Because it is not the case. Present a compelling argument that peaceful honest people ought NOT to be allowed to pursue their own happiness in their own way, and I’ll leave the philosophy behind. The likelihood that you will do so, however, is miniscule.
True. But true of practically any position you take. If you advocate a change in policy, there are also ramifications, consequences, and much ado necessary to impliment the change. Isn’t there the danger that people will pursue you about exactly how you would change the policy, how it would effect other policies, how it would be enforced, what would be its scope, and so forth? If you advocate an increase in spending, might not people ask you to produce a line-item budget, press you to say how you will get more revenue, or what you will take revenue from?
As is, apparently, the likelihood that you will stop being a self-righteous, arrogant cunt.
And the world will keep spinning on its axis.
Yeah, they might. And that might even be an unreasonably unfair request to make right at the outset, when we’re talking more philosophical things. But then, I look at this issue as ore tactical purpose than fairness. You may be taking views that are both very controversial and not well known to many. The question is: what’s the best way to get them on the table before everyone has their hackles up? Piecemeal may not be the way to do it, especially if, in the end, the longform is inevitable anyway. It might well be unfair for someone to ask you in particular to spend the extra time upfront just because people are less familiar or more adversarial when it comes to you. But if something can lead to a better, less acrimonious discussion, that might be worth the extra effort whether anyone else does it or is expected to or not.
See I’m confused here…
Yes, and had that been his opinion, he might well have used one of them.
And he wasn’t asking you to care about him. He wasn’t even asking you to care about the person in the OP.
Yet, changing your mind about Lib wasn’t the point of the post.
No, not really. If I saw a stunning insight, I would be sure to mention it, though. You, and pretty much everyone in the thread referenced, were looking for an argument, and anticipating a criticism. And the fact is that Liberal is pretty much willing to oblige that. But the original response was neither. It was not a reference to a philosopher. It did not use exceptionally difficult vocabulary, or make abstruse philosophical points. It just spoke from a point of view that was not popular. It might serve you well to consider why you were so willing to hear this man’s voice as a condemnation. (the smelly guy, not Lib)
Tris
“Reserve your right to think, for even to think wrongly is better than not to think at all.” ~ Hypatia of Alexandria ~
The problem is not that you bring up unorthodox ideas - that sort of thing is the lifeblood of discussion. The problem, as I see it, is that you bring it up when it’s irrelevant. When there’s a discussion about, for instance, the argument over different types of sex ed classes in schools, it’s a relevant notion to suggest that perhaps it’s a sign that one-size-fits-all public education is not useful. (Though even then, it seems like often times active discussions that don’t relate to libertarian ideology end up hijacked into discussions of it, when a better solution would be to link to a new thread in GD about the possibility, and thus allow both discussions to continue unimpeded.)
However, it seems like you drop in when a student is complaining that the next student over never shuts off their cell phone in history class in order to condemn public education (or at least in comparable circumstances). It’s not that your view is invalid, it’s that it oftens seems to pop up when it’s not germane. When you pop into a thread with a one-line attempt to promote your own political view when it’s not terribly relevant to the discussion, it comes across as quite self-centered. That’s not to say your view shouldn’t be heard, just that it shouldn’t be heard at the cost of everyone else’s conversation.
A discussion is not an opportunity for each person to get their own views in, and to shout each other down in order to get the chance to talk. It’s a process in which people engage in an interactive communication. Not every discussion has room for a debate over libertarianism, so your one-liners and their subsequent drama often prevent other discussions that other people are enjoying. I’m not the first one to bring this idea up; it seems that people are intensely frustrated that so many threads turn into discussions of what you are interested in, even if others were having more fruitful (to them) conversations before your arrival. You’ve seen how unwilling people often are to respond to you in threads, and you can see that your one-liners and the ensuing periods of people trying to figure out what the dickens you were getting at manage to stop discussions in their tracks - all, generally, without even leading to a real debate over what you had to say. To continue with them in spite of that just strikes me as perverse.
I understand your own desire to advocate your views; I understand that your views are valid and - here more than most places, since there’s no limit to how much talking we can do - ought to be heard. But it’s damn annoying when another conversation ends so that one of yours can start. I don’t much like folks who do nothing but start threads and respond to their own discussions, but I think you could take a page from other posters and start your own conversations rather than piggybacking on everyone else’s. It’s galling to feel that one very prolific typist is controlling the direction of discussion for everyone else. I don’t want to imply that you’ve some how prevented all discussion of anything except your own pet issues, but you have to be aware that others have goals and interests, and they don’t necessarily coincide with yours.
