Yoni's thread detour

[101A]

In Yoni's "Olive Branch" thread the following discussion began:


]You're a walking contradiction, Yoni. Social Conservativism is diametrically opposed to, and in direct conflict with individual liberty, unless you are strictly referring to your own. SC is about telling people what is fair and what is foul, what is good and what is bad, what they can and can't do.



There's a whole range of socially conservative ideas. Exactly which ones do you think I hold that would deny anyone a personal liberty?

I would love to hear exstatic's answer; I think this could be a good discussion - but it shouldn't hijack Yoni's original

[Winehole23]

Yoni dons the austere ideological garb of the 19th century liberal, but his out and out defense of figures like GWB and his unrepentant worship of LE and state power muddies the water. He pretends to be libertarian, but has a very strong authoritarian streak. Just check the caption under his avatar.

FWIW, I don't think exstatic has the diagnosis exactly right. Yoni doesn't seem to be a social conservative in the sense that most self avowed Christian conservatives mean it. But he's not a pure libertarian either.

Maybe Yoni could throw a little more light on the subject himself.

[Bender]

Inquiring minds want to know :wakeup


his out and out defense of figures like GWB and his unrepentant worship of LE
that's where I differ with yoni-ism

[LnGrrrR]

Yoni, WC and Viva like most of the fiscal aspects of libertarianism, but not a great deal of the civil aspects.

[NoOptionB]

The way I see it, Gay Rights and The right to kill your own babies having nothing to do with the Country's prosperity or National Security. Do what you want to do as long as it does not directly interfere with others.

I wish people would stfu about these "issues" and focus on the more pressing matters. Like how fiscally fucked up we are.

[Winehole23]

I wish people would stfu about these "issues" and focus on the more pressing matters. Like how fiscally fucked up it is.Then go ahead and start a thread on that, Yoni.

[NoOptionB]

Not stfu on this forum, but generally in this country.

People put into office others on the basis of their stance on ABORTION & Gay "Rights", meanwhile that person they have put into office is looking at hundreds of millions of tax-payer $$$ at their disposal for completely unrelated issues.

Who is getting gamed. :lmao

[clambake]

Not stfu on this forum, but generally in this country.

People put into office others on the basis of their stance on ABORTION & Gay "Rights", meanwhile that person they have put into office is looking at hundreds of millions of tax-payer $$$ at their disposal for completely unrelated issues.

Who is getting gamed. :lmao

uh oh.

[101A]

Then go ahead and start a thread on that, Yoni.

How do you know?

[jack sommerset]

The way I see it, Gay Rights and The right to kill your own babies having nothing to do with the Country's prosperity or National Security. Do what you want to do as long as it does not directly interfere with others.

I wish people would stfu about these "issues" and focus on the more pressing matters. Like how fiscally fucked up we are.

I don't get why any dude would want to stick his thingy in another dudes butthole. It has to be a mental problem. But I agree there are more things to fix. We can address this problem at a later date.

[Winehole23]

Just a guess. I could easily be wrong. It could be LockBeard, who we haven't seen in awhile. It could be any number of people.

Yoni openly played with the idea of a new handle yesterday, and I thought his long and very tedious tete-a-tete with Chumpy D last night just might have swayed him to do it. NoOptionB is posting in the same threads as Yoni and has very similar views, from what I can see.

But I could be wrong.

[101A]

Just a guess. I could easily be wrong. It could be LockBeard, who we haven't seen in awhile. It could be any number of people.

Yoni openly played with the idea of a new handle yesterday, and I thought his long and very tedious tete-a-tete with Chumpy D last night just might have swayed him to do it. NoOptionB is posting in the same threads as Yoni and has very similar views, from what I can see.

But I could be wrong.

Fair enough.

Thanks.

[Wild Cobra]

Yoni, WC and Viva like most of the fiscal aspects of libertarianism, but not a great deal of the civil aspects.
How do you mean?

I have no problem with people living their lives as they please. I may disagree with a lifestyle and speak out against it, but I would never be an authoritarian in changing it. Now unless you include not allowing anarchy to the point of violating other peoples rights...

Just how far does someone think libertarianism goes? The extreme is anarchy. I do not agree with allowing someone to be free to the extreme of violating other people. Nobody in their right mind advocates that. As long as you do not infringe on others, I say do as you please.

Now before you point out the "marriage" issue which seems to be a hypocrisy, let me remind you, marriage is an institution that we an grant equal benefits by law through. marriage itself is historically between opposite sexes, and should not be changed for reasons of benefits. These benefits can be given without a formal marriage, and marriage should not be recognized by government anyway.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religionAnyone know where that comes from?

[Wild Cobra]

I would love to hear exstatic's answer; I think this could be a good discussion - but it shouldn't hijack Yoni's original
True.

I consider myself mostly libertarian, but on the conservative side of the party splits. I am a firm believer in what the constitution was meant to be as well.

Estatic's comment makes no sense to me. As I pointed out in the other threads, promoting an idea is not the same as forcing an idea. His assumption that there is force, i.e. authoritarianism, is flat out wrong in my opinion.

[Yonivore]

I would love to hear exstatic's answer; I think this could be a good discussion - but it shouldn't hijack Yoni's original
I appreciate the opportunity to continue this discussion and, I also thank you for your consideration in not hijacking the “olive branch” thread.

I notice Exstatic hasn’t responded to your (or my) challenge but, others have. So, until we hear from Ex, I’ll address some of the comments made thus far.


Yoni dons the austere ideological garb of the 19th century liberal, but his out and out defense of figures like GWB and his unrepentant worship of LE and state power muddies the water. He pretends to be libertarian, but has a very strong authoritarian streak. Just check the caption under his avatar.

FWIW, I don't think exstatic has the diagnosis exactly right. Yoni doesn't seem to be a social conservative in the sense that most self avowed Christian conservatives mean it. But he's not a pure libertarian either.

Maybe Yoni could throw a little more light on the subject himself.
I will try, thanks for the interest.

First, I really need to challenge and refute this impression I am, was, and continue to be a blind supporter of “figures like GWB.” In speaking of President George W. Bush, alone, there are at least two of his initiatives over which I vehemently disagree with him. And, I’ve stated so.

First, and most recent, are the financial sector bailouts and TARP. I think both were disastrous ideas and I think he bears partial responsibility for the financial mess in which we now find ourselves. My free market principles tell me government should have stayed out of it and allowed the markets to do what they do. Real assets would have been reallocated to other companies as the market saw fit and these imaginary assets would have evaporated. It would have been painful to watch and there would still be this Monday morning quarterbacking

That doesn’t mean I shouldn’t recognize the demons that got us to that point to begin with. The Community Reinvestment Act amendments signed into law by President Clinton; the exploitation of those amendments, by ACORN and other groups, to extort lenders into making loans they shouldn’t have; the congressional protection provided by Barney Frank and Christopher Dodd (among others) of the racketeers in Freddie and Fannie that allowed the problem to fester to near apocalyptic proportions; and the desperate financial sector mad men that developed wild-assed derivatives and financial instruments (albeit in an effort to counter the effects of government-induced catastrophy).

Second, is his continued support of the so-called “War on Drugs.” It’s a money pit that’s accomplishing nothing. It always has been. But, so has every other social war in which the government has engaged, from the “War on Poverty,” to the “War on…,” well, whatever (I can’t think of another off the top of my head. Possibly, the only “Wars” on anything social that has ever achieved anything resembling a modicum of success would be the “War on Illiteracy.” I think there was one of those. But, I digress.

