The appropriate punishment for any political position
16 Oct 2012, 12:23 am
DancingDanny wrote:
So who is the authoritarian now? I was specific! I mentioned conformity, collectivism, Buddhism and the fear of losing face in those cultures. You just do not want to read it. Your admission that free, subjective criticism is not as valid as your textbooks really shines a line on your gripe with the left and it's so called moral relativism problem. You just have the problem of believing that your textbooks and abstract philosophy is the authority and moral relativism by it's very nature calls all of that into question. Your Politburo is your objectivity. Your Bolshevism is your political economy.
We do have western cultures that score quite high on both conformity and solidarity, Scandinavian countries come to mind. These are also social democratic countries, thus quite collectivist. If I don't respond, it means I judged it as pointless to expend time on.
On the other comment, I feel like quoting Bill Maher "You don't get to put your unreason up on the shelf with my reason, your s**t needs to go over there with Thor, Odin and The Kraken."
Also, if you try to make subjective value judgments and analysis of something without adequate textbook knowledge, then you mix it with your daydreams of "how it should have been", then you feel hungry and you make a judgment based on that, then you sleep in a Berlin Bus station, and figure how nice you could have it in a small apartment, then you make an ideology based on your lack of ability, then next thing you know you've created communism and 50 million people are dead.
16 Oct 2012, 12:23 am
DancingDanny wrote:
I'm really not understanding the connection of welfare programs and the police department. How exactly is the size of the welfare state hindering the pursuit and prosecution of justice?
What I'm trying to say is that you're saying that all libertarians think X, when they clearly don't (a straw man). Libertarianism, to me, means advocating for a smaller state and the freedom for people to go about their business as long as they don't harm others. There are enormously diverse camps within libertarianism is my point.
16 Oct 2012, 12:35 am
TM wrote:
DancingDanny wrote:
So who is the authoritarian now? I was specific! I mentioned conformity, collectivism, Buddhism and the fear of losing face in those cultures. You just do not want to read it. Your admission that free, subjective criticism is not as valid as your textbooks really shines a line on your gripe with the left and it's so called moral relativism problem. You just have the problem of believing that your textbooks and abstract philosophy is the authority and moral relativism by it's very nature calls all of that into question. Your Politburo is your objectivity. Your Bolshevism is your political economy.
We do have western cultures that score quite high on both conformity and solidarity, Scandinavian countries come to mind. These are also social democratic countries, thus quite collectivist. If I don't respond, it means I judged it as pointless to expend time on.
On the other comment, I feel like quoting Bill Maher "You don't get to put your unreason up on the shelf with my reason, your sh** needs to go over there with Thor, Odin and The Kraken."
Also, if you try to make subjective value judgments and analysis of something without adequate textbook knowledge, then you mix it with your daydreams of "how it should have been", then you feel hungry and you make a judgment based on that, then you sleep in a Berlin Bus station, and figure how nice you could have it in a small apartment, then you make an ideology based on your lack of ability, then next thing you know you've created communism and 50 million people are dead.
Oh yes, the high and mighty TM has deemed it pointless to compare the success of libertarian government in Singapore and Hong Kong compared to it's predicted failure in America due to the difference of conformity vs individualism, for what reason? I really want to hear why a America based on libertarian virtue will pull out of the brink based solely on your sound, authoritative judgment. You know all of the answers, don't you?
The fact that you picked a quote where he is addressing gods is really illustrative of where you want to sit in this argument and how much you value your sophistication. You might as well be puffing out your chest and widening your body in order to appear bigger. Why don't you give me one of those good old corndog poses that Mussolini would strike while you're telling me how compulsory government intervention into poverty is bad?
16 Oct 2012, 12:37 am
DancingDanny wrote:
Oh yes, the high and mighty TM has deemed it pointless to compare the success of libertarian government in Singapore and Hong Kong
Singapore and Hong Kong have never, ever been libertarian societies. They both have had a strong measure of economic liberalism and laissez-faire economic non-interventionism (Hong Kong did, especially pre-1997) but even then, it wasn't a democratic or particularly liberal society socially and the people weren't truly free as such.
16 Oct 2012, 12:45 am
Tequila wrote:
DancingDanny wrote:
Oh yes, the high and mighty TM has deemed it pointless to compare the success of libertarian government in Singapore and Hong Kong
Singapore and Hong Kong have never, ever been libertarian societies. They both have had a strong measure of economic liberalism and laissez-faire economic non-interventionism (Hong Kong did, especially pre-1997) but even then, it wasn't a democratic or particularly liberal society socially and the people weren't truly free as such.
