Home | Community | Message Board


This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.


Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Shop: PhytoExtractum Buy Bali Kratom Powder   Original Sensible Seeds Bulk Cannabis Seeds   North Spore North Spore Mushroom Grow Kits & Cultivation Supplies   Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   Bridgetown Botanicals CBD Concentrates

Jump to first unread post Pages: < Back | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | Next >  [ show all ]
InvisibleXlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/25/01
Posts: 9,134
Re: Why I'm not a libertarian [Re: ]
    #2804157 - 06/17/04 11:44 PM (19 years, 8 months ago)

i'll keep this simple

I wasn't expecting anything more.

nor would he defend the "right" to accept employment offers from children (who because of their age are unable to make informed consent), nor intimidate those who would organize for collective bargaining in labor relations

Yet you are aware that unsafe working conditions, child labour, intimidation of unions and low pay are major features of western corporate utilisation of the third world labour that pinky robustly defends? How is it possible to defend sweatshop labour and condemn it's defining characteristics at the same time?

Please pause and THINK about that. Don't just pass it over in your blind haste to type another irrelevant reply.

these things that you claim pinksharkmark would "defend to [his] last breath"

So what do you think he was referring to when he defended the right of corporations to offer labour in conditions that would make an "american unionised worker die of apoplexy"? Why on earth would they die of apoplexy if there was decent working conditions, no child labour, unions were allowed and they were paid a fair wage?

I repeat, WHY would they die of apoplexy?

your statement was false

As I told pink, it's no use repeating falsehoods in the hope they'll suddenly become true. Pink has repeatedly defended the right of corporations to offer jobs in conditions that would make an american worker die of apoplexy. Until you can offer an explanation for what these conditions may be, my statement remains obviously true.


--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisibleluvdemshrooms
Two inch dick..but it spins!?
 User Gallery


Registered: 11/29/01
Posts: 34,247
Loc: Lost In Space
Re: Why I'm not a libertarian [Re: Xlea321]
    #2804563 - 06/18/04 03:09 AM (19 years, 8 months ago)

Wrong again. Your statement was, is, and remains yet another of your lies.


--------------------
You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Anonymous

Re: Why I'm not a libertarian [Re: Xlea321]
    #2804804 - 06/18/04 08:12 AM (19 years, 8 months ago)

Yet you are aware that unsafe working conditions, child labour, intimidation of unions and low pay are major features of western corporate utilisation of the third world labour that pinky robustly defends? How is it possible to defend sweatshop labour and condemn it's defining characteristics at the same time?

and he does not defend those characteristics. what he defends is an employer's right to offer employment at any wage they like, and accept voluntary advances on those offers.

please explain why the practices of employing child slaves and forcefully cracking down on unionziers are inseparable from providing voluntary employment at whatever you consider to be lower-than-acceptable wages.

the fact of the matter is that these practices are not indivisible, but quite the opposite. they are actually mutually exclusive. one cannot be employing child slaves and intimidating unionizers, and in the same instance be offering voluntary employment. it is a logical contradiction.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleRandalFlagg
Stranger
Registered: 06/15/02
Posts: 15,608
Re: Why I'm not a libertarian [Re: Phred]
    #2805747 - 06/18/04 01:27 PM (19 years, 8 months ago)


DoctorJ writes:

I liked what randall flagg said earlier, which was basically
something to the extent : governments cause destruction and waste,
but when people are left to their own devices, they will destroy and
waste as well.



Even assuming all his premises are correct (and not all are)


Gasp!  How dare you question my premises  :mad:

just kidding.  :grin: :grin:

Given that you lean towards Libertarian thought, I have noticed that
you tend to give Man more credit than I think he deserves.  I think
that you think that most men will act in a responsible and honorable
way if they are allowed to have the utmost freedom in their lives.
I respect your views and your intelligence, but I cannot shake my
distrust of our species.  Every possible interaction I can think of,
whether it is on a grand governmental scale or on a purely personal
level, Man consistently fucks it up.  Now, I have a Libertarian streak
myself.  I abhor governmental interference and especially income
redistribution for example.

