Poll: Allah, Yahweh, atheist? Left wing, right wing, no wing?
Left wing
Right wing
No wing
[Show Results]
 
No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
05-08-2014, 03:39 PM
No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
@Luminon: So is it true that you consider yourself a superior intellect to all other participants in this thread? Or do you consider yourself in possession of earth shattering knowledge that all other humans on earth are simply ignorant of? If yes, how did you come to this knowledge?

He's not the Messiah. He's a very naughty boy! -Brian's mum
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-08-2014, 03:57 PM
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
I am gone for a day and this shit continues for 5 pages.

What a waste of efforts.

Luminon is either a fanatic or a 21 year old college student who read some book about liberterianism for the first time and now thinks he knows how the world works.

There is no point in arguing with that person until he realises himself out of his own failures that he is fail.

Do it like me, turn up at randome times to just shout at people and then disapear again.

[Image: RPYH95t.png]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 6 users Like The Germans are coming's post
05-08-2014, 03:58 PM
No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(05-08-2014 03:57 PM)The Germans are coming Wrote:  I am gone for a day and this shit continues for 5 pages.

What a waste of efforts.

Luminon is either a fanatic or a 21 year old college student who read some book about liberterianism for the first time and now thinks he knows how the world works.

There is no point in arguing with that person until he realises himself out of his own failures that he is fail.

Do it like me, turn up at randome times to just shout at people and then disapear again.

That could take many years.

He's not the Messiah. He's a very naughty boy! -Brian's mum
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-08-2014, 04:09 PM
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(05-08-2014 03:23 PM)Cardinal Smurf Wrote:  I'm reading a lot of evangelizing here. Much like descriptions of Molyneaux that I've recently read, lots of complaining about what's wrong and no recommendations as to how to improve on what exists. I only see suggestions that we should abandon established institutions in favor of the vision of a handful.

Do I have the gyst? If so, I am disinclined to acquiesce. I see little wisdom in abandoning established institutions so hastily.
I have to make two corrections here.
1) If something is immoral in principle, then we don't build on it. We abandon it.
Wife beating was an established institution for traditional happy marriage. Did you see gradual policy of decreasing tolerance to wife beating?
Slavery was an established institution too, vital for production of cotton. Did you see decrease of slavery as new cotton-farming techniques were developed?
There's no way to improve on evil!

2) There is no "vision of the handful". If you have a vision, feel free to offer it on the market and get rich on it. Just don't take this vision to the government to force it on everyone whether they want it or not. All visions are welcome on the market, no strings attached. I just want to make room for them and let people keep their money to pay for them.

(05-08-2014 03:28 PM)morondog Wrote:  You have it right. Any criticism is met with magical thinking - he doesn't like it being called magical thinking though.

How the fuck does this Molyneux clown get a following? I woulda thought even retards would reject this kinda wingnut shit.
If you don't learn how to think, thinking is magic Wink Unfortunately we don't have a word for what is that people do when they don't use full concepts and principles.

As for the other question, Stef responds to market demand and delivers the goods that people want. Then he provides lots of free stuff and asks nicely for donations while not pointing gun at people.
One way to check out his topics is to go to this website and look over the podcast descriptions.
http://www.fdrpodcasts.com/
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-08-2014, 04:17 PM
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(05-08-2014 04:09 PM)Luminon Wrote:  
(05-08-2014 03:23 PM)Cardinal Smurf Wrote:  I'm reading a lot of evangelizing here. Much like descriptions of Molyneaux that I've recently read, lots of complaining about what's wrong and no recommendations as to how to improve on what exists. I only see suggestions that we should abandon established institutions in favor of the vision of a handful.

Do I have the gyst? If so, I am disinclined to acquiesce. I see little wisdom in abandoning established institutions so hastily.
I have to make two corrections here.
1) If something is immoral in principle, then we don't build on it. We abandon it.
Wife beating was an established institution for traditional happy marriage. Did you see gradual policy of decreasing tolerance to wife beating?
Slavery was an established institution too, vital for production of cotton. Did you see decrease of slavery as new cotton-farming techniques were developed?
There's no way to improve on evil!

2) There is no "vision of the handful". If you have a vision, feel free to offer it on the market and get rich on it. Just don't take this vision to the government to force it on everyone whether they want it or not. All visions are welcome on the market, no strings attached. I just want to make room for them and let people keep their money to pay for them.

