I am the 99%

Reply

Wheylous replied on Thu, Oct 6 2011 10:20 AM

rated by 0 users

Or do you mean to say that I owe thousands of dollars for the education I'm receiving from these forums?

Reply

Eric080 replied on Thu, Oct 6 2011 10:24 AM

rated by 0 users

Formal education may require debt, but formal eduction is completely overrated.  You can get educated online for free (not formally, but it is education).  Imagine if, instead of compulsory public schooling, you could enroll a kid on an online class.  How much cheaper would that be with the competition online?  The Prussian Model is a dinosaur.

Reply

Wheylous replied on Thu, Oct 6 2011 10:24 AM

rated by 0 users

PB:

Either explain what version of socialism you support or get out of this thread. That is the root of the matter, and unless you explain what you think, we're left guessing and having you feel aggressed against because we're allegedly arguing against a straw man.

So don't become a drama king/queen and refuse to say what you actually believe.

Reply

Consumariat replied on Thu, Oct 6 2011 10:30 AM

rated by 0 users

"Or do you mean to say that I owe thousands of dollars for the education I'm receiving from these forums?"

Try putting that on your CV and see how many interviews you get.

Reply

Eric080 replied on Thu, Oct 6 2011 10:31 AM

rated by 0 users

Well the question comes down to, "are you going to cage me or kill me for choosing to live a different, peaceful lifestyle?"  If the answer is, "no," then we don't have any problem.  If the answer is, "yes," then we will have a problem.

If you answer no, go join voluntary collectivist arrangements and co-ops and we don't care.  You can even argue for a paradigm shift in our social habits.  Fine.

Reply

Consumariat replied on Thu, Oct 6 2011 10:37 AM

rated by 0 users

"Formal education may require debt, but formal eduction is completely overrated.  You can get educated online for free (not formally, but it is education).  Imagine if, instead of compulsory public schooling, you could enroll a kid on an online class.  How much cheaper would that be with the competition online?  The Prussian Model is a dinosaur."

I think there is certainly some truth to this, unfortunately the standard opinion of most employers is that you need a certificate to even get throught the door for an interview.

Also, I wouldn't disregard the benefit that a formal education can offer. To paraphrase someone - I can't remember who - "self-taught people have wide knowledge, but formal education gives you deep knowledge."

Reply

Eric080 replied on Thu, Oct 6 2011 10:44 AM

rated by 0 users

I took a couple of classes at a nearby community college while I was getting my bachelor's degree. The classes were World Literature II and Physical Science (think meteorology, geology, and astronomy). What amazed me was that the quality of the teaching at the community college was at least roughly on par with the quality of the teaching I received at the four-year state university.

I think this blog post echoes the same thoughts:

http://fringeelements.info/post/3231962003/paul-bloom-is-an-idiot

Reply

Autolykos replied on Thu, Oct 6 2011 11:22 AM

rated by 0 users

Consumariat:

"Or do you mean to say that I owe thousands of dollars for the education I'm receiving from these forums?"

Try putting that on your CV and see how many interviews you get.

Oh, you weren't referring to anything that anyone decided to call "education"? Then how about you spell out for us what exactly you mean by the word. We aren't mind-readers, you know.

Reply

Clayton replied on Thu, Oct 6 2011 11:38 AM

rated by 0 users

Clayton,

That's amazing...I never heard of that...Thanks for informing me...really...thanks...

It's as if people here think I don't know about authoritarian socialism. How would you like it if I started telling you about authoritarian capitalism as if you'd never heard of it and as if it was the only kind of capitalism? I remember doing that when I first came here, and it lead to pages of debate. At this point we should both have a little more respect for each other's ideas. Otherwise this board is seriously not as respectable as I thought. I knew there were folks I disagreed with here, but I figured they were at least smart folks. It's starting to look like no one's read anything outside of the basic LvMI millieu.

Well, then let's stick to discussing the technical problems with socialism as a theory of human nature and human social order. Socialism = statism is certainly a canard but so what? The Internet is full of canards everywhere but I'm more than happy to debate the technical merits of socialism as a theory.

Clayton -

Reply

Birthday Pony replied on Thu, Oct 6 2011 1:18 PM

rated by 0 users

@Wheylous, if you seriously think I haven't done that, then you just haven't been paying attention.