The worst part is that libertarianism is a philosophy that I disagree with completely, and so I would greatly appreciate a chance to have an honest, open discussion about it sometime, and try to learn more about where libertarians are coming from. But your approach virtually guarantees others’ hostility, and I’m loathe to participate in hijacks of threads, so I’ve never really gotten the chance to talk about it.
And I’m sure you’ve published your own translation of the Vedas, too. I’ll look for it on the bookshelf next to your commentary on the Mo Zi.
Do you understand why this paragraph is irrelevant to the discussion? Do you understand why, assuming what you’ve said here is true, it comes across as an attempt to sound smarter than you are? Frankly, dear Liberal, there’s an abundance of great literature in the world, and the implication that I ought to have read the Bible, Mein Kampf, and the Bhagavad Gita rather than the books I’ve deemed important - again, it seems arrogant. (Why just the Bhagavad Gita, anyway? It’s an important Hindu writing, but if I’m not mistaken it’s not the core of Hindu belief either.)
At any rate, it’s hard to believe you’ve read all those texts to the point of quickly recognizing the most obscure references therein - and you seem to be the only one in the discussion who knows that story (Starving Artist, who evidently got your drift when I most obviously did not, still didn’t recognize the story.) Again, what you consider important is not necessarily important to others, and anyone here could cite knowledge that no one in the discussion shares. But it’s not conducive to genuine debate - just as I don’t launch into opaque metaphors based on Magic Realist literature, even if I enjoy it myself; why bother? Who would understand them?
Besides, I always give up trying to read the Bible during that boring bit in Genesis where they list hundreds of generations of family trees. Should I assume the book picks up from there?
I’m trying to explain these things as gently as I can here, since you seem at times not to recognize how and why others react to you. Don’t read this as an attack, because it’s not meant that way, and frankly, I probably wouldn’t succeed at being any nicer than this post.
Dishonest debate tactic alert! The assumption that libertarianism is the only route to individual happiness is not one that’s shared by everyone - and if you reread what you wrote here, you imply strongly that any alternative to libertarianism precludes the possibility of people “pursu[ing] their own happiness in their own way” - casting your opponents as folks who want to prevent that is sleazy and manipulative at best. It’s not helpful, and it doesn’t advance the cause of real discussion.
These little bits are where I start to doubt that you have anything real to say. Casting your adversaries in a debate as folks who want to stop “peaceful honest people” from finding “their own happiness” is dishonest, and you know it. Do you expect that to lead to real debate, since you claim to value debate so highly? Do you expect it to lead others to your cause? Neither is likely to happen.
True enough. I’ll at least give it a shot. Thanks, Apos.
This is likely out of timing for the rest of the thread, as I really don’t want to scroll through multiple pages pitting Liberal. Frankly, whether he might deserve it or not or whether he is a nasty little poop head or not I don’t really care.
I ain’t been here long, although I lurked for nearly a year before I joined up, but I found myself in heated discussion with **Lib ** in the Coulter-McKeown thread. And i gotta say this to Lib - I might not like some of your opinions much, frankly find it baffling that you consider yourself any political philosophy (much less Libertarian) as you are just all over the compass as far as I can see, and I think you are incredibly pedantic and far too precise to be much fun.
But I will give credit where credit is due - you make me think. You make me consider my point carefully, if nothing else to ensure that I can adequately fight back from your incredible debate-fu. And you make me consider before I post, whether something insulting and pithy in the pit or something real and meaningful, whether not only I am right but whether what I am about to say is worth fighting for.
And for that I thank you.
Well, consider whether you would ever believe that a circle could be constructed in this universe whose circumference was its diameter times pi. You might be open to seeing it, sure. But you know that it is a metaphysical impossibility because this universe is curved, and such circles may be constructed only on flat planes. In order to get me to change my mind about Peter having as much right to his property as Paul has to his own, you will first have to convince me that it is a metaphysical possibility that Peter, as a human being, is a non-sentient entity. Good luck with that.
I understand what you’re saying. If there’s a roomful of people, and one person dominates a discussion, it tends to elbow out others who might want to discuss something else. It becomes a choice between whether the majority should exit the room or whether the minority should (given that neither cares to stay and hear the other). Civility and good manners would dictate that the few who wish to discuss the less popular aspect of the topic go elsewhere. And that’s true. These, however, are not closed rooms. There is nothing to prevent you from ignoring me completely. I wish Dewey weren’t in here, but I can’t push him out, and my solution is simply to scroll on to the next post. If he were in my home, I’d throw him out. But I can’t do that here, and I shouldn’t even expect that here. You can continue to post in threads where I opine, and you can hold discussions with others and not engage me at all, just as I am doing here.