(05-08-2014 03:28 PM)morondog Wrote:  You have it right. Any criticism is met with magical thinking - he doesn't like it being called magical thinking though.

How the fuck does this Molyneux clown get a following? I woulda thought even retards would reject this kinda wingnut shit.
If you don't learn how to think, thinking is magic Wink Unfortunately we don't have a word for what is that people do when they don't use full concepts and principles.

As for the other question, Stef responds to market demand and delivers the goods that people want. Then he provides lots of free stuff and asks nicely for donations while not pointing gun at people.
One way to check out his topics is to go to this website and look over the podcast descriptions.
http://www.fdrpodcasts.com/

Thinking does not require your "principles".
Rational thinking does not require your "principles".
No one here has accepted your claimed "principles".

And your first principle is a trite tautology.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
05-08-2014, 04:44 PM (This post was last modified: 05-08-2014 04:58 PM by Luminon.)
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(05-08-2014 03:39 PM)Cardinal Smurf Wrote:  @Luminon: So is it true that you consider yourself a superior intellect to all other participants in this thread? Or do you consider yourself in possession of earth shattering knowledge that all other humans on earth are simply ignorant of? If yes, how did you come to this knowledge?

I have never thought about it that way. People started saying that ironically or maybe as accusation. I enjoy teaching, disagreement and learning from people too, but I get carried away a lot at the former. It's that I have nobody else to talk to.

Again, I have never thought of the knowledge as something to be proud of. I think of it as fun and interesting stuff that I think is also quite vital for the world. Can I be proud of something if it's also fun for me? Consider I enjoy myself and I totally to forget that less informed people are meanwhile struggling to save face as scholars despite of never having studied this stuff.
(by the way, I'm a 26-years old college student and I have studied Austrian economics under the only Czech anarcho-capitalist professor at a private college. Only now I enrolled at government university for the masters program.)

I don't think I'm that smart (how the hell would I know that? Nobody admits that to another!), I think parenting, media and education are that bad. And I can not comprehend what is so difficult to believe about it. Man, we lived in the 20th century. We grew up on global pollution, deforestation, wars, famines and epidemics in the third world, we grew up on CNN or local equivalent of thereof, we've seen economic crises that are exactly the same as economic crises 80 years ago. We know something is completely fucked up and it's not original sin, end times or human nature. We know that science works, but so it's workable, but there's a mess-up in the system. And I think the mess-up is the practices of society that don't come from science at all, yet have the most power (*cough* *politics* *parenting* *cough*. Does that sound logical to you?

(05-08-2014 04:17 PM)Chas Wrote:  Thinking does not require your "principles".
Rational thinking does not require your "principles".
No one here has accepted your claimed "principles".

And your first principle is a trite tautology.
There are no "my" principles, there are only first principles.
Rational thinking does require them.
No-one here ever studied philosophy, everyone on this forum value empiricism (science) much higher than reasoning, which is a philosophical error.

And the first principle of identity is not a tautology. Things have their identity. If you wanted to communicate without the principle of identity, you couldn't assign identity. You couldn't say that:
"first principle is a trite tautology".
You could only say that:
"first principle is first principle, trite tautology is trite tautology". - no assigning of identity in language would be possible. Thus by your very use of language you are unable to deny the principle. That's why it's called a principle.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-08-2014, 04:52 PM (This post was last modified: 05-08-2014 04:56 PM by Luminon.)
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(05-08-2014 04:17 PM)Chas Wrote:  Thinking does not require your "principles".
Rational thinking does not require your "principles".
No one here has accepted your claimed "principles".

And your first principle is a trite tautology.
There are no "my" principles, there are only first principles.
Rational thinking does require them.
No-one here ever studied philosophy, everyone on this forum value empiricism (science) much higher than reasoning, which is a philosophical error, because the scientific method is a secondary product of reasoning.

And the first principle of identity is not a tautology. Things have their identity. If you wanted to communicate without the principle of identity, you couldn't assign identity. You couldn't say that:
"first principle is a trite tautology".
You could only say that:
"first principle is first principle, trite tautology is trite tautology". - no assigning of identity in language would be possible. Thus by your very use of language you are unable to deny the principle. That's why it's called a principle. You may think that is a trivial little assertion, but then there is one kind of action and it is given two contradictory identities, it is called both a taxation for public good and the crime of robbery, depending on the color of costume that the people involved are wearing.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-08-2014, 05:20 PM
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(31-07-2014 11:01 AM)DLJ Wrote:  
(31-07-2014 06:51 AM)Luminon Wrote:  ...
So please look at the pic and vote in the poll.