@Clayton, I'm really uninterested at having a discussion like that here, and it's not as if I haven't tried. Whatever mental roadblock keeps the posters here from understanding anti-authoritarian socialism is something they'll have to over come themselves. I am completely uninterested in being a part of that conversation as it usually ends with insulting me, and that's a shame. I have no doubt that there are people who are genuinely interested in understanding a position they don't agree with. And it's too bad that the few folks who can't seem to grasp what are nuanced, but pretty simple ideas feel the need to totally miscategorize an idea they know nothing about, which in turn makes me want to have that discussion less and less.

If you're really interested, go look up an Anarchsit FAQ. It's more comprehensive than I can ever be and while I don't agree with all of it, I'd rather you read that and then came up with questions than have me say what I've already said a thousand times.

Reply

Autolykos replied on Thu, Oct 6 2011 1:27 PM

rated by 0 users

Birthday Pony:

Whatever mental roadblock keeps the posters here from understanding anti-authoritarian socialism is something they'll have to over come themselves.

What if the posters here do understand it - better than you, even? Furthermore, what if they realize that anti-authoritarian socialism is, in the end, a contradiction (i.e. either it will become authoritarian or will stop being socialism)? Have you ever really considered that possibility?

Of course, there's also that pesky issue of how you're defining "socialism" vs. how "the posters here" are defining it. Indeed, one could say that anarcho-capitalists are "socialists" in the sense of advocating the provision of all goods and services by society and not the state.

Reply

Birthday Pony replied on Thu, Oct 6 2011 1:42 PM

rated by 0 users

One could say a lot of things.

While my take on anarcho-capitalism is that it has little to nothing to offer as far as a really substantial criticism of the state or state like entities go, I at the same time realize that it is not necessarily a pro-state doctrine. My criticism isn't that I disagree with ancaps because they're statists and promote the state. I could argue all day long that they actually do support a state in that any agency committed to protecting defined property with boundaries, even if they are scattered and could be given to any other agency or individual at a time, is a state, but I realize that it wouldn't be what most people here recognize as a state, and it might not even be what I necessarily recognize as a state. Hell, I could change the way I use every word in the English language to support my ideology all day long, but we've got an entirely different thread about why I think that would be dishonest and a childish way of making myself always right.

Reply

Autolykos replied on Thu, Oct 6 2011 2:16 PM

rated by 0 users

Birthday Pony:

One could say a lot of things.

Your point? Or is this just a trite attempt at a cop-out?

Birthday Pony:

While my take on anarcho-capitalism is that it has little to nothing to offer as far as a really substantial criticism of the state or state like entities go, I at the same time realize that it is not necessarily a pro-state doctrine. My criticism isn't that I disagree with ancaps because they're statists and promote the state. I could argue all day long that they actually do support a state in that any agency committed to protecting defined property with boundaries, even if they are scattered and could be given to any other agency or individual at a time, is a state, but I realize that it wouldn't be what most people here recognize as a state, and it might not even be what I necessarily recognize as a state.

Does your body have boundaries?

Birthday Pony:

Hell, I could change the way I use every word in the English language to support my ideology all day long, but we've got an entirely different thread about why I think that would be dishonest and a childish way of making myself always right.

Surely you don't think that anarcho-capitalists are the only ones using unconventional definitions!

Reply

Birthday Pony replied on Thu, Oct 6 2011 3:16 PM

rated by 0 users

"Your point? Or is this just a trite attempt at a cop-out?"

My point is that it is a cop-out!

"Does your body have boundaries?"

Am I making the argument I used as an example above, or was it an example of the type of argument I wouldn't make?

"Surely you don't think that anarcho-capitalists are the only ones using unconventional definitions!"

I don't. You know I don't. And if you still don't get it then I'm willing to accept that I'm not capable of explaining why.

Reply

Autolykos replied on Thu, Oct 6 2011 3:45 PM

rated by 0 users

Birthday Pony:

"Your point? Or is this just a trite attempt at a cop-out?"

My point is that it is a cop-out!

How in the hell is it? Please, thrall me with your acumen.

Birthday Pony:

"Does your body have boundaries?"

Am I making the argument I used as an example above, or was it an example of the type of argument I wouldn't make?

What? I don't even know how to make sense of this. So let me ask you again: does your body have boundaries?

Birthday Pony:

"Surely you don't think that anarcho-capitalists are the only ones using unconventional definitions!"

I don't. You know I don't. And if you still don't get it then I'm willing to accept that I'm not capable of explaining why.

