Individual Liberty, Society, and the role of the State:

[Herophant]

Herophant...I'm going to give you some advice, from someone who has spent way to much time arguing with TOT. Don't wrestle with a pig. It just gets you dirty and the pig likes it. You're not going to change his mind. Just be content with the fact that you're right and the rest of us know it.

Thanks for the heads up… One part of me tells me to just leave it alone, but then another part of me has this morbid interest in seeing what he is capable of talking about next.

But Kelzie one quick question; what’s your moral basis as a brand new utilitarian?

 

[justone]

Well, crap, most glaring thing, in your initial #2, I missed the word always, and read it as "People (individuals) form government." I mentally omitted the always. therefor, now, #2 is FLASE, making #3 and #5 also false. The absolutist adition of the "always" portion completely invalidates the statement. Nothing "always" happenes, ever.

People do not always form government. People almost always create a social order. Social order and government are not synonyms.[/QOOTE]

You made it really good : “almost always”. This is
the point when I almost always give up.
This is the point from which you can make any conclusion FALSE. You are almost right. You are almost always right.

Social order and government are not synonyms.[/QOOTE]

It’s a verbal exercise. Government is always a result of people’s social order. Social order also includes a, b, c, d, e, - but I said details were not considered.

People ALWAYS form government. It is the observation. A recorded truth. The fact of the Universe. You can argue it only with a construction coming out of your mind, like “what if we do such experiment, or let us imagine such situation”, ''look at this detail''. Don’t do it to me.
But even if you IMAGINE people without a government, they will be overtaken by people with a government in a moment.

And so we go in circles. You go to #3. And history repeats itself.

 

[libertarian_knight]

Well, crap, most glaring thing, in your initial #2, I missed the word always, and read it as "People (individuals) form government." I mentally omitted the always. therefor, now, #2 is FLASE, making #3 and #5 also false. The absolutist adition of the "always" portion completely invalidates the statement. Nothing "always" happenes, ever.

People do not always form government. People almost always create a social order. Social order and government are not synonyms.[/QOOTE]

You made it really good : “almost always”. This is
the point when I almost always give up.
This is the point from which you can make any conclusion FALSE. You are almost right. You are almost always right.

Social order and government are not synonyms.[/QOOTE]

It’s a verbal exercise. Government is always a result of people’s social order. Social order also includes a, b, c, d, e, - but I said details were not considered.

People ALWAYS form government. It is the observation. A recorded truth. The fact of the Universe. You can argue it only with a construction coming out of your mind, like “what if we do such experiment, or let us imagine such situation”, ''look at this detail''. Don’t do it to me.
But even if you IMAGINE people without a government, they will be overtaken by people with a government in a moment.

And so we go in circles. You go to #3. And history repeats itself.

no people do not always form governments. It's not a historical facts, it not always true. therefor your statement is false.

Yes, many areas where people didn't for governments were taken over, after a few months, of few hundred years. And governments have collapsed as fast as well.

 

[Herophant]

But Kelzie one quick question; what’s your moral basis as a brand new utilitarian?

Hmm that was supposed to be a brand new Libertarian, sorry for the mixup.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

If libertarians are reactionary, who in the world do you consider progressive?

Libertarians are reactionary in that they reject the new deal which the neo-cons accept. So they're not conservative because they don't want to maintain the status quo they want to go back to the way things were before the new deal and because they want to go back to a legal system based on natural laws and natural rights as opposed to positive law.

 

[Kelzie]

Hmm that was supposed to be a brand new Libertarian, sorry for the mixup.

I'm not there yet. I'm (hopefully obviously) already socially liberal. The more I learn about economics, the more economically liberal I become (we've got the wording screwed up in the US...economically conservative if you prefer). My moral basis for social liberty if freedom. If it doesn't hurt anyone else, there's no reason why you shouldn't be able to do it. My basis for economics is that more freedom in captialism seems to be more efficient. I'm still fine tuning it.

 

[justone]

no people do not always form governments. It's not a historical facts, it not always true. therefor your statement is false.

Well, since I cannot find a way around your logic I may have to admit it is false.

BUT I STILL LOVE IT!

I even clicked on a link PROVIDED BY YOU. And look, this is what YOUR guys are saying:

"Everywhere we see men setting up governments, submitting to them, growing tired of the mounting oppression, and finally throwing off that yoke, only to acquire another. And each successive yoke represented an effort to do away with the evils of the prior form by establishing a better form.

We can think of no better statement covering this phenomenon than that written by Rose Wilder Lane in her great book, Discovery of Freedom. Here is what she says:

They replace the priest by a king, the king by an oligarchy, the oligarchy by a despot, the despot by an aristocracy, the aristocrats by a majority, the majority by a tyrant, the tyrant by oligarchs, the oligarchs by aristocrats, the aristocrats by a king, the king by a parliament, the parliament by a dictator, the dictator by a king, the king by…. there's six thousand years of it, in every language.

I cannot agree with how it is put together (some stone age marxism),but this is YOUR link.

So, I have to retreat, and good luck to you,- I hope you still have time before Robodoon gets here.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

I'm not there yet. I'm (hopefully obviously) already socially liberal. The more I learn about economics, the more economically liberal I become (we've got the wording screwed up in the US...economically conservative if you prefer). My moral basis for social liberty if freedom. If it doesn't hurt anyone else, there's no reason why you shouldn't be able to do it. My basis for economics is that more freedom in captialism seems to be more efficient. I'm still fine tuning it.