I disagree with President Bush’s spending initiatives at the end of his presidency and I disagree with his continuation of the so-called “War on Drugs.”

I’m sure there are other issues over which I disagree with the former President but, they apparently never came up in this forum and, I can’t call to mind what they are at the moment.

I’m certain my reputation as an unabashed, uncritical support of President Bush’s came from a two or three impressions I’ve left in here. One is that I completely supported (and still do) his decision to invade Iraq. Another is my support and admiration of his steadfast commitment to that endeavor. And, finally, is my personal admiration and respect in his integrity and character, based on some limited, but inconsequential, exposure to him personally and professionally, in a variety of settings over a number of years.

And, yes, I still think history will eventually vindicate and lionize President Bush on his response to our being attacked on September 11, 2001. That will be the legacy of his presidency.


You’re going to have to explain the statement about my “unrepentant worship of LE and state power.” I’m not sure I get your meaning. I can say, however, I have no control over the quote under my Avatar. In fact, I’ve asked Kori on a number of occasions to change it. Most recently to, “He Lied.” And, before that, “I Hope He Fails.” I’ve never understood why she put there what she did but, it’s her forum and all I can do is appeal to her to change it.

I don’t think I have a strong authoritarian streak…except, maybe, with my children.


Yoni, WC and Viva like most of the fiscal aspects of libertarianism, but not a great deal of the civil aspects.
I think this goes to the heart of my confusion and the impetus of my question to Exstatic.

Exactly what civil liberties have my positions, here in SpursTalk, proposed to restrict or abolish?


The way I see it, Gay Rights and The right to kill your own babies having nothing to do with the Country's prosperity or National Security. Do what you want to do as long as it does not directly interfere with others.

I wish people would stfu about these "issues" and focus on the more pressing matters. Like how fiscally fucked up we are.
First of all, Winehole23, this isn’t me. Secondly, I disagree that ”Gay Rights” do not impact our country’s prosperity and that ”the right to kill your own babies,” doesn’t directly interfere with others’ [rights]. More on both of these in a minute.

But, as far as “STFU” on these issues, there is plenty of conversation going on about the fiscal issues and I don’t think the occasional diversion into these topics is distracting from them. They are important – as important, I think – as the government malfeasance. Plus, this is a multi-threaded forum, if you don’t want to talk about an issue, don’t step in that thread…stick to the ones you deem most important. If the issue you think is most important doesn’t have a thread. Start one. That’s what I do. That’s the beauty of this place – indeed; it’s the beauty of the interweb tubicles. Everyone has equal standing upon which they can build a reputation.

Now, allow me to clarify my “Gay Rights” affects prosperity inference. I personally believe every individual should have the right to do whatever they wish so long as it does not interfere with another individual’s rights. From that perspective, I disagree with whole idea of marriage being in any way associated with government. Giving homosexuals the “right to marry” is just as ludicrous, to me, as traditional marriage enjoying government preference – most notably with regard to federal taxes. I’m opposed to the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) and I’m opposed to defining marriage in the law or in the constitution. I’m equally opposed to forcing religious organizations to recognize marriage in any other context other than that in which they choose to view it.

My other objections over “Gay Rights” have to do with forcing employers to treat them as traditionally married couples. This is a fiscal objection and not a moral one. Employers cannot afford to extend the same benefits to everyone they do to traditional married couples. For this reason, I object to forcing employers to expand health insurance and other benefits to domestic partners. But, I also think this demonstrates the folly of employer-involved/sponsored benefits. Personally, I think employers should only be required to pay a wage which is agreed upon between them and their employees. The employee should be responsible for providing retirement and health insurance benefits themselves.

Now, about “the right to kill your own babies.” I’m opposed to abortion not on conservative religious grounds but, on constitutional grounds. I think it is a violation of the unborn child’s right to life. Obviously, this is one of the two areas (mentioned I my “olive branch” thread) of libertarianism where we diverge. To me, it’s not a matter of the woman’s rights but one of the unborn child’s.

Over the years the point at which a fetus becomes viable has varied and increasing become earlier and earlier in the gestational period of the pregnancy. Additionally, there are legal arguments made and won for declaring a fetus an person for the purpose of murder prosecutions. Finally, there is no small amount of disagreement over when life begins or when a person becomes an individual deserving of constitutional protections. For that reason, vehemently opposed the “right” of a woman to “choose” to terminate a pregnancy.

I have, in many a thread in here, allowed there are certain circumstances – health of the mother, rape, and incest – where there can be reasonable debate over the merits of abortion. I’ve even allowed I don’t know what I would do or say in the case of having a close relative faced with that circumstance. I’ve only ever advocated that we could all agree to end the practice of convenience abortions – accounting for the vast majority of abortions – and then, have a reasonable thoughtful conversation about how to approach those instances where the pregnancy results from forced sexual intercourse or where the mother’s health is endangered. And, still, I think those conversations should be had in the context of appreciating the rights of the unborn child.

And, don’t start in on me with Roe v. Wade and how I just have to accept it’s the law of the land, etc… Slavery was legal once. And, frankly, I think this issue will someday be viewed in that context. We will be appalled that we could ever countenance such a barbaric practice.

The only place my religion even enters into it is where my belief of when life begins is concerned. I believe life begins at conception and that it is morally wrong, after that point, to take that life. I believe that until society definitively knows when life begins, it is wrong to allow abortion. But, not just on my own moral grounds but on the grounds that it violates the constitutional protection afforded individuals living in this country.

The other issue over which I diverge from libertarianism is my position on the War on Terror and, particularly, the war in Iraq. I think libertarianism is too isolationist, in that respect, and that it does not appreciate the danger of global terrorism. There was a time when our geographic position on the globe afforded us a pretty secure place in the world. That’s no longer true and I think all the isolationists that think we can just withdraw to within our borders and everything will be okay are wrong.


Just a guess. I could easily be wrong. It could be LockBeard, who we haven't seen in awhile. It could be any number of people.

Yoni openly played with the idea of a new handle yesterday, and I thought his long and very tedious tete-a-tete with Chumpy D last night just might have swayed him to do it. NoOptionB is posting in the same threads as Yoni and has very similar views, from what I can see.

But I could be wrong.
You are wrong and that was tedious, wasn’t it? And, gosh, I hope I don’t sound like NoOptionB.

I hope I cleared some things up…for those who care about such things. And, while you have no reason to believe I wouldn’t create a new handle and come in her as a sock puppet, all I can say is, I never have. Even when I became TRO, I aligned myself with the Yonivore handle, claiming to be a close friend or some such…so you would know I was in agreement with the same views.

I hope that if I ever decide to do a mouse, I have the decency to just quit playing in Kori’s sandbox.

[nuclearfm]

. He pretends to be libertarian, but has a very strong authoritarian streak. Just check the caption under his avatar.



This is a common issue in modern Libertarians, it is a philosophy that holds no measure to the extent of self interest. Being authoritarian is very commonly libertarian. It happens.

[doobs]

This is a common issue in modern Libertarians, it is a philosophy that holds no measure to the extent of self interest. Being authoritarian is very commonly libertarian. It happens.

