I am boggled!!
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
By extension, libertarians believe that Humans are angels, and that is a recipe for disaster.[/quote]
Since when? I guess you will have to name names because I don’t recall any libertarian claiming humans are angels.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Smug: Exhibiting or feeling great or offensive satisfaction with oneself or with one’s situation; self-righteously complacent.[/quote]
Funny enough, in my response to ALISAV, I made no reference to thunderbolt23 and when you responded, you actually didn’t address my point at all.
[quote]People can form their own opinions as to what or who I am, but the irony, of course, is that my major theme (lately) is to attack “self-righteous complacency” of ideologues that think they have it “all figured out”.
My watchphrase has been, over and over, “it’s hubris to think you have it all figured out”, kinda the opposite of smugness. But I digress.[/quote]
Not from what I’ve seen. In fact, I’d say this exactly describes you. In your quest to slay all the libertarians it seems you have become the ideologue yourself. It would be all fine and dandy if you actually could discuss something without having to resort to petty remarks, but it seems that kind of dialogue would be lost on you.
[quote]Sure it is. The weakest argument you can offer is that “some people just can’t handle logic”. You haven’t yet demonstrated that you stand in a position to make that argument.
[/quote]
Umm, no. That just happened to be the one freaking sentence that I wrote commending AlisaV’s post.
[quote]Dustin wrote:
Since when? I guess you will have to name names because I don’t recall any libertarian claiming humans are angels.[/quote]
You’ll note, I said “by extension” - as in, if Madison is right, then those clamoring for “no gummit” must bey extension believe that Men must be angels.
And, what else could explain the belief that Men don’t even need courts of justice to enforce contracts and torts?
[quote]Dabba wrote:
Funny enough, in my response to ALISAV, I made no reference to thunderbolt23 and when you responded, you actually didn’t address my point at all.[/quote]
Well, funny enough, since I was the one actually “appealing to the argument of Human Nature”, it was clear enough. And to my mind, you didn’t have much of a point regarding “logic”.
Then, frankly, you aren’t paying attention. Perhaps no one else (perhaps Sloth and Dr. Skeptix, both of whom do yeoman’s work on this) attacks the arrogance of the “I’ve got it all figured out” crowd around here.
You really whine alot, don’t you?
I am no ideologue. Anyone paying attention would know this.
And as for “petty” remarks, look at my correpondence withy AlisaV. Look at my last post to you in the other thread. I can have a conversation just fine - but I won’t tolerate rank numbskullery and sloppiness, and my telling you (the proverbial you) isn’t “petty”.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Tell me: if someone asks you, “What sort of animal is that?” and they said, “Its a kangaroo.”, then do you call that person a kangaroo?[/quote]
But I am not asking "what sort of animal is that?, I am asking “what sort of animal are you?”
So, back to the question - do you believe there is a Divine/Providential Moral Code beyond mere Human Beings? Yes, or no?
Heh. Sure thing.
“Guided liberty”? What is that exactly?
Did you mean my reference to “ordered liberty”?[/quote]
Didn’t know that the French Rev was more than 10 years after American Rev. Check.
Wants to control with HIS definition of liberty. Check.
Knows beans about Ms. Rand’s philosophy but spouts smears at it anyway. Check.
Keeps repeating the same ludicrous charges – ‘Why, you must be a kangaroo too!’. Check.
/thread, before Bolt Boy shames himself further…
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
/thread, before Bolt Boy shames himself further…[/quote]
One question, Headhunter - do you believe that there exists a divine moral code?
Better asked, do you believe that the the rights of life, liberty and property are endowed by a Creator?
Enough with the noise, posturing, etc. No one is buying it, least of all me. Just answer the question, yes or no.
[quote]Dustin wrote:
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
By extension, libertarians believe that Humans are angels, and that is a recipe for disaster.[/quote]
Since when? I guess you will have to name names because I don’t recall any libertarian claiming humans are angels.[/quote]
I don’t believe in angels.
I believe people act in self-interest, always and forever.
I am a libertarian because I know most people acting in self interest do not do anything too drastic to harm their own self interest. Furthermore, I also know that the few clowns who think they can brutalize honest people would be dealt with were it not for monopolistic government standing in our way of it.
TB mocks libertarianism because he does not trust the goodness of individuals to do good even when it is clear it is in their best interest to do so. He believes in the power of government to control people. That is all I need to know about him.
