Juan:Fine. So, let's imagine I say that racists are idiots who draw idiotic conclusions from irrelevant facts such as skin color. Is my calling them idiots a generalization or 'collectivizing' - or something else ?
Possibly both. It is a generalisation, as you take racists then lump them together as idiots, but it really just sounds like an insult, as you cannot really prove someone is or isn't an idiot, so its not necessarily an untrue generalisation. Now if you said "racists are blond haired, blue eyed idiots ... then you would be incorrectly generalising.
Juan:Whether black people are better at basketball or not is just statistics, and is, at any rate, IRRELEVANT as far as politics and moral philosophy are concerned.
Agreed, but thats not really the discussion though, I don't think I've said anything regarding politics and moral philosophy in this discussion, so please correct me if I have.
Juan:Which is a false belief - and the concept of race is mostly a political and collectivistic concept. The biological fact that some people share some common traits, say, skin color, is irrelevant as far as politics is concerned.
Agreed, however I've made no mention of the validity of their beliefs or the politics, I've just tried to keep it clear what those beliefs are and what they are not and what they do and do not entail.
Juan:I already explained that.
Juan:Again, I already explained what equal and unequal traits I was referring to.
Yes, I know. However, you explained yourself only by substituting in your view of what constitutes equality which clearly differs from that of a racist, a racists is someone who clearly believes in race, obviously he must believe that there a differences. Thats the only point I was making, you said it was false, do you still disagree?
Juan:I'm sorry if you don't get it. Maybe there's some honest misunderstanding though I feel there's something else as well.
Your objection:
Juan:You sounds as if saying that racists are not trying to rationalize coercion, and people who criticize racism are 'libruls' willing to use coercion to stop the racists (despite that the people who oppose racism are actually libertarian anarchists)
The first part makes the same error that you were pointing out to Nitroadict.
Laissez faire et laissez passer, le monde va de lui même
Wilmot of Rochester: liberty student: Thick libertarians have ideas built on the NAP that they say provides a more sincere libertarian experience. Favouring diversity, polycentric order, multi-culturalism etc. I don't follow. So do the thin not have appetites for diversity and multi-culturalism at all? Would they be defined as more culturally conservative? What is the difference exactly?
liberty student: Thick libertarians have ideas built on the NAP that they say provides a more sincere libertarian experience. Favouring diversity, polycentric order, multi-culturalism etc.
Thick libertarians have ideas built on the NAP that they say provides a more sincere libertarian experience. Favouring diversity, polycentric order, multi-culturalism etc.
I don't follow.
So do the thin not have appetites for diversity and multi-culturalism at all? Would they be defined as more culturally conservative? What is the difference exactly?
I wouldn't care about diversity or multi-culturalism as long as it was never forced upon me involuntarily. It's not my business what others do, & I'd wish them well if they wish to be strict multi-culturalists or strict mono-culturalists (I think either extreme is a social trap & not worth fretting about, regardless, but whatever). I shouldn't be forced to choose either or, by idiots (on either side) who think they know what's best for me, per being an individual.
WARNING: This signature violates Rule 5. Stay classy!
Groups do not act. Individuals act.
I am only quoting this line as I think it sums up many of your points (correct me if I am wrong on that). Indeed you are right on this. You will find no disagreement from me, and perhaps I was unclear, assumed without warrant, or sloppy in presentation. So maybe I can shed some light on my meaning
- If I own a business and I hire people to perform various jobs to carry out the function of the business I can classify it as a group, it is more for the benefit of looking at an action carried out by multiple people to achieve a singular purpose. Yes, it is made up of individuals. Yes, it is made by individual choice. Yes, it is in the literal sense individuals acting. However, they are acting out to produce a common cause. They are working to fulfill a single purpose. In this way they can be classified as a group (employees of business X). And it is in this way I am referring to a group embargo. Individuals, yes; but they are individuals trying to achieve a common purpose and actively working together to do so.