:wtf

[nuclearfm]

:wtf

Libertarianism belligerently rejects the very need for any justification for its belief in something called “liberty.” It repudiates the need for any intellectual foundation to explain why “liberty” is desirable and what “liberty” means. Anyone from a gay-rights activist to a criminal counterfeiter to an overt anarchist can declare that he is merely asserting his “liberty”—and no Libertarian (even those who happen to disagree) can objectively refute his definition. Subjectivism, amoralism and anarchism are not merely present in certain “wings” of the Libertarian movement; they are integral to it. In the absence of any intellectual framework, the zealous advocacy of “liberty” can represent only the mindless quest to eliminate all restraints on human behavior—political, moral, metaphysical. And since reality is the fundamental “restraint” upon men’s actions, it is nihilism—the authoritarian individual desire to obliterate reality—that is the very essence of Libertarianism. If the Libertarian movement were ever to come to power, authoritarianism would be the consequence.

[Yonivore]

Libertarianism belligerently rejects the very need for any justification for its belief in something called “liberty.” It repudiates the need for any intellectual foundation to explain why “liberty” is desirable and what “liberty” means. Anyone from a gay-rights activist to a criminal counterfeiter to an overt anarchist can declare that he is merely asserting his “liberty”—and no Libertarian (even those who happen to disagree) can objectively refute his definition.
I disagree…

Asserting your rights, whether it be gay rights or health care rights or whatever, should not require anyone to give up their rights in order to accommodate you.

Most “rights” activists concentrate one gaining something they perceive someone else has they don’t. Employment benefits, access, whatever. I think this misses the point of equality and liberty.

The only thing in which I’m in favor of ensuring fairness is government. Only the government should be required to be color-blind, non-sexist, and considerate of the handicapped. Period.

If an individual or business owner wants to be racist, sexist, or uncaring of the physically and mentally challenged, it’s there business. To require otherwise is a violation of the individual or business owner’s rights because it requires them to relent power over a fundamental right – the right to the fruits of their labor.

This argument applies to the current debate over health care. No one has a right to health care. Why? Because it necessarily requires someone to give up their right to the fruits of their labor – medical school education, treatment or therapy development, medical equipment manufacturing, and the provision of medical services.


Subjectivism, amoralism and anarchism are not merely present in certain “wings” of the Libertarian movement; they are integral to it. In the absence of any intellectual framework, the zealous advocacy of “liberty” can represent only the mindless quest to eliminate all restraints on human behavior—political, moral, metaphysical.
Again, I disagree. In true libertarianism, as I see it, the restraint is respect for another’s liberty.


And since reality is the fundamental “restraint” upon men’s actions, it is nihilism—the authoritarian individual desire to obliterate reality—that is the very essence of Libertarianism. If the Libertarian movement were ever to come to power, authoritarianism would be the consequence.
Okay, you lost me here.

[nuclearfm]

I disagree…

Asserting your rights, whether it be gay rights or health care rights or whatever, should not require anyone to give up their rights in order to accommodate you.

Most “rights” activists concentrate one gaining something they perceive someone else has they don’t. Employment benefits, access, whatever. I think this misses the point of equality and liberty.



More often than not, people in addition to "right activists" do have to give up their rights for accommodation. Ignoring it doesn't make it false.



The only thing in which I’m in favor of ensuring fairness is government. Only the government should be required to be color-blind, non-sexist, and considerate of the handicapped. Period.

If an individual or business owner wants to be racist, sexist, or uncaring of the physically and mentally challenged, it’s there business. To require otherwise is a violation of the individual or business owner’s rights because it requires them to relent power over a fundamental right – the right to the fruits of their labor.



This is why I said their is no justification for "Liberty" in Libertarianism. In many cases it can be considered an evil doctrine.




Again, I disagree. In true libertarianism, as I see it, the restraint is respect for another’s liberty.


This is ideally what is supposed to happen. But things never happen ideally. Moreover, there is no explicit universal restraint in Libertarianism for another person. For that, you may need to combine in with that of Objectivism. Although, that's like incest.




Okay, you lost me here.

Well, this is good as it strikes yourself as not a complete libertarian idealogue. This was about ignoring all qualifiers and justification in pursuit of personal liberty and the often authoritarian actions it can develop.

[Wild Cobra]

This is a common issue in modern Libertarians, it is a philosophy that holds no measure to the extent of self interest. Being authoritarian is very commonly libertarian. It happens.
You fail.

You obviously don't understand.

[nuclearfm]

You fail.

You obviously don't understand.

No, you're not the one that understands. You have no idea what libertarianism is, along with the majority rest of the crap that you post. (look no further than your bullshit (white power) interpretation of the 14th amendment). The funny thing is that, most of the instigators of modern libertarianism where hippies. I'm sure you like that association. Crap loads of think tanks tear that philosophical basis and political party up just for fun. Carry on amateur.

[Wild Cobra]

No, you're not the one that understands. You have no idea what libertarianism is, along with the majority rest of the crap that you post. (look no further than your bullshit (white power) interpretation of the 14th amendment). The funny thing is that, most of the instigators of modern libertarianism where hippies. I'm sure you like that association. Crap loads of think tanks tear that philosophical basis and political party up just for fun. Carry on amateur.
And I'm not a reformed hippie in what way?

[Yonivore]

More often than not, people in addition to "right activists" do have to give up their rights for accommodation. Ignoring it doesn't make it false.
I disagree. Individuals should not be forced to compromise their own liberty to accommodate another’s.

Only governments should be required to accommodate.


This is why I said their is no justification for "Liberty" in Libertarianism. In many cases it can be considered an evil doctrine.
Your assertion presumes libertarians aren’t compassionate and wouldn’t alleviate the suffering of others who required assistance. I reject that.

I think history has shown that people are generally benevolent. Particularly people who are free to be so. In every crisis in recent memory, the individuals of the United States of America have given more to relieve the suffering of others than any other people in the world. That doesn’t mean I agree that the government should have been throwing my money on top of the pile as well. It’s my money to give…not the governments.

In fact, I believe if the government were less free with the fruits of our labor,..Americans would give more to alleviate the suffering of their fellow man.

I also believe the belief that government should be in the business of charity arises from the desire of the benefactor to satisfy themselves they are actually giving to a needy cause. Words such as shame are often invoked when proponents argue for yet another government handout. They want to insure people receive what they’re entitled without being shamed.

Personally, I think shame, humility, and the uncertainty of provision are great motivators. What we’ve done, instead, is create a class of entitlement dwellers who position themselves and their families to forever be a ward of the state.



This is ideally what is supposed to happen. But things never happen ideally.
That doesn’t justify taking the fruits of my labor and giving them to someone else that did not earn them.

In reality, for instance, the amount of public assistance to which a family the size of mine is entitled, in some cases, exceeds the amount of my net salary. From rent/mortgage subsidies, to food subsidies, to free inclusion in community benefits the rest of us pay for (above our taxes) to school lunch, free daycare, subsidized utilities, and on and on and on. If you know how, you can make a pretty decent living off of my taxes.

That’s wrong.

I think people should be forced to seek assistance not have it handed to them.



Well, this is good as it strikes yourself as not a complete libertarian idealogue. This was about ignoring all qualifiers and justification in pursuit of personal liberty and the often authoritarian actions it can develop.
I always view my personal liberty in the context of how it relates to others’.