I guess what I am trying to say is that Man has made this world.
Dictatorships and brutal regimes exist all over and have for as
long as history has been recorded.  Every once in a while some men
seem to strive for a noble personal responsibility that would make the
world a better place.  But, this state never lasts forever.  People
consistently give up their hard won freedoms because of security,
comfort, and fear.

The freedoms that the Libertarian viewpoint espouses sound great and
they are great.  But, can Man maintain them?  Does Man deserve them? 
Should Man even strive for them?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleRandalFlagg
Stranger
Registered: 06/15/02
Posts: 15,608
Re: Why I'm not a libertarian [Re: DoctorJ]
    #2805823 - 06/18/04 01:47 PM (19 years, 8 months ago)


It doesn't matter to me if its the government or people doing it;
human failure and misery is wrong and must be prevented at all costs.


The only way to prevent misery and failure is to control Mankind
mercilessly. And given that Man is so flawed, when He tries to
control his fellow Man, He usually ends up making things worse than
they were to begin with. Freedom is not easy. It contains the true
possibility of failure and hardship. That is something we just
have to deal with. Life is not fair.


Technology and science are changing everything. They have impowered
the individual far more than government or religion have ever
managed.


Beware of the person who proclaims that science and technology will
be the savior of Man. Marx said that. And look at the putrid and
horrible things that resulted from his ideas.

The main concerns of the posters on this board seem to be the
condition of Man. Every person here has a different idea of what
Man should strive for and how He should live. Some seem to be
concerned that people should have material comfort(food, housing,
medical care) and some are concerned that people should have absolute
freedom. Whatever path we embark upon, it will not be perfect.
There will be flaws.

People and life in general is hard to quantify. It is unrealistic
to try to apply a single theory to the entire world. Too many of us
people who like to think easily slip into being arrogant(I include
myself in this statement). A little humbleness never hurt anybody.

I seriously doubt that we are in anyway changing the world by
posting our ideas for a few people on the internet. I look at things
this way:

Your life is your life. Put yourself whereever you want to be and
don't complain.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 2 months
Re: Why I'm not a libertarian [Re: Xlea321]
    #2807801 - 06/18/04 11:43 PM (19 years, 8 months ago)

Alex123 writes:

Then do you have a past post where you have condemned a third world employer for utilising child labour, unsafe working conditions or intimidating union organisers?

That's not how it works, Alex. You lie about my position, therefore it is up to you to prove that I in fact defend the practices you listed, it is not up to me to provide anything. But as it happens, I do have past posts condemning such practices in the archives. I have no doubt you encountered them while you were frantically searching for the non-existent posts of mine showing I defend those practices.

Seeing as you dodged the question, here it is again:

See above.

You don't answer my questions, Alex, because doing so would reveal the idiocy of your positions. Instead you derail. This is a standard tactic of yours. Here's the situation as it stands: you made a false accusation, I called you on it. Put up or shut up, don't try your standard slippery weasel tactics of hoping to divert attention from the point.

Nope, it was edited at the time I was writing it as I'm sure you're perfectly aware. The first time I saw your reply was 9 hours later.

LOL! You lie once again. The original cut and paste is in my reply. Anyone can compare the two and see the difference. Your chutzpah knows no limit. Do you think anyone reading that baldfaced lie will believe it when the evidence to the contrary is right in front of their own eyes? That's a truly pathetic attempt at denial. Have you any self-respect at all?

For your information, the admins made a script change yesterday (at my request) to the "mark as edited?" function to return things to the way they were prior to the last UBB code update. From now on you cannot edit a post you have made once someone has replied to it without a notification appearing at the bottom of the post indicating that it has been edited. In other words, no more secret after-the-fact editing. No more Stalinist re-writing of history.


pinky


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleXlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/25/01
Posts: 9,134
Re: Why I'm not a libertarian [Re: ]
    #2808020 - 06/19/04 01:14 AM (19 years, 8 months ago)

and he does not defend those characteristics. what he defends is an employer's right to offer employment at any wage they like, and accept voluntary advances on those offers.

