I pit easy Libertarian thinking

[foolsguinea]

Eternalone, you get the scorn today:

@Eternalone

The 2nd amendment has the phrase “well regulated” in it. How you can say that there is not restrictions is beyond me. There should only be restrictions on those who have proven they cannot be trusted with firearms-violent criminals, for example. There should be no restrictions on law abiding citizens.

“No restrictions” is not “well-regulated.” There are reasonable limits on category of weapon to avoid collateral damage. Your argument implies an unfamiliarity with weapons of war.

It is well documented that societies that are well armed have lower crime rates.

No it isn’t. There is no correlation. Please cite if you find a correlation, since you’re the one asserting an affirmative case.

If there were a correlation, the line of causality would most likely run the other way. Law-abiding populations don’t have to have their guns taken away. Societies that breed lynch mobs & street gangs (OH, WAIT! THAT’S US!!!) often do. Switzerland isn’t civilized because it’s armed. It might still be armed because it’s civilized.

Take a look at Switzerland. Nazi Germany avoided invading there for a reason.

Oh, great Lenin’s ghost, Oksana, if only the Ukrainians had resisted with firearms, the Nazis would have gone home!

Wait, they did resist, & it still took years of blood to drive out the Nazis.

You ignorant dimbulb. Yes, this is the stupid comment that inspired me to start a pit thread. But wait, I’m not done!

The economic system we have NOW favors the wealthy. Look at the increase in the gap between rich and poor in the last 11 years!!! Paul wants to eliminate all the tax loopholes and subsidies (paid for by us) given to companies that are already hugely profitable. Most of that money goes to the company upper management, not to the non-management employee.

Then he’s doing damage to his constituents. “Loopholes” are a dismissive word for deductions. As in not taxing monies used for something other than the enrichment of the owner of the business. “Closing loopholes,” was Reagan’s phrase, we did it thirty years ago, & the growth in income and wealth disparity is exactly due to that closing of loopholes.

True capitalism has laws/regulations that promote competition and free trade while punishing fraud, breaking up monopolies and collusion (price fixing), and having sound enviornmental regulation. It has nothing in common with anarchy. Anarchy literally means no rules, no law, no authority. No one is advocating that.

Great. I’m for those things. THAT’S WHY I’M A GREEN. THAT’S WHY I BELIEVE IN REDISTRIBUTION. AND THAT’S WHY I SUPPORT THE PIRATE PARTY.

Hardline anti-regulation* laissez-faire* policies don’t promote competition, because they don’t cultivate new competitors. In the present intellectual property system, we can in fact see dominant industries in a sector control new R&D in that sector & subvert all new competitors. Look up “Monsanto” or “Microsoft.”

If you think environmental regulation has any home in the present GOP alliance, come here so I can boot you in the head. Spare me.

Don’t vote for someone based on what you wish he were saying, when it contradicts what we know he’ll actually do.

[Der_Trihs]

@Eternalone

It is well documented that societies that are well armed have lower crime rates. Take a look at Switzerland.

Or Afghanistan! Everyone knows how peaceful and low crime Afghanistan is!

[randomface]

Any link to the original thread?

[Der_Trihs]

@randomface

Any link to the original thread?

Click on the little tab by Eternalone’s name at the top of the quote.

[randomface]

Thanks. Learn something new every day. Or at least once a week.

[mhendo]

It’s about time someone on this board had the courage to criticize libertarianism.

[zoid]

@mhendo

It’s about time someone on this board had the courage to criticize libertarianism.

Your point being what? That once a stupid idea is criticized, further arguments in favor of that stupid idea should not be rebutted?

[mhendo]

@zoid

Your point being what? That once a stupid idea is criticized, further arguments in favor of that stupid idea should not be rebutted?

Not really.

I’ve been pretty critical of particular aspects of libertarianism quite often on these boards. I hardly seems like we can go a couple of weeks, however, without someone starting a new thread to make the same arguments over again.

[zoid]

@mhendo

Not really.