[nuclearfm]

Your assertion presumes libertarians aren’t compassionate and wouldn’t alleviate the suffering of others who required assistance. I reject that.


Personally, I think shame, humility, and the uncertainty of provision are great motivators. What we’ve done, instead, is create a class of entitlement dwellers who position themselves and their families to forever be a ward of the state.






I always view my personal liberty in the context of how it relates to others’.

You're statements should spur you to look into Objectivism. Those are real platforms largely unaddressed by libertarianism.

[Yonivore]

You're statements should spur you to look into Objectivism. Those are real platforms largely unaddressed by libertarianism.
Really, I'm just in to yonivorism and applying the common-sense principles instilled in me by my parents. Can't say I'm in the market for finding a "label" that fits what I believe.

[LnGrrrR]

How do you mean?


Specifically, what are your stances on the following "hot-button" libertarian issues regarding civil liberties:

Agree or disagree with warrantless wiretapping

Agree or disagree with national ID

Agree or disagree with using the "states secret" privilege to throw cases, instead of just evidence, out of court

Agree or disagree with no-knock raids

Agree or disagree with preventive (not preemptive) war

[Wild Cobra]

Lat me address this again.


No, you're not the one that understands. You have no idea what libertarianism is, along with the majority rest of the crap that you post.
How can you say that? Please show me any single example I advocate authoritarianism over libertarianism.

(look no further than your bullshit (white power) interpretation of the 14th amendment).
Please explain. You jump to conclusion. Hell, my youngest daughters boyfriend is from Mexico. Just because my view on "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" is different from others, does not make me a racist. I actually respect most the Hispanics I know. They are hard working people. they can teach liberals a thing or two. I just agree with the constitutional provisions of Article 1, section 8: "To establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States." Thing is, we have such laws, and they are ignored. The laws are their for a reason. I do not advocate dismissing the liberties of others, but allowing illegal immigration takes away from out publi moneys, and thus, takes away from everyone who pays taxes.

The funny thing is that, most of the instigators of modern libertarianism where hippies. I'm sure you like that association.
Yes, I am a proud pot smoker. l I also love peyote.

Please take your head out of your ass and start thinking.

loads of think tanks tear that philosophical basis and political party up just for fun. Carry on amateur.

In what way? Showing how stupid the radical elements of libertarians are? I agree. that doesn't mean that all are.

I think if you do honest research, you will find the majority of those who call themselves libertarians believe in doing what they want as long as it doesn't infringe upon others.

That is not authoritarian.

[LnGrrrR]

You're statements should spur you to look into Objectivism. Those are real platforms largely unaddressed by libertarianism.

I don't know... all the Objectivists I've met are pretty much batshite-loony.

[Wild Cobra]

Specifically, what are your stances on the following "hot-button" libertarian issues regarding civil liberties:

Agree or disagree with warrantless wiretapping

Why should a warrant have to be issued if there is sufficient probable cause? You either take action or not. Why do small minded people think that only a judge can make that decision?


Agree or disagree with national ID

Depends on the purpose. There is no need for any such thing for buying items, or selling, etc. However, if only a certain person has the right for a certain activity, what's wrong with insuring for the common good that the person has that right?


Agree or disagree with using the "states secret" privilege to throw cases, instead of just evidence, out of court

Depends on the type of case. In regular civil or criminal cases, that would be insane. However, there are specific constitutional grounds referring to battlefield type cases that such things do not apply.


Agree or disagree with no-knock raids

Only with very strong evidence.

Do you think that a libertarian viewpoint includes advocating anarchy like some like to claim?


Agree or disagree with preventive (not preemptive) war

Absolutely. We have the right to "provide for the common defense."

[LnGrrrR]

Over the years the point at which a fetus becomes viable has varied and increasing become earlier and earlier in the gestational period of the pregnancy. Additionally, there are legal arguments made and won for declaring a fetus an person for the purpose of murder prosecutions. Finally, there is no small amount of disagreement over when life begins or when a person becomes an individual deserving of constitutional protections. For that reason, vehemently opposed the “right” of a woman to “choose” to terminate a pregnancy.

I have, in many a thread in here, allowed there are certain circumstances – health of the mother, rape, and incest – where there can be reasonable debate over the merits of abortion. I’ve even allowed I don’t know what I would do or say in the case of having a close relative faced with that circumstance. I’ve only ever advocated that we could all agree to end the practice of convenience abortions – accounting for the vast majority of abortions – and then, have a reasonable thoughtful conversation about how to approach those instances where the pregnancy results from forced sexual intercourse or where the mother’s health is endangered. And, still, I think those conversations should be had in the context of appreciating the rights of the unborn child.


I agree with pretty much everything here. I don't know how many 'convenience abortions' there are, but ever since my wife has become pregnant, I've felt a growing care/concern for our soon-to-be-born child. She had a small complication and on the way to the hospital, I was ridiculously nervous.

In my head, logically speaking, it didn't make sense. It's not like I met him yet, and if something were to happen, Karla and I could try again. However, it feels as if I've already poured my hopes and dreams into this child that will be. It's disconcerting and uplifting all at once.

[nuclearfm]

I don't know... all the Objectivists I've met are pretty much batshite-loony.

Great white batshite?
kfXjTfQDj-k

[nuclearfm]

I think if you do honest research, you will find the majority of those who call themselves libertarians believe in doing what they want as long as it doesn't infringe upon others.

That's not being a true libertarian. There are a lot better terms than can be used in that instance. That's what the majority of that was about.




How can you say that? Please show me any single example I advocate authoritarianism over libertarianism.


:lol

We could start on your support of various George W Bush policies posted above ^ :rollin



Please explain. You jump to conclusion. Hell, my youngest daughters boyfriend is from Mexico. Just because my view on "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" is different from others, does not make me a racist. I actually respect most the Hispanics I know. They are hard working people. they can teach liberals a thing or two. I just agree with the constitutional provisions of Article 1, section 8: "To establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States." Thing is, we have such laws, and they are ignored. The laws are their for a reason. I do not advocate dismissing the liberties of others, but allowing illegal immigration takes away from out publi moneys, and thus, takes away from everyone who pays taxes.


The funny thing is that you still got completely pwned on your whole 14th amendment argument. So now it's a separate debate about illegal immigration? Well, I guess progress is good.

[LnGrrrR]

Why should a warrant have to be issued if there is sufficient probable cause? You either take action or not. Why do small minded people think that only a judge can make that decision?

In other words, against the normal libertarian position. And are you aware exactly what a warrant is?


Depends on the purpose. There is no need for any such thing for buying items, or selling, etc. However, if only a certain person has the right for a certain activity, what's wrong with insuring for the common good that the person has that right?

Libertarians are vehemently opposed to a national ID, because of the possibility of abusing the system and how much damage it could do.


Depends on the type of case. In regular civil or criminal cases, that would be insane. However, there are specific constitutional grounds referring to battlefield type cases that such things do not apply.

Yes, but in the past, the "state secrets" privilege was only used to disregard that EVIDENCE, not to throw out the case itself. Again, libertarians are (mostly) against this new interpretation.


Only with very strong evidence.

Define "very strong evidence"? Do you not think that this power will be abused? That people in the higher echelons will press lower members to lower the bar for "strong evidence"?


Do you think that a libertarian viewpoint includes advocating anarchy like some like to claim?