God just as I'm realizing that anarcho-capitalism is a flawed ideology and that the state and a certain measure of regulation is necessary for a functioning society to exist, you're becoming a libertarian. I think you're doing this just to p!ss me off. :lol:

 

[Kelzie]

God just as I'm realizing that anarcho-capitalism is a flawed ideology and that the state and a certain measure of regulation is necessary for a functioning society to exist, you're becoming a libertarian. I think you're doing this just to p!ss me off. :lol:

If I became any kind of libertarian (and I pray every night that I won't) it will be an extremely moderate one. I think anarchists are unrealistic. No offense galen.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

If I became any kind of libertarian (and I pray every night that I won't) it will be an extremely moderate one. I think anarchists are unrealistic. No offense galen.

Or in other words you'll become like me, welcome to the new world order tell Kristol I sent you, mwuhahahaha . . {deep breath}. . .mwuhahahahahaha!

FYI: Socialist/Libertarian = neo-con.

 

[Kelzie]

Or in other words you'll become like me, welcome to the new world order tell Kristol I sent you, mwuhahahaha . . {deep breath}. . .mwuhahahahahaha!

FYI: Socialist/Libertarian = neo-con.

Sure. Like you. Except, you know, with some knowledge and reason. :2wave: I'm taking the LSATs in June. Jealous?

And for the last time. I am not a socialist.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Sure. Like you. Except, you know, with some knowledge and reason. :2wave: I'm taking the LSATs in June. Jealous?

And for the last time. I am not a socialist.

I have both knowledge and reason though it is generally lost on the slow to comprehend, the brainwashed masses, and those who don't study. What's your GPA again?

I'm taking the LSATs next semester after I take the LSAT courses, have you taken the courses? I've got the C.D.'s and the books too.

 

[Kelzie]

I have both knowledge and reason though it is generally lost on the slow to comprehend, the brainwashed masses, and those who don't study. What's your GPA again?

I'm taking the LSATs next semester after I take the LSAT courses, have you taken the courses? I've got the C.D.'s and the books too.

4.0...why, what's yours?

The course starts in April. Eight hours a week of LSAT prep in addition to finals. I can't wait. I got 166 on the pre-test, so I'm hoping to be able to raise it the last 14 points.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

4.0...why, what's yours?

Lier!, how many Ws and academic forgiveness? Mines a 3.5/

The course starts in April. Eight hours a week of LSAT prep in addition to finals. I can't wait. I got 166 on the pre-test, so I'm hoping to be able to raise it the last 14 points.

Cool, I haven't even looked at the C.D.s yet, what was the pretest like . . . basically it's just a test on analytical thinking right?

 

[Kelzie]

Lier!, how many Ws and academic forgiveness? Mines a 3.5/

What's a W? And no academic forgiveness. It's obvious you don't pay for your own school. I prefer to get it right the first time, since I'm paying for it.

Cool basically it's just a test on analytical thinking right?

Kinda. If you learn how to diagram formal logic the logic game section is a lot easier. But that's about all it seems you can do to significantly raise your score other than practice a lot. There's a lot of places you can take a practice test online. I believe the official LSAT website has one.

 

[libertarian_knight]

I'm not there yet. I'm (hopefully obviously) already socially liberal. The more I learn about economics, the more economically liberal I become (we've got the wording screwed up in the US...economically conservative if you prefer). My moral basis for social liberty if freedom. If it doesn't hurt anyone else, there's no reason why you shouldn't be able to do it. My basis for economics is that more freedom in captialism seems to be more efficient. I'm still fine tuning it.

Libertarianism generally paradigm shift in a way of approaching problems and looking at events. Instead of primarily looking at people as classes of atoms, as "classical economists," marxists, etc do, a more accurate image of the economy and all economic activity is better understood if people are looked as as individual humans. Class economics tries to treat people like things, like atoms in a pysicis expirement.

Believe it or not, I used to be a socialist too, and gradually chipped away, until i "flipped" are look at things idfferently, and more clearly.

Basically, only individuals ACT. (yes they act in concernt and cooperate, but still they are the only ones that act.) Once the subtle truth of that is realized, pretty much all things "libertarian" fall into place.

As far as economics goes, as you know I loooove studying it. But there is so much wrong with economics studies still. Effects and role of the state, keynesianism, anti-keynes keynsianism, monetarism, calvanism, and a great portion (if not the whole of) econometrics.

 

[libertarian_knight]

Well, since I cannot find a way around your logic I may have to admit it is false.

BUT I STILL LOVE IT!

I even clicked on a link PROVIDED BY YOU. And look, this is what YOUR guys are saying:

"Everywhere we see men setting up governments, submitting to them, growing tired of the mounting oppression, and finally throwing off that yoke, only to acquire another. And each successive yoke represented an effort to do away with the evils of the prior form by establishing a better form.

We can think of no better statement covering this phenomenon than that written by Rose Wilder Lane in her great book, Discovery of Freedom. Here is what she says:

They replace the priest by a king, the king by an oligarchy, the oligarchy by a despot, the despot by an aristocracy, the aristocrats by a majority, the majority by a tyrant, the tyrant by oligarchs, the oligarchs by aristocrats, the aristocrats by a king, the king by a parliament, the parliament by a dictator, the dictator by a king, the king by…. there's six thousand years of it, in every language.

I cannot agree with how it is put together (some stone age marxism),but this is YOUR link.

So, I have to retreat, and good luck to you,- I hope you still have time before Robodoon gets here.

I agree certainly, than Man predominantly has set up governments, but there is a factually difference between 99% of the time and 100% of the time. Not to mention the effect governments have had on preventing peaceful anarchic societies from continuing.