Jump to content

Welcome to The OFFICIAL Pure Pwnage forums
Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, post status updates, manage your profile and so much more. If you already have an account, login here - otherwise create an account for free today!
Photo

Libertarianism In A Nutshell...


  • Please log in to reply
34 replies to this topic

#21
Dohregard

Dohregard

    Master Dohbator

  • GA Private
  • -32,944 posts
  • xfire:dohreguard
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Kansas City, KS
  • Steam ID:dohreguard
  • Xbox / GFWL:Dohregard
  • PSN:A1R5N1P3R
  • Wii:209737188728753
  • Rofl-Rupees:5
  • Gamer Army ID:3070
  • Company:Foxtrot
This is an argument over semantics, how can anyone have a discussion if the answer is already out there?

Dohregard
Crap IT Manager
Flickr
cdyw1.gif


#22
JimRaynor

JimRaynor
  • Banned
  • 1,311 posts
  • xfire:jimraynor1
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Mar Sara
  • Interests:Starcraft<br />Korean girls<br />French girls<br />Black girls<br />Spanish girls
QUOTE (Dohregard @ Jun 15 2009, 03:45 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
This is an argument over semantics, how can anyone have a discussion if the answer is already out there?

we've moved from "electoral reform" to "libertarianism" to "does a libertarian perspective exist"
FUN WOW!

QUOTE (James Madison @ Aug 25 1781, 11:48 AM)
If Tyranny and oppression come to this land it will be under the guise of fighting a foreign enemy

#23
Internet Casualty

Internet Casualty
  • Members
  • 15 posts
QUOTE (JimRaynor @ Jun 15 2009, 07:59 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
not according to libertarians like John Hospers
"`Libertarianism` was one of the first full-length studies of the modern libertarian philosophy."
http://www.theadvoca...hn-hospers.html
it is this philosophy i refer to when answering the questions in the previous post...

you can also check out "encyclopedia of libertarianism"
http://books.google....J...ary_s&cad=0
lots of "libertarian philosophy" in there...

maybe you and John can argue over proper use of words like "a" and "the" as well icon_smile.gif

So what? They're wrong. It's a bastardisation of a term and always has been.
Libertarianism, traditionally, has nothing to do with economic practice and everything to do with social intervention. It's just the antithesis of authorianism, nothing more. This has been, and still is, the pervading use in the world.

But outside of the semantics, even under the American definition, Libertarianism is still not a cohesive political theory. It's more like, say, classical liberalism or social democracy - it's a term applied to multiple interrelated strands of thought.
QUOTE (Majiffy)
Uh, yeah it is. I don't know what your idea of "philosophy proper" is, but it's obviously far off the mark.

The same one that's pervaded most of analytic philosophy for the past century: yeah, clearly WAY off.
QUOTE (Majiffy)
Political philosophy is as much philosophical thought as any other...

To me political philosophy seems to be almost entirely devoid of concrete reasoning, academic rigour, and the application of logic. It's no more philosophy than, say, medical ethics is philosophy. This is, as I've already said, far from an uncommon metaphilosophical position, and to simply dismiss it out of hand shows either complete ignorance of the subject or absolute intellectual dishonesty.

QUOTE (Majiffy)
Also, wtf is wrong with Derrida?

Apart from the fact he makes Hegal look like an eloquent mother fucker? Nothi-... well, pretty much everything.

#24
JimRaynor

JimRaynor
  • Banned
  • 1,311 posts
  • xfire:jimraynor1
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Mar Sara
  • Interests:Starcraft<br />Korean girls<br />French girls<br />Black girls<br />Spanish girls
QUOTE (Internet Casualty @ Jun 15 2009, 07:51 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
So what? They're wrong. It's a bastardisation of a term and always has been.
Libertarianism, traditionally, has nothing to do with economic practice and everything to do with social intervention. It's just the antithesis of authorianism, nothing more. This has been, and still is, the pervading use in the world.

i'll defer to you as well then.. on the use of the word "pwn" icon_smile.gif
"pervading" ... pervading in whose world? in your imaginary world?