“One must never make any decisions, form any convictions or seek any values out of context, i.e., apart from or against the total, integrated sum of oneâ??s knowledge.”
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
“One must never make any decisions, form any convictions or seek any values out of context, i.e., apart from or against the total, integrated sum of oneâ??s knowledge.”[/quote]
No more cryptic horseshit - just indulge me with a yes or no answer. Thanks in advance.
“With a firm reliance on divine providence” Jefferson in the DOI.
Divine providence was defined by George Whitfield, the most famous preacher of the day and the human instrument of the great awakening, in strict accordance with a protestant reformed understanding of the biblical doctrine as propounded in the Westminster Confession of Faith of 1646. The opening general definition is as follows:
[quote] Of Providence.
I. God, the great Creator of all things, doth uphold, direct, dispose, and govern all creatures, actions, and things, from the greatest even to the least, by his most wise and holy providence, according to his infallible foreknowledge, and the free and immutable counsel of his own will, to the praise of the glory of his wisdom, power, justice, goodness, and mercy.[/quote] 301 redirect HAR DEE HAR HAR!!! Find somebody who believes that anymore even though the very non religious Thomas Jefferson saw fit to incorporate it into the seminal document of this republic. I’ve been trying forever to get somebody to simply and honestly proclaim their disdain for this nation as founded. No go. Everybody loves their country as long as they get to redefine her in their own image.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
I believe people act in self-interest, always and forever.
[/quote]
I think an important clarification is in order:
Libertarians tend to have a limited view of self-interest. Self-interest is entirely subjective and yet libertarians “make it” objective. The usual approach is a strict focus on economics. So when a libertarian talks about self-interest they really mean economic self-interest.
And…well…economic self-interest is a different beast altogether. People, quite clearly, don’t always act in their best economic interests. The fact is social recognition is more important for a lot of people than economic power.
So the question is: Do you believe “self-interest” is objective or subjective? If it is subjective are you really able to logically reason about how people would act in a world without government, where everyone acted in their own self-interest?
If you think it is objective, do you have any proof?
â??“Manâ??s basic vice, the source of all his evils, is the act of unfocusing his mind, the suspension of his consciousness, which is not blindness, but the refusal to see, not ignorance, but the refusal to know. Irrationality is the rejection of manâ??s means of survival and, therefore, a commitment to a course of blind destruction; that which is anti-mind, is anti-life.”
Ayn FTW!!
Kickin’ a certain dude’s butt out the door and down the road!
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
â??“Manâ??s basic vice, the source of all his evils, is the act of unfocusing his mind, the suspension of his consciousness, which is not blindness, but the refusal to see, not ignorance, but the refusal to know. Irrationality is the rejection of manâ??s means of survival and, therefore, a commitment to a course of blind destruction; that which is anti-mind, is anti-life.”
Ayn FTW!!
Kickin’ a certain dude’s butt out the door and down the road![/quote]
Are you going to answer the question as to what Headhunter thinks/believes? Or no?
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
[quote]AlisaV wrote:
I hear a lot about human nature from conservatives. I want to caution that “human nature” is not constant over time, and not identical between people. I know essentially no history, so I don’t have a lot of confidence in this, but it does seem that “human nature” – what people value, what actions they’re willing to take – has undergone various changes over time.[/quote]
With due respect, I think you have it exactly backwards. Human Nature never changes, it does not “evolve”, it cannot be perfected with just enough money or certain kinds of education. Humans can wiser, but their nature never changes.
There is no Perfectibility of Man through Reason, and this is one of the great themes I harp on as to why libertarians (and the Left) have it all wrong. Humans are and will always be slaves to their passions and at times irrational, and frankly, there is nothing inherently bad about that. Conservatives and many liberals are at peace with this and work around it.
Libertarianism - the strain we see here in PWI - ignores this iron law and proceeds as if Humans were perfectible or that they have a magic elixir of Reason that solves all our current problems. Thus, libertarians take Reason - which was classically seen as an antidote to unthinking ideology - and convert it into an ideology, thus turning Reason on its head.