Your position beggars belief mush. Why do you think western corporations utilise third world labour in the first place? To offer them jobs featuring decent working conditions and unionised labour?

the fact of the matter is that these practices are not indivisible, but quite the opposite. they are actually mutually exclusive. one cannot be employing child slaves and intimidating unionizers, and in the same instance be offering voluntary employment

So you deny child labour, unsafe working conditions and intimidation of unions is a feature of corporate utilisation of third world labour?

it is a logical contradiction

It's certainly a logical contradiction to defend sweatshop labour while condemning every feature of it.


--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleXlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/25/01
Posts: 9,134
Re: Why I'm not a libertarian [Re: Phred]
    #2808037 - 06/19/04 01:27 AM (19 years, 8 months ago)

I do have past posts condemning such practices in the archives

Sorry but I have a hard time believing a man who can make up multiple lies in a single thread like "You want people banned for flaming", "I have banned people for flaming you" etc.

Find me a post where you defend the right of third world employees to decent wages, working conditions, unions and no child labour. Should be simple enough. 

I have no doubt you encountered them while you were frantically searching for the non-existent posts of mine showing I defend those practices

Nope, not one.

This is a standard tactic..blah..waffle....Your chutzpah..truly pathetic..blah...flame  

It's true isn't it. The weaker your argument, the more hysterical and emotional the personal attacks become  :grin:

You lie once again

How long did it take you to reply to my post? Are you absolutely sure I didn't edit my post before I ever saw your reply? I can assure you the first time I saw your reply to my post was 9 hours later.

In other words, no more secret after-the-fact editing. No more Stalinist re-writing of history.

I'm sorry pink but you're living in a fantasy. I edit posts when I post them and for a few minutes after when I read through them. I certainly never saw your post and then went back to the original post and edited it - what would be the point of that if I had noticed you had already quoted the original post in your reply? Get over yourself.


--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 2 months
Re: Why I'm not a libertarian [Re: Xlea321]
    #2808289 - 06/19/04 04:05 AM (19 years, 8 months ago)

Still avoiding the issue, I see.

Find a post of mine showing I defend such practices or drop it.

As for your editing your post after it had been replied to, clearly you did. The original version is in my reply. The time stamps on both your post and mine tell the tale. If it were anyone else trying to weasel out of such an ironclad indictment, I'd regard his attempt with stunned disbelief. Sadly, given your past history, I guess it was inevitable you'd attempt such a feeble bluster. Reminds me of the infamous "Mompo" parody posted here a year or so ago.

Fortunately, the edit script has been changed so that you can't do it again and the readers won't be subjected to the spectacle of a grown man making an ass of himself in public.

Alex, the tactics you habitually use when posting are beneath contempt. When caught in an outright lie -- one so obvious that I have others agreeing with me and pointing it out as well -- your response is to call me a liar. Most of us outgrew that dodge somewhere between kindergarten and fourth grade. Show some integrity just once in your life, for your own sake if no one else's.

Your posts have never been worthy of serious consideration since the day they started appearing in this forum. The hysteria, exaggeration, flames and insults, refusal to accept facts, evasions, dodges, intellectual dishonesty, selective quoting, misquoting and outright barefaced lying they contain are so blatant and never-ending that even when they do occasionally note something worth considering (and yes, every now and then one of your points actually has a smidgen of merit to it) no one bothers. You've shot yourself in the foot so often that the stump now terminates somewhere around midthigh.

Don't call me a liar again.

pinky


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisibleluvdemshrooms
Two inch dick..but it spins!?
 User Gallery


Registered: 11/29/01
Posts: 34,247
Loc: Lost In Space
Re: Why I'm not a libertarian [Re: Phred]
    #2808313 - 06/19/04 04:40 AM (19 years, 8 months ago)

Ah yes, the mompo post.....