if a bunch of people decide to define a word for use in a certain way you can not stop them.
you also can not claim that any new thing that arises from that new usage does not exist.
from now on every scientist will have to check with you first before they publish new science...because any new terminology needs to be of course check out with you first...before continuing...
for example, we should get Kary Mullis to check in with you about how he should use the acronym PCR.
if your gang of people decide its being used in it "non pervading use" then maybe the nobel prize should be taken away from him.
have fun hopping up and down on internet boards while libertarians at the same moment continue to extend the boundaries of philosophy(libertarian philosophy) and ethics(libertarian meta-ethics) to places you could never imagine... icon_smile.gif
if you come to toronto for a film screening you and i should head over to John Ridpath's office and we can talk to him about how his PHD should be revoked LOL
it'd be good for a laugh....
please we need your reply ASAP because i need to know when and how i am allowed to use the word "pwn"
the last thing i want to do is bastardize that word.
QUOTE (James Madison @ Aug 25 1781, 11:48 AM)
If Tyranny and oppression come to this land it will be under the guise of fighting a foreign enemy

#25
Majiffy The Magic Admin

Majiffy The Magic Admin
  • Banned
  • 152 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Buffalo, NY
  • Xbox / GFWL:MJFI
  • PSN:41R5N1P3R
QUOTE (Internet Casualty @ Jun 15 2009, 07:51 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
The same one that's pervaded most of analytic philosophy for the past century: yeah, clearly WAY off.

Marx, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, John Locke... Need I go on?

QUOTE (Internet Casualty @ Jun 15 2009, 07:51 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
To me political philosophy seems to be almost entirely devoid of concrete reasoning, academic rigour, and the application of logic. It's no more philosophy than, say, medical ethics is philosophy. This is, as I've already said, far from an uncommon metaphilosophical position, and to simply dismiss it out of hand shows either complete ignorance of the subject or absolute intellectual dishonesty.

Obviously you have not studied enough political philosophy lately, because it is much more concrete than other branches of philosophy e.g. existentialists...

QUOTE (Internet Casualty @ Jun 15 2009, 07:51 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Apart from the fact he makes Hegal look like an eloquent mother fucker? Nothi-... well, pretty much everything.

So because he's not a great linguist means he doesn't have good ideas?

#26
Internet Casualty

Internet Casualty
  • Members
  • 15 posts
QUOTE (JimRaynor @ Jun 16 2009, 02:58 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
if a bunch of people decide to define a word for use in a certain way you can not stop them.

In any technical contest people have done and regularly do so. Think of the arguments over what constitutes a Marxist or a Communist. The term 'Communism' has, in a sense, done the very reverse of the term 'Libertarianism': it was once a highly specified and consistent political theory that is now a catch-all term for the far left; this HAS NOT gone unopposed and unargued, either on the far left itself or outside of it.
The debate over how far people can differ from Marxist orthodoxy and still be considered one has given birth to entire new schools of Marxism in response to it: Postmarxism, Neo-Marxism, etc.
These are far from purely semantic issues. Think of it in a religious context: what is and is not a Christian is far from a trivial matter - people have lived and, more importantly, died (by the fucking thousand) on such things - if I were to decide "I like the name, let's slap it on Scientology to make it sound prettier!", do you think people would have nothing to say?

QUOTE (JimRaynor)
you also can not claim that any new thing that arises from that new usage does not exist.

I never claimed it didn't exist, I claimed it was bullshit in name and content.

QUOTE (JimRaynor)
from now on every scientist will have to check with you first before they publish new science...because any new terminology needs to be of course check out with you first...before continuing...

That'd be a good example if it didn't fuck your own point in the face.
Scientific terminology does infact HAVE TO conform to already existing terminology with little variation.
Take, for example, the allele naming scheme in place - do you think a genetics paper that decides to fuck with this for no good reason would be published in a respectable journal?
QUOTE (JimRaynor)
for example, we should get Kary Mullis to check in with you about how he should use the acronym PCR.
if your gang of people decide its being used in it "non pervading use" then maybe the nobel prize should be taken away from him.
have fun hopping up and down on internet boards while libertarians at the same moment continue to extend the boundaries of philosophy(libertarian philosophy) and ethics(libertarian meta-ethics) to places you could never imagine... icon_smile.gif

If by "expanding" you mean rehashing Classical Liberalism with a new whiney middleclass-angst ridden centre and a strong desire to share it, then go right ahead. I'm sure they'll enjoy NOT getting elected and NOT being an important political force in the world.
QUOTE (JimRaynor)
if you come to toronto for a film screening you and i should head over to John Ridpath's office and we can talk to him about how his PHD should be revoked LOL
it'd be good for a laugh....
please we need your reply ASAP because i need to know when and how i am allowed to use the word "pwn"
the last thing i want to do is bastardize that word.