Libertarianism opposes initial force or deception, but not necessarily defensive force or deception. The gist of it is this: don’t start a fight, but feel free to defend yourself. Initial force or deception is called “coercion”. Libertarianism opposes coercion. Freedom is defined as “the absence of coercion”. Libertarianism advocates freedom. People who are peaceful (initiate no force) and honest (initiate no deception) ought to be free (from the coercion of others) to pursue their own happiness in their own way. From that simple principle, called “the Noncoercion Principle”, you may draw any and all inferences with respect to libertarianism.
Actually, the big genealogies are in Exodus. There are lots of exciting adventure stories, but I think that might be the wrong approach to readingh something like the Bible, or for that matter, the Manifesto. It’s wrong at least for me. When I read the Bible as an atheist, I did so for the sake of knowledge — specifically, for knowing what it said. I too found some of it boring, but some things are just more boring than others.
But then…
That really isn’t very nice.
Well, if that’s all there is to it, then we’ve resolved the problem here and now. You just link back to this post from time to time, and there will be no need to discuss it further. But since I think most people already know this, it would probably be worthwhile to have real discussion about it. I wish you were willing to do so, and I wish you were willing to do so in an appropriate forum. Discussions tend to end when they get pushed off the page by hijacks; there is plenty of room for you to start your own, and I think you’ll find that people will participate if you do. Since you’ve seen for yourself (and others have pointed out) that you manage to stop discussions in progress (even if you don’t think your actions should have that effect), it’s irrational to claim that they don’t. I really don’t wish for you to stop talking. I just wish you’d do it in more productive ways.
No. I’m not all that nice. There’s very few Polycarps, Sieges, or Doc_Cathodes in the world, and whatever one may imagine about a paradise in which everyone is unremittingly fair and approaches their fellow human with love, it’s not happening for either you or me. You ain’t built that way, and I ain’t either.
It wasn’t nice for you to imply that disagreement with you was tantamount to opposition to peace and the pursuit of happiness, either. I wish you’d apply the standards to your behavior that you apply to others, because, as I’ve said, an honest discussion of your knowledge would be illuminating for just about everyone. Characterizing disagreement with you as opposition to peace and happiness, though, is dishonest, it’s unfair, and it’s not nice. It’s lazy, and it’s not conducive to real discussion. I mentioned that in my last post, and for you to focus on one sentence of my response to it rather than its content suggests to me that you’re trying to avoid a real examination of your actions. I can’t say what’s in your mind, but that’s the impression it conveys to me. Your own unfairness is not mitigated by another person’s - there’s a Biblical quote that gets repeated far too often here on the SDMB that illustrates that point. I just wish you weren’t so quick to jump on others’ misdoings as a shortcut over more meaningful discussion.
I posted that last bit in a hurry, and I hope my tortured syntax and occasional agreement errors don’t get in the way of meaning. I’m sorry that it’s not up to the SDMB’s usual writing standards.
And yet when posters try to explore the practical ramifications of implementing your chosen philosophy – which would, of course, be the way of creating such a compelling argument – you simply refuse to consider their questions in any kind of depth. How convenient.
Incidentally, your description of your philosopy belies one of its most serious problems: most people aren’t “peaceful and honest,” at least not totally. Granted, most aren’t warlike and compulsively dishonest, either; most fall somewhere in between.
If all men were angels – heck, even if most men were angels – then libertarianism would work. So too, for that matter, would communism. Indeed, so would most any political philosophy. If all men are angels, the political system chosen is almost irrelevant, because everyone (or at least most everyone) can be counted on to do the right thing voluntarily. But that’s not the way things are in the real world. Most men are neither angels nor devils. Systems of governance should be crafted accordingly.
Of course, that’s just one of the problems. There are other problems related to how libertarianism handles a variety of commonplace, real-world problems. It would be nice if you were amenable to exploring those problems in depth. Tragically, you apparently are not willing to do so.