That's not a mainstream libertarian issue.


Absolutely. We have the right to "provide for the common defense."

Again, against the majority of libertarians. Nations can find any excuse to justify war, if they so choose. "Nation-building" or "spreading democracy" should surely not be one of them.

Note that, of all these situations, you didn't firmly disagree with any of them, the closest being the no-knock raid.

Also, you're VERY willing to look at what concentrated power can do, and willing to overlook the abuses that could occur (for instance, on the national ID subject and warrantless wiretapping). It doesn't occur to you that even if it would be more effective to fight crime, it may not be moral/right to do so.

This is why I don't consider you a libertarian. You may agree with them on fiscal issues, and you're willing to give ground on some social issues (marijuana legalization/decriminilization, gay marriage), you don't agree with many of the civil liberty positions that libertarians hold.

[Wild Cobra]

I agree with pretty much everything here. I don't know how many 'convenience abortions' there are, but ever since my wife has become pregnant, I've felt a growing care/concern for our soon-to-be-born child. She had a small complication and on the way to the hospital, I was ridiculously nervous.

In my head, logically speaking, it didn't make sense. It's not like I met him yet, and if something were to happen, Karla and I could try again. However, it feels as if I've already poured my hopes and dreams into this child that will be. It's disconcerting and uplifting all at once.
Welcome to 'fatherhood'. It really changes things. This song comes to mind:

P6UVhZTTWb0

My eyes swell up when I hear this song.

[nuclearfm]

In other words, against the normal libertarian position. And are you aware exactly what a warrant is?



Libertarians are vehemently opposed to a national ID, because of the possibility of abusing the system and how much damage it could do.



Yes, but in the past, the "state secrets" privilege was only used to disregard that EVIDENCE, not to throw out the case itself. Again, libertarians are (mostly) against this new interpretation.



Define "very strong evidence"? Do you not think that this power will be abused? That people in the higher echelons will press lower members to lower the bar for "strong evidence"?



That's not a mainstream libertarian issue.



Again, against the majority of libertarians. Nations can find any excuse to justify war, if they so choose. "Nation-building" or "spreading democracy" should surely not be one of them.

Note that, of all these situations, you didn't firmly disagree with any of them, the closest being the no-knock raid.

Also, you're VERY willing to look at what concentrated power can do, and willing to overlook the abuses that could occur (for instance, on the national ID subject and warrantless wiretapping). It doesn't occur to you that even if it would be more effective to fight crime, it may not be moral/right to do so.

This is why I don't consider you a libertarian. You may agree with them on fiscal issues, and you're willing to give ground on some social issues (marijuana legalization/decriminilization, gay marriage), you don't agree with many of the civil liberty positions that libertarians hold.

Jewish Liberal lies!

[Yonivore]

Specifically, what are your stances on the following "hot-button" libertarian issues regarding civil liberties:

I know you asked WC but, these are the types of questions I like to debate in the context of how they agree with my ideology. So, with that…

Agree or disagree with warrantless wiretapping
I disagree with warrantless wiretapping of U. S. Citizens – whether they be home or abroad. I think the Constitutional protections against unreasonable search and seizures applies no matter their location. Now, having said that, I do not believe the same rights extend to non-citizens, either domestically or abroad. And, if the government, whose chief duty (in my estimation) is to preserve the Republic believes there are individual, non-citizens, determined to do us harm I would hope they would employ whatever methods are at their disposal to thwart that effort. If in the course of their intelligence gathering, a person on whom they’ve instituted a “warrantless wiretap,” initiates a communication to or receives a communication from a U. S. Citizen, I would be comfortable with the government retaining that information so long and as long as it was determined to be relevant to the principal cause of protecting the country.


Agree or disagree with national ID
I think everyone present in this country should have to be able to prove they are rightfully here and eligible to participate in the benefits of this country…from voting to the receipt of entitlements.

How you do that is irrelevant to me. Right now, a National ID card seems to be the most unobtrusive way.

Frankly, I don’t understand the objections. I can’t drive without a license. Or, fix your plumbing without one, for that matter.


Agree or disagree with using the "states secret" privilege to throw cases, instead of just evidence, out of court
I don’t believe the government should have to compromise valuable intelligence assets in order to gain a criminal conviction. This is one of the main reason I’m in favor of just hunting down terrorists and killing them. I’m not interested in putting them on trial But, where you must – ie. A U. S. Citizen terrorist arrested at home (because, I’d kill ‘em if I found them in another country), -- I think national security must be weighed against the need for a criminal conviction.


Agree or disagree with no-knock raids
In the context of the War on Drugs? Disagree.

In the context of most other crimes where you need an element of surprise to either prevent the commission of a crime, the destruction of crucial evidence of that crime, or the escape of a felon; I’m in favor if it is determined that a “no knock” raid is the most effective way to accomplish that. Sometimes you have to rely on professionals to do their jobs right.

I also believe when these raids go wrong, those responsible should be held accountable and prosecuted if they commit crimes or violate rights.

And, I’ll say, I’m somewhat sympathetic to the idea that a person who opens fire from inside a structure, at the confusing outset of a raid, should be somewhat indemnified against charges of murder should they find a target. This is particularly true of these no knock drug raids.

Many drug criminals don’t view their crimes as warranting a coordinated task force take down so, when the door come busting down, that it is the police might not be the first thing that crosses their mind…it just as well could be their competitor. And, self defense is, I believe, an affirmative defense in these situations.

If it can be shown the occupant of the raided structure new it was police coming through the door, however, all bets are off. And, in the case of other felons (over which I imagine a no knock raid would be warranted or called for), I have less understanding for them shooting back.



Agree or disagree with preventive (not preemptive) war
Agree. Apocalyptic weapons are more prevalent, accessible, and concealable than ever before. If my government believes a nation poses a existential threat, I say obliterate them.

In the only case we have, so far, Iraq; I have no heartburn over the invasion and overthrow of the Ba’athist regime of Saddam Hussein. His international insults were long, egregious and unanswered for. His atrocities against his own people were worse. It’s a good thing he’s gone and if other nations don’t like it (which I truly doubt – rhetoric aside), fuck ‘em.

[LnGrrrR]

Welcome to 'fatherhood'. It really changes things. This song comes to mind:

P6UVhZTTWb0

My eyes swell up when I hear this song.

Thanks. I'm scared and excited. It feels like I'm about to jump out of a plane... but the freefall will be 18 years, and the parachute portion will last the rest of my life.

[Yonivore]

I agree with pretty much everything here. I don't know how many 'convenience abortions' there are, but ever since my wife has become pregnant, I've felt a growing care/concern for our soon-to-be-born child. She had a small complication and on the way to the hospital, I was ridiculously nervous.

In my head, logically speaking, it didn't make sense. It's not like I met him yet, and if something were to happen, Karla and I could try again. However, it feels as if I've already poured my hopes and dreams into this child that will be. It's disconcerting and uplifting all at once.
Convenience abortions are pretty much anything not related to a "duress" abortion. One that's sought in response to forced intercourse (incest or rape) or because the survival of the mother is in question.

Yes, I think abortions sought so a woman won't have the hardship of raising a child is a convenience abortion.

[Yonivore]

How insensitive of me. Good luck with the baby! And, congratulations.