You mean his doctorate in ECONOMICS? I hope he has fun with that. Really though, anybody that takes Rand seriously should immediately get their doctorate revoked for being a cockbag.

You can use it anyway you want, though you never seem to have a need to.
QUOTE (Majiffy The Magic Admin @ Jun 16 2009, 07:39 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Marx, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, John Locke... Need I go on?

The existence of political theorists doesn't say anything against my point. I'm not arguing that is doesn't exist, I'm arguing that it's not philosophy.
From a philosophical standpoint, I argue that their works are ultimately futile due to the noncognitivist nature of ethics. True, this noncognitivism is relient upon a strict analytic/synthetic distinction, and this has been ripped to shreds and put back together three or four times since Two Dogmas of Empiricism was published, but it still has a lot going for it.

QUOTE (Majiffy The Magic Admin @ Jun 16 2009, 07:39 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Obviously you have not studied enough political philosophy lately, because it is much more concrete than other branches of philosophy e.g. existentialists...


I have a shelf of Nietzsche, Kierkegaard, Sartre, Merleau-Ponty, Camus, etc... I'll be the first to say it definitely is NOT philosophy for that reason and many others, however much I like it.

QUOTE
So because he's not a great linguist means he doesn't have good ideas?

Not really the issue. Lots of philosophers are shit writers. Fuck! Read Kant or Quine, the guys write like highschool English teachers.
Derrida, on the otherhand, is not a bad writer; he could have probably had an above-average career as a novelist; but every sentence he wrote was so laced with needless, pretentious verbiage and bullshit, so lacking in clarity or rigour of anykind, so obsessed with the appearence of profundity rather than actual critical reasoning that whatever worth there is there is hidden under the ostentatious bullshit so deeply that's barely worth reading to begin with. There's a reason his honourary degree at Cambridge pissed off the philosophy department so much.

#27
JimRaynor

JimRaynor
  • Banned
  • 1,311 posts
  • xfire:jimraynor1
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Mar Sara
  • Interests:Starcraft<br />Korean girls<br />French girls<br />Black girls<br />Spanish girls
QUOTE (Internet Casualty @ Jun 16 2009, 07:12 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
You mean his doctorate in ECONOMICS? I hope he has fun with that. Really though, anybody that takes Rand seriously should immediately get their doctorate revoked for being a cockbag.

'takes Rand seriously' : invalid reason to revoke someone's PHD
i'm not exactly sure what a "cockbag" is...
but you're the alleged expert on when and how terminology is applied

we're still awaiting for your ruling on how to use the term 'pwn'

QUOTE (James Madison @ Aug 25 1781, 11:48 AM)
If Tyranny and oppression come to this land it will be under the guise of fighting a foreign enemy

#28
Internet Casualty

Internet Casualty
  • Members
  • 15 posts
QUOTE (JimRaynor @ Jun 16 2009, 04:08 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
'takes Rand seriously' : invalid reason to revoke someone's PHD

1) I was half-joking, and you either know that or you're truly fucked as far as reading comprehension or social skills are concerned, and 2) Read Rand - read anything decent - rethink statement.
His PhD is COMPLETELY UNRELATED to philosophy, and therefore is completely unrelated to the discussion.
QUOTE (JimRaynor @ Jun 16 2009, 04:08 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
i'm not exactly sure what a "cockbag" is...

Cockbag - noun, a bag containing copious quantities of cock. ex. "Wow, that's a pretty full cockbag, brah!"
Clear?
QUOTE (JimRaynor)
we're still awaiting for your ruling on how to use the term 'pwn'

"We"? I didn't notice the dozens of people fawning at the sidelines for you.

#29
techno-ninja

techno-ninja

    Best Newcomer 08!

