Something I don't understand about Libertarianism

[Atreus21]

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

Originally posted by: Atreus21
I'm not arguing either for or against local or remote authority. What I AM arguing is that, if you want ANY authority, you can't have absolute privacy.

Fair enough, but aren't there many different things to keep private? Perhaps some matter more than others for government's ability to police us.

Could you give an example?

 

[Moonbeam]

Your argument that people are not entitled to absolute privacy makes no sense to me. All rights are reciprocal. My right to privacy is not absolute if I stick my nose is somebody else's business. They have a right to get in my face.

Absolute privacy, also, would require absolute anonymity which would require no contact with other people, which would mean no government exists for you at all. I don't think you have an issue. I think you're just confused.

 

[Vic]

Libertarianism is not anarchy. I don't want government to leave me alone. I expect government to abide by the social contract, and the rule of law, as much as it expects me to do so. Government rules by the consent of the governed. And in our democracy, one step further, the government IS the people. To have government leave me alone would run contrary to all that. I expect government to let me be involved. I expect government to let my neighbor be involved. And most importantly, I expect government to be good citizen just like I expect everyone to be.

The OP says there is no expectation of privacy. I find that ridiculous. Would you just let some stranger walk through your home, go through your belongings, get involved in yours and your family's private business? Of course not. Society has an expectation that some things belong in the private sphere, and that that privacy is to be respected. Same thing with the government. With the exception that we allow government to get involved in that private sphere at certain times, but ONLY when it can show reasonable/probable cause which the rest of society can agree proves the necessity of the intrusion.

We create and consent to government for a reason. Because it serves us. We understand that government comes with a cost, both social and financial, but we reasonably expect that cost to be less than its benefits. If that weren't the case, why would anyone participate, much less consent?

I suggest the OP pick up his JS Mill again. The purpose of the social contract is to serve the people within it, not the contract itself.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Your argument that people are not entitled to absolute privacy makes no sense to me. All rights are reciprocal. My right to privacy is not absolute if I stick my nose is somebody else's business. They have a right to get in my face.

Absolute privacy, also, would require absolute anonymity which would require no contact with other people, which would mean no government exists for you at all. I don't think you have an issue. I think you're just confused.

I didn't read much past the OP. Did he switch from "general" to "absolute"?

Either way, I agree that he is confused.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: bamacre
In regards to your first question, we vote because the government does have jobs to do. This isn't Anarchism.

Well, but that's my point. Government can't do its job without being able to touch the citizenry, yet that's precisely what supporters of a right to privacy want of them. To ask to be left alone by government is, to me, to ask that there be no government.

Your second question is rather broad. What exactly do you mean by "privacy?"

Government should be protecting our rights and liberties, that is what the Constitution says, it is a contract with the people, promising to do so. The government can provide services while keeping that promise. And there is nothing dishonest about being the recipient of government service. This is a government for the people and by the people.

I'm glad you ask what I mean by privacy. What I mean is what everyone means, and that is privacy in any and every sense of the word.

Sounds ridiculous, doesn't it? That's because it is. We can't expect a right to absolute privacy, because being a part of society means being part of a whole, which means you can't have privacy, at least not absolutely. Yet people cite a right to privacy seemingly whenever its convenient. The right to privacy, as established in Griswold v. Connecticut, was cited to support Abortion, though I don't want to open that can of worms.

I suppose this rant of mine isn't so much against Libertarianism than against the so-called right to privacy.

There's nothing dishonest about being the recipient of government service, I agree. But those services come at a cost. It's a contract. We give up some liberty, and they provide us with services. Yet we cry foul seemingly whenever we have to give up any liberties in order for Government to establish a different function, and that's dishonest.

I know I'm speaking very broadly. It's not easy to argue in specific terms about something so broad as "privacy."

Certainly there are some rights to confidentiality in some matters, I'll concede.

Well now you've changed from a general right to privacy to an absolute right to privacy. Which do you mean? We certainly do have a general right to privacy, and the Supreme Court has repeatedly found this to be the case. So, it's not a 'so-called right'. It's a right.

No rights are absolute however, at least not under our system of government. Not even the right to life is considered inviolate. The government is fully legally able to create a military draft, order you off to a war and send you to your death in battle. (and execute you if you refuse) Sure it's not likely to happen, but it would be completely legal.

As for what obligations people are attempting to avoid, I'm not sure what you mean. People should always be pushing for the absolute limits of what the constitution and laws afford them, because the government is constantly pushing back the other way. Our system of law is a fundamentally adversarial one just as our overall system of government is, and so it relies upon both parties pulling both ways. A complaint about how people are trying to pull a fast one by insisting on a legal right to privacy goes against the principles of our government. You can demand anything you want, it's up to the courts to figure out if you get it.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

Originally posted by: Atreus21
Why do we clamor about the importance of voting when we don't want our elected officials to touch us?

You cannot change the system without either seceding from it or taking control of it. For the peaceful course of action it is very important to vote in liberals (not socialist) and conservatives (not neocon) who make up the libertarian side of both parties.

Then we?d have the ability to restore our constitutional rights starting with the 10th.

The second, and more complex: Do we have a right to privacy, and therefore do we have the right to demand that government leave us alone?

Did you ever read the declaration of independence? I believe it spells out the sort of thing we seek. Demands against government are no so much based on ?privacy? as much as the demands are meant to uphold and safeguard all our inherent rights. The declaration states it is our duty to abolish governments that trample those rights and to institute new government.

This isn?t a call for anarchy; it?s a call to form a government that ensures our rights. Privacy is one of those rights, but it's certainly not the sole focus of liberty. The first 10 amendments are all important and need to be upheld equally.

