Libertarianism

Posted: Fri Dec 22, 2006 11:28 pm

sjc wrote:

I'm going back to me original assessment, and the original intent of this thread, that libertarianism is more of a religious belief than a political one and that arguing with a libertarian is no different than arguing with a Christian apologist, a waste of time.

This is known as "projection". Given that sjc's entire belief system is based upon the notion that man is naturally evil and greedy, and that only he and others like him have been able to rise above that in order to spread the glory of fraternal enslavement by force, it's quite clear that his is the doctrine of Original Sin. It's also quite clear that sjc uses the tactics of the theists: condemn that which is good in order to make people think that what's good is bad, and vice-versa, in order that a "cure" for the supposed "disease" should be sold.

Now then, sjc--would you like to stop being a coward and start addressing the points people have made? You realize that your above writing is also no different from "You atheists are all just sinners, so I can't expect you to understand the mystical nature of god. It's a waste of time trying to teach you the gospel, since you're so blind to the truth."

Posted: Fri Dec 22, 2006 11:31 pm

Quote:

1. freedom from arbitrary or despotic government or control./

According to some on here that is everything the government does.

Ivan_Ivanov wrote:

Yes, if you disagree with them then provide an actual argument or show some evidence.

materialguy wrote:

Instead, why not demand proof for the claim that governments necessarily act arbitrarily and despoticly in every thing they do? Why should we begin with the premise that government amounts to a form of evil?

Given that government is an expropriating territorial monopolist.....

I'm sure you can take it from there, right? After all, you're not going to claim that a coercive monopoly is a GOOD THING, right? You wouldn't be that dumb.

Thinker Joined: Nov 12, 2006 Posts: 423

Fundies, being religious, or political are a dangerous breed because of their delusional state of mind.

Posted: Sat Dec 23, 2006 12:27 am

sjc wrote:

Fundies, being religious, or political are a dangerous breed.

I cannot deny it any longer!
I have analized the discussion once more, and came to the conclusion that I am in fact a fundy!

For instance, here you can see how I admit that I will stick to my libertarian dogma no matter what evidence is shown:

Ivan Ivanov wrote:

Show me any eviedence (as in studies and statistics) that of two comparable countries run by different systems, the people from the socialist one fare better then people from the capitalist one.
Or show an increase in the standard of living in a country that has gone from a capitalist to socialist system.
If you do so, I'll be on your side.

Another example of me denying the evidence that was presented again and again:

Ivan Ivanov wrote:

Mind you, I don't have evidence that every single service is provided inefficiently, it's an extrapolation of the data we have gathered so far. I have not heard of a single instance where government was more efficient then private enterprise. If you showed me a few instances of this occuring, this would force me to reconsider my stance on libertarianism in general.

Oh, and another one:

Ivan Ivanov wrote:

The second argument isn't that important to me (altough I do think it's a valid problem that government supporters just ignore), if you can show that governments are generally more efficient I will most likely change my opinion on the subject of libertarianism.

Oh please help me!
I don't want to be a fundy any longer, what can I do?

Posted: Sat Dec 23, 2006 3:31 am

sjc wrote:

Fundies, being religious, or political are a dangerous breed because of their delusional state of mind.

Such as the delusion that people can be helped by stealing from them.

Posted: Sat Dec 23, 2006 7:58 am

Quote:

Show me any eviedence (as in studies and statistics) that of two comparable countries run by different systems, the people from the socialist one fare better then people from the capitalist one.
Or show an increase in the standard of living in a country that has gone from a capitalist to socialist system.
If you do so, I'll be on your side.

This is an implied form of ad hominem.

Stalin was an atheist and he was bad so atheism is bad. Now replace Stalin with the name of a country and replace atheist with socialist. The fact that some socialist countries fail to implement a quality socialism says nothing whatsoever about the efficacy of socialism itself.

The same is true for the other side as well. Examples fo bad capitalism do not invalidate capitalism itself.

Capitalism works a little less than half decently in its barbaric way to certain ends such as goods production and distribution, which at it's present level is about all we bipedal primates can deal with. But I still find capitalism as a concept highly distasteful.

Socialism could be better than capitalism, and would be were it not for problems with human nature that we will not overcome in the near term, perhaps never. So all in all I accept captialism as a decent functioning system FOR US half-mad barely-civilized primates all-in-all. Socialism in the hands of modern humans is sort of like a Klein bottle in the hands of a lemur. One day, perhaps, we will develop as a matter of philosophy a more highly developed sense of civic responsibility. But until then socialism is too good for us, and we'll have to settle for the social darwinistic tendencies inherent in the capitalist framework which we can partly offest with a modicum of socialism.

Posted: Sat Dec 23, 2006 8:06 am

Quote:

Show me any eviedence (as in studies and statistics) that of two comparable countries run by different systems, the people from the socialist one fare better then people from the capitalist one.
Or show an increase in the standard of living in a country that has gone from a capitalist to socialist system.
If you do so, I'll be on your side.

kmisho wrote:

This is an implied form of ad hominem.

