The power to rule others [W: 230]

[Kal'Stang]

Umm, for one thing Iraq is no longer a dictatorship. Try to keep up

FOr another, it's dishonest to imply that it's only people in those countries who agree with me about govt control, but then again, you're trying to defend a loony libertarian argument so you're going to have to take some artistic license with the truth

I mentioned Iraq before I said "and a bunch of other countries where dictators reign". Which means that I am talking about countries other than the ones that I mentioned before it. Try to keep up now.

Also I never implied that those people agreed with you. What I did imply is that they wouldn't agree with you. What I said was sarcastic. Hence the reason that I put "yeah right" and used the emoticon that rolls the eyes. You caught up now?

 

[Aberration]

The difference between "50%" and "51%" = 1%

The difference between "50%+1" and "51%" < 1%

Not something I disagreed with.

 

[sangha]

I mentioned Iraq before I said "and a bunch of other countries where dictators reign". Which means that I am talking about countries other than the ones that I mentioned before it. Try to keep up now.

NIce dodge, but you're fooling no one. Not even yourself.

Also I never implied that those people agreed with you. What I did imply is that they wouldn't agree with you. What I said was sarcastic. Hence the reason that I put "yeah right" and used the emoticon that rolls the eyes. You caught up now?

Yeah.

Right

 

[Kal'Stang]

No, the subject of that sentence is YOU, not me. The sentence referred to what you were saying, not what I was saying.

If it was just refering to me (which btw it wasn't...you were responding to someone else) then you would have tried to show that it wasn't a "truism". Or you would have tried to imply or just out right state that it only applied to him. You did neither of these. All that you did was state that if he used that definition then he was just posting a truism. As if what he was stateing was an obvious truth. Which btw is the full definition of "truism".

Mirriam-Webster ~ Truism

Definition of TRUISM

: an undoubted or self-evident truth; especially: one too obvious for mention

 

[Kal'Stang]

NIce dodge, but you're fooling no one. Not even yourself.




Yeah.

Right

Reading comprehension. Learn it. Anyone that reads what I said and has reading comprehension will agree that what I said in post 126 agrees with what I said in post 119.

 

[sangha]

If it was just refering to me (which btw it wasn't...you were responding to someone else) then you would have tried to show that it wasn't a "truism".

No i wouldn't have.

Or you would have tried to imply or just out right state that it only applied to him. You did neither of these. All that you did was state that if he used that definition then he was just posting a truism. As if what he was stateing was an obvious truth. Which btw is the full definition of "truism".

To "him" who?

I was referring to YOU, not him.

Read what I wrote. It refers to YOU, not me, not him

 

[sangha]

Reading comprehension. Learn it. Anyone that reads what I said and has reading comprehension will agree that what I said in post 126 agrees with what I said in post 119.

Yeah, right

 

[teamosil]

A libertarian position.

Opposing regulation of people's personal lives and opposing subsidies for big business are areas where libertarians and liberals are in full agreement. So you shouldn't assume that those positions mean somebody is a libertarian by any means. The overwhelming majority of people who hold those positions are liberals. Where libertarians differ from liberals is on the economic side.

The top choice is "minimal" regulation for most people, and much more regulation for the poor and elderly. With Medicare and Medicaid, I'd say that's pretty much what we have right now.

So would you say that minimal subsidies for the medical industry and very high subsidies for the poor, or the system we have now for health care are libertarian positions? Those are just middle of the road liberal positions on health care.

You left out a lot, including opposition to almost all subsidies, increased use of the death penalty (not necessarily libertarian but definitely illiberal), genetic engineering of plants and animals, anti-affirmative action, among other things.

No, they oppose subsidies for big business, as do almost all liberals. They support all the subsidies for companies that generate positive externalities for society, as do almost all liberals, but which libertarians do not.

Death penalty "max more use of it" was the top choice, but leaving it about the same as it is now was the average choice. So, kind of leaning towards supporting overall. That's pretty much how the nation as a whole is on it. Americans support it about 2 to 1. So, that doesn't really brand them either way. Conservatives are a bit more likely than liberals to support it, but not by a wide enough margin that with this imprecise data about only a top choice and average choice we can really say.