[clambake]

Thanks. I'm scared and excited. It feels like I'm about to jump out of a plane... but the freefall will be 18 years, and the parachute portion will last the rest of my life.

you will find fatherhood to be one of the easiest endevours.

you will be consumed with doing everything that is right. your entire role in life will skyrocket.

congrats!

[LnGrrrR]

Thanks Yoni.



I disagree with warrantless wiretapping of U. S. Citizens – whether they be home or abroad. I think the Constitutional protections against unreasonable search and seizures applies no matter their location. Now, having said that, I do not believe the same rights extend to non-citizens, either domestically or abroad. And, if the government, whose chief duty (in my estimation) is to preserve the Republic believes there are individual, non-citizens, determined to do us harm I would hope they would employ whatever methods are at their disposal to thwart that effort. If in the course of their intelligence gathering, a person on whom they’ve instituted a “warrantless wiretap,” initiates a communication to or receives a communication from a U. S. Citizen, I would be comfortable with the government retaining that information so long and as long as it was determined to be relevant to the principal cause of protecting the country.

I agree with what you said above. However, FISA already allowed warrantless wiretapping for foreign countries, before being 'updated' to provide loopholes to track US citizens as well.

The US now uses deep-packet inspection with certain keywords to pull email that's suspicious. The problem I see with allowing it in order to 'protect the country', is because that's such a nebulous term.

As well, lots of other problems get generated. Who's watching the people doing the searching; who has oversight? How will the American public know if they are abusing their privileges? Etc etc.

On a broader scale, look at the National Security Letters and how many requests went out. Out of some 500+ requests, I believe not ONE of them was denied. Doesn't that seem fishy? Glenn Greenwald, who now writes at Salon, does a good job of keeping track of this stuff.



I think everyone present in this country should have to be able to prove they are rightfully here and eligible to participate in the benefits of this country…from voting to the receipt of entitlements.

How you do that is irrelevant to me. Right now, a National ID card seems to be the most unobtrusive way.

Frankly, I don’t understand the objections. I can’t drive without a license. Or, fix your plumbing without one, for that matter.

Many libertarians don't agree with driving licenses either, frankly. But again, it's an issue of possible abuse. We already require a form of ID at a voting station, so why require a different one? If people start making fake forms of these new IDs, what's the difference? What type of info gets puts on these IDs, and who has access to that database?

This is a good article explaining why a national ID would be a poor choice. http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=9142



I don’t believe the government should have to compromise valuable intelligence assets in order to gain a criminal conviction. This is one of the main reason I’m in favor of just hunting down terrorists and killing them. I’m not interested in putting them on trial But, where you must – ie. A U. S. Citizen terrorist arrested at home (because, I’d kill ‘em if I found them in another country), -- I think national security must be weighed against the need for a criminal conviction.

I'm in favor of killing terrorists on a battlefield, say, if they've got a gun. Once they are captured though, and the threat removed, certain protections should kick in. But innocence before guilt is not just for citizens; our Founding Fathers thought that innocence before guilt is ESSENTIAL for a fair judiciary, and I agree with them.


In the context of the War on Drugs? Disagree.

Same here.


In the context of most other crimes where you need an element of surprise to either prevent the commission of a crime, the destruction of crucial evidence of that crime, or the escape of a felon; I’m in favor if it is determined that a “no knock” raid is the most effective way to accomplish that. Sometimes you have to rely on professionals to do their jobs right.

The no-knock raids actually were started, I believe, due to this reasoning, but in the context of drugs. (Ie. dealers were flushing their stash). I think that no-knock raids should be abandoned... if police want to find evidence that badly, then just stake out the house and bust down the door when you know they're not home.


I also believe when these raids go wrong, those responsible should be held accountable and prosecuted if they commit crimes or violate rights.

Easier said than done, though. After all, the cops are doing their job. Reminds me of the Feres Doctrine, whereby soldiers can't sue their doctors for malpractice. And I agree with the other related comments below this.



Agree. Apocalyptic weapons are more prevalent, accessible, and concealable than ever before. If my government believes a nation poses a existential threat, I say obliterate them.

Again, this goes against mainstream libertarianism.

[LnGrrrR]

Convenience abortions are pretty much anything not related to a "duress" abortion. One that's sought in response to forced intercourse (incest or rape) or because the survival of the mother is in question.

Yes, I think abortions sought so a woman won't have the hardship of raising a child is a convenience abortion.

Ah understood. I think I'm still ok with an abortion, provided it's done within the first month or two. I'm still gauging my feelings on the subject. I wouldn't say I was ever cavalier about it, but I will say I used to believe the right of a woman to her own body was relatively absolute. As I've grown older, I've come to question those beliefs, and becoming a father (well, soon) is also forcing me to reflect based on new emotions. It's in flux.

[LnGrrrR]

How insensitive of me. Good luck with the baby! And, congratulations.

No offense taken! Thanks! The baby will be born late October or so, then off to her family and mine during November, then I get stationed in Hawaii early December. It will be quite a busy time for me!

[jman3000]

Ah understood. I think I'm still ok with an abortion, provided it's done within the first month or two. I'm still gauging my feelings on the subject. I wouldn't say I was ever cavalier about it, but I will say I used to believe the right of a woman to her own body was relatively absolute. As I've grown older, I've come to question those beliefs, and becoming a father (well, soon) is also forcing me to reflect based on new emotions. It's in flux.

Look at the bigger picture.

A girl can find out if she's pregnant by peeing on a little dealy and never tell anyone.

If a woman doesn't want to have a pregnancy then she'll find a way to do that. By banning abortion all you're doing is setting up a black market for abortions which would be nowhere near safe. Either that or you'd have girls taking a handful of pills early in their pregnancy shooting for an ejected fetus.

I do think that adoption should be incentivized for both the mother and the prospective adopting family though.

[LnGrrrR]

If a woman doesn't want to have a pregnancy then she'll find a way to do that. By banning abortion all you're doing is setting up a black market for abortions which would be nowhere near safe. Either that or you'd have girls taking a handful of pills early in their pregnancy shooting for an ejected fetus.


This is another concern of mine as well. Let's face it; there are some women who will do pretty horrific things like that. However, should the law allow them to do such? The answer isn't clear, by any means, and then you get into that tug of war between rights of the fetus and right of the woman.

It's not an easy issue by any means, to my mind.

[Yonivore]

Thanks Yoni.
De nada.


I agree with what you said above. However, FISA already allowed warrantless wiretapping for foreign countries, before being 'updated' to provide loopholes to track US citizens as well.

The US now uses deep-packet inspection with certain keywords to pull email that's suspicious. The problem I see with allowing it in order to 'protect the country', is because that's such a nebulous term.

As well, lots of other problems get generated. Who's watching the people doing the searching; who has oversight? How will the American public know if they are abusing their privileges? Etc etc.

On a broader scale, look at the National Security Letters and how many requests went out. Out of some 500+ requests, I believe not ONE of them was denied. Doesn't that seem fishy? Glenn Greenwald, who now writes at Salon, does a good job of keeping track of this stuff.
I think the federal government is going to do whatever is necessary to fulfill it's obligations under the Constitution, as it sees them. In doing so, they've created a lot of programs that are subject to abuse. But, to be honest with you, they're no more vulnerable that any other government program...from the IRS to the DMV.

It's not a matter of "if you're not doing anything wrong you have nothing to worry about," as much as it's "they're so afraid another terrorist attack is going to slip through the cracks, if you're doing nothing wrong, they don't care."