What I see is you accusing us and only us of using unconventional definitions in order to be "always right", as though you and those like you have a lock on the conventional ones (and therefore we're actually "always wrong"). That's completely ridiculous IMHO and I won't abide it.

Reply

Isaac "Izzy" Marmolejo replied on Thu, Oct 6 2011 3:49 PM

rated by 0 users

For the most part, I agree with Birthday Pony here... I think most here forget the market-socialistic/mutualistic influence that anarcho-capitalism has (tucker, Spooner). While personal debt is the individual's responsibility, there is still a much bigger picture here, and that is that the system as a whole is screwed up and needs to change.

The main problem i have with the riots is that it does not see the system as the problem. They are merely asking for government aid, which is not changing the system at all. In fact, this is only going to encourage the expansion of the system, if the demands are met, which the State, as a whole, would love this since they would now have more influence on specific policies.

in other words, they are indirectly advocating the expansion of the system they supposedly hate.

Reply

Birthday Pony replied on Thu, Oct 6 2011 4:21 PM

rated by 0 users

I'm not sure the entire group is Anarchist, and we can only expect so much. I still think this is the beginning of something promising though.

Reply

Isaac "Izzy" Marmolejo replied on Thu, Oct 6 2011 4:30 PM

rated by 0 users

BP,

I think that is where we differ because as I stated, they are merely doing what the current system wants them to do, beg for help via government aid.

Also, one does not have to be anarchist to see that the current system is crap. The problem with these protestors though is that even though they generally advocate anti-coporatism, crony capitalism, etc. they are indirectly advocating the very system they hate because they are basically feeding the system.

Reply

Birthday Pony replied on Thu, Oct 6 2011 4:34 PM

rated by 0 users

I agree. But I feel like the system will inevitably be inadequate. The state cannot really solve the root of these people's problems. This is the time when Anarchists can have an influence and when people are listening. It's a time to start a dialogue.

Reply

John James replied on Thu, Oct 6 2011 4:59 PM

rated by 0 users

auctionguy10:

Not you that painted them with a broad brush- I'm just talking from my general experience looking at people's opinions of the entire Occupy wallstreet "movement" like in the Mises Daily article.  Unless everyone was just referring to the people in those "we are the 99%" pictures.

I thought that article did a great job analyzing the whole thing.  I didn't find it using a broad brush at all.  In fact Gregory seemed to take great care to point out there is no single voice:

"Although there is no single ideology uniting the movement..."

"...the website does not represent all of the protesters..."

"To be fair, some of the protesters would probably not sign on to this kind of wish list.  But there are also many among them who would go even further in the state-socialist direction. In any event, any movement filled with people who want this much out of government is bound to fail in addressing what is wrong with today's system."

"Despite their ideological problems, however, most of these protesters have been peaceful, which brings us to the next party to the drama that we certainly cannot cheer: the police."

Sounds pretty accurate to me.  But even still, I thought it was obvious criticisms here were directed to those that subscribe to those economically illiterate demands and utopian fallacies.

Reply

Isaac "Izzy" Marmolejo replied on Thu, Oct 6 2011 5:04 PM

rated by 0 users

The system is and will be inadequate if these demands are met, but people do not usually see this, most people, especially Americans, simply ask for more help from the system whenever the State fails, thus increasing State power. I simply view this as a positive feedback effect.  While I agree that it is a good time for people to listen to anarchists, I doubt that most will, since most people see only the 'seen,' that is, the personal 'benefit' of a proposed policy, like for example, a universal healthcare system, as opposed to the 'unseen' that is, a horrid healthcare system over time due to inefficiencies.

Reply

John James replied on Thu, Oct 6 2011 5:11 PM

rated by 0 users

Consumariat:

Debts aren't a problem if you have a job. Getting a job requires education. Education requires debt.

Now, you could point out that government encourages unnecessary use of certification, and thus raises the barrier to entry into the market and so effectively coerces people into college. You could point out that government causes education to be more expensive that it would otherwise be on a free-market.

And if you'd actually read a bit, you'd see that's what has been done for years around here.

But no, instead you choose to blame the people who are subject to the results of the system, yet have no control over it. The same system that you lot CLAIM to be opposed to.

"All of the corruption and brutality they think they oppose are symptoms of the same essential political ideology they favor."

Again, because "these people" who you claim have no control over it made it politically profitable for people in government to force banks to give loans to people who couldn't pay them back.  Politicians would not have been interested in lowering lending standards if it had saying things like "home ownership is at an all time high" and "we want everyone to own their home" had not been useful in getting them re-elected.