Genetic engineering is generally supported more by liberals than by conservatives. It's another one where liberals and libertarians generally agree.

Opposing AA is pretty much in the same bucket as the death penalty. Americans as a whole tend to oppose it about 3 to 1. Mostly just because they lack the experience and specific knowledge of how severe racial discrimination is. This survey shows 58% wanting to end AA, but nationally, 75% want to end it. So that results actually indicates that they are to the left of the average American on AA.

 

[sangha]

Opposing regulation of people's personal lives and opposing subsidies for big business are areas where libertarians and liberals are in full agreement. So you shouldn't assume that those positions mean somebody is a libertarian by any means. The overwhelming majority of people who hold those positions are liberals. Where libertarians differ from liberals is on the economic side.



So would you say that minimal subsidies for the medical industry and very high subsidies for the poor, or the system we have now for health care are libertarian positions? Those are just middle of the road liberal positions on health care.



No, they oppose subsidies for big business, as do almost all liberals. They support all the subsidies for companies that generate positive externalities for society, as do almost all liberals, but which libertarians do not.

Death penalty "max more use of it" was the top choice, but leaving it about the same as it is now was the average choice. So, kind of leaning towards supporting overall. That's pretty much how the nation as a whole is on it. Americans support it about 2 to 1. So, that doesn't really brand them either way. Conservatives are a bit more likely than liberals to support it, but not by a wide enough margin that with this imprecise data about only a top choice and average choice we can really say.

Genetic engineering is generally supported more by liberals than by conservatives. It's another one where liberals and libertarians generally agree.

Opposing AA is pretty much in the same bucket as the death penalty. Americans as a whole tend to oppose it about 3 to 1. Mostly just because they lack the experience and specific knowledge of how severe racial discrimination is. This survey shows 58% wanting to end AA, but nationally, 75% want to end it. So that results actually indicates that they are to the left of the average American on AA.

More importantly, since we have established that libertarianism is a word with no meaning, it is impossible to declare any position as "libertarian". Or conversely, we can declare any position as "libertarian"

 

[haymarket]

Engaging in a discussion of human liberty and individual rights is beneath you obviously.

The use of the term LIBERTY by libertarians is a hollow and meaning less cliche devoid of actual real world meaning. It is like the lounge lizard at the bar near closing time who uses the word LOVE to any female in sight.... and the goal and intent is exactly the same.

 

[haymarket]

That's the thing. What you said is not the Truth. I am all for ethics. Yet I am not a dilettante that doesn't have to work...I have work for a living. I am also not a college sophmore...hell, I'm not in college at all.

So obviously it is not quoted for truth.

It is however quoted to show that you, as someone who has admitted to working in the political field, don't care about ethics.

I dfo not care about hollow cliches that you use to mean whatever you want them to mean at that moment in time.

 

[Neomalthusian]

The use of the term LIBERTY by libertarians is a hollow and meaning less cliche devoid of actual real world meaning.

No, it's just a theoretical concept. Anyone could say what you just said about any theoretical concept they don't really value. For example, take "fairness" or "equality." I could call those hollow, meaningless cliche types of words that don't have any actual real world meaning. But in fact it's just that concepts like this don't have specific or practical application.

You don't value liberty, or disagree a lot with people who do, hence you relegate it to some empty meaningless notion. Just because something is soft and theoretical does not make it "hollow" or "meaningless." I'm sure you value other theoretical concepts that don't necessarily have specific, concrete meaning or practical application.

 

[sangha]

No, it's just a theoretical concept. Anyone could say what you just said about any theoretical concept they don't really value. For example, take "fairness" or "equality." I could call those hollow, meaningless cliche types of words that don't have any actual real world meaning. But in fact it's just that concepts like this don't have specific or practical application.

You don't value liberty, or disagree a lot with people who do, hence you relegate it to some empty meaningless notion. Just because something is soft and theoretical does not make it "hollow" or "meaningless." I'm sure you value other theoretical concepts that don't necessarily have specific, concrete meaning or practical application.