This is an entirely different situation
To perhaps further illustrate my point with an example: If as children I were in the car with my sister on a road trip and she wished for my company, and I ignored her for the sole purpose of angering her, that is a provocative action. I am provoking her with my inaction. The important thing to look at in the situation is the motive. If for no other reason, many people tend to hold motive in high esteem (this is where my jury nullification and theory and a strong reason why I believe one is on adding fuel to the fire for violence come into play).
This is an entirely different situation. You are the members of your posse are either threatening violence, or actually doing violence. There's a world of difference between that and you and the members of your posse walking away from a left-hander every time you meet one.
I don't know if you caught one major point I was trying to make. That is if a group of individuals want to belligerently (even if it is in a more passive form, such as an embargo) target another group of individuals, a division is inevitably created and the chances for violence increase. Once again: yes each left hander is an individual person but they are all targeted for the reasons of their handiness
Also I think there has been enough debate between the two of us, and since I am a firm believer of Godwin's law: you're Hitler
Let us look then and see, how they manage their concerns- they for whose cause we are to labor, devote ourselves, and grow enthusiastic
-Max Stirner, The Ego and His Own
Dondoolee:To perhaps further illustrate my point with an example: If as children I were in the car with my sister on a road trip and she wished for my company, and I ignored her for the sole purpose of angering her, that is a provocative action. I am provoking her with my inaction. The important thing to look at in the situation is the motive. If for no other reason, many people tend to hold motive in high esteem (this is where my jury nullification and theory and a strong reason why I believe one is on adding fuel to the fire for violence come into play).
You sister, in the example, is a child, one who presumably does not yet understand that she can't always get what she wants. Adults should realize this. If I don't want to associate with you, and you force your company upon me, you are in the wrong. No matter the provocation, individuals choose how to react to said provocation. If the provocation is in of a non-violent, non-threatening manner, then violence using said provocation as an excuse is wrong and should be punished.
When the Rat Pack was about to do their famous "Summit at the Sands", Sammy Davis, Jr. was denied a room at the Sands. The group didn't resort to violence. Sinatra didn't ask his mob buddies to take care of it. He simply told the manager that if Davis didn't get a suite, the show would be cancelled.
Dondoolee:I don't know if you caught one major point I was trying to make. That is if a group of individuals want to belligerently (even if it is in a more passive form, such as an embargo) target another group of individuals, a division is inevitably created and the chances for violence increase. Once again: yes each left hander is an individual person but they are all targeted for the reasons of their handiness
Violence will only happen if individuals initiate it. Continuing your example, if you're refusing to interact with lefties, and are not in any way threatening or violent yourself, then the leftie who starts the violence should be held accountable. To not do so is to claim that lefties are like children, and don't realize that they can't always get what they want, and are prone to temper tantrums when they don't.
Dondoolee:Also I think there has been enough debate between the two of us, and since I am a firm believer of Godwin's law: you're Hitler
You're such a nazi!
Nitroadict: I wouldn't care about diversity or multi-culturalism as long as it was never forced upon me involuntarily. It's not my business what others do, & I'd wish them well if they wish to be strict multi-culturalists or strict mono-culturalists (I think either extreme is a social trap & not worth fretting about, regardless, but whatever). I shouldn't be forced to choose either or, by idiots (on either side) who think they know what's best for me, per being an individual.
Not caring seems to be pretty multi-culturalist to me.
As a self-avowed cosmopolitan multi-culturalist, I can tell you that - believe it or not - we don't go around trying to make you dance like an African tribesman or listen to mariachi music. We're not like the social conservatives who specifically fight to force something on people - the loss of the option to listen to African bands or dance to mariachi tribesmen.... Wait...
existence is elsewhere
Laughing Man: Knight_of_BAAWA: Brainpolice:I never argued that. For god's sakes, is anyone able to distinguish a theory of rights from a theory of virtue?Oppression is about RIGHTS, dimwit, not virtue. He is arguing that there are non-state forms of oppression that are not necessarily rights violations yet are evil and should be combated with rational arguments. Tu Ne Cede Malis.
Knight_of_BAAWA: Brainpolice:I never argued that. For god's sakes, is anyone able to distinguish a theory of rights from a theory of virtue?Oppression is about RIGHTS, dimwit, not virtue.
Brainpolice:I never argued that. For god's sakes, is anyone able to distinguish a theory of rights from a theory of virtue?
He is arguing that there are non-state forms of oppression that are not necessarily rights violations yet are evil and should be combated with rational arguments. Tu Ne Cede Malis.
Yes, and I keep bumping up against a semantic wall in which only rights violations and/or statism can been seen as "oppression" or a "social problem".
Brainpolice:Yes, and I keep bumping up against a semantic wall in which only rights violations and/or statism can been seen as "oppression" or a "social problem
Heh, you're sort of in trouble then aren't you since these people would rule out "thick" libertarianism sort of by definitions!
"You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows"
Bob Dylan
Not only is this not right, it's not even wrong (i.e. it can't really be disproved or proven). Imo, you can't really prove this beyond anecdotal evidence & nebulous examples of others possibly agreeing with you.The reason I say this is not right is that I've encountered many people who do not agree that remaining indifferent or neutral somehow constitutes oppression.
I never argued that libertarians that remains indifferent/neutral are being oppressive. I think you're conflating two different premises. I am argueing that those that actually engage in racial discrimination and communitarian exclusion of races are engaging in oppression. The libertarians that are indifferent or neutral to that are not "oppressors" - what I would argue, however, is that they function as enablers of "oppressors", reguardless of their intentions.
Your assertion that your definition of oppression is commonplace (and therefore, somehow rationalized as more correct, due to some nebulous majority consent) amid "most people", is a generalization at best.
I would posit that just about anyone that was actually subject to racial discrimination or separatism themselves would consider it oppressive. That's one sense in which it is intuitive. And on a societal level, most people *do* consider racial discrimination or separatism to be a negative thing, so in simple ad populum terms, my claim is correct.
I don't think I'm the only one who sees this definition of oppression as a rationalization for coercion against individuals not being moral do-gooders and/or left-libertarian saints, & automatically feeling obligated to help out any & everyone they encounter that they think requires help.
As I've exhaustively tried to clarify, this is a non-sequitor. Strongly having an anti-racist social viewpoint does not equal coercion. Coercion is a non-sequitor from the social viewpoint itself, and you people are conflating social viewpoints with political policy positions.
In other words, your definition of oppression is merely a preference that you somehow feel obligated to force unto others. This is fine by moral persuasion, marketing etc., but it's dishonest to argue that you are only a 'true' libertarian by doing this, or that all libertarians who do not do this are not really libertarian. I don't think it's far off to see this as eventually rationalizing coercion, & eventually contradicting libertarianism itself.
I don't think it's far off to see this as eventually rationalizing coercion, & eventually contradicting libertarianism itself.
For the millionth time, this is incorrect. I'm not advocating "forcing" anything on others in terms of aggression. I'm simply argueing for a social viewpoint and advocating a social context in which that social viewpoint is generally understood and adopted. Concluding something "unlibertarian" from this is simply a non-sequitor. It does not follow from the fact that I'm an anti-racist that I'm rationalizing coercion.
Per your definition, everyone on the face of this earth is guilty as sin of oppression, merely for being neutral, indifferent, or choosing not to help every single individual that came their way for a hand-out and/or some earnest help.
You're strawmanning my definition of "oppression". I never claimed that being neutral or indifferent is oppression. I claim that deliberately engaging in the act of racial discrimination and forming explicitly separatist communities is.
The definition seems to set perfectionist standards of a new moral "New Libertarian Man" with tacked on requirements of altruism where none is required of the individual.
Oh please - the social engineer strawman is beyond cliche at this point.
I am not required to help the homeless if I do not wish to, whether it be for reasons of superficiality or practical reasons. Sure, being superficial doesn't make me an entirely generous person, but it doesn't make me any less of an individual.
For god's sakes, stop conflating rights concepts with virtue and morality as a whole. I'm not saying you're legally obligated to help a homeless man. I'm saying that it's virtuous to help others in need as a general social viewpoint, and that it is unvirtuous to prejudge people based on superficial identity categories such as race and exclude them from entire communities because of it; I'm not putting foreward a political policy position.
Brainpolice: Thats not an explicit contribution to a negative condition, its total non-contribution, the community has in no way made his life any worse. So its simply not oppression. Such behaviour seems to be no worse than protesting and ostracism, comparable to protesters scaring off/ blocking customers from a business, thus negatively contributing (which actually seems worse) Or businesses refusing to serve an admitted racist, sexist,... etc. The tactics are in the same line. "The community" doesn't do anything. But the specific individual that refuses to sell food to them is *explicitly* contributing to making their life worse. I see this as undeniable. It is oppression to refuse to sell products to people who's very survival depends on them simply because those people belong to a particular racial identity group.
Thats not an explicit contribution to a negative condition, its total non-contribution, the community has in no way made his life any worse. So its simply not oppression. Such behaviour seems to be no worse than protesting and ostracism, comparable to protesters scaring off/ blocking customers from a business, thus negatively contributing (which actually seems worse) Or businesses refusing to serve an admitted racist, sexist,... etc. The tactics are in the same line.
"The community" doesn't do anything. But the specific individual that refuses to sell food to them is *explicitly* contributing to making their life worse. I see this as undeniable. It is oppression to refuse to sell products to people who's very survival depends on them simply because those people belong to a particular racial identity group.
I am honestly still confused what thick libertarianism is supposed to be after skimming through this again.
I guess a single person could be modestly "oppressive" on their own. In realistic situations, where is the impact without a "community of oppressors"? Isn't a community of anti-racists doing effectively what they oppose? (By anti-racist or racist I mean people who would not sell a loaf of bread at their standard price based on their skin color or that person having been branded a racist, not someone who merely dislikes a race or racists).
Correct me if I am wrong. This means that the NAP is somehow on equal footing or below whatever stance like anti-racism to a "thick". I would be tempted personally to kick someone out of my store if I hear them having a racist rant in line. This is standard right of free association stuff, like putting up a "no blacks" sign. But what do thick anti-racists suggest you do? Write down the guys name from his credit card and send it off to the local anti-racist boycott consortium? Where is the tolerance threshold or required level of proof? Will there be reeducation camps? If I refuse to join ARBC and advertise that I am happy to serve racists will you boycott me too? How much time and money are you willing to spend on combating counterfeit anti-anti-homo ID cards?
I don't like the use of oppression either... maybe de facto aggression or marginalization suits you better. To me, using these would have to mean a consortium of diversity nuts or some other extreme example. I think the best means is only using these tactics when actual crimes are being committed.
Why does many a man write? Because he does not possess enough character not to write. ---Karl Kraus.
liberty student: Nitroadict:The definition seems to set perfectionist standards of a new moral "New Libertarian Man" with tacked on requirements of altruism where none is required of the individual. Bingo. Altruism comes immediately to mind. The "we're all our brothers' keeper" mentality. Just collectivism, dressed up as progressive liberalism. This sort of rhetoric would have been common place during the Wilson era. And to whoever brought up Communism, technically it is not, but your sense of smell is keen, because it does have the stench of collectivist socialism about it.
Nitroadict:The definition seems to set perfectionist standards of a new moral "New Libertarian Man" with tacked on requirements of altruism where none is required of the individual.
Bingo. Altruism comes immediately to mind. The "we're all our brothers' keeper" mentality. Just collectivism, dressed up as progressive liberalism. This sort of rhetoric would have been common place during the Wilson era.
And to whoever brought up Communism, technically it is not, but your sense of smell is keen, because it does have the stench of collectivist socialism about it.
Actually I qualify as an ethical egoist and have more in common with Rand's philosophy than you do (and Rand herself wrote an excellent essay against racism on individualist grounds), so pulling out the "altruism" card won't do you very well. The difference is that I see a society in which poverty and racial discrimination is prevailant as not being in my rational self-interest.
