Natalie: filc:What was the end excuse of WT7? The 9/11 comission conveniently ignored that building, that report was garbage any ways. Huh?
filc:What was the end excuse of WT7? The 9/11 comission conveniently ignored that building, that report was garbage any ways.
Huh?
Tell me, if someone replied to you on the subject of Austrian economics, with a one word statement linking to a Paul Krugman blog, how would you feel?
I saw that. It's on wiki as being brought down due to fallen debri also. Still the explanation skips over how:
I typically prefer not to really engage in the whole debate but, to be honest, I feel that in some cases the debunkers have done a good job at debunking alot of the myths of truthers, but on the other hand have also fallen short on disproving truthers on others. Not that truthers are right, just that historically speaking evidence shows that those 3 collapsed buildings were exemplars in the history of collapsed buildings. They stand out as being specifically different from all other accidentally collapsed buildings and conveniently share all attributes of a controlled demolished building.
Seph:Tell me, if someone replied to you on the subject of Austrian economics, with a one word statement linking to a Paul Krugman blog, how would you feel?
Does he even know about Austrian economics?
If I hear not allowed much oftener; said Sam, I'm going to get angry.
J.R.R.Tolkien, The Lord of the Rings
filc:Still the explanation skips over how:
And still the Truthers have no remote clue how the World Trade Centers were designed and built. Which are the only buildings ever designed exactly like they were. When you can show me a third world 110-story building designed exactly the same get back to me. Maybe Truthers should do some actual research.
Why the Towers Fell (60min) (NOVA)
Actually they share NO attributes of a controlled demolition. Apparently Truthers think that any structure that falls in the path of gravity must be "controlled".
"Anarchism misunderstands the real nature of man. It would be practicable only in a world of angels and saints" - Ludwig von Mises
Natalie: Seph:Tell me, if someone replied to you on the subject of Austrian economics, with a one word statement linking to a Paul Krugman blog, how would you feel? Does he even know about Austrian economics?
Exactly my point....
You have no point.
Natalie: You have no point.
Well let me hit you over the head with it then.
Just as linking to a Paul Krugman article in an attempt to debunk Austrian economics would debunk nothing and reveal massive ignorance on the part of the 'debunker', so does linking to a typical 'debunking 9/11' video prove nothing, and reveal ignorance.
February 17 - 1600 - Giordano Bruno is burnt alive by the catholic church. Aquinas : "much more reason is there for heretics, as soon as they are convicted of heresy, to be not only excommunicated but even put to death."
Ah I love the arguments of truthers...
1) So is "government" 1 or all of the millions of "government" employees?
2) No government is too incompetent to execute any 911 "conspiracy".
Now we can listen to some logical Libertarians...
Bullshit! - 9/11 Conspiracy Theories (9min) (Penn & Teller: Bullshit!)
Seph:so does linking to a typical 'debunking 9/11' video prove nothing, and reveal ignorance.
Let me reveal my ignorance.
The Conspiracy Files: 9/11 (60min) (BBC)
The Conspiracy Files: 9/11 - The Truth Behind The Third Tower (60min) (BBC)
The 9/11 Conspiracies: Fact or Fiction (90min) (The History Channel)
Please if you want to learn nothing and stay ignorant do NOT watch these videos. The only way to stay an ignorant Truther is to ignore the truth.
Seph:Just as linking to a Paul Krugman article in an attempt to debunk Austrian economics would debunk nothing and reveal massive ignorance on the part of the 'debunker', so does linking to a typical 'debunking 9/11' video prove nothing, and reveal ignorance.
Yes, and all "truthers" are Einsteins. Thanks for proving my point.
Poptech:1) So is "government" 1 or all of the millions of "government" employees?
Don't forget about the teacher unions. They must be involved because there're a lot of teachers in New York ;)
Poptech:2) No government is too incompetent to execute any 911 "conspiracy".
