That being said, Gary Johnson is more palatable to me then Ron Paul or Mittens.
Yeah. Although it's basically the difference between eating razor blades and old, rusty nails. They'll both fuck you up pretty badly, although one has a slightly smaller chance of killing you.
Seriously, Libertarian economic thought only works in a perfect universe where you ignore so many variables. I mean, just think about it. Palin is/was pretty much the perfect Libertarian/Objectivist candidate. She was only out to help herself get more money, and fuck anyone else. She used a bid for VP-ness not as a way to push her values out on to the rest of the universe, because who cares? How does that help her? No, she realized that no one will elect that sort of nutjob, so she used it to make as much money as possible.
The problem with Libertarian laissez-faire in the USA is that its operative model can be summed up as, "Implicitly trust these criminals who hate you."
The problem with Libertarian laissez-faire in the USA is that its operative model can be summed up as, "Implicitly trust these criminals who hate you."
Exactly. I mean, it almost seems like they never studied history and forgot that the reason why we have so many of these regulations and whatnot in place is because so many people took advantage of the lack of them in the past to screw people over for their own profit.
Like I've said before, capitalism is all about competition, but any fair competition requires a decent set of rules (other than just "he with the most points/money/etc. wins," no matter the means used to acquire them) and a referee to enforce the rules.
Well, there is a reason for it - It's a weird delusion that's shared by practically every Big-L Libertarian, namely that if it wasn't for all these horrible regulations and government oversight, people would be free to and would all act in a perfectly rational fashion, and said Libertarian would be at the top of the pile, bootstrapping themselves up to the top, that they'd be rich - or at least, moderately wealthy - happy, and successful.
It assumes that people are rational all the time(foolish and demonstrably false), that we'd start at a level playing field(Foolish and Naive, people like Romney and Corporations won't give up their enormous wealth and power just to level themselves with normal people, to give normal people a chance), and that the big entities of the corporate world won't take steps to ensure you support them, and don't manage to get up on your own, when in reality, they'd be perfectly happy to either stomp you down or practically enslave you, depending on which serves their purpose.
A large number of angry white men close to my age and in my area seem to buy into the Libertarian slant for the same reason the slightly older generation seem to buy into the Fox News slant. The rhetoric sounds really good, simple, and concrete. It's weird to literally watch the changes in culture and habit happen to these guys.
What communists, anti-communists, Nazis and other ethnic nationalists, religionists, fringe feminists, and revolutionaries of every kind all have in common is that they can name the source of society's ills in one or two words.
What communists, anti-communists, Nazis and other ethnic nationalists, religionists, fringe feminists, and revolutionaries of every kind all have in common is that they can name the source of society's ills in one or two words.
lol, I like how they say anti-communists and communists, but not anti-Nazis :-p I mean, anti-Nazis's should be able to mention that the source of societies ills is the Nazis right :-p
What communists, anti-communists, Nazis and other ethnic nationalists, religionists, fringe feminists, and revolutionaries of every kind all have in common is that they can name the source of society's ills in one or two words.
Generalizations are never true.
This one is particularly shit.
Sure there are countless exceptions, but that doesn't make it shit. There is indeed a tendency to blame society's ills on simplistic single causes, and such a tendency as a part of an ideology can serve to be very dangerous indeed.
What communists, anti-communists, Nazis and other ethnic nationalists, religionists, fringe feminists, and revolutionaries of every kind all have in common is that they can name the source of society's ills in one or two words.
Generalizations are never true.
This one is particularly shit.
Sure it isn't really true, but that doesn't make it shit. There is indeed a tendency to blame society's ills on simplistic single causes, and such a tendency as a part of an ideology can serve to be very dangerous indeed.
Sure there is, but that's not how this quote is stated. The quote is making it out that anybody who questions the status quo is a simpleton. That's crap.
What? It doesn't read that way to me at all. While the quote overreaches in the groups the author has chosen to name, the specific problem being highlighted by that quote is not questioning the status quo, but dogmatically claiming a single, root cause for all problems.
It could certainly be read in that way. Easily I think. I agree with your interpretation, but I don't agree that it's the strongest interpretation of the quote given.
Nope. Sorry. You have to define this. Apreche certainly defines this differently than most people, for example. For some, emotion of any kind is an imperfection. For others, faultless logic is a problem. You can't just drop this and claim an end to debate. :-)
So, the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami was caused by human imperfection?
"Human imperfection."
/done in one
Nope. Sorry. You have to define this. Apreche certainly defines this differently than most people, for example. For some, emotion of any kind is an imperfection. For others, faultless logic is a problem. You can't just drop this and claim an end to debate. :-)
Clearly he means to say that the sin of Adam and Eve is the root cause of all problems.
You might find it interesting. I for one would like to hear a reasoned response from someone who doesn't agree with it beyond "it's shit and dumb you are all bad".
So, the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami was caused by human imperfection?
The resultant misery could have been avoided by both a more concerted effort globally to assist and a pre-emptive effort to raise the standard of living in these places such that the structures in place were more resilient to natural disasters.
Comments
Seriously, Libertarian economic thought only works in a perfect universe where you ignore so many variables. I mean, just think about it. Palin is/was pretty much the perfect Libertarian/Objectivist candidate. She was only out to help herself get more money, and fuck anyone else. She used a bid for VP-ness not as a way to push her values out on to the rest of the universe, because who cares? How does that help her? No, she realized that no one will elect that sort of nutjob, so she used it to make as much money as possible.
Like I've said before, capitalism is all about competition, but any fair competition requires a decent set of rules (other than just "he with the most points/money/etc. wins," no matter the means used to acquire them) and a referee to enforce the rules.
It assumes that people are rational all the time(foolish and demonstrably false), that we'd start at a level playing field(Foolish and Naive, people like Romney and Corporations won't give up their enormous wealth and power just to level themselves with normal people, to give normal people a chance), and that the big entities of the corporate world won't take steps to ensure you support them, and don't manage to get up on your own, when in reality, they'd be perfectly happy to either stomp you down or practically enslave you, depending on which serves their purpose.
Time for some Carrousel.
This one is particularly shit.
/done in one
Also, depending on what is meant by "imperfection", it might not be something that can be eliminated without ceasing to be human.