Unfortunately, as you can see from Dewey’s list, that has seldom been case. If I opened a thread today in GD called “Ask the Libertarian” and invitited you to question and discuss, I bet you $10 against $1 that before long, Dewey would be in there to paste his ill-conceived and self-serving list, and/or goad me with ridiculous questions about lighthouses and a mean old man who not only owns all the property around yours, but hates you as well, and has dedicated his whole life to sitting in his reading room and watching you suffer through his telescopic device that you invented and gave to him out of the goodness of your heart. I can explain to him how unlikely that would be and why. I can explain to him how many people had to commit economic suicide to make it happen. I can even show him examples of how the exact same thing is not only feasible, but commonplace, in the US (the mean old men are elected officials). But not one response will be acknowledged; rather, he will shoot out another forty-six questions, each a rehash of something already covered, for each point made. If you can convince him to butt out, I’ll gladly discuss the matter with you. Anywhere and anytime you like. Even when he breaks his word once he has given it, I will pay him no attention and continue the discussion with you. I just want him on record as giving it.
Seems like we get one of these Liberal Pit threads every six to nine months. Must be that time again.
I’m not sure what other people’s perceptions are, Lib, but I’ve honestly noticed cyclic changes in your attitude (for lack of a better word) in the past. When you’re “on,” you’re one of my favorite posters: witty and self-effacing and informative and honest. I’ll see a string of great posts and think, “hurray! It’s Good Lib!”
That’ll last for a few months, and then all of a sudden I’ll see a string of things – the things mentioned in this thread – that are just aggravating, and think, “oh, man. Bad Lib is back.” That’ll last for a few months, and then there’ll be a Pit thread or some other trigger, and, hurray! Good Lib is back. Continue the cycle.
I’m probably more familiar with the Bible than any of my acquantances who don’t actively participate in Bible study, and I had no idea that you were referring to a Biblical verse. Granted, that’s just me, but I certainly don’t think this verse would be as instantly recognizable as the “mote and beam” verse – or “God so loved the world” or “in the beginning” or “they know not what they do” or other more well-known verses. In addition, you’ve mixed the flow of the verse – it’s like saying “she’s a speck on a bump on a log.” Someone intimately familiar with the Biblical verse might pick up the allusion, but many will be confused by the change in context.
Now, I brought that up for a purpose; not to argue about the meaning or anything, but to illustrate a point. I don’t doubt that you posted the above statement with the full expectation that people would immediately understand what you meant. However, think about your audience for a minute. If I don’t get the allusion, you tell me that it’s a “fact” that the allusion is “not obscure or strange at all.” Could I not read that as condescension? Or maybe your expectation that everyone else is as familiar with individual Bible verses as you are is a fascination with minutae? Or perhaps I could infer that you’re being deliberately obtuse by expecting others to grasp your meaning from the thinnest of hints?
Note that I really don’t think any of those are true at all, but I do think that at times your expectation of your audience doesn’t match the reality, and perhaps that’s the root of some of these misunderstandings. [And I must add, too, that you’re being an awfully good sport about taking criticism. 'Tis a hard thing to do.]
There are not enough :rolleyes: in the world for this.
You’re seriously comparing my questioning the practical ramifications of libertarianism IN A THREAD ABOUT LIBERTARIANISM with your drive-by hijacking of threads into completely unrelated topics?
Sheesh.
Greetings, Zut! 
Yeah, that’s what I said myself a few pages back. I’ve made attempts before like this and have failed. But as I said there, that’s no reason not to try again.
As I said earlier, for every implication there can be a thousand inferences. Speaking for myself, if I see something that I consider obscure or ambiguous, I will ask about it. For example, I saw a discussion about “chavs”, and had no idea what anyone was talking about. So I asked, “What is a chav?”. Even when I was told, I wasn’t sure what it was. Someone gave me a cite with pictures of chavs, and all I could figure out was that it was people who wear caps. I don’t think I have it right yet, but I don’t care enough to pursue it further.
Thanks.
-
I’m not sure how that list is “ill conceived and self-serving,” since it contains a variety of discussion, including a parable written by you.
-
The lighthouse questions were not ridiculous; indeed, the lighthouse question is one of the common avenues of exploring how libertarianism would provide what the status quo calls public goods.
-
I don’t know where you get the last example. I have not, nor have I ever, pursued what you aptly call “giant squid” hypotheticals. Indeed, the overwhelming number of examples I used are ripped directly from actual court cases – that is, they reflect actual events that actually happened to actual people.
This is a lie, as anyone who wishes to revisit those old discussions can see. I responded to each of your points, and then asked further questions that were logically raised by your answer.
Why on earth would I do such a thing? Even when you ignore my questions, they remain valid, and readers of this board can see that. Your silence weakens your own position; by ignoring me, you only slit your own throat.
So no, I won’t be “butting out.” How lame is your chosen philosophy if you’ll only discuss it in the absence of a known critic? Buck up, young man, and don’t be so timid.
Tris…wow. Just, wow.