Talking about "Liberty" and "Freedom" without specifying what you're talking about is meaningless drivel, not because theoretical means hollow, but because those two words can mean completely different things to different people.

 

[teamosil]

No, it's just a theoretical concept. Anyone could say what you just said about any theoretical concept they don't really value. For example, take "fairness" or "equality." I could call those hollow, meaningless cliche types of words that don't have any actual real world meaning. But in fact it's just that concepts like this don't have specific or practical application.

You don't value liberty, or disagree a lot with people who do, hence you relegate it to some empty meaningless notion. Just because something is soft and theoretical does not make it "hollow" or "meaningless." I'm sure you value other theoretical concepts that don't necessarily have specific, concrete meaning or practical application.

No, of course we value liberty. The difference isn't that libertarians like liberty and liberals don't. Obviously. It is that libertarians seem blind to threats to liberty that don't come from the government.

 

[Neomalthusian]

Talking about "Liberty" and "Freedom" without specifying what you're talking about is meaningless drivel, not because theoretical means hollow, but because those two words can mean completely different things to different people.

Then the issue is not with the word, but with the lack of specificity. Fine. But haymarket wasn't complaining that libertarians don't specify what they want, he was relegating an overarching concept they value to something necessarily meaningless and hollow, and you liked it.

No, of course we value liberty. The difference isn't that libertarians like liberty and liberals don't. Obviously. It is that libertarians seem blind to threats to liberty that don't come from the government.

I disagree. I think libertarians define liberty differently than progressive/liberal types. For example, I think liberals would be more apt to confuse liberty with means. Would taking money from someone who "doesn't need it" and giving it to someone who does result in a net gain in liberty?

 

[haymarket]

No, it's just a theoretical concept. Anyone could say what you just said about any theoretical concept they don't really value. For example, take "fairness" or "equality." I could call those hollow, meaningless cliche types of words that don't have any actual real world meaning. But in fact it's just that concepts like this don't have specific or practical application.

You don't value liberty, or disagree a lot with people who do, hence you relegate it to some empty meaningless notion.

Where do you get this idea from?

Yu are making a big jump here.

Why don't you define the term as it exists in our real world and then we can discuss if I value it or not?

 

[teamosil]

I disagree. I think libertarians define liberty differently than progressive/liberal types. For example, I think liberals would be more apt to confuse liberty with means. Would taking money from someone who "doesn't need it" and giving it to someone who does result in a net gain in liberty?

Depends how you define liberty. If you define it as people having the most options possible, yeah, probably. But the sort of scenario where liberals and libertarians differ has more to do with, for example, government preventing private companies from imposing their costs on the public through externalities for example. That is a clear cut case of government economic regulation making us more free by preventing corporations from oppressing us. But a libertarian will tend to be blind to that.

 

[Kal'Stang]

I dfo not care about hollow cliches that you use to mean whatever you want them to mean at that moment in time.

Cliche? Just where did I use a cliche? Do you know the meaning of the term? For someone that works with politicians you sure seem to have a hard time with words....

 

[Fletch]

The use of the term LIBERTY by libertarians is a hollow and meaning less cliche devoid of actual real world meaning. It is like the lounge lizard at the bar near closing time who uses the word LOVE to any female in sight.... and the goal and intent is exactly the same.

Says you. But since you lack the courage to actually debate the issue, there is no reason to care what you think now is there.

 

[grip]

You get that right as a majority? So if the majority established a law that criminalized the exercise of my respiratory functions, and I broke it, they would have the right to butcher me and have me for dinner? I must say, your political views are fascinating. Do you agree with the OP, that no man or group of men can delegate the power of dominion over a third person, or don't you? It should be a very simple question, but you seem to struggle to answer it.

Oh, and are you still too frightened to answer my hypothetical? Feel free anytime, I'm always game.


Ah, the "love-it-or-leave-it" argument - my favorite to rebut! So what you're saying is that if your neighbors banded together and told you to get the hell off your property, saying "don't worry, there are another 148,940,000 square kilometers of land to live on!", you'd be totally okay with that, right?

I'm afraid you're the one who's rather dense, buckaroo.

The only thing I'm struggling with is your nonsensical hypotheticals. There less frightening than more ridiculous and non applicable.