But look at how "competent" the government is at keeping secrets:
Manhattan project - ok, kept it secret for a while, but the Soviets somehow got a bomb
Watergate
Iran-contra
Monica Lewinsky - only two people knew about it initially
Juan:Ah, I love the arguments of the nationalists.... 1) government would never attack its own people... 2) the government is too stupid to carry false-flag operations...As a matter of fact, false-flag operations are never possible because 'socialism can't calculate' - what a learned argument...
Is there an argument here?
Juan:Is there an argument here? I just listed two of the most ridiculous arguments that the nationalists, right wingers, 'patriots' and other pro-military types use.
As opposed to the venerated left-wing (aka radical & marxist) tradition of calling names and meaningless labels istead of saying something intelligent on the topic discussed.
Natalie: Juan:Is there an argument here? I just listed two of the most ridiculous arguments that the nationalists, right wingers, 'patriots' and other pro-military types use. As opposed to the venerated left-wing (aka radical & marxist) tradition of calling names and meaningless labels istead of saying something intelligent on the topic discussed.
The hypocrisy of an advocate of the official story talking about meaningless labels and intelligent speech, who hasn't read any of the material presented by the side of the argument she is trying to oppose...
But I'll still bite. I don't want this to turn into what it typically does when I debate advocates of the official conspiracy theory, that is, they copying and pasting appropriate sections from whatever website they deem good, while I labour to provide real responses to people more interested in propagating the official myth than debating. So PM me, you, or anyone who's interest is genuine..
tradition of calling names and meaningless labels
Juan:Nope. You haven't yet learned that libertarianism is not 'left' nor 'right'.
Here we go, making assumptions again.
Juan:tradition of calling names and meaningless labels Oh, and by the way, my labels are pretty accurate. Of course people don't like to be reminded of what they are. Just like soldiers don't like to be reminded that they are self-serving murderers working for the state.
So is Ron Paul a "murderous thug" and "evil collectivist" because he served in the Air Force?
Natalie: Juan:Nope. You haven't yet learned that libertarianism is not 'left' nor 'right'. Here we go, making assumptions again.
So libertarianism is about left and right?
Juan:Nope. You haven't yet learned that libertarianism is not 'left' nor 'right'. By the way, people like Herbert Spencer surely were radicals
Strange, two days ago you asked me [ Laughing Man ] if I was a 'Left-Libertarian' or a Blockian clone? Apparently you haven't learned your own lesson.
Juan:People who support murder in the name of 'private property' (block clones) are not libertarians. On the other hand, people who usually self-identify as left-libertarians don't have such deranged views. And I thought you belonged to that last category. I was just using a conventional, but actually rather uncommon label. At any rate you are sidestepping my point. Right wingers and their love for the military and national defense are not libertarians.
If there are left-libertarians then that naturally assumes there are 'right' libertarians [ or else they would just be called libertarians ]
Juan:Well, the assumptions is wrong, go figure. It seems you didn't learn your lesson. Sorry.
So it is wrong to assume there are left and right libertarians?
Juan:Yes.
Ok what is 'unlibertarian' about Walter Block's writings?
1. They misunderstand the nature of libertarianism. These arguments implicitly assume that libertarianism is a moral philosophy, a guide to proper behavior, as it were. Should the flagpole hanger let go? Should the hiker go off and die? But libertarianism is a theory concerned with the justified use of aggression, or violence, based on property rights, not morality
Juan:What about his defense of 'voluntary' slavery for starters ?
Well to paraphrase Rothbard: The whole of libertarianism can be deduced through the NAP. While I disagree that slavery can be voluntary if it was then it does not violate the NAP.
Well to paraphrase Rothbard: The whole of libertarianism can be deduced through the NAP.
block:If the non-aggression axiom is the basic building block of libertarianism, private property rights based on (Lockean and Rothbardian) homesteading principles are the foundation.
While I disagree that slavery can be voluntary if it was then it does not violate the NAP.
Juan:Well, well. I'd daresay block disagrees with that. You see, the NAP, according to block at least, is defined in terms of private property, not the other way around.