I sometimes suspect that Mises.org is populated by sufferers of Narcissistic Personality Disorder, because there certainly is a lot of hatred of the weak around this place. I suspect that you are mostly disingenuous in your libertarianism. Austrian Econ is just a tool to be used to rationalise away your inability to feel for others.

"Blah blah blah I don't have anything to say so I'm going to make general accusations about nameless people who populate a forum."

Reply

Wheylous replied on Thu, Oct 6 2011 5:18 PM

rated by 0 users

the standard opinion of most employers is that you need a certificate to even get throught the door for an interview

I don't agree. There are a lot of jobs which require no degree. Experience, yes, but not a degree.

Reply

John James replied on Thu, Oct 6 2011 5:26 PM

rated by 0 users

Birthday Pony:

please continue to tell me how I'm a commie marxist bitch.

Sure, if you show me where I've already done that.  Truth is, all I did was ask if you were a socialist and you replied "sure am."

Not as if I needed you to actually say it, you make it quite obvious with all the things you whine about and the claims you make and the pure economic illiteracy and neglect of individual rights that you display on a constant basis.  I was just curious if you'd admit it.  But yes, do please show me where I used any one of those three words to describe you. 

I think you'll find the only one who has ever used them is...you.  Self-hatred much?

Its really fun watching how smart you can be some times.

I'm sure it is.  I only wish I could say the same for you.

Also, be sure to include that you don't hear an answer in this post. You wouldn't want a post to go by without reminding everyone that I won't repeat myself because you decided to forget everything else I've said here.

I didn't decide to forget anything.  I never saw it.  And this is a textual forum.  On the Internet, no less.  You don't have to repeat yourself.  See there's this thing called "cut and paste", which is an operation you can perform on a "computer" (that's the thing you're using to read this right now) and it allows you to reproduce text that has already been written.  Here's a link explaining how to do that. 

See how that works?  That's called a "hyperlink".  It's a feature that allows you to electronically link to other areas of the Internet or any networked area.  That means you don't even have to use the cut and paste feature, you could just provide a link to all this grand explanation you've supposedly given before that I've "forgotten".  My guess is, if you can seem to figure out how to do that, any link you come up with would be in a thread I wasn't active in.

Birthday Pony:

Clayton,

That's amazing...I never heard of that...Thanks for informing me...really...thanks...

See, now here, you're either providing excellent evidence of your ignorance (as Clayton was describing something quite basic), or you're just being very rude.  Either way, I don't quite see how this is supposed to put you on some ground to criticize people for not being considerate.

Reply

Isaac "Izzy" Marmolejo replied on Thu, Oct 6 2011 5:28 PM

rated by 0 users

Wheylous:

the standard opinion of most employers is that you need a certificate to even get throught the door for an interview

I don't agree. There are a lot of jobs which require no degree. Experience, yes, but not a degree.

 

Does anyone have sources backing up the claims above? One is claiming that one needs a degree to get to most job interviews while one is claiming the complete opposite.

Reply

John James replied on Thu, Oct 6 2011 5:47 PM

rated by 0 users

Isaac "Izzy" Marmolejo:

For the most part, I agree with Birthday Pony here... I think most here forget the market-socialistic/mutualistic influence that anarcho-capitalism has (tucker, Spooner). While personal debt is the individual's responsibility, there is still a much bigger picture here, and that is that the system as a whole is screwed up and needs to change.

The main problem i have with the riots is that it does not see the system as the problem. They are merely asking for government aid, which is not changing the system at all. In fact, this is only going to encourage the expansion of the system, if the demands are met, which the State, as a whole, would love this since they would now have more influence on specific policies.

in other words, they are indirectly advocating the expansion of the system they supposedly hate.

a) I in no way see how this echos the pony.

b) Literally everything you said after that first paragraph is fleshed out in the Mises Daily on the topic.  Seriously what you just wrote could serve as a summary for it.  In fact Gregory's version of your last sentence is one of the parts of the article that is blown up and placed in the margin.

I think Gregory's article captures precisely the view of most here.

Reply

Wheylous replied on Thu, Oct 6 2011 6:04 PM

rated by 0 users

BP, you have not stated what your basic principles/axioms/assumptions are. You stated that you will not tell us what you think:

You know, I was actually going to put something thoughtful here about my take on the protests now and then realized none of it is really going to get through, so fuck it

Then why say anything here at all if nothing will get through to us?