I can just imagine your childhood.....

mompo: Alpo, why is your hand in the cookie jar?
Alpo: Golly Mom, you ignorant shit, it's not my hand.
mompo: But it's attached to your arm.
Alpo: Are you stupid or something? I said it's not my hand!
mompo: But Alpo, I can see the evidence.
Alpo: Fuck you! Are you blind as well as stupid?


Always worthy of a re-post.


--------------------
You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisibleluvdemshrooms
Two inch dick..but it spins!?
 User Gallery


Registered: 11/29/01
Posts: 34,247
Loc: Lost In Space
Re: Why I'm not a libertarian [Re: Xlea321]
    #2808314 - 06/19/04 04:41 AM (19 years, 8 months ago)

No dignity.

No shame.

Not a honest bone.


--------------------
You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleXlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/25/01
Posts: 9,134
Re: Why I'm not a libertarian [Re: Phred]
    #2808375 - 06/19/04 06:33 AM (19 years, 8 months ago)

Still avoiding the issue

Your tiresome flames are somehow "addressing" the issue?

Find a post of mine showing I defend such practices

I already did. You can find them posted 4 pages ago. You have repeatedly made posts defending corporate exploitation of third world labour in conditions that would, in your own words, make an american worker "die of apoplexy".

I know you'll dodge this again, but what conditions were you referring to that would make an american die of apoplexy?

As for your editing your post after it had been replied to, clearly you did.

This is a blatant lie. Once again, repeating lies doesn't make them true. The first time I saw your post was 9 hours later. What possible point is there in going back and editing an old post after it has been replied to? I would simply address your flame in my next post.

I'd best check with the admins whether you used my name and lied to them about this.

Your posts..blah..blah..flame..flame..waffle

Jeez man, grow up. You're supposed to be a mod.


--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleXlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/25/01
Posts: 9,134
Re: Why I'm not a libertarian [Re: Phred]
    #2808392 - 06/19/04 07:02 AM (19 years, 8 months ago)

The original version is in my reply. The time stamps on both your post and mine tell the tale. If it were anyone else trying to weasel out of such an ironclad indictment, I'd regard his attempt with stunned disbelief. Sadly, given your past history, I guess it was inevitable you'd attempt such a feeble bluster. Reminds me of the infamous "Mompo" parody posted here a year or so ago.

What are you talking about? The timestamp on my post is 12.05am. Your post was made at 12.29am. How does this prove your point?


--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Anonymous

Re: Why I'm not a libertarian [Re: Xlea321]
    #2808509 - 06/19/04 09:51 AM (19 years, 8 months ago)

please explain why the practices of employing child slaves and forcefully cracking down on unionziers are inseparable from providing voluntary employment at whatever you consider to be lower-than-acceptable wages.

you see alex, the important word here is voluntary. pinksharkmark supports only voluntary interactions, and you know it. pinksharkmark cannot defend forced labor or intimidations of unionizers because these are initiations of force.

if such practices truly are defining characteristics of what you consider to be a sweatshop, then pinksharkmark cannot be a defender of such a sweatshop.

1. forcing children to work is an initiation of force.

2. intimidating and threatening unionizers is an initiation of force.

3. pinksharkmark does not defend anyone's "right" to initiate force, but condemns the practice.

4. therefore, pinksharkmark doesn't defend the practice of forced child labor or intimidation of unionizers, but condemns these practices.

5. you knew these facts to be true when you made a statement claiming that pinksharkmark supports child labor and intimidation of unionizers.