And the allusions to the Wilson era are stupid strawmen (and historically inaccurate to boot with respect to the racial issue - that was before the "dixiecrats" moved over to the Republican Party; the Democrats, including Wilson himself, were overwhelmingly on the side of the KKK, they were hardly model "anti-racists"). Wilson isn't remotely comparable to left-libertarian indie-anarchists.
Dondoolee: Knight_of_BAAWA: Brainpolice:They do constitute oppression once we put them into an interpersonal context. You're correct that the mere fact that someone is starving isn't oppression, it's a negative condition. However, if we put it in an interpersonal context in which the starving person has some money that they are willing to use to buy food, but all of the buisinesses that they try to patronize don't allow them to buy food simply because of the color of their skin, that is oppression. Is it a formal rights violation? No. But it is oppression in the sense that one is explicitly contributing to someone else's negative condition.Utterly, unequivocally, and completely false. They aren't contributing one bit to any oppression. Is it oppression if someone really wants to play chess and you say no? You're "contributing" to making them worse-off (in their estimation) by not playing. So, you must say yes or else you're a hypocrite. Yeah--it's time for you to re-think your position. Here are the first two random definitions of oppression I found 1) to crush or burden by abuse of power or authority2) to burden spiritually or mentally : weigh heavily upon And just glancing at the wikipedia page you can tell there is a very broad use of the term. There is no reason to think that at least some use of the word "oppression" fits in context. I think this comes into play when looking at this from an individualist level, rather than a more libertarian one. I would not doubt for a second if I was in some odd situation where a group of people was dileberatly starving out me and my loved ones through some type of intentional malicious economic embargo that I was somehow forced to deal with, I would have no moral problem with any form of theft or revolt. I think it would be silly to think many people would put up with that, and I also think it would be silly to think most peoples' moral compasses would find that kind of embargo action tolerable (assuming the embargo was very obviously deliberate and malicious). I would also think any "objective" jury with half their wits and the tool of jury nullification would have a decent chance to rule in favor of the person inflicted with a malicious trade embargo. Is it oppression if someone really wants to play chess and you say no? Looking through the way oppression could be used, I suppose it could. If one uses the term "playing chess" in a more facetious or light weight matter, no it can't be oppressive just by the nature of the word. I think all definations of oppression means there is some great weight involved. There would have to be very high value to the chess game to use the word "oppression". And to repeat Brainpolice: "distinguish a theory of rights from a theory of virtue". I think that is very key to any point he is trying to make.
Knight_of_BAAWA: Brainpolice:They do constitute oppression once we put them into an interpersonal context. You're correct that the mere fact that someone is starving isn't oppression, it's a negative condition. However, if we put it in an interpersonal context in which the starving person has some money that they are willing to use to buy food, but all of the buisinesses that they try to patronize don't allow them to buy food simply because of the color of their skin, that is oppression. Is it a formal rights violation? No. But it is oppression in the sense that one is explicitly contributing to someone else's negative condition.Utterly, unequivocally, and completely false. They aren't contributing one bit to any oppression. Is it oppression if someone really wants to play chess and you say no? You're "contributing" to making them worse-off (in their estimation) by not playing. So, you must say yes or else you're a hypocrite. Yeah--it's time for you to re-think your position.
Brainpolice:They do constitute oppression once we put them into an interpersonal context. You're correct that the mere fact that someone is starving isn't oppression, it's a negative condition. However, if we put it in an interpersonal context in which the starving person has some money that they are willing to use to buy food, but all of the buisinesses that they try to patronize don't allow them to buy food simply because of the color of their skin, that is oppression. Is it a formal rights violation? No. But it is oppression in the sense that one is explicitly contributing to someone else's negative condition.
Is it oppression if someone really wants to play chess and you say no? You're "contributing" to making them worse-off (in their estimation) by not playing. So, you must say yes or else you're a hypocrite.
Yeah--it's time for you to re-think your position.