I'm a little concerned with local law enforcement exploiting federal homeland security laws to tackle their own agendas but, again, no different that how they've exploited federal drug laws to enrich their budgets with seized property and money. It's disgusting and I'm more worried about that phenomenon than I am with federal intelligence agencies worrying over more than whether or not I'm conspiring with al Qaeda to commit an act of terrorism.

That's just me. I understand and appreciate the counter position. I just don't think they have enough manpower and motivation to worry about much else other than national security.


Many libertarians don't agree with driving licenses either, frankly. But again, it's an issue of possible abuse. We already require a form of ID at a voting station, so why require a different one? If people start making fake forms of these new IDs, what's the difference? What type of info gets puts on these IDs, and who has access to that database?

This is a good article explaining why a national ID would be a poor choice. http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=9142
I'll read the article later. Frankly, I think the answer is in biometrics. We already employ them for government services as well as some commercial enterprises. And, there's not much chance of you not having your fingerprint with you. The databases are easy to construct and maintain and encrypt. When you register to vote, you leave a fingerprint. When you vote the finger you bring with you is compared to the one you used to register.


I'm in favor of killing terrorists on a battlefield, say, if they've got a gun. Once they are captured though, and the threat removed, certain protections should kick in. But innocence before guilt is not just for citizens; our Founding Fathers thought that innocence before guilt is ESSENTIAL for a fair judiciary, and I agree with them.
My argument is that you're confusing criminality with acts of war. In the case of terrorists, they are operating outside the normal conventions of war, they don't identify with a nation-state and they wear no uniforms.

Capturing them only leaves you with the problem of what to do with them when you're done with them...as Obama is finding out. I say that unless it is believed they possess actionable intelligence which could prove useful, they should be summarily executed on the battlefield. If they're worth interrogating, do so -- extract whatever you can and, then, kill 'em.

I will give props to President Obama for ordering the assassination of that asswipe in Somalia today. That was a bold move. And, frankly, I don't know what distinguishes that guy from any other terrorist around the globe. The President should issue a standing order to kill them all on sight.

They aren't conscripts in the regular sense of a nation compelling or recruiting them to serve in the military. In most cases -- enough to where I wouldn't lose any sleep -- they voluntarily join the forces aligned against us and have dedicated there lives to martyrdom for the cause of killing Americans, in particular, and infidels in general. I say we help them reach that objective...without, of course, allowing them to take any innocents with them.


The no-knock raids actually were started, I believe, due to this reasoning, but in the context of drugs. (Ie. dealers were flushing their stash). I think that no-knock raids should be abandoned... if police want to find evidence that badly, then just stake out the house and bust down the door when you know they're not home.
I would agree but, sometime you're after a live person.


Easier said than done, though. After all, the cops are doing their job. Reminds me of the Feres Doctrine, whereby soldiers can't sue their doctors for malpractice. And I agree with the other related comments below this.
I wasn't necessarily talking about holding the cops who performed the raid. If a raid goes bad because of poor planning, sloppy homework (like getting the wrong house), it's not usually the cop with the door ram that's made the mistake.


Again, this goes against mainstream libertarianism.
And, I'm not concerned about that.

[DarkReign]

Really, I'm just in to yonivorism and applying the common-sense principles instilled in me by my parents. Can't say I'm in the market for finding a "label" that fits what I believe.

Amen. I never look to others and their way of thinking for validation or clarity. Waste of time to stand on another (wo)man's thoughts and insights.

[LnGrrrR]

Amen. I never look to others and their way of thinking for validation or clarity. Waste of time to stand on another (wo)man's thoughts and insights.

Not for clarity? Just as I stand on the backs of great inventors when I use a microwave, so I will read philosophy; to look at the world from different perspectives and 'try them on', so to speak. I can then choose to reject or follow what I read. I don't think it's a waste of time, as I've learned to think differently about some subjects, based on other people's insights.

[Winehole23]

Not for clarity? Just as I stand on the backs of great inventors when I use a microwave, so I will read philosophy; to look at the world from different perspectives and 'try them on', so to speak. I can then choose to reject or follow what I read. I don't think it's a waste of time, as I've learned to think differently about some subjects, based on other people's insights.It doesn't hurt to try one's own ideas on for size either.

I never know quite what I think about something until I start to put it in words. More than occasionally, the result is flawed or mistaken in some way, and I end up in a different place from where I started. Having others to bounce things off of is indispensable, but one shouldn't take oneself for granted either.

[DarkReign]

Not for clarity? Just as I stand on the backs of great inventors when I use a microwave, so I will read philosophy; to look at the world from different perspectives and 'try them on', so to speak. I can then choose to reject or follow what I read. I don't think it's a waste of time, as I've learned to think differently about some subjects, based on other people's insights.

Nope, not even for clarity. A philosopher's contribution, IMO and in my world, are little tidbit sayings that ring true. Theyre fun, concise and usually full of wisdom and perspective.

Otherwise, when it comes to lengthy works of world perspective and the human condition, I pass every time.

I will not agree with nearly all of it, I guarantee that. Also, this forum is a place to bounce ideas around, so I get my "other side" perspective from real life individuals who share the same world I live in. Listening to philosopher's and artists who could rationalize things like slavery, yet provide insight into the nature of man and his position in the universe strikes me as ironic at best, sociopathic at worst.

[DarkReign]

It doesn't hurt to try one's own ideas on for size either.

Bingo was his name'o.

I'd rather be wrong then intellectually dishonest.

Also, Science != Philosophy

[LnGrrrR]

Nope, not even for clarity. A philosopher's contribution, IMO and in my world, are little tidbit sayings that ring true. Theyre fun, concise and usually full of wisdom and perspective.

Otherwise, when it comes to lengthy works of world perspective and the human condition, I pass every time.

I will not agree with nearly all of it, I guarantee that. Also, this forum is a place to bounce ideas around, so I get my "other side" perspective from real life individuals who share the same world I live in. Listening to philosopher's and artists who could rationalize things like slavery, yet provide insight into the nature of man and his position in the universe strikes me as ironic at best, sociopathic at worst.

I think philosophy, and longer works especially, are a great way to figure out about first principles. I'm not sure how many people actually hold first principles, but I think they're quite useful in determining morality and decision making.

Of course some philosophers justified slavery; others of course, did not. But it's an insight into the past, which is valuable.

For instance, I believe it was Sartre who posited that by our choices, we choose for the world, even if subconsciously. If you cheat on your wife, you are by your actions stating that you think it's presumptively normal or acceptable for others to cheat on their wives. If you gain a better education, then you think it's better for most to gain an education. Not saying this applies in all cases, but it always struck me at a time of decision-making; what would I do not for myself, but what would I expect of someone else in my decision?

What about John Rawls, and his veil of ignorance? Or Locke, and the great influence he had on our Founding Fathers? How about Nietzsche's argument of the Ubermensch often claimed to be a talking point for the rize of Nazis?

What about even people like Socrates, Aristotle and Plato? Some of the earlier philosophers doubled as scientists. Even going to in the 1600s, whose "Cogito ergo sum" or, IIRC in his native tongue "Je pense, que je suis" (I think, therefore I am), was a way of scientifically determining what could and could not be proven?