Yes, then he shifted the argument over to how that success could be true in the West but we are just so used to Big Brother that we cannot see how abstract philosophy, if it is true in one case, is true in all cases. That was the fundamental error of logic and reason that he made and it has taken all of this time and words for me to address it in that light. It is a logical fallacy to expect libertarian success in America because it happened sometime. That's not even mentioning that he waved your point away with a slight of moral relativism. Singapore is authoritarian in some ways and America is authoritarian in others, but because they are practicing the economy that he likes it's advisable to move that economy into America without thinking about repercussions. Are you starting to get an idea of how much of an egotist this ally of yours really is?
16 Oct 2012, 12:49 am
DancingDanny wrote:
Oh yes, the high and mighty TM has deemed it pointless to compare the success of libertarian government in Singapore and Hong Kong compared to it's predicted failure in America due to the difference of conformity vs individualism, for what reason? I really want to hear why a America based on libertarian virtue will pull out of the brink based solely on your sound, authoritative judgment. You know all of the answers, don't you?
Pardon me if I'm making a mistake here, but wouldn't an ideology which favored individualism be more let's call it congruent with a culture that favors individualism and conformist culture being more congruent with a culture that favors conformity?
That just seems kind of logical to me. To utilize a conformist and collectivist ideology in a culture of individualists just seems like trying to slam that square peg in that round hole.
DancingDanny wrote:
The fact that you picked a quote where he is addressing gods is really illustrative of where you want to sit in this argument and how much you value your sophistication. You might as well be puffing out your chest and widening your body in order to appear bigger. Why don't you give me one of those good old corndog poses that Mussolini would strike while you're telling me how compulsory government intervention into poverty is bad?
Now now, if you're going to take things personally and get all amped up, I'm going to have to stop talking to you.
16 Oct 2012, 12:55 am
DancingDanny wrote:
Tequila wrote:
DancingDanny wrote:
Oh yes, the high and mighty TM has deemed it pointless to compare the success of libertarian government in Singapore and Hong Kong
Singapore and Hong Kong have never, ever been libertarian societies. They both have had a strong measure of economic liberalism and laissez-faire economic non-interventionism (Hong Kong did, especially pre-1997) but even then, it wasn't a democratic or particularly liberal society socially and the people weren't truly free as such.
Yes, then he shifted the argument over to how that success could be true in the West but we are just so used to Big Brother that we cannot see how abstract philosophy, if it is true in one case, is true in all cases. That was the fundamental error of logic and reason that he made and it has taken all of this time and words for me to address it in that light. It is a logical fallacy to expect libertarian success in America because it happened sometime.
Actually, it was to illustrate that a libertarian society can function, whereas you tried to undermine the philosophy in its entirety through some sleight of hand where we somehow go from "smaller government with more free market traits" to "society falling into dystopia".
DancingDanny wrote:
That's not even mentioning that he waved your point away with a slight of moral relativism. Singapore is authoritarian in some ways and America is authoritarian in others, but because they are practicing the economy that he likes it's advisable to move that economy into America without thinking about repercussions. Are you starting to get an idea of how much of an egotist this ally of yours really is?
It wasn't moral relativism, moral relativism would require that there are morals involved. I merely made a comparative judgment of restrictions in each country. Moral relativism would require me to treat the same act in 2 different manners and I certainly did not.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_relativism If you're going to use big boy words, know what they mean.
16 Oct 2012, 12:57 am
Tequila wrote:
DancingDanny wrote:
Oh yes, the high and mighty TM has deemed it pointless to compare the success of libertarian government in Singapore and Hong Kong
Singapore and Hong Kong have never, ever been libertarian societies. They both have had a strong measure of economic liberalism and laissez-faire economic non-interventionism (Hong Kong did, especially pre-1997) but even then, it wasn't a democratic or particularly liberal society socially and the people weren't truly free as such.
Let me ask you Tequila, since the discussion between me and DancingDanny was (at least as it appeared to me) related to economic policy, is it or is it not sound to make a comparison primarily based on economic policy, not overall political situation?
Last edited by TM on 16 Oct 2012, 12:59 am, edited 1 time in total.
16 Oct 2012, 12:59 am
TM wrote:
Let me ask you Tequila, since the discussion between me and DancingDanny was related to economics, is it or is it not sound to make a comparison based on economic policy, not overall political situation?
Yes, yes it is. I just take issue with the fact that he's misrepresenting HK and Singapore. Whilst they may be very free societies economically, they ain't libertarian ones.
16 Oct 2012, 12:59 am
TM wrote:
DancingDanny wrote:
Oh yes, the high and mighty TM has deemed it pointless to compare the success of libertarian government in Singapore and Hong Kong compared to it's predicted failure in America due to the difference of conformity vs individualism, for what reason? I really want to hear why a America based on libertarian virtue will pull out of the brink based solely on your sound, authoritative judgment. You know all of the answers, don't you?