Actually Block states that there are two coins to libertarianism.
The NAP and property rights.
Juan:The language is a bit obscure, but it seems he's saying that private property is a more basic concept than non-aggression.
It is establishing what is/isn't private property but it is not explicitly stating how that property is to be treated.
Juan:Not sure what you mean and how can slavery not violate the NAP.
Because it is voluntary. I did state that I don't think slavery can be voluntary but if it were to be then it would not violate NAP because it is welcomed.
What is aggravating is how anarchists try to pretend they are the only libertarians which is total nonsense. If you cannot accept that other types of libertarians exist you are an extremist. This is what happens with social conservatives who try to pretend fiscal conservatives and neo-conservatives don't exist. Libertarians all believe in personal liberty and economic freedom but can disagree on exactly how this achieved. I acknowledge anarchists have a right to their opinion but am constantly amazed when they refuse to acknowledge limited government Libertarians who support a constitutional republic and an all volunteer military for self-defense have a right to theirs'. So long as this nonsensical infighting continues you are not going to convince anyone. There are clearly left and right leaning Libertarians, I am a right leaning Libertarian.
Juan:So down with ron paul.
This sort of nonsense is where extremists who cannot rationalize their behavior have to go.
Oh, they have a right to believe and say whatever they want. But libertarianism is an ethical system deriving from the non-aggression principle, so it is impossible for someone to believe in state aggression and still be a libertarian. You can be "libertarian" on certain issues by supporting the removal of coercion from those issues. But that doesn't make a person a libertarian. If merely wanting less government than others made one a libertarian, the word would be as meaningless as "conservative" and "liberal". Words have meanings for a reason, so you'll just have to put with those of us who don't tolerate the corruption of those meanings.
Pro Christo et Libertate integre!
Poptech:What is aggravating is how anarchists try to pretend they are the only libertarians which is total nonsense. If you cannot accept that other types of libertarians exist you are an extremist. This is what happens with social conservatives who try to pretend fiscal conservatives and neo-conservatives don't exist. Libertarians all believe in personal liberty and economic freedom but can disagree on exactly how this achieved. I acknowledge anarchists have a right to their opinion but am constantly amazed when they refuse to acknowledge limited government Libertarians who support a constitutional republic and an all volunteer military for self-defense have a right to theirs'. So long as this nonsensical infighting continues you are not going to convince anyone. There are clearly left and right leaning Libertarians, I am a right leaning Libertarian.
The constitution is an insufficient device in combating the size of government when it alone interprets it.
I've looked up the definition of Libertarian.
"One who advocates maximizing individual rights and minimizing the role of the state." (American Heritage Dictionary)
"Advocate of individual responsibility: somebody who believes in the doctrine of free will. Advocate of individual freedom: somebody who believes in the principle that people should have complete freedom of thought and action." (Encarta)
"An advocate of the doctrine of free will. A person who upholds the principles of individual liberty especially of thought and action." (Merian-Websters)
They say nothing about anarchism. Which proves to me anarchists are attempting to hijack the definition. As for the difference with Conservatism, there is a huge difference.
"Favoring traditional views and values; tending to oppose change." (American Heritage Dictionary)
"Reluctant to accept change: in favor of preserving the status quo and traditional values and customs, and against abrupt change." (Encarta)
"Tending or disposed to maintain existing views, conditions, or institutions. Marked by moderation or caution. Marked by or relating to traditional norms of taste, elegance, style, or manners." (Merian -Websters)
Making up your own meanings is propaganda.
The Anarchist00:The constitution is an insufficient device in combating the size of government when it alone interprets it.
I completely agree, it is clearly not perfect but that does not make me an anarchist.
Ludwig von Mises Institute | 518 West Magnolia Avenue | Auburn, Alabama 36832-4528
Phone: 334.321.2100 · Fax: 334.321.2119
[email protected] | webmaster | AOL-IM MainMises
Mises.org sitemap