At best, Humans have vices and passions, at worst, Humans are capable of great savagery. We can’t “cure” this, which is why, by way of example, our government is set up the way that it is: decentralized, but with enough power to operate. To borrow from Madison, if men were angels, no government would be necessary. By extension, libertarians believe that Humans are angels, and that is a recipe for disaster.[/quote]
Well said. It’s interesting to me that libertarians and progressives/socialists both seem to share this belief in the perfectability of human nature.
[quote]phaethon wrote:
Libertarians tend to have a limited view of self-interest. Self-interest is entirely subjective and yet libertarians “make it” objective. The usual approach is a strict focus on economics. So when a libertarian talks about self-interest they really mean economic self-interest.[/quote]
There is no other kind of self-interest than economic self-interest. And yes, a proper understanding of economics would lead one to understand that all self-interest is completely subjective.
In a materialistic sense, self-interest directs individuals to bring about those factors that contribute to an “existential” well-being that would not otherwise be possible without the goods necessary for existence. Imagine the idea of humanity developing spirituality without first developing a means to survive their never-ending hunger. It is physically, not to mention logically impossible.
[quote]katzenjammer wrote:
It’s interesting to me that libertarians and progressives/socialists both seem to share this belief in the perfectability of human nature.
[/quote]
Human nature is already as perfect as it will ever be.
We are capable of learning and directing new knowledge to existing imperfections and that is all that really matters, in the materialistic sense.
However, self discovery to me is the closest an individual can get to “perfection”.
Libertarians may or may not believe what you say but they most certainly don’t believe that it is government that will perfect humanities imperfections.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
There is no other kind of self-interest than economic self-interest.
[/quote]
Only for a sufficiently vague understanding of the term “economic”.
For instance is dying for what you believe in acting in economic self-interest? You could make a vague argument stemming from utility and a trade of life for a moment of happiness but by doing so you undermine almost all the logical arguments made in favor of a libertarian society.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
And yes, a proper understanding of economics would lead one to understand that all self-interest is completely subjective.
[/quote]
So then why is it that you can argue with such conviction about what would happen in a society based upon libertarian principles and self-interested people?
For instance many libertarians on PWI have said “War in a society with private armies would be infrequent because there is no money in it”. Which assumes that economics rules the roost and that self-interest is not all that subjective.
Basically all the counter arguments against flaws seen within libertarianism framework always assume that people are primarily concerned with maximizing their own wealth. Which for many people is not the case. For instance I am far more concerned with respectability than I am with money.
[quote]phaethon wrote:
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
There is no other kind of self-interest than economic self-interest.
[/quote]
Only for a sufficiently vague understanding of the term “economic”.
For instance is dying for what you believe in acting in economic self-interest? You could make a vague argument stemming from utility and a trade of life for a moment of happiness but by doing so you undermine almost all the logical arguments made in favor of a libertarian society.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
And yes, a proper understanding of economics would lead one to understand that all self-interest is completely subjective.
[/quote]
So then why is it that you can argue with such conviction about what would happen in a society based upon libertarian principles and self-interested people?
For instance many libertarians on PWI have said “War in a society with private armies would be infrequent because there is no money in it”. Which assumes that economics rules the roost and that self-interest is not all that subjective.
Basically all the counter arguments against flaws seen within libertarianism framework always assume that people are primarily concerned with maximizing their own wealth. Which for many people is not the case. For instance I am far more concerned with respectability than I am with money.[/quote]
Economics refers to human action in the most general sense. It is impossible for humans to act without self interest.
Even private armies are made up of individuals with subjective values so it is true that many may be satisfied with scraps while other would not.
As far as dying for what one “believes in” it must be completely economic in nature otherwise fighting over it would not solve the problem. Indeed, fighting does not solve ideological problems but rather creates materialistic problems. Man cannot act without affecting his material world.
What on earth is human nature? It’s a phrase you use to summarize a set of ideas. If it means anything, then you (Thunderbolt, Katzenjammer) are making some testable predictions about human behavior. Would you mind saying what those are?
TB, I don’t believe in “perfectibility” (I don’t even know what that would mean.) I’ll reiterate: some people are pretty good at thinking for themselves, upholding their own responsibilities, and not interfering with other people’s peaceful choices. I think of those as the libertarian virtues. You can get better at them with practice. I’m a work in progress, myself. When you design a system as though people are completely incapable of personal independence, you harm those who practice the libertarian virtues, and you prevent anyone from getting better at them.