Pardon me if I'm making a mistake here, but wouldn't an ideology which favored individualism be more let's call it congruent with a culture that favors individualism and conformist culture being more congruent with a culture that favors conformity?
That just seems kind of logical to me. To utilize a conformist and collectivist ideology in a culture of individualists just seems like trying to slam that square peg in that round hole.
DancingDanny wrote:
The fact that you picked a quote where he is addressing gods is really illustrative of where you want to sit in this argument and how much you value your sophistication. You might as well be puffing out your chest and widening your body in order to appear bigger. Why don't you give me one of those good old corndog poses that Mussolini would strike while you're telling me how compulsory government intervention into poverty is bad?
Now now, if you're going to take things personally and get all amped up, I'm going to have to stop talking to you.
Congratulations, you have become even more obscurantist in your pursuit of never being wrong about anything at all. That whole paragraph about X=X and Y=Y is not right, it is not even wrong. It is completely missing my prediction that a libertarian model with a heavy influence of individualism will not guarantee an amount of voluntary cooperation that is necessary for a social contract to function in the real world and it's problems like the problems that befell poor Somalia. This is legitimate because the problems of Somalia were blamed on the communist government by another poster. If you take the government away from the authoritarian big government Somalians and they crash because they cannot the problems that the world threw at them, isn't it reasonable to surmise that the same thing will happen and we will repeat all of their mistakes? How would your model of government have enough force and authority to deal with the problems that fell on Somalia after their overthrow of the communists?
Last edited by DancingDanny on 16 Oct 2012, 1:12 am, edited 1 time in total.
16 Oct 2012, 1:01 am
Tequila wrote:
TM wrote:
Let me ask you Tequila, since the discussion between me and DancingDanny was related to economics, is it or is it not sound to make a comparison based on economic policy, not overall political situation?
Yes, yes it is. I just take issue with the fact that he's misrepresenting HK and Singapore. Whilst they may be very free societies economically, they ain't libertarian ones.
Then he is misrepresenting them because he drafted those countries in these terms.
16 Oct 2012, 1:07 am
TM wrote:
DancingDanny wrote:
Tequila wrote:
DancingDanny wrote:
Oh yes, the high and mighty TM has deemed it pointless to compare the success of libertarian government in Singapore and Hong Kong
Singapore and Hong Kong have never, ever been libertarian societies. They both have had a strong measure of economic liberalism and laissez-faire economic non-interventionism (Hong Kong did, especially pre-1997) but even then, it wasn't a democratic or particularly liberal society socially and the people weren't truly free as such.
Yes, then he shifted the argument over to how that success could be true in the West but we are just so used to Big Brother that we cannot see how abstract philosophy, if it is true in one case, is true in all cases. That was the fundamental error of logic and reason that he made and it has taken all of this time and words for me to address it in that light. It is a logical fallacy to expect libertarian success in America because it happened sometime.
Actually, it was to illustrate that a libertarian society can function, whereas you tried to undermine the philosophy in its entirety through some sleight of hand where we somehow go from "smaller government with more free market traits" to "society falling into dystopia".
DancingDanny wrote:
That's not even mentioning that he waved your point away with a slight of moral relativism. Singapore is authoritarian in some ways and America is authoritarian in others, but because they are practicing the economy that he likes it's advisable to move that economy into America without thinking about repercussions. Are you starting to get an idea of how much of an egotist this ally of yours really is?
It wasn't moral relativism, moral relativism would require that there are morals involved. I merely made a comparative judgment of restrictions in each country. Moral relativism would require me to treat the same act in 2 different manners and I certainly did not.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_relativism If you're going to use big boy words, know what they mean.
Now you get have to your voluntary methodology philosophy both ways. If the kind of economy that you want can only be practiced with compulsory social mores that are both self selected and enforced by a government that is not democratically elected then what exactly is the point of trying to export that economy to our shores? How would your model of government have enough force and authority to deal with the problems that fell on Somalia after their overthrow of the communists?
16 Oct 2012, 1:16 am
TM wrote:
Tequila wrote:
DancingDanny wrote:
Oh yes, the high and mighty TM has deemed it pointless to compare the success of libertarian government in Singapore and Hong Kong
Singapore and Hong Kong have never, ever been libertarian societies. They both have had a strong measure of economic liberalism and laissez-faire economic non-interventionism (Hong Kong did, especially pre-1997) but even then, it wasn't a democratic or particularly liberal society socially and the people weren't truly free as such.