Actually, it's not. It's part of an economic argument which notes that socialist nations, at least those which did not begin with a government that had a pretty good amount in the treasury, are going to be 3rd-world shitholes from the get-go. Those with a good amount in the treasury from the get-go get to 3rd-world shithole status a little more slowly.

Socialism qua socialism is simply a wrong-headed way of doing things. Period.

Now if you want an ad hominem, I will present you with your own Argument From Original Sin:

kmisho wrote:

Socialism could be better than capitalism, and would be were it not for problems with human nature that we will not overcome in the near term, perhaps never

Yes folks, it's just as I said: the religious^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H fundy socialist believes that humans are innately depraved.

Posted: Sat Dec 23, 2006 8:26 am

kmisho wrote:

This is an implied form of ad hominem.

Stalin was an atheist and he was bad so atheism is bad. Now replace Stalin with the name of a country and replace atheist with socialist. The fact that some socialist countries fail to implement a quality socialism says nothing whatsoever about the efficacy of socialism itself.

The same is true for the other side as well. Examples fo bad capitalism do not invalidate capitalism itself.

I'm not sure if that's an ad-hominem... non-sequitur perhaps?
Either way what you said didn't show that my offer has either of those fallacies, but rather that the potential takers of my offer can commit them as they reply, making what they present as evidence invalid.
That is of course correct, I however assumed that you or any other potential takers wouldn't resort to such dishonest tactics, are you telling me I have overestimated your intellectual honesty?

As for the rest, I'm affraid you have walked right where Knight wanted you, as is demostatrated above.

Graduate Thinker Joined: Oct 24, 2005 Posts: 593

Ivan_Ivanov wrote:

sjc wrote:

I'm going back to me original assessment, and the original intent of this thread, that libertarianism is more of a religious belief than a political one and that arguing with a libertarian is no different than arguing with a Christian apologist, a waste of time. These guys just keep on proving this fact as they open their mouths and use the very same tactics and arguments as a theist.

Actually what you just did, is ignore every single point I raised and just repeated your original, baseless claim in hopes that repeating it will make it true.

That is his fall-back defense if an argument doesn't go the way he wants. Either he refuses to reply calling everything religion, or he refuses to reply by restating the original refuted premise.

When I analyzed his argumetns and concluded that his accusation of religious belief was based largely on his own lack of self-analysis, I was not kidding.

Graduate Thinker Joined: Oct 24, 2005 Posts: 593

In another thread that I think was recently deleted, sjc admitted that he has survived off of government handouts, for at least some portion of his life.

That is important to know in what follows, for sjc starts with the premise that he is good. If he is good, then government handouts must be good, for if government handouts were bad, that would make sjc bad.

Libertarians like myself are fully against welfare systems for a variety of practical AND moral reasons. We say "it's wrong and it doesn't work even if it was right" or "it doesn't work and even if it did it's wrong." Basically we are saying to sjc "what you did was bad", which to him translates to "you are bad".

Sjc cannot be bad, therefore the libertarian has to be bad. So what epithet do you apply to someone who doesn't want to have the result of his hard work taken away to support someone else? You could call them greedy, selfish, heartless. Since sjc survived by being supported by the government, he accuses those who oppose welfare systems of wanting those on welfare to starve and die. Since sjc cannot be bad, the libertarian must be bad.

Since the libertarian must be bad, everything about the libertarian must be bad. I am a staunch opponent of the Iraq war, and have been since before the invasion. Sjc is also an opponent of the Iraq war since the president leading the war is of the wrong party. Since I must be all bad, sjc concluded that I must support the war. Nowhere have I ever made any statements that would indicate any form of support for the war of agression against Iraq, but since I must be all bad (because I'm a libertarian) I must be bad on subjects other than welfare.

He has never admitted he was wrong about me and Iraq. That would mean admitting a libertarian was right about something. Libertarians are all bad and sjc is all good, after all. A very manichean view of the world, much like our terrible president has. Bush says you are either for Bush or you are for the terrorists. I say Bush has done more for the terrorists than anything I could ever do, even if I did support them, which I don't.

Since we hold political beliefs that are all bad (by definition) we must hold them for a religious reason. It cannot be for any other reason. The only reason people do bad things is for religious reasons after all. And plus, since sjc is the standard of good and the scale of good, and atheism is a good, then theism is a bad and all libertarians become, by definition, theists.

It has also been pointed out to sjc that he doesn't know nearly as much about libertarianism as he thinks he does, but if any system is a) theistic by defintiion and b) all bad by definition, learning about it is unnecessary. There are people who agree politically with sjc that know far more about libertarianism than he does, and as a result can make more informed arguments against it than he does, but his own peculiar belief system negates the necessity of learning. For sjc to determine what a libertarian thinks or believes, he finds his own opinion on the subject, inverts it, and that is by default and by definition the libertarian position - a rather delusional form of projection.

It's a very delusional form of the false dichotomy logical fallacy, one that actually will need years of therapy to resolve. But since he is all good, he doesn't need therapy.


Create an account	Home · Articles · Downloads · Video Library · Forums · Chat Room · aStore