[Image: 10590594_667094376708419_2980131783438047277_n.jpg]

Consider

I looked at the pic. I have a problem with it.

Let's take the simplest one... taxation:

A small tribe have a meeting and decide, much like the pizza example, that they want to change their environment to make life, for all, safer / more efficient / more social / more private / whatever.

They come up with a plan that involves some construction work ... a program of works, in fact.

They need to work out a way to resource the work and decide that as everyone benefits in some way, then contributions should come from everyone.

This scenario does not fit into any of the three categories in the picture.

To make it fit the picture we need to add another factor... dissent.

This could be a dissenting voice of a tribe member against the initial proposal or an external dissenter who joins the tribe late and was not part of the initial decision making process.

One solution for cost-recovery could be to tax consumption (like toll roads). Now, the initial budget could have come from any social group; the whole tribe (the state) or a subset (a corporation or church or co-op).

This seems like the libertarian model... individual/group choice regarding funding and individual choice regarding consumption. So far, so good.

Now, what about the penniless, 90-year-old widow who could not contribute and cannot afford the tax? For example, she is not allowed to use a new road because she neither contributed to the budget nor can she pay the toll.

Charitable donations? Great... but no guarantees. She had two sons who cared for her but they both died during the construction project because the social group (state) could not force the social group (corporation) to abide by best practice health and safety laws.

For any given position (corporate policy, state law, 10 commandments, football rules, TTA forum policies etc.) there will always be dissenters.

To address this, we have Governance; a mechanism whereby all stakeholders' needs, conditions and options are evaluated to determine balanced, negotiated and agreed-upon objectives; setting direction through transparent prioritisation and decision-making; and monitoring performance and compliance against that agreed-upon direction.

Every social grouping has Governance. Some governance systems have proved more useless than others.

Reposting because of how painfully evident it is that ol' Lumi would rather regurgitate sanctimonious image macros than address substantive criticism.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-08-2014, 05:37 PM (This post was last modified: 05-08-2014 05:43 PM by Chas.)
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(05-08-2014 04:44 PM)Luminon Wrote:  
(05-08-2014 04:17 PM)Chas Wrote:  Thinking does not require your "principles".
Rational thinking does not require your "principles".
No one here has accepted your claimed "principles".

And your first principle is a trite tautology.
There are no "my" principles, there are only first principles.
Rational thinking does require them.
No-one here ever studied philosophy, everyone on this forum value empiricism (science) much higher than reasoning, which is a philosophical error.

And the first principle of identity is not a tautology. Things have their identity. If you wanted to communicate without the principle of identity, you couldn't assign identity. You couldn't say that:
"first principle is a trite tautology".
You could only say that:
"first principle is first principle, trite tautology is trite tautology". - no assigning of identity in language would be possible. Thus by your very use of language you are unable to deny the principle. That's why it's called a principle.

I have studied philosophy - yet another thing you have wrong.

The rest is word games. Of course I can deny your principle. However, what I claimed is that the 'principle' is trivial.
Your claim is a bare assertion and proves nothing.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like Chas's post
05-08-2014, 05:52 PM
No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
@Luminon: Being a parent and having been a (not terribly) abused child I can see why Stefan's philosophy on parenting sounds so appealing. I raised both my daughters managing to control most (but not all) aggression and not using corporal punishment except under a few circumstances.

I see evidence from other parents both from my generation and newer generations that the practice of corporal punishment and the expression of aggression toward one's children seems to be in significant decline, at least in California.

However, it seems overly optimistic to suppose that it will be easy to suppress parental aggression and that this will necessarily lead to a utopian ideal. It also seems simplistic to suppose that aggressive parenting is necessarily the cause of aggression when speaking of a species of animals. I can't say with certainty that my parenting practices were wholly responsible for my children's demeanors.

Also, I've heard Molyneaux's suggestion parents should be kinder to their kids, but haven't heard any plans on how to control this. Has he any ideas how to implement such a plan in any nation? Not sure how things are in Canada (I hear they're really nice) but here in the US there are some parents who take great offense to being told how to raise their kids.

He's not the Messiah. He's a very naughty boy! -Brian's mum
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: