If I understand Libertarianism correctly, yes. 
Can’t afford kids? Don’t have them. Instead of having sex, they should be starting a business, which, because there won’t be any government regulations to oppress it, will make them a reasonable income and allow breeding.
Ah yes, that explains the small families of Industrial Age factory workers. They almost always had only one or two children. If any.
I fail to see how either of these quotes in any way refutes Excalibre’s claim that altruism is immoral under Rand’s doctrine of objectivism.
He posited such, and he never did say anything about how many kids, because it’s irrelevant. And this is a hijack, which is at least partly my fault.
To the OP and everyone else in the thread who actually want to talk about textbook selection: Sorry about that.
Point of fact - if the crazy right-wingers are in favor of phonics-based reading education, I support 'em in that (and only that) area. This whole-language bullshit is a great way to make sure kids never properly learn to read. Guess the word from context my ass!
Lib, he wasn’t addressing you, but answering another poster on something completely unrelated.
Now please, start your own damned thread.
Jayjay, would the Gablers be related to a large movement back in the 1980s about textbooks and Christianity? I seem to recall one where a woman complained because they showed girls using tools and boys making toast-SECULAR HUMANISM IS DESTROYING THE BIBLICAL ROLES OF MAN AND WOMAN!!!
Either way…damn. That’s fucking scary. Seems like they could benefit from actually reading a textbook, rather than changing them.
As mhendo noted in his post above (#25), the Gablers go back much farther than that, into the 1960s. I’m sure they were part of the movement in the 80s, of course, but they’re not products of it.
Let me ask you: has it ever been the case that, when you have swooped into a thread, parked your broom, and barked orders at me, that I have listened to you? Repeatedly doing the same thing while expecting a different result in one sign of mental instability.
No problem. But please keep your wits about you in the future.
Oh, dear. Liberal, are you back on that drug that made you so unpleasant a while back? Perhaps a cup of herbal tea would help you maintain your decorum.
On a similar note, for all the stumping you do for libertarianism on this site, have you ever convinced anyone of the superiority of your position?
Don’t know about superiority, but it was no less than Phil Dennison (PLDennison) who came into a thread one Monday morning and announced that he could no longer begrudge me my inoffensive political philosophy. He said that he had thought our latest discussion over through the weekend and happened to realize that substantially the same arguments I was making for people, he had always made for animals. Graciously, he informed me that he no longer would be a combattant and, in fact, for the remainder of his time here, he was a most eloquent expressionist of the Noncoercion Principle. I miss him terribly, not just for that, but because in other discussions as well, he raised the timbre of discourse and contributed so much.
Can’t say as I remembr PLDennison, but I will, of course, take your word for it. So that’s one person converted. After almost 20,000 posts. Heck of a success rate you’ve got going for yourself, Lib.
Any response to my last post on the first page?
I really don’t measure success that way since, as I’ve said many times, I’m not out to convert anyone. I’ve heard from many people, including some of my bitterest opponents, that they like libertarianism in principle as I have explained it, but find it impractical with respect to implementation. And I always concede that implimentation in our present society, given its reliance on the government teat, is problematic at least. However, I also remind them that what is practical depends entirely on what you are practicing. If you are practicing tyranny, then there is no more impractical philosophy than libertarianism. If, on the other hand, you are practicing voluntary relations in a context of peace and honesty, then libertarianism is the only practical way. At the end of the day, few people have been repulsed by the notion of peaceful honest people pursuing their own happiness in their own way. All I’m trying to do is make people aware, and keep them aware, that there is an alternative way of looking at things. In that, I believe that I have been successful.
Regarding your “last post on the first page”, keep in mind that not everyone paginates the same way. Many of us customize our User CP. But I found the post to which you are likely refering, and I thought you meant it merely as rhetorical sarcasm. But if you really want an answer, then my answer would be that they are freezing on the streets right now (you can Google “homeless freezing”). And part of the reason, in my opinion, is that people believe they have paid their taxes and therefore done their duty. It is someone else’s problem. Interestingly, you do not even allow them to squat on what you call “public property”. They are arrested as vagrants and thrown in jail. So, I believe that if you are seeking a moral highground from which to attack volunteerism, you should keep on searching. After all, most of the accomodations for the homeless are provided by volunteers.
Incidentally, Phil began posting in March, 1999, and logged nearly 7,500 posts until 2002, when he pretty much disappeared. I assure you he taught me more than I taught him. Discussions with people like him, Spiritus Mundi, and Gaudere on topics like atheism were incredibly edifying. If you missed out on those discussions in the early days, I can see why you might think that I suddenly landed one day and began railing against the machine, as it were.
I wasn’t aware of that. I’ll try to be more specific in the future.
Surely, though, you must concede that historically, when Western society did not have any welfare system in place, the problems of vagrancy and the morality rate among the homeless were far more severe than they are now. Victorian society seems, to me, to be closer to the libertarian ideal you champion than the current model, and the poverty and homelessness in that society was apalling. When there was no government safety net, private citizens still did not take it upon themselves to help those less fortunate in sufficient numbers to offset the problem. Why would that be different now?
Where have I said anything about volunteerism? I get my moral highground from the fact that libertarianism, as you have presented it, is the most dehumanizing and degrading political system I can imagine outside of Stalinist communism. Which is odd, because before I started reading your posts on the subject, I was moderately inclined to adopt it myself.
But volunteerism is great, I fully support volunteerism, I think its an important supplement to a government-back welfare program. To suggest that it could adequatly replace the current welfare is, at least on its face, completely ludicrous.
One easy way to reference posts is to right-click on the ordinal number in the upper right corner of the post, and click copy. You can then past a link directly to the post.
I think you meant “mortality”, and I’m not picking on the typo. It just brought a chuckle. The legitimate role for government, libertarianly speaking, is to guarantee every citizen a context of peace and honesty. I’m not sure that Victorian society did that, especially with its “new imperialism” and Victoria’s fetish over being an empress and what-not.
Libertarianism and volunteerism are synonyms. Libertarian government governs no one without his free and willful consent.
Perhaps, but if you spend some time at Cato, Free-Market, and other libertarian sites, you might find that there is more beneath the surface. Obviously, there isn’t time or space here to go into detail, and I’m confident in your ability to do independent research, but consider, just for one example, that the onerous welfare system in many ways creates its own clients. What hope is there for the eight children of the single mother and five dead-beat dads in the ghetto who has now qualified for full assistance by having the right number of kids? What would have been her incentive to bring new lives into her own poverty without such a system in place? Certainly, I’m not saying that in every case, poor people take on more than they can afford, and it isn’t always about money. We were poor. Outdoor plumbing and the whole thing. But we were loved and cared for, and we didn’t even know we were poor until we got older and other kids told us. And I’m certainly not saying that libertarianism solves all the problems. In fact, I’ve said many times that it doesn’t solve any problems. All it does is provide a context of peace (no initial force) and honesty (no initial deception) so that people can solve their own.
Incidentally, whatever history you and I might have, and whatever you might think of me, I am enjoying our present exchange. Unless you have further questions, I think I’ll just move along. It is far better, in my view, to gain a friend than a convert.
I’ll skip the obvious joke about fucking teachers and just say this: I am so glad to be teaching at the college level and on an activist campus with no “free speech zone.” I give thanks every day that I don’t have to deal with such crap.
But I still worry.
Heh. Yes, I did mean mortality.
Fair enough, but in regards to the treatment of the poorest portions of society, I think there is a valid analogy to be made.
Is this a personal defintion, a libertarian definition, or a popular definition? I would not, under most circumstances, consider the two terms synonymous. However, if that’s how you are using them, I will try to keep that in mind.
I’ll keep them in mind, but at this point, I don’t really see any compelling reason to invest significant amounts of time researching libertarianism, especially now that I don’t have nearly as much free time on my hands as I used to.
Not much, to be sure, but I’m convinced that there is more than there would be without welfare.
Companionship. Support. Boredom. Instinct. Religious belief. There are a lot of reasons for wanting, or even genuinely needing, a larger family when you are poor that have nothing to do with government programs. If large families living in poverty is caused by the welfare state, why are there large families living in poverty in nations that do not have a welfare system? If government policy can have such a direct, measurable effect on family size, why is it that China’s draconian measures to reduce family size have met with so little success?
This makes no sense to me. If libertarianism doesn’t solve any problems, if it doesn’t make things better, then what good is it?
I’d rather have friends than enemies, but I’m afraid I can’t really consider you a friend, Liberal, even by message board standards. However, I do generally make an effort (not always succesful) to leave any disagreement I have with a poster in the thread in which that disagreement occured. I would prefer if our future interactions took on more of the tenor this one has had, but one relatively pleasant encounter isn’t enough to change my opinion.
On the other hand, when I first started posting here, you were one of my favorite posters. That has since changed. Maybe it can change back.