Here are the first two random definitions of oppression I found
1) to crush or burden by abuse of power or authority2) to burden spiritually or mentally : weigh heavily upon
And just glancing at the wikipedia page you can tell there is a very broad use of the term.
There is no reason to think that at least some use of the word "oppression" fits in context.
I think this comes into play when looking at this from an individualist level, rather than a more libertarian one. I would not doubt for a second if I was in some odd situation where a group of people was dileberatly starving out me and my loved ones through some type of intentional malicious economic embargo that I was somehow forced to deal with, I would have no moral problem with any form of theft or revolt.
I think it would be silly to think many people would put up with that, and I also think it would be silly to think most peoples' moral compasses would find that kind of embargo action tolerable (assuming the embargo was very obviously deliberate and malicious). I would also think any "objective" jury with half their wits and the tool of jury nullification would have a decent chance to rule in favor of the person inflicted with a malicious trade embargo.
Is it oppression if someone really wants to play chess and you say no? Looking through the way oppression could be used, I suppose it could. If one uses the term "playing chess" in a more facetious or light weight matter, no it can't be oppressive just by the nature of the word. I think all definations of oppression means there is some great weight involved. There would have to be very high value to the chess game to use the word "oppression".
And to repeat Brainpolice: "distinguish a theory of rights from a theory of virtue". I think that is very key to any point he is trying to make.
Well, at least that's one person that hasn't joined in on the red-baiting crusade and seems to understand what I'm getting at.
Nitroadict: Wilmot of Rochester: liberty student: Thick libertarians have ideas built on the NAP that they say provides a more sincere libertarian experience. Favouring diversity, polycentric order, multi-culturalism etc. I don't follow. So do the thin not have appetites for diversity and multi-culturalism at all? Would they be defined as more culturally conservative? What is the difference exactly? I wouldn't care about diversity or multi-culturalism as long as it was never forced upon me involuntarily. It's not my business what others do, & I'd wish them well if they wish to be strict multi-culturalists or strict mono-culturalists (I think either extreme is a social trap & not worth fretting about, regardless, but whatever).I shouldn't be forced to choose either or, by idiots (on either side) who think they know what's best for me, per being an individual.
I wouldn't care about diversity or multi-culturalism as long as it was never forced upon me involuntarily. It's not my business what others do, & I'd wish them well if they wish to be strict multi-culturalists or strict mono-culturalists (I think either extreme is a social trap & not worth fretting about, regardless, but whatever).I shouldn't be forced to choose either or, by idiots (on either side) who think they know what's best for me, per being an individual.
But this misses the point, as usual, because it's not a question about forcing people to choose things. It's a question about the sensibility of one's social views in general, outside of the question of physical violence. Continually talking only about "force" is to misunderstand what the issue is about.
Brainpolice:Actually I qualify as an ethical egoist and have more in common with Rand's philosophy than you do
Show me your test scores.
Brainpolice:(and Rand herself wrote an excellent essay against racism on individualist grounds)
Yeah, Rand wasn't bigoted at all (homosexuals).
Brainpolice:so pulling out the "altruism" card won't do you very well.
Actually it does, because I actually produce. Do you produce anything?
Brainpolice:The difference is that I see a society in which poverty and racial discrimination is prevailant as not being in my rational self-interest.
The real difference is that you have a poor conception of what a market is, and so you see failures in voluntarism, because like your progressive think-alikes, you expect man to do his worst when given his freedom, instead of realizing that with freedom, man's inner sense of compassion, cooperation and virtue (which are tied to trade via reputation and mutual aid) should ceteris parabis thrive and a free market incentivizes such behaviour. Most of the progressive arguments I read, seem to be based on the notion that the market doesn't work as a social mechanism.
Brainpolice:And the allusions to the Wilson era are stupid strawmen
Not at all. You have progressive values, which today are considered culturally left values. It's the same brother's keeper mentality that you promote, that was used as cause to engage in WWI. In Vietnam. To create social welfare schemes.
You want the same ideals without the violence, without honestly acknowleding that the ideals are part and parcel with violence.
I'm sorry, but I keep looking at you and your ideological peers, and I struggle to see what is truly radical about the very ideas that have held man back for so long. Not that it is a competition, but I have been much more radical in language, ideas and I suspect action than you, for a good 9 months now. You've embarked on that road to authoritarianism, and no matter how much you strawman anarcho-capitalists as monarchists or being pro-state, which I suspect is a defense mechanism (attack first), your ideas are the truly conservative ones. It's one thing to talk a good game about individualism, it is another thing to insist that individuals must function collectively under universally objective values.
If you find something evil that wobbles, push it. - Gary North
Wilmot of Rochester:Not caring seems to be pretty multi-culturalist to me.
Only if one can grasp nuance. Which sadly, some of the folks on this forum who tend to bellowing and caterwauling are incapable of grasping. You can spot the emotionally stunted by their inability to effectively socialize beyond their ideological perspective.
Wilmot of Rochester:As a self-avowed cosmopolitan multi-culturalist, I can tell you that - believe it or not - we don't go around trying to make you dance like an African tribesman or listen to mariachi music. We're not like the social conservatives who specifically fight to force something on people - the loss of the option to listen to African bands or dance to mariachi tribesmen.... Wait...
I lol'd.
Juan:The 'redneck' (hehe) is a collectivist in the sense that he sees individuals as members of an arbitrary group (or 'collective') defined by skin color or a similar nonsensical criterion.
You should look up the etymology of the term "redneck". Race baiters twisted it into a pejorative that is completely divorced from its original meaning.
Author Jim Goad's 1997 book The Redneck Manifesto explores the socioeconomic history of low-income Americans. According to Goad, rednecks are traditionally pro-labor and anti-establishment and have an anti-hierarchical religious orientation. Goad argues that elites (having a special distrust of the liberal elite in the Northeast and the west coast) manipulate low-income people (blacks and whites especially) through classism and racism to keep them in conflict with each other and distracted from their exploitation by elites.
Of course the people who use "redneck" as an insult, don't actually stand for populism. It's granola and patchouli elitism.
Children dressing up in their parent's clothes and playing at Lords and Ladies of culture.
Wilmot of Rochester: liberty student: Thick libertarians have ideas built on the NAP that they say provides a more sincere libertarian experience. Favouring diversity, polycentric order, multi-culturalism etc. I don't follow.
You're not the only one. It's an artificial distinction that (intentionally and unintentionally) fractures libertarianism.
Wilmot of Rochester:So do the thin not have appetites for diversity and multi-culturalism at all? Would they be defined as more culturally conservative? What is the difference exactly?
No, the issue is that the thin libertarian doesn't think his preferences are so virtuous that they must be universal preferences. He can imagine living in a world with people who are multi-cultural, and people who are mono-cultural and everyone getting along through mutual respect for boundaries.
The fallacies, falsehoods, evasions and bizarre personalized claims in your posts never cease to amaze me, LS. It's a wonder that I even waste my time making long-winded responses to such a sniveling weasel.
What test scores?
I'm not a strict "Randian", so this doesn't exactly point out any hypocrisy in "my side".
This is an ad hominim or personalization - you tend to engage in them often. We're talking about ideologies and concepts here - the accusation that I'm a garden-variety "altruist" in ideological terms is false.
Yes, I do produce things. But I find your invokation of this in a moralistic manner to be fairly full of shit, and it has nothing to do with the validity of my ideology or my arguments. Drop the personalizations.
I'm sorry, but these are unfounded accusations, and you're continueing to address the person rather than the argument. Stop it. I do not "expect man to do his worst when given his freedom", I just realize that social philosophy cannot be reduced to nothing more than questions about legality, politics and the use of force; that there are meaningful social concerns in life that cannot be reduced to politics. Neither is my politics in line with contemporary "progressivism". Nothing about what I've said implies that I believe that "the market doesn't work as a social mechanism" - what it does imply is the inherently obvious fact that "social problems" don't immediately dissapear simply because a given state falls. I'm actually the one concerned with those social problems in and of themselves and advocating using "the market" (as a catch-all metaphor for social interaction) as means to address them.