I’ve been pretty critical of particular aspects of libertarianism quite often on these boards. I hardly seems like we can go a couple of weeks, however, without someone starting a new thread to make the same arguments over again.

Well in all fairness foolsguinea started this in response to assertions made by Eternalone, my point being that silly ideas must be rebutted again and again as long as they continue to be forwarded. My fear is that if we throw up our hands these ideas may take root for lack of resistance.

[I_Know_Nothing]

Occam’s Razor=the simplest answer is always right. More guns equals less crime. Five words. Must be true.

Places hands over ears, rocks back and forth while singing Jesus Loves Me

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@mhendo

Not really.

I’ve been pretty critical of particular aspects of libertarianism quite often on these boards. I hardly seems like we can go a couple of weeks, however, without someone starting a new thread to make the same arguments over again.

There are some libertarian ideas that make sense but they are not the ideas that make libertarianism different. The ideas that make libertarianism different from mainstream political and economic throught are the ones that deserve ridicule every time they are presented.

[Rand_Rover]

Such as . . . ?

[mhendo]

@zoid

Well in all fairness foolsguinea started this in response to assertions made by Eternalone, my point being that silly ideas must be rebutted again and again as long as they continue to be forwarded. My fear is that if we throw up our hands these ideas may take root for lack of resistance.

I’m arguing for throwing up our hands.

I just don’t see the point in broad, ideologically-based pittings like this. If you disagree with a particular philosophy or argument, then argue against it. For example, what was to stop the OP from rationally and logically refuting Eternalone’s position in the original thread? Not one of the quotes in the OP couldn’t have been addressed there. Why did it require a Pit thread? If you can attack someone’s position only by dragging them to the Pit, it suggests that you might not have much substance in your own arguments.

I’m not averse to playing in the Pit, nor to heaping abuse on people if the thread is already here and i feel that it’s warranted. But it seems to me that dragging an argument to the Pit simply because you hold a different political position is a rather pointless exercise.

Just MHO.

[mhendo]

@zoid

Well in all fairness foolsguinea started this in response to assertions made by Eternalone, my point being that silly ideas must be rebutted again and again as long as they continue to be forwarded. My fear is that if we throw up our hands these ideas may take root for lack of resistance.

I’m arguing for throwing up our hands.

I just don’t see the point in broad, ideologically-based pittings like this. If you disagree with a particular philosophy or argument, then argue against it. For example, what was to stop the OP from rationally and logically refuting Eternalone’s position in the original thread? Not one of the quotes in the OP couldn’t have been addressed there. Why did it require a Pit thread? If you can attack someone’s position only by dragging them to the Pit, it suggests that you might not have much substance in your own arguments.

I’m not averse to playing in the Pit, nor to heaping abuse on people if the thread is already here and i feel that it’s warranted. But it seems to me that dragging an argument to the Pit simply because you hold a different political position is a rather pointless exercise.

Just MHO.

[mhendo]

@mhendo

I’m arguing for throwing up our hands.

This, of course, should read “I’m NOT arguing for throwing up our hands.”

Also, Mods, i don’t know how i posted a second identical post. Could you remove one, if you get a moment?

[zoid]

@mhendo

This, of course, should read “I’m NOT arguing for throwing up our hands.”

Also, Mods, i don’t know how i posted a second identical post. Could you remove one, if you get a moment?

Point taken. I agree pitting is not the first line of defense.

[foolsguinea]

I was trying not to hijack the other thread.

[zoid]

@foolsguinea

I was trying not to hijack the other thread.

It seems I should have just kept my big mouth shut :smack:

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@Rand_Rover

Such as . . . ?

Well, I suppose it depends on the flavor of libertarianism you subscribe to but the notion that the government’s role should be limited to protecting property rights is pretty silly.

Laissez faire capitalism has a history of pretty horrible results.

Supply side economics is pretty demonstrably fundamentally flawed.

[Der_Trihs]

@foolsguinea

I pit easy Libertarian thinking

Fortunately, most Libertarians find thinking anything but easy.