6. therefore, you lied.

you built a blatant strawman, and everyone called you on it. you lied. be an adult and admit your error. the weaseling you're doing now is a hell of a lot worse than the original lie.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinegeokillsA
∙∙∙∙☼ º¿° ☼∙∙∙∙
Male User Gallery

Registered: 05/08/01
Posts: 23,544
Loc: city of angels Flag
Last seen: 4 hours, 3 minutes
Re: Why I'm not a libertarian [Re: Xlea321]
    #2808928 - 06/19/04 02:17 PM (19 years, 8 months ago)

This thread is bordering on the edge of annihilation. That is, if we cannot keep civil in our debate, and discuss matters at hand without driving tangents into the ground that involve personal battle, then this thread will be closed and action will be taken against those who refuse to post constructively henceforth.

In other words, stop this back and forth bullshit about who's lying and debate the thread's topic in articulate, related, and respectful fashion. Thank ye.


--------------------

--------------------
··∙   long live the shroomery  ∙··
...π╥ ╥π...

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisiblePapaverS
Madmin Emeritus?

Registered: 06/01/02
Posts: 26,880
Loc: Radio Free Tibet!
Re: Why I'm not a libertarian [Re: geokills]
    #2808987 - 06/19/04 03:01 PM (19 years, 8 months ago)

^^^^^ What he said...


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisiblePapaverS
Madmin Emeritus?

Registered: 06/01/02
Posts: 26,880
Loc: Radio Free Tibet!
Re: Why I'm not a libertarian [Re: Papaver]
    #2809051 - 06/19/04 03:45 PM (19 years, 8 months ago)

I just want to be clear here. We're not singling out any single person for blame, but we want things to chill in general.

So...

1) No name calling;

2) No changing your post history and denying it; and

3) No dragging down threads with personal battles and animosities.

Members should respect staff, and staff should respect members. If there are any future problems (and I know I'm going to regret saying this), please send a PM to an Admin.  Above all else, please try to behave as nicely as possible towards each other. Make your mother's proud of their sons and daughters.

Thank You! :laugh:

PS: And please remember to be flexible always and in all ways. As R. W. Emerson once said: "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds."

/me ducks barrage of incoming poisoned darts...


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleXlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/25/01
Posts: 9,134
Re: Why I'm not a libertarian [Re: Papaver]
    #2810406 - 06/20/04 02:37 AM (19 years, 8 months ago)

LOL!

Good work Pap. Sorry it was down to you to have to bring the board back to order.


--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 2 months
Re: Why I'm not a libertarian [Re: DoctorJ]
    #2810843 - 06/20/04 09:45 AM (19 years, 8 months ago)

DoctorJ writes:

I did not say 'the initiation of force' I said 'destruction and waste'.

I realize that. Yet you tied morality to it. "Destruction" and "waste" are not in and of themselves immoral actions. See my example of using champagne to wash my bicycle.

Destruction and waste can occur without the initiation of force, and destruction and waste can be prevented by the initiation of force.

Destruction of what? Waste of what? I ask again, who has been harmed if I destroy my shoes? Or let my bread sit on the counter till it gets too moldy to eat and must be thrown away?

For example, and individual who decides to drive an SUV is wasting oil and contributing to the destruction of the environment.

Ah, the knee-jerk Leftie demonization of the dreaded SUV. Follow your argument through to its logical conclusion, Doc. Let's broaden the scope from just vehicles to some of the other possessions of a particular human and see where it leads, shall we?

The same guy who owns the SUV also owns a television and a stereo and a computer and a cell phone. All those items require "destruction" of the environment in just about every phase of their existence, from the production of electricity consumed in their manufacture to the open pit mines used to provide the copper they contain to the oil consumed by the truck or ship or train that delivered it from the plant to the warehouse of the distributor to the retail store where they were purchased. They both contribute to continued waste of resources -- the plastic products used to manufacture the CDs and DVDs played on the stereo and computer and DVD and VCR hooked to the TV were made from oil -- a non-renewable resource. Our hypothetical consumer owns quite a few CDs and DVDs and VHS videotapes, and he buys more on a regular basis. All of the above gadgets are a "waste" -- human existence does not require TVs or stereos or computers or cell phones. As an example, I myself have only one of the four items listed above, and I existed happily for years without a computer.