 

"Great.  So stop saying you have a "right" to the services of others."

Eh, I was going to respond to this, but I'm much more interested in the psychology behind your interest in me.

THIS IS THE WHOLE POINT OF THE DEBATE. Do you have an entitlement to other people's lives or not?

But maybe you like to be an anarchist hipster:

Opposition to hierarchies is a good definition of Anarchism, and I think the grey area of what constitutes a hierarchy really is a strong point of the definition and not a fault of it. It leaves Anarchism up to individual interpretation so that it can continue to grow and explore areas of anti-authoritarianism that have not yet been questioned.

And

Nothing should be illegal. Nothing should be legal for that matter.

Might as well add "Nothing should be" to the list and we're good to go. You want to destroy social norms all the while creating some society that you want:

Anarchists seek to abolish hierarchy in all realms, including the social realm. The idea is to create social norms

Which one is it?

You're very careful and ambiguous on the FLL while on here you want to appear completely thought-out.

Drop one of the two facades and speak your mind.

Reply

Wheylous replied on Thu, Oct 6 2011 6:10 PM

rated by 0 users

Does anyone have sources backing up the claims above?

I know that this is arguing from a small sample size, but when my family came to the US my dad was able to find 2 jobs in computer science without any degree or prior work with computers (besides making his own website). I myself have made two websites for people, so I know that there are jobs. If there isn't a job - make one. Picking up a computer language is fast and easy and can land you website making jobs fast.

I am sure there is plenty of evidence of jobs which don't require degrees as well (I can't currently provide a link, sorry).

Reply

Isaac "Izzy" Marmolejo replied on Thu, Oct 6 2011 6:39 PM

rated by 0 users

@Wheylous

I agree that it is definately possible that there are plenty of jobs out there that require no degree but that is not the issue here...the issue is whether most jobs require a degree or not. Generally, people take claims with a grain of salt. It is best to back it up.

Reply

Wheylous replied on Thu, Oct 6 2011 6:52 PM

rated by 0 users

Your answer:

http://mises.org/Community/forums/t/26485.aspx

Reply

z1235 replied on Thu, Oct 6 2011 8:28 PM

rated by 0 users

Clayton:

The naivete of people who lap up every superficially populist event as genuine grassroots never ceases to amaze me. The Tea Party was dismissed by pundits as "astroturf" which is an excellent term that describes a good deal of what passes in the US as "grassroots" movements. Everybody wants to be grassroots now. The US gov't is paying $5000 to YouTubers to come up with video ideas that show how you benefit from the Federal government - in the hope that these videos will "go viral". The Establishment always tries to dress itself down when it interacts with the masses.

But it's the very reaction of the Establishment that tells you whether it's real grassroots or astroturf. The major news media were anti-Tea Party and dismissed it as astroturf until it was dragged under the Republican tent by Sarah Palin et. al. and pacified. Now that it's under control, the Tea Party is treated as a genuine grassroots movement. But nobody in the Establishment has hinted that Occupy Wall Street is astroturf - it has been treated as "the real thing" from day one. Even its name is telling: "Occupy Wall Street" not "Occupy The Fed". Wall Street, in the minds of Americans, is a synonym for capitalism and protesting Wall Street is protesting capitalism. But the problem with America is not capitalism, the problem is the Federal Reserve.

While the people involved are flesh-and-blood Americans who are suffering under the boot of the Establishment along with the rest of us, that doesn't mean they aren't dupes and that doesn't mean that this particular protest is not a memetic vaccine. One technique to handle public outrage is to get out ahead of it, anticipate it, and give it vent in a controlled manner before the pressure builds up to the danger point. I call it memetic vaccination - introducing a weakened copy of a dangerous idea to innoculate against the real thing by instilling in the public the sense that "this is old news" or "asked and answered" if the real thing later tries to rear its head.

If Ron Paul continues to gain momentum, the mediocre majority who are (still) not familiar with the "End the Fed" mantra are likely to conflate it with "Occupy Wall Street" and less likely to be whipped up by anti-Fed furor. End the Fed? Isn't that what those smelly hippy slackers camped out in that NYC Park are protesting for? Who wants to cheer on a bunch of overqualified, unemployed artsie-fartsies who don't want to work for a living and choose instead to camp out in a NYC park? End the Fed? How about "Get A Job"!

Do you see how this works?