People have formed governing bodies to rule over others in our civilization far longer than the short time you have walked this planet.

I didn't make these rules but I agree for the most part they work better than open range justice.

Like I said before nobody can force you to agree with anything or even obey the laws but there are repercussions and that's just a fact of life.

 

[sangha]

Then the issue is not with the word, but with the lack of specificity. Fine. But haymarket wasn't complaining that libertarians don't specify what they want, he was relegating an overarching concept they value to something necessarily meaningless and hollow, and you liked it.

Maybe I wasn't clear the first time, but "freedom" and "liberty" are meaningless as an "overarching concept" if presented without specificity. "Freedom" as an overarching concept can mean the freedom to rape, pillage, and burn which I suspect is the complete opposite of what libertarians believe in.

I disagree. I think libertarians define liberty differently than progressive/liberal types. For example, I think liberals would be more apt to confuse liberty with means. Would taking money from someone who "doesn't need it" and giving it to someone who does result in a net gain in liberty?

Again, it would depend on how you define "need" and liberty". Again, the specifics count.

 

[lizzie]

Important words IMHO. And if government loses our consent, as a whole, it will fall.

Not likely, as most people can barely rule over their cats and dogs, much less rule over themselves and their lower impulses. Unfortunately, the only thing that keeps many people in line, and living in a relatively non-destructive manner, is fear of authority.

 

[sangha]

Not likely, as most people can barely rule over their cats and dogs, much less rule over themselves and their lower impulses. Unfortunately, the only thing that keeps many people in line, and living in a relatively non-destructive manner, is fear of authority.

Not fear of authority, IMO. It's prosperity

As the song goes "Freedoms just another word for nothing left to lose"

 

[Neomalthusian]

Why don't you define the term as it exists in our real world and then we can discuss if I value it or not?

You were the one relegating it altogether as a hollow, meaningless cliché, so maybe we would benefit from seeing your definition of liberty before the discussion on it goes anywhere else... because as far as I've seen, you think the word has no real definition. As you said, it's "hollow."

Depends how you define liberty. If you define it as people having the most options possible, yeah, probably. But the sort of scenario where liberals and libertarians differ has more to do with, for example, government preventing private companies from imposing their costs on the public through externalities for example. That is a clear cut case of government economic regulation making us more free by preventing corporations from oppressing us. But a libertarian will tend to be blind to that.

I understand completely what you mean about preventing corporations from dumping their externalities onto me. I live on an uphill slope and have no chance of owning all the land uphill from me beyond my property line. If a corporation could buy that land and roll a bunch of toxicity into my water supply, that would be criminal in my book, and I would fight it. That's just one little example. I understand the need for our courts of law to protect people from those who would seek to trample on their property or other rights. But let's say our local government decided that the citizens of my town would benefit from the lumber on my land and came to chop the alder and spruce on my property, you know, so that we could give the citizens of my town more options, i.e. cheaper lumber prices. It is not an example of liberty if a government would infringe on the property of one in order to give others more options.

 

[sangha]

You were the one relegating it altogether as a hollow, meaningless cliché, so maybe we would benefit from seeing your definition of liberty before the discussion on it goes anywhere else... because as far as I've seen, you think the word has no real definition. As you said, it's "hollow."

Since it's the libertarians who are claiming that "liberty" without any specific is some sort of overarching and meaningful concept, it's the libertarians who have the burden of demonstrating that this is so.

I understand completely what you mean about preventing corporations from dumping their externalities onto me. I live on an uphill slope and have no chance of owning all the land uphill from me beyond my property line. If a corporation could buy that land and roll a bunch of toxicity into my water supply, that would be criminal in my book, and I would fight it. That's just one little example. I understand the need for our courts of law to protect people from those who would seek to trample on their property or other rights. But let's say our local government decided that the citizens of my town would benefit from the lumber on my land and came to chop the alder and spruce on my property, you know, so that we could give the citizens of my town more options, i.e. cheaper lumber prices. It is not an example of liberty if a government would infringe on the property of one in order to give others more options.

Your property is protected by the Constitution, which is not a libertarian document