So what is wrong with calling all politics conspiratorial?
My favorite online shop: www.cafepress.com/libertyphile
Ernie:Once again, I recommend that you read my Purpose of Conspiracy Theories article --- because it discusses all the relevant points in considerable detail.
you do know the difference between conspiracies and conspiracy theories don't you? or at least... that there is one?
Where there is no property there is no justice; a proposition as certain as any demonstration in Euclid
Fools! not to see that what they madly desire would be a calamity to them as no hands but their own could bring
Because the use of that term is pejorative and betokens a desire to criminalize or demonize differences of opinion. A free society cannot survive if all political opponents are characterized so that everyone with a different political point of view is considered an immoral or evil enemy -- not a legitimate competitor.
Yes of course. But the real question is:
DO YOU recognize that all assertions made about "conspiracies" and "conspirators" are NOT always accurate and truthful?
Ernie:Yes of course. But the real question is:DO YOU recognize that all assertions made about "conspiracies" and "conspirators" are NOT always accurate and truthful?
sure,.... do you recognise that politics is the evil means just as the economic is the benevolent, hence those politicians that do their politics in secret are conspirators?
Ernie:Because the use of that term is pejorative and betokens a desire to criminalize or demonize differences of opinion. A free society cannot survive if all political opponents are characterized so that everyone with a different political point of view is considered an immoral or evil enemy -- not legitimate competitor.
there is no legitimacy to be found in the political sphere, since any positive act of politics is the coercion of an individual to the will of the other. evil.
nirgrahamUK: Ernie:Because the use of that term is pejorative and betokens a desire to criminalize or demonize differences of opinion. A free society cannot survive if all political opponents are characterized so that everyone with a different political point of view is considered an immoral or evil enemy -- not legitimate competitor. there is no legitimacy to be found in the political sphere, since any positive act of politics is the coercion of an individual to the will of the other. evil.
Take nirgahamUK's response to be my response as well.
Nirgraham:
Obviously, No! -- I do not agree with your bizarre interpretation. Politics is not always evil and economics is hardly benevolent. And, as previously stated, your definition of "conspirators" is simply FALSE.
You are engaging in a circular argument. A circular argument starts with an unproven predicate (such as "all politics is evil") and then uses that unproven (or unprovable) predicate to arrive at further conclusions.
Presumably, your alienation originates from your conclusion that your values and your preferred public policy options and your preferred political candidates have not prevailed in the marketplace of ideas and in political competition. So, instead of just candidly acknowledging that your preferences and values are not shared by the majority of your countrymen, you instead want to shift the blame entirely outside of yourself. Thus, you become the perpetual victim of a "corrupt" and "evil" political process -- just because you don't get your way.
Well, Daniel, I wonder if you apply the principle you have just stated to your family relationships? When a parent uses coercive methods to compel their child to adopt certain behavior or values --- then is the parent engaging in "evil" behavior? And let's be clear about the meaning of "coerce", i.e.
▸ verb: to cause to do through pressure or necessity, by physical, moral or intellectual means
Ernie: ... Politics is not always evil ...
... Politics is not always evil ...
Please provide an example of where politics is not evil.
Ernie: And, as previously stated, your definition of "conspirators" is simply FALSE.
And you are simply WRONG.
Ernie:You are engaging in a circular argument. A circular argument starts with an unproven predicate (such as "all politics is evil") and then uses that unproven (or unprovable) predicate to arrive at further conclusions.
False.
Ernie:Presumably, your alienation originates from your conclusion that your values and your preferred public policy options and your preferred political candidates have not prevailed in the marketplace of ideas and in political competition. So, instead of just candidly acknowledging that your preferences and values are not shared by the majority of your countrymen, you instead want to shift the blame entirely outside of yourself. Thus, you become the perpetual victim of a "corrupt" and "evil" political process -- just because you don't get your way.
Straw man.
Ernie: Well, Daniel, I wonder if you apply the principle you have just stated to your family relationships? When a parent uses coercive methods to compel their child to adopt certain behavior or values --- then is the parent engaging in "evil" behavior? And let's be clear about the meaning of "coerce", i.e. ▸ verb: to cause to do through pressure or necessity, by physical, moral or intellectual means
I suggest you read up on libertarianism if you want a contextual understanding of coercion as it is being used here.