  • Retired Staff
  • 3,765 posts
  • Xbox / GFWL:techno ninjacus
Please remember that there is still a no flaming rule in place on this section of the forum, so lets stay away from personal attacks and keep the debate as intended- techno-ninja

#30
Majiffy The Magic Admin

Majiffy The Magic Admin
  • Banned
  • 152 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Buffalo, NY
  • Xbox / GFWL:MJFI
  • PSN:41R5N1P3R
QUOTE (Internet Casualty @ Jun 16 2009, 07:12 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
The existence of political theorists doesn't say anything against my point. I'm not arguing that is doesn't exist, I'm arguing that it's not philosophy.
From a philosophical standpoint, I argue that their works are ultimately futile due to the noncognitivist nature of ethics. True, this noncognitivism is relient upon a strict analytic/synthetic distinction, and this has been ripped to shreds and put back together three or four times since Two Dogmas of Empiricism was published, but it still has a lot going for it.

I have a shelf of Nietzsche, Kierkegaard, Sartre, Merleau-Ponty, Camus, etc... I'll be the first to say it definitely is NOT philosophy for that reason and many others, however much I like it.

Not really the issue. Lots of philosophers are shit writers. Fuck! Read Kant or Quine, the guys write like highschool English teachers.
Derrida, on the otherhand, is not a bad writer; he could have probably had an above-average career as a novelist; but every sentence he wrote was so laced with needless, pretentious verbiage and bullshit, so lacking in clarity or rigour of anykind, so obsessed with the appearence of profundity rather than actual critical reasoning that whatever worth there is there is hidden under the ostentatious bullshit so deeply that's barely worth reading to begin with. There's a reason his honourary degree at Cambridge pissed off the philosophy department so much.

Pray tell, after all of this, who or what would you consider viable philosophy, then? You've scratched the existentialists (and probably the post-modernists, from the train of thought I'm picking up off you) which is one of the biggest branches of philosophy at damn near any university with a decent philosophy program. You've scratched out political philosophy, completely disregarding a shitload of great philosophers just because they had political aims with their works... I assume you hate Plato as well, then, yeah? So what's left, Hegel, Kant and Heidegger? Seriously now. Do you have a PhD in philosophy? If you don't, I suggest you stop saying what is and what isn't viable philosophy.

Edited by Majiffy The Magic Admin, 17 June 2009 - 01:17 PM.


#31
Internet Casualty

Internet Casualty
  • Members
  • 15 posts
QUOTE (Majiffy The Magic Admin @ Jun 17 2009, 07:13 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Pray tell, after all of this, who or what would you consider viable philosophy, then? You've scratched the existentialists (and probably the post-modernists, from the train of thought I'm picking up off you) which is one of the biggest branches of philosophy at damn near any university with a decent philosophy program.

What universities would these be exactly?
QUOTE (Majiffy)
You've scratched out political philosophy, completely disregarding a shitload of great philosophers just because they had political aims with their works... I assume you hate Plato as well, then, yeah?

I haven't 'scratched' them off, I've separated their political writings from their philosophical ones. How are Plato's epistemological proposals lessened by this?
This is far from an original event in philosophy: much of what was once the philosophy of mind has become the cognitive sciences; much that was natural philosophy and philosophical cosmology has become physics; psychology is a more recent example (how much of the early Nietzsche was psychology, anthropology and a social critique?). Hume, for instance, made significant contributions to literary criticism and history, and saw himself as undertaking very much the same process in that as he was with philosophy: who would consider these things philosophy today?
How is this anymore an affront to philosophy than any of those? Its merits may be questioned, its possibility cannot.

Note: I'm not questioning the worth (the majority) of these things, I'm just saying they're not part of philosophy in the same way as the above examples are not, but were once considered to be.
QUOTE (Majiffy)
So what's left, Hegel, Kant and Heidegger?

Virtually everything is left unchanged. The removal of the ethically prescriptive and metaphysical from philosophy is only to strip the thinest part of it away. The problems of epistemology, logic, meta-philosophy, meta-ethics, some parts of aesthetics, the philosophies-: -of language, -of science, -of mathematics, -of mind, and a thousand more subfields, and probably a thousand more left to discover, beside remain completely intact.
And virtually every philosopher, too.
QUOTE (Majiffy)
Seriously now. Do you have a PhD in philosophy?

Still working on my bachelors, thanks. What was your dissertation on?
QUOTE (Majiffy)
If you don't, I suggest you stop saying what is and what isn't viable philosophy.