And those are just the 'classical' philosophers. What about Dostoyevsky, who wrote great works of fiction with very philosophical themes? Orwell? How about even modern day philosophers like Daniel Dennett, who deals with themes of consciousness?

I think you'll find philosophers have shaped the world more than you think.

Have you tried reading a few bits of the above?

[Yonivore]

How's this for a first principal.

Everything is binary. On or off, right or wrong, in or out, up or down, here or there. Life is an exercise in throwing switches and seeing what happens. Eventually, you have an idea of which way to throw the switch based on past experience, education, upbringing, etc...

I'd like an opportunity to flesh this out someday in the future...it just kind of spilled out right now.

[Winehole23]

Tertium non datur, but be on your guard for false dilemmas.

[DarkReign]

How's this for a first principal.

Everything is binary. On or off, right or wrong, in or out, up or down, here or there. Life is an exercise in throwing switches and seeing what happens. Eventually, you have an idea of which way to throw the switch based on past experience, education, upbringing, etc...

I'd like an opportunity to flesh this out someday in the future...it just kind of spilled out right now.

Couldnt disagree more.

[Yonivore]

Couldnt disagree more.
I bet you could if you tried.

[DarkReign]

Have you tried reading a few bits of the above?

No, because this isnt the first time another member has said "read this" because somehow, its relates to our current discussion.

Point is, I may be wrong, but I'm asking the right questions. Half the fun, it is.

[DarkReign]

I bet you could if you tried.

Ha...maybe, I guess.

But the world doesnt unfold quite the same for me as it does for you, apparently.

[Yonivore]

Ha...maybe, I guess.

But the world doesnt unfold quite the same for me as it does for you, apparently.
Safe bet, my internet friend. Safe bet, indeed. Now, don't bogart the doobie.

[Winehole23]

Pass it over to Yoni.

[Yonivore]

Pass it over to Yoni.
Ssssssssthp, here. :hat

[LnGrrrR]

How's this for a first principal.

Everything is binary. On or off, right or wrong, in or out, up or down, here or there. Life is an exercise in throwing switches and seeing what happens. Eventually, you have an idea of which way to throw the switch based on past experience, education, upbringing, etc...

I'd like an opportunity to flesh this out someday in the future...it just kind of spilled out right now.

Hm... not quite sure that could be considered a 'first principle'.

Here, check this out Yoni.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_principle

For instance, usually conservatives work on a first principle that all men should be free. From that principle, they reason that if a man is free, his property should also be free. From there, it follows that taxes diminish that liberty. See how it works? :)

Of course, liberals may work from a similar first principle, that all men should be free. But from there, they usually go something along the lines of, "For all men to be free, they must be free from hunger, etc etc" and thereby justification.

The most famous first principle, as far as rational logic, is probably "I think, therefore I am."

[LnGrrrR]

No, because this isnt the first time another member has said "read this" because somehow, its relates to our current discussion.

Point is, I may be wrong, but I'm asking the right questions. Half the fun, it is.

Fair enough. However, I think you'll find that people have been asking some of the 'big' questions for a long time. And it's interesting to see other responses and beliefs, and how those responses shape the world. We still have philosophers today; they're just in specialized fields.

[Winehole23]

Yonivore might have meant something more like logical first principles, like the law of the excluded middle. Everything is either true or false.

[LnGrrrR]

Yonivore might have meant something more like logical first principles, like the law of the excluded middle. Everything is either true or false.

Perhaps... but he'd have to flesh it out to see if he really lives his life by that rule.

For instance, enhanced interrogation. Is it acceptable, or not? I'm sure in some instances it is for Yoni, and in others, it is not. So it wouldn't seem like the Law of the Excluded Middle would be a first principle he works from.

[Winehole23]

As I suggested above, I think it underpins the false dilemmas he poses so often in these pages. He doesn't have much philosophical concern for actual truth and falsity, he just wants to see his own preferences affirmed, so he defines them as being axiomatically true. He loads the dice, then he calls all contrary outcomes false and depraved.

[Winehole23]

I detect a smidge of Kantian smugness in Yoni's method:


However, I would think there is nothing that goes less well together with the intention of asserting the good cause than subterfuge, deceit and deception. If one could take only this much for granted, then the battle for speculative reason...would have been concluded long ago, or would soon come to an end. Thus, the purity of a cause often stands in inverse proportion to its truth.

[LnGrrrR]

As I suggested above, I think it underpins the false dilemmas he poses so often in these pages. He doesn't have much philosophical concern for actual truth and falsity, he just wants to see his own preferences affirmed, so he defines them as being axiomatically true. He loads the dice, then he calls all contrary outcomes false and depraved.

I can see that. Instead of starting from a basis and building from there, it's very possible to start at each situation 'anew' as it were, and immediately label the choices as 'true/false', disregarding prior results. What's sinister though, is when there are MORE than one options, and you assume yours as the true and reject all other claims as false

[LnGrrrR]

I detect a smidge of Kantian smugness in Yoni's method:

I've only read a small amount by Kant. Worth it? I don't mind smugness...just as long as he's not as depressing as Kierkegaard (forgive the spelling if incorrect; I always have trouble spelling his name correctly.)

[Winehole23]

I've only read a small amount by Kant. Worth it? I don't mind smugness...just as long as he's not as depressing as Kierkegaard (forgive the spelling if incorrect; I always have trouble spelling his name correctly.)Depends on what you mean by worth it. Reading Kant is not a pleasant experience (though I actually like Critique of Judgment, which is mainly his aesthetics) but his morality is foundational by now, like his skepticism for science. I'm a bit surprised you haven't gone there yet, but we all jump right in and start swimming wherever we happen to be, I guess.

[Winehole23]

Kant has the Gothic penchant for inventing his own terminology and a million dependent clauses. Still, for clarity and focus I'd take him over Hegel any day.

[LnGrrrR]

Kant has the Gothic penchant for inventing his own terminology and a million dependent clauses. Still, for clarity and focus I'd take him over Hegel any day.

God, as soon as I read the first sentence, I thought about Hegel. I needed a nearby "Hegel" dictionary to keep track of all the 'dasein' references and whatnot.

I jumped from Descartes, to Sartre/Camus, to Nietzsche, then to some of the modern days ones like Dennett, with occasional bits of Socrates/Aristotle/Plato. Haven't worked my way back towards Kant yet, and probably won't until I get finished with some Dostoyevsky.

Edit: Forgot to mentions John Rawls and John Stuart Mill. Not sure where in there I read those.

[LnGrrrR]

God, as soon as I read the first sentence, I thought about Hegel. I needed a nearby "Hegel" dictionary to keep track of all the 'dasein' references and whatnot.

Argh, not Hegel. I meant Heidigger. Don't think I've read Hegel yet.

[Winehole23]

Argh, not Hegel. I meant Heidigger. Don't think I've read Hegel yet.It's understandable. The hipsters will beat you up for saying it, but Heidegger was a blockhead and a Nazi. He's a big waste of time IMO. If you really need the phenomenology, particularly as it relates to actual science, read Husserl.

[LnGrrrR]

It's understandable. The hipsters will beat you up for saying it, but Heidegger was a blockhead and a Nazi. He's a big waste of time IMO. If you really need the phenomenology, particularly as it relates to actual science, read Husserl.

I wish you'd informed me before I bothered with dasein and being and all that jazz. I never quite finished though. Gave me a headache.

Husserl? I'll take a look.