Daniel: Ernie: ... Politics is not always evil ... Please provide an example of where politics is not evil. Ernie: And, as previously stated, your definition of "conspirators" is simply FALSE. And you are simply WRONG. Ernie:You are engaging in a circular argument. A circular argument starts with an unproven predicate (such as "all politics is evil") and then uses that unproven (or unprovable) predicate to arrive at further conclusions. False. Ernie:Presumably, your alienation originates from your conclusion that your values and your preferred public policy options and your preferred political candidates have not prevailed in the marketplace of ideas and in political competition. So, instead of just candidly acknowledging that your preferences and values are not shared by the majority of your countrymen, you instead want to shift the blame entirely outside of yourself. Thus, you become the perpetual victim of a "corrupt" and "evil" political process -- just because you don't get your way. Straw man.
Daniel: I see where you are heading. Because you are alienated from our political system, you conclude that all politics is evil. However, IF your ideas, political candidates, and political preferences prevailed, would you STILL believe that?
Apparently, you also don't understand the meaning of the term "straw man argument". You can allege ANYTHING you want but simply claiming that your interpretation is the best one or the only correct one -- is NOT compelling.
Ernie: Daniel: Ernie: ... Politics is not always evil ... Please provide an example of where politics is not evil. Ernie: And, as previously stated, your definition of "conspirators" is simply FALSE. And you are simply WRONG. Ernie:You are engaging in a circular argument. A circular argument starts with an unproven predicate (such as "all politics is evil") and then uses that unproven (or unprovable) predicate to arrive at further conclusions. False. Ernie:Presumably, your alienation originates from your conclusion that your values and your preferred public policy options and your preferred political candidates have not prevailed in the marketplace of ideas and in political competition. So, instead of just candidly acknowledging that your preferences and values are not shared by the majority of your countrymen, you instead want to shift the blame entirely outside of yourself. Thus, you become the perpetual victim of a "corrupt" and "evil" political process -- just because you don't get your way. Straw man. Daniel: I see where you are heading. Because you are alienated from our political system, you conclude that all politics is evil.
Daniel: I see where you are heading. Because you are alienated from our political system, you conclude that all politics is evil.
Ernie:However, IF your ideas, political candidates, and political preferences prevailed, would you STILL believe that?
Nonsensical since I don't want any positive political system.
Ernie:Apparently, you also don't understand the meaning of the term "straw man argument". You can allege ANYTHING you want but simply claiming that your interpretation is the best one or the only correct one -- is NOT compelling.
Ironically, that is what you have done.
Since I am a libertarian myself -- I don't need to "read up" on it.
The key point which you are avoiding (understandably) is whether or not you would STILL believe the ideas you have stated here IF your political preferences prevailed in our country, i.e. your political candidates won office, your public policy preferences were adopted, and your values were the operative values within our society??
Daniel wrote: "Nonsensical since I don't want any positive political system."
So WHAT do you believe in?
Ernie: Since I am a libertarian myself -- I don't need to "read up" on it.
I don't believe you.
Ernie:The key point which you are avoiding (understandably) is whether or not you would STILL believe the ideas you have stated here IF your political preferences prevailed in our country, i.e. your political candidates won office, your public policy preferences were adopted, and your values were the operative values within our society??
There reason why this is nonsensical is that there is no positive political system that is consistent with libertarianism.
Using politics and the political system to empower people such as by expanding the right-to-vote to include all adults without respect to religion or economic or social status.
Using politics the political system to end segregation and second-class citizenship for an entire category of Americans.
Ernie: Daniel wrote: "Nonsensical since I don't want any positive political system." So WHAT do you believe in?
Daniel: Ernie: Since I am a libertarian myself -- I don't need to "read up" on it. I don't believe you. Ernie:The key point which you are avoiding (understandably) is whether or not you would STILL believe the ideas you have stated here IF your political preferences prevailed in our country, i.e. your political candidates won office, your public policy preferences were adopted, and your values were the operative values within our society?? There reason why this is nonsensical is that there is no positive political system that is consistent with libertarianism.
Well, if you don't believe that I am libertarian -- then you are claiming that I am a liar. Which ends our discussion -- except for one final comment: this may explain why your political preferences are not adopted because you engage in ad hominem slurs about people you do not even know.
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