(04-28-2013 09:40 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote: (04-27-2013 05:05 AM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote: (04-27-2013 01:40 AM)EagleX Wrote: RP is a massive whack job.
you do realize that the whole notion of libertarianism is deranged, right? the idea itself is a contradiction.
I mean, it's all fine and good for "libertarians" to try to set themselves apart from fiscal conservatives, but sooner or later, it's the same thing.
"libertarians" are "fiscal conservatives", but they seem to need their own label. it's false, but they seem to insist upon it.
I never thought Robert would be seriously challenged for most stunningly and brazenly self-righteous ignorant post on this board ... but it appears we have a challenger.
Well go on ... let's hear how the principle of non-aggression applied to social and economic policy is a contradiction. While you're at it, go ahead and show us your math that eliminates difference from Ayn Rand and William F. Buckley Jr. And also explain how the gaping chasm between Ron Paul and the GOP on foreign policy, drug policy, welfare policy, monetary policy, spending policy, the constitution, fiscal policy, size and scope of government, and tax policy are in fact non-existent.
This ought to be rich.
Bump for answer.
who's robert? I need to meet this guy.
yeah, so, anyway, you got me. I misspoke (or mistyped, or whatever).
please allow me to rephrase my statement; once you strip away
everything from libertarianism that isn't utterly and uselessly abstract,
impractical, bizarre, or impossible, what you are left with is a small
government, fiscal conservative; just one with a rather inflated sense of
the relative value of his own individuality. in other words, anything found
in the libertarian impulse that is actually useful or applicable to the real
world can also be found in your garden variety small government fiscal
conservative. the rest belongs in a petri dish.
the inherent contradictions in libertarian thought are so numerous that I
hesitate to think of it as an overarching political philosophy. it's more of
an amalgamation of impulses; they are bound to inherently conflict. but I
can probably just observe that it's problematic to enforce your right to not
be forced into anything. the degree of liberty you are talking about simply
isn't possible without social order; the sine qua non of social order is a
willingness to make moral judgements*. moral judgements are the first
step down the short path to hell (figuratively speaking, of course) for most
libertarians. and that's when the shouting starts.
now, I have had this exact debate a hundred times. I can usually tell how
rough it's going to be by how quickly a reference is made to that dreadful,
unbalanced russian woman. but, generally, this is where you call me an
atavistic menace and how I'm simply incapable of grasping the nuanced
balances found in the libertarian paradigm. you demand that if I'm going
to critique it, I oughta at least not be retarded about it. you go on to call
me a sexually repressed jesus junkie who wants to pass a federal law
prohibiting all sex that isn't missionary position. I go on to accuse you of
wanting to to ban stop signs. just to be childish and petulant, I probably
also say something about you taking my pos rep away, because that still
sorta hacks me off.
I know. this was all deeply unsatisfying. it was a stupid, unnecessarily
provocative comment that I wish I hadn't made, but was seized by a fit
of pique because I really dislike ron paul . . . I think I could probably vote
for Rand, though. I hope he runs in 2016.
*
the classical definition of "moral judgements", before everyone just presumed that all we were talking
about is people's private parts.
lol. wow.