I'm sorry, but you're strawmanning and are confused. I do not have the ideology of "the progressives". Furthermore, the original "progressives" were not modern "cultural liberals" by any reasonable standard. Comparing my viewpoint to rationalizations for WWI and Vietnam is simply ridiculous - especially considering my anti-war position. You really need to stop conflating "cultural liberalism" with left-statist politics.
The notion that being an anti-racist and giving a shit about poverty inherently leads to violence is simply stupid. You're commiting a huge fallacy here - because group X claims to adhere to goals Y and Z, it does not follow that anyone that has goals Y and Z is in line with group X or favors the political policies of group X or favors violence. Really, your premise here is incredibly bizarre - that strong empathy is "part and parcel with violence". While strong empathy can be and has been used by political groups to rationalize bad political policies and violence, that is not a problem with strong empathy in and of itself. Sorry, but you're way over the line on this one.
You really need to stop making sweeping, uninformed proclaimations about what me and others think. As for individuals functioning universally under objective values, you really need to check your premises and take a good look around - libertarianism, even in the thin sense, demands that individuals function in accordance with the values of non-aggression and property rights. It is not a totally relativistic position, it strongly insists that people follow certain norms, even if it is a small set of norms or a single norm (non-aggression). Appealing to a sense of relativism to condemn the norms of others as somehow being intrinsically authoritarian while simultaneously getting all moralistic about your own norms is hypocritical, and is part of the mentality of many "thin" libertarians. In either case, it is a non-sequitor to imply that having extra-libertarian values inherently is authoritarian. I had thought that at least some of this was already clarified in the "thick and thin" talk, but you've demonstrated a general lack of understanding of the concepts at play here.
liberty student:You want the same ideals without the violence, without honestly acknowleding that the ideals are part and parcel with violence.
No they aren't, just as racism isn't part a parcel with violence.
Brainpolice: Actually it does, because I actually produce. Do you produce anything? This is an ad hominim or personalization - you tend to engage in them often. ...... Yes, I do produce things. But I find your invokation of this in a moralistic manner to be fairly full of shit, and it has nothing to do with the validity of my ideology or my arguments. Drop the personalizations.
This is an ad hominim or personalization - you tend to engage in them often.
......
People who are active in the market place, tend to ask as an opening question, "What do you do?" with the intent being "What do you do, to serve your fellow man?". I want to know, what you contribute to society. Not what you think you contribute, but what your fellow man recognized and rewards as a contribution.
I want to know if you produce things that your fellow man is willing to pay for. I want to know what your role in the division of labour is. Do you produce, and if so, what?
Brainpolice:I just realize that social philosophy cannot be reduced to nothing more than questions about legality, politics and the use of force; that there are meaningful social concerns in life that cannot be reduced to politics.
Strawman. I don't believe anyone has proposed this.
Brainpolice:what it does imply is the inherently obvious fact that "social problems" don't immediately dissapear simply because a given state falls.
No one claimed that either. Another strawman.
Brainpolice:Nothing about what I've said implies that I believe that "the market doesn't work as a social mechanism"
Well does it, or doesn't it?
Brainpolice:I'm actually the one concerned with those social problems in and of themselves and advocating using "the market" (as a catch-all metaphor for social interaction) as means to address them.
Why wouldn't people in a market, voluntarily address their own needs and problems? I'm curious to know why people would voluntarily choose a bad option, where a better one exists? And if they did choose the bad option, where the better one exists, are they determining value, or are you?
Angurse: liberty student:You want the same ideals without the violence, without honestly acknowleding that the ideals are part and parcel with violence. No they aren't, just as racism isn't part a parcel with violence.
My sloppy language. I should have wrote, "The universality of those ideals, is part and parcel with violence".
Ludwig von Mises Institute | 518 West Magnolia Avenue | Auburn, Alabama 36832-4528
Phone: 334.321.2100 · Fax: 334.321.2119
contact@Mises.org | webmaster | AOL-IM MainMises
Mises.org sitemap