Furthermore, the TVs and stereos are sold by wasteful salespeople -- people who could otherwise be involved in jobs for which government testing has determined they are better suited -- designing and/or building interstellar colonization vehicles, for example.

This same SUV guy also has carpet on the wood floors of his house, as well as plastic floor coverings like vinyl and linoleum in the kitchen and bathroom. The environment was "destroyed" in order to produce the carpet, the wood planks, the rolls of linoleum. Resources were "wasted" to provide them. He needs none of them in order to survive. Nor does he need his air conditioner, or his hot water heater or his shower or his toilet or his three sinks or his bookcase or his collection of Isaac Asimov and Robert Heinlein and Neal Stephenson novels.. Neither does he need the comfortable furniture in his living room, nor the elegant desk and dresser in his bedroom. All these things were produced by "destroying" the environment, all are quite obviously a "waste" since none of them are necessities.

I live in a country where many many people have none -- literally not a single one -- of the items mentioned above. I recently visited some people living in the mountains near the Haitian border. There was an entire farming community full of healthy, friendly, smiling people who had not a single one of those items among them. There isn't even any electricity in the entire village, or any of the other villages for miles around.

To be consistent in your condemnation of "destruction" and "waste", you would have to advocate that we all live like the people in that village.

Government regulation of SUVs could prevent this waste and destruction via the initiation of force (or threat thereof)

What kind of additional regulation are you advocating here? There are already thousands of government regulations (more likely tens of thousands) governing virtually every aspect of the production, sale and use of that SUV. The only other regulation I can think of is one prohibiting people who want one from buying one. Is that what you mean? Sort of like the regulation prohibiting me from hiring someone who hasn't passed the test.

It seems to me that our differences stem from the fact that you are concerned with what is 'right' (in a moral sense) and I am more concerned with what actually works.

The difference is that you haven't yet realized that the two are not mutually exclusive. The moral is the practical.

I thought it wasn't the most effective, just the most 'moral'.

It is both.

So, if we tore down all the stops signs and just let people cross intersetions at their own will, this would reduce car accidents and the misery they create?

If you choose not to put stop signs on your own property, no one will object. If those who own other intersections feel that stop signs and stoplights are a good idea, they will install them. Note that even in non-Libertarian countries there are intersections without stop signs. My parents live in Canada. There are neighborhoods with "T" intersections with no stop signs.

I would argue that at least some force is necessary to keep people from killing themselves pointlessly.

You believe that helmet laws, seatbelt laws, laws against riding in the back of pickup trucks and laws against suicide are necessary?

its not proof of anything, it just illustrates the point that no one set of rules governs everything.

The fact that not every tiny last detail of every last formula has yet to be agreed upon (or even discovered) does not mean the rules don't exist. Objects were following gravitational (and other) rules before those rules were described by humans. As a matter of fact, it is only because objects do this that the rules were discoverable at all.

There is no grand unified theory of physics that always works, and there is no grand unified theory of politics that always works.

See above for refutation re: physics. And in the case of politics, you are incorrect.

Besides, I think it was you that brought newton into this. I guess its inevitable in the course of a political discussion that someone will try to use newton's laws as proof that one system of rules governs everything.

Projection once again. I wasn't the one who dragged science into this discussion, Doc, you were. Here is the first mention of it in our exchange --

Quote:

the assessment of a person's capabilities would not be made by another person. It would be made by an objective test based in science. We are very close to being able to take intelligence indexes which are far more detailed than the primitive and horribly inaccurate 'intelligence quotient'. As soon as science devises a method for assessing capabilities which is proven to be accurate and objective (and I must repeat that this is right around the corner- the foundations for the method itself are already in place, and the only things to be done are fine tuning for accuracy and objectivity via research and testing), why not employ it?