Let me ask you Tequila, since the discussion between me and DancingDanny was (at least as it appeared to me) related to economic policy, is it or is it not sound to make a comparison primarily based on economic policy, not overall political situation?
Hopper made a pretty good argument in favor of how political situation is inexorably tied up into economy policy.
16 Oct 2012, 1:23 am
DancingDanny wrote:
Now you get have to your voluntary methodology philosophy both ways. If the kind of economy that you want can only be practiced with compulsory social mores that are both self selected and enforced by a government that is not democratically elected then what exactly is the point of trying to export that economy to our shores? How would your model of government have enough force and authority to deal with the problems that fell on Somalia after their overthrow of the communists?
For a man who loves citing "history" and "culture" you seem to only invoke that to counterargue. You do see certain differences in a 200+ year old democracy with a tradition for human rights and a state that just overthrew an authoritarian communist government right?
How about you also outline your state with the level of government you deem required to make it not turn into somalia?
*PS* Unless you didn't notice, America already has a fair lot of heavily armed police officers patrolling the streets, so the current social contract is hardly that strong.
16 Oct 2012, 1:28 am
TM wrote:
DancingDanny wrote:
Now you get have to your voluntary methodology philosophy both ways. If the kind of economy that you want can only be practiced with compulsory social mores that are both self selected and enforced by a government that is not democratically elected then what exactly is the point of trying to export that economy to our shores? How would your model of government have enough force and authority to deal with the problems that fell on Somalia after their overthrow of the communists?
For a man who loves citing "history" and "culture" you seem to only invoke that to counterargue. You do see certain differences in a 200+ year old democracy with a tradition for human rights and a state that just overthrew an authoritarian communist government right?
How about you also outline your state with the level of government you deem required to make it not turn into somalia?
*PS* Unless you didn't notice, America already has a fair lot of heavily armed police officers patrolling the streets, so the current social contract is hardly that strong.
200 years? Who was talking about that? Your first argument was about how in the last 50, 60 years we abandoned laissez faire, small government. I was arguing against that and now you want to run all the way back to 200 years. Can you pick a time and stick with it? I never made the positive claim that America can turn into a small government, laissez faire system again without massive unintended repercussions of social discord and unrest. The burden of proof is not on me. You are just slipping farther into the mud of logical abuse in order to avoid ever being wrong even when you are. This is completely silly and I think I've spent enough time considering that you will never give a concrete, substantive answer for any of the big problems in the political situation. You will just keep reverting to the cave of the tradition of Great Thinkers because you think it is right to do so.
16 Oct 2012, 1:43 am
DancingDanny wrote:
TM wrote:
DancingDanny wrote:
Now you get have to your voluntary methodology philosophy both ways. If the kind of economy that you want can only be practiced with compulsory social mores that are both self selected and enforced by a government that is not democratically elected then what exactly is the point of trying to export that economy to our shores? How would your model of government have enough force and authority to deal with the problems that fell on Somalia after their overthrow of the communists?
For a man who loves citing "history" and "culture" you seem to only invoke that to counterargue. You do see certain differences in a 200+ year old democracy with a tradition for human rights and a state that just overthrew an authoritarian communist government right?
How about you also outline your state with the level of government you deem required to make it not turn into somalia?
*PS* Unless you didn't notice, America already has a fair lot of heavily armed police officers patrolling the streets, so the current social contract is hardly that strong.
200 years? Who was talking about that? Your first argument was about how in the last 50, 60 years we abandoned laissez faire, small government. I was arguing against that and now you want to run all the way back to 200 years. Can you pick a time and stick with it? I never made the positive claim that America can turn into a small government, laissez faire system again without massive unintended repercussions of social discord and unrest. The burden of proof is not on me. You are just slipping farther into the mud of logical abuse in order to avoid ever being wrong even when you are. This is completely silly and I think I've spent enough time considering that you will never give a concrete, substantive answer for any of the big problems in the political situation. You will just keep reverting to the cave of the tradition of Great Thinkers because you think it is right to do so.
Well, we're talking 50 - 60 years of Big government, but about 230 years or so of building a cohesive social identity. Reducing the government down doesn't mean breaking down that social identity.
Let me slow it down for you, 50 - 60 years of growing government, 230 years of a common social identity as a country, means the social cohesion is built to a much higher level than it was in Somalia.
This is not logical abuse, this is recognizing the differences between what are fundamentally idiotic comparisons picked by you. It would have been a lot more sensible to compare the US to the UK under Thatcher where a similar government reduction to what I'm a proponent of took place without warlords roaming the freeways Mad Max style.
You were the one who claimed that a reduction of government size would result in large amounts of unrest, and you have yet to supply a single argument in favor of that, while I've come up with multiple arguments as to why you're wrong.