Clayton -

Beat me to it and nailed it.

Reply

Wheylous replied on Thu, Oct 6 2011 8:46 PM

rated by 0 users

 memetic vaccine

Interesting idea. I have come to a similar idea about the concept of government=mafia. If someone has been exposed to the analogy before and has had it ridiculed in front of his eyes, it is less effective.

Reply

z1235 replied on Thu, Oct 6 2011 9:07 PM

rated by 0 users

Wheylous:

I don't agree. There are a lot of jobs which require no degree. Experience, yes, but not a degree.

Jobs on jobs (and "degrees")...

Reply

Clayton replied on Thu, Oct 6 2011 10:44 PM

rated by 0 users

Interesting idea. I have come to a similar idea about the concept of government=mafia. If someone has been exposed to the analogy before and has had it ridiculed in front of his eyes, it is less effective.

I think brutal foreign dictatorships (and the somtimes caricatures thereof) serve this role. They are the worst case scenario of corrupt and tyrannical government but even people under such governments clearly recognize that there must be some government. Hence, this proves that we cannot live without government and makes the idea that modern, enlightened, tolerant, caring, secular, democratic governments are abusive, criminal or tyrannical look as foolish as it deserves to look. Oh, boohoo, you have to get a driver's license in order to drive on public roads. If you were born female under the Taliban, you just may have been subjected to female genital mutilation (of course, if you were born a male under the US government, you would almost certainly have been subjected to male genital mutilation, er, I mean "circumcision").

Clayton -

Reply

Birthday Pony replied on Thu, Oct 6 2011 11:45 PM

rated by 0 users

"BP, you have not stated what your basic principles/axioms/assumptions are. You stated that you will not tell us what you think"

lol! It's like everyone here has amnesia. I suppose that when I first posted on this thread everyone here assumed I was an anarcho-capitalist or a Misesesesesesianeses. No. This time I'm not going to repeat myself. I'm willing to admit that I can't amply explain myself at this point, so I'm going to carry on.

And John James, good god do I pity you. I know I have a problem with getting the last word and incessently posting, but it's like you can't ever resist. I'm surprised you give such an ignorant person such as myself the time of day.

Reply

John James replied on Thu, Oct 6 2011 11:52 PM

rated by 0 users

Dear, if it's really "everyone here has amnesia", just post a link to all this supposed explaining you've done and prove it already.  It's just comical to watch you dance around with "I'm not going to repeat myself!  Nope!  Not this time!".  I mean, has that ever actually worked?  On the Internet?  Really, just post a link and prove everyone ignorant.

Reply

Birthday Pony replied on Fri, Oct 7 2011 12:03 AM

rated by 0 users

I don't want to justify this kind of bullshit with a response. Everyone knows my first post here turned into like 6 pages of capitalism vs. socialism bullshit, and we all kept talking past each other. At this point, if you're still talking past me, then I don't give a shit.

And why do you keep calling me pet names? Do you think you're the first person to do that? Do you think its sweet or are you just trying to get under my skin? Hell, for all you know I could be a 28 year old black man. That you must cling so hard to gender indentification on the internet (a place where anonymity is supposed to be a valued asset), is ridiculous. Its like you don't know how to talk down to me without pigeon-holing me into one of your preconcieved notions. I can just see you thinking: "ah, she's one of those feminist types. I'll use pet names to piss her off," the same way you're thinking, "ah, a socialist. I'll go with the 'steal my shit' trope." It's almost as if you're just a very ugly individual on the inside. Why are you really so incessant? I don't think it's because you actually give a shit what I think.

Reply

John James replied on Fri, Oct 7 2011 12:24 AM

rated by 0 users

...so I take it you don't have any links?

Reply

auctionguy10 replied on Fri, Oct 7 2011 12:25 AM

rated by 0 users

Libertarians aren't amoral, they just feel less emotionally attached, so it's a different expression of the same moral emotions that mostly everybody else has.

I don't even understand this trend if it is one. I myself am very emotional(and enjoy it that way,) and I find that one person forcing their will on another human to be  something completely reprehensible and my heart goes out to anyone who has to suffer from a situation like that. Anyone who wants to use force on another human being has no moral highground and I have no idea when they(current liberals) got to be the ones that "own" the feeling of being sympathic to another human being. Libertarians should have a super easy time making any emotional arguments- don't know why they don't do it more often it usually works more for me than argumentation with the average democrat/republican.