My reference to Newton was to refute your incorrect claim about the nature of the peer review process -- yet another instance of you introducing science and the scientific method into the discussion. You would do well to review your own words before hitting the submit button.

in other words, things changed, and a new system had to be adopted in order to accomodate for these changes.

All that "changed" was that those who behaved one way did better than those who behaved another way. Things didn't change, the method by which some humans dealt with things did.

you can insult my intelligence and knowledge all you want.

I'm not insulting your intelligence. I am instead reacting to your false charge that I am ignorant of certain areas of science by pointing out your ignorance in areas of political philosophy.

It won't erase the things I've learned and it won't convince me that libertarianism is 100% effective.

No system defined by fallible beings for the use of fallible beings will ever be infallible. No Libertarian in this forum has ever, in the almost four years I have been posting here, claimed that libertarianism is 100% effective. "Effective" at what, by the way?

I would say that human survival requires less effort today than it did 200 years ago.

Less physical effort for those living in the developed world, yes.

And yet many people have to work just as hard today as people did back then. Why is this?

Probably because many people living in the world are still living as humans did 200 years ago, for one. Another reason is that those who live in the developed world and are willing to expend the same amount of effort as humans did 200 years ago are rewarded with a significantly more prosperous lifestyle than could be had 200 years ago. Not everyone is content to expend just enough effort to get by from day to day. Many prefer to attain a more comfortable existence even if it means working harder than the minimum required to eke out a subsistence lifestyle.

pinky


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineBaby_Hitler
Errorist
 User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 03/06/02
Posts: 27,625
Loc: To the limit!
Last seen: 1 hour, 5 minutes
Re: Why I'm not a libertarian [Re: Phred]
    #2811188 - 06/20/04 12:45 PM (19 years, 8 months ago)

Driving an SUV is an initiation of force against anyone else not driving an SUV.


There I said it.


No really, it is.


SUV's are very unsafe for other people who don't have them. Driving an SUV increases other people's risk of bodily harm without their consent.


--------------------
"America: Fuck yeah!" -- Alexthegreat

“Nothing can now be believed which is seen in a newspaper. Truth itself becomes suspicious by being put into that polluted vehicle. The real extent of this state of misinformation is known only to those who are in situations to confront facts within their knowledge with the lies of the day.”  -- Thomas Jefferson

The greatest sin of mankind is ignorance.

The press takes [Trump] literally, but not seriously; his supporters take him seriously, but not literally. --Salena Zeto (9/23/16)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: < Back | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | Next >  [ show all ]

Shop: PhytoExtractum Buy Bali Kratom Powder   Original Sensible Seeds Bulk Cannabis Seeds   North Spore North Spore Mushroom Grow Kits & Cultivation Supplies   Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   Bridgetown Botanicals CBD Concentrates


Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* 34 Libertarian arguments debunked silversoul7 2,603 7 05/09/03 05:06 AM
by Phred
* Americans Embrace Tolerance, Freedom Ravus 663 8 12/18/04 06:39 AM
by Phred
* Libertarianism and Organ Donation retread 1,272 12 10/13/04 03:05 AM
by Mushmonkey
* Libertarians & Greens to Debate in Miami
( 1 2 3 all )
Ancalagon 4,453 49 10/03/04 10:12 PM
by Gijith
* Libertarianism BuzzDoctor 1,488 19 09/09/02 09:58 AM
by Innvertigo
* Positive & Negative Liberties in Three Dimensions lonestar2004 1,153 5 06/20/05 09:32 PM
by Phred
* The Tao of Liberty: wu wei and laissez-faire
( 1 2 all )
Silversoul 3,052 23 05/15/05 11:05 AM
by Silversoul
* Questions about libertarians DigitalDuality 1,719 13 09/18/04 05:44 AM
by luvdemshrooms

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Enlil, ballsalsa
13,746 topic views. 0 members, 0 guests and 7 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2024 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.03 seconds spending 0.006 seconds on 13 queries.