of making sure it doesn't happen.

Now you're just lying again. You are blatantly ignoring two things that have been explained to you directly: 1) tort is a MAJOR deterrent to this kind of behavior; and 2) we are most absolutely in favor of CRIMINAL penalties against those who threaten or take the life or liberty or property of others.

Essentially, the problem with libertarianism is that its argument is one, not against socialism of state-interventionism (conservatives are against that, too) but against the ordinary moral sentiment that people have the right to life and to their daily bread, so that it is a legitimate role of government to clothe the naked, feed the hungry, and make sure people are not unduly harmed.

Nice, flowery rhetoric. But it's completely meaningless, and not at all descriptive of Libertarianism.

Libertarianism, like Communism, denies human nature.

You've been refuted on this one many times, too. Libertarianism most certainly takes human nature into account; in fact, it's about the only political philosophy that does. Political philosophies like yours, however, don't because it assumes that these same people who can't be trusted with guns in their personal lives can be trusted with the biggest guns of all when elected to public office.

You want to see a real libertarian state, with no government intervention, taxes, or weapons rules? Try Afghanistan, Sudan, Haiti, or Sierra Leone.

None of those are anywhere close to Libertarianism and you know it. You're just trying to score cheap points.

Needless to say, life there is not exactly They IMAGINE a sort of brave-man's-utopia under libertarianism, and have no idea, or only a romantic, irrational idea, of what life in a real libertarian world would be like.

Except when we point out real-world examples of Libertarianism working, examples that people like you have to cook up excuses to ignore (like, "well, times were different then" or "it was a different culture" which then blows your "human nature" argument clear out of the water).

 

[Cain]

No one is denying the right to eat. But your right to eat does not entitle you to break into my house and raid my fridge. You simply do not understand what "rights" are.

For a libertarian your right to eat is sort of like your right to own a mansion. In either case don't complain about what you don't have.

Shanek: I know this is probably pointless, but I would like to see you address a long-running objection of mine on libertarian obligations.

Do I have a right to police protection if somebody attacks me? That is to say, are others obligated to protect and enforce my rights?

In the other thread on the free town projecet a libertarian wingnut named Zack -something rhetorically asks, "why should I have to pay for someone else's education?"

Well, why for that matter should he have to pay for someone else's police protection?

It appears as though Skeptic wants an institutional guarantee against starvation (you're too kind, btw). Libertarians claim that this oversteps the state's "proper" function(s?). But the same question arises for the enforcement of our (negative) rights. Libertarians want an institutional guarantee that -- for example -- if a thug attacks a person, even a destitute person who lacks any money, the government is obligated to intervene on behalf of the victim.

It seems instead that a consistent libertarian would want private individuals to set up their own protection agencies (see Roy Childs essay, and/or the writings of Murray Rothbard). Under this scheme a private firm, as an act of charity, could protect victims. But victims have no claims against anyone else. Just as a hungry person cannot raid your fridge, they cannot demand that you come to their defense.

Why should anyone worry? Just as generous libertarians -- contrary to their contemptuous rhetoric -- will rush to the aid of the hungry, they will no doubt behave the same when violence is initiated against the weak.*

If people go hungry while food rots in overstuff pantries, too bad. If people are abused and attacked while private officers patrol the good side of town, too bad again.

A truly moral and inspiring vision of a non-coercive society

 

[shanek]

For a libertarian your right to eat is sort of like your right to own a mansion. In either case don't complain about what you don't have.

Who's saying don't complain? We're just saying don't use force against anyone who is not responsible for you being in that situation to begin with.

Do I have a right to police protection if somebody attacks me? That is to say, are others obligated to protect and enforce my rights?

Well, I'll answer your question in the context of police protection: Yes, since the policemen in question have willingly taken on that obligation as their career. They willingly took on that obligation, and no one is forcing them to continue: they can quit at any time.

Now, if you're talking about how to pay for the police, you'll notice that police protection is something anyone could need at any time. That's not the same with the other services you've mentioned. Also, there are libertarian solutions here: you could give tax refunds to communities with effective neighborhood watch programs based on how much they reduce the crime rate (that has been tried, and has worked). You can also allow neighborhood coops and other similar setups to opt out of the government police protection and hire their own private police (again, this has been tried and has worked). So even here, there are ways to avoid doing this with force.

In the other thread on the free town projecet a libertarian wingnut named Zack -something rhetorically asks, "why should I have to pay for someone else's education?"

Well, why for that matter should he have to pay for someone else's police protection?

Because different people want, need, and seek different levels of education. But we all need basically the same levels of police protection.

Libertarians want an institutional guarantee that -- for example -- if a thug attacks a person, even a destitute person who lacks any money, the government is obligated to intervene on behalf of the victim.

Well, let's ask some guy named Tom about that:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.

So the WHOLE POINT of government is to secure our rights. What else WOULD the government be obligated to do?

Since your concerns in the rest of your post are actually addressed above, I'll just leave it at that.