NO U!

Meta-philosophical discussion is completely valid.

Edited by Internet Casualty, 17 June 2009 - 06:42 PM.


#32
Majiffy The Magic Admin

Majiffy The Magic Admin
  • Banned
  • 152 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Buffalo, NY
  • Xbox / GFWL:MJFI
  • PSN:41R5N1P3R
QUOTE (Internet Casualty @ Jun 17 2009, 07:38 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
What universities would these be exactly?

Every SUNY university I've visited (roughly 20) which are rather renowned by level of education across the states.


QUOTE (Internet Casualty @ Jun 17 2009, 07:38 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Note: I'm not questioning the worth (the majority) of these things, I'm just saying they're not part of philosophy in the same way as the above examples are not, but were once considered to be.

And I'm saying that just because larger, more substantial areas of study have grown out of them doesn't mean they can no longer be considered philosophical writings.

QUOTE (Internet Casualty @ Jun 17 2009, 07:38 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Still working on my bachelors, thanks. What was your dissertation on?

I'm not getting a major in philosophy, I'm getting a minor in it. What exactly do you plan on doing with a major in philosophy, save for continue working for a PhD and then teach?

QUOTE (Internet Casualty @ Jun 17 2009, 07:38 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Meta-philosophical discussion is completely valid.

In a political thread?

#33
JimRaynor

JimRaynor
  • Banned
  • 1,311 posts
  • xfire:jimraynor1
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Mar Sara
  • Interests:Starcraft<br />Korean girls<br />French girls<br />Black girls<br />Spanish girls
QUOTE (Internet Casualty @ Jun 15 2009, 07:51 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
So what? They're wrong. It's a bastardisation of a term and always has been.

i did not say they were "right" i only said it is their perspective.
thanks for acknowledging that though.

QUOTE (James Madison @ Aug 25 1781, 11:48 AM)
If Tyranny and oppression come to this land it will be under the guise of fighting a foreign enemy

#34
fykusfire

fykusfire
  • GA Private
  • 1,316 posts
  • xfire:fykusfire
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Houston, TX
  • Steam ID:fykusfire
  • Gamer Army ID:1293
  • Company:Hotel
I don't get it, is this a topic supporting Libertarianism, or opposing it? For that matter, is it a topic about Canadian Libertarianism, or American? I know the American Libertarian party has on their site "Smaller Government, Lower Taxes, More Freedom." That would seem to me to be very clear cut so if this is regarding the American party, I think that about sums it up. What else is there to debate? I think this may be about the Canadian party, or possibly the principles that guide it in all of the world, but it seems like principles from the American party are being brought up one second, and then Canadian ones the next. Pardon my ignorance, but I am confused.

#35
JimRaynor

JimRaynor
  • Banned
  • 1,311 posts
  • xfire:jimraynor1
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Mar Sara
  • Interests:Starcraft<br />Korean girls<br />French girls<br />Black girls<br />Spanish girls
QUOTE (fykusfire @ Aug 14 2009, 03:11 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
I don't get it, is this a topic supporting Libertarianism, or opposing it? For that matter, is it a topic about Canadian Libertarianism, or American? I know the American Libertarian party has on their site "Smaller Government, Lower Taxes, More Freedom." That would seem to me to be very clear cut so if this is regarding the American party, I think that about sums it up. What else is there to debate? I think this may be about the Canadian party, or possibly the principles that guide it in all of the world, but it seems like principles from the American party are being brought up one second, and then Canadian ones the next. Pardon my ignorance, but I am confused.


a poster on here using the "Canadian Libertarian Logo" as his Avatar attempts to say the Libertarian Party's philosophy should be changed to allow for government run health care.

This will never happen with either the Canadian or American Libertarian party. Neither Libertarian party will support anything other than a separation of state and economics similar to the separation between state and church in the current US constitution.

the mess of the thread occurred when
some guy came on and claims the libertarian party isn't allowed to have a `philosophy` or it doesnt exist or cant exist or somethin' ... and the topic got derailed.

then some other guy tried to make up some term called "fundamentalist libertarian".
QUOTE (James Madison @ Aug 25 1781, 11:48 AM)
If Tyranny and oppression come to this land it will be under the guise of fighting a foreign enemy




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users