My solution? Localized authority. Continue collaboration between the states to fund projects, but the states are free to contribute to or remove themselves from those projects giving them the local authority over their people.

The smaller a government is, the more democratic it is. I believe this, and believe 50 states are more difficult to corrupt and sabotage than a single centralized entity.

I still think that in order for society and/or government to function, privacy must be secondary.

Some rights come before society, like the right to live, but not all rights do.

Secondary to what? You think the gov't has any place to tell you who you can and cannot perform consensual sexual acts with in your bedroom in your house? There are no absolute rights, you forfeit your right to life when you commit murder in some states. Privacy should be respected and supported except in circumstances where it is outweighed by other interests, just like every other right is.

 

[Dissipate]

Originally posted by: Vic
Libertarianism is not anarchy. I don't want government to leave me alone. I expect government to abide by the social contract, and the rule of law, as much as it expects me to do so. Government rules by the consent of the governed. And in our democracy, one step further, the government IS the people. To have government leave me alone would run contrary to all that. I expect government to let me be involved. I expect government to let my neighbor be involved. And most importantly, I expect government to be good citizen just like I expect everyone to be.

The OP says there is no expectation of privacy. I find that ridiculous. Would you just let some stranger walk through your home, go through your belongings, get involved in yours and your family's private business? Of course not. Society has an expectation that some things belong in the private sphere, and that that privacy is to be respected. Same thing with the government. With the exception that we allow government to get involved in that private sphere at certain times, but ONLY when it can show reasonable/probable cause which the rest of society can agree proves the necessity of the intrusion.

We create and consent to government for a reason. Because it serves us. We understand that government comes with a cost, both social and financial, but we reasonably expect that cost to be less than its benefits. If that weren't the case, why would anyone participate, much less consent?

I suggest the OP pick up his JS Mill again. The purpose of the social contract is to serve the people within it, not the contract itself.

Someone who is telling people to vote for Obama is trying to explain libertarianism? Obama is a left authoritarian, almost the complete opposite of libertarianism.

 

[Arkaign]

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: Vic
Libertarianism is not anarchy. I don't want government to leave me alone. I expect government to abide by the social contract, and the rule of law, as much as it expects me to do so. Government rules by the consent of the governed. And in our democracy, one step further, the government IS the people. To have government leave me alone would run contrary to all that. I expect government to let me be involved. I expect government to let my neighbor be involved. And most importantly, I expect government to be good citizen just like I expect everyone to be.

The OP says there is no expectation of privacy. I find that ridiculous. Would you just let some stranger walk through your home, go through your belongings, get involved in yours and your family's private business? Of course not. Society has an expectation that some things belong in the private sphere, and that that privacy is to be respected. Same thing with the government. With the exception that we allow government to get involved in that private sphere at certain times, but ONLY when it can show reasonable/probable cause which the rest of society can agree proves the necessity of the intrusion.

We create and consent to government for a reason. Because it serves us. We understand that government comes with a cost, both social and financial, but we reasonably expect that cost to be less than its benefits. If that weren't the case, why would anyone participate, much less consent?

I suggest the OP pick up his JS Mill again. The purpose of the social contract is to serve the people within it, not the contract itself.

Someone who is telling people to vote for Obama is trying to explain libertarianism? Obama is a left authoritarian, almost the complete opposite of libertarianism.

Obama is less of an authoritarian than McCain/Hillary, he's more of a populist. I don't have any special love for any of the three candidates, but see no reason that Vic cannot both support libertarian principles as well as support the most viable candidate of the three in terms of minimal damage to our country.

Hillary = has plans for super-sized federal programs, and still has an eye on the socialized health care.

McCain = doesn't give a crap about squandering our troops and billions in continuing overseas wars.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Someone who is telling people to vote for Obama is trying to explain libertarianism? Obama is a left authoritarian, almost the complete opposite of libertarianism.

Well he's one of the largest civil libertarians in the senate today. He opposed the patriot act, he opposed the protect america act, he's against the administrations widespread intrusions into privacy, etc. So while he might be leftist economically, he is one of the more libertarian senators out there on civil rights, and certainly far more so then either of the other presidential candidates. I guess you can say that they are all authoritarians, but that seems like a silly argument as they are the choices we have.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Dissipate
Someone who is telling people to vote for Obama is trying to explain libertarianism? Obama is a left authoritarian, almost the complete opposite of libertarianism.

First, you're an anarchist who likes to tell people you're a libertarian. Yeah... NOT. Even Ayn Rand believed in the rule of law and some form of state (no matter how minimal) to uphold it.

Second, have you not seen the other 2 candidates? Obama practically is a libertarian compared to the witch and the warmonger.
And Obama is not a left authoritarian either, he's a liberal populist. I have my reservations about his populism, but his conviction to *true* liberalism is quite strong, and I admire that.

So if you have some kind of criticism to what I posted besides my sig, I'd love to hear it. Otherwise, I'm going to assume you don't and are just being petty.

 

[Dissipate]

Originally posted by: Arkaign
Obama is less of an authoritarian than McCain/Hillary, he's more of a populist. I don't have any special love for any of the three candidates, but see no reason that Vic cannot both support libertarian principles as well as support the most viable candidate of the three in terms of minimal damage to our country.

Hillary = has plans for super-sized federal programs, and still has an eye on the socialized health care.

McCain = doesn't give a crap about squandering our troops and billions in continuing overseas wars.

All three will cause damage to the country, that is certain. Any self respecting 'libertarian' would realize that and refuse to support or advocate voting for any three of these goons.

I will say though that Obama and Hillary's plans for tax hikes could devastate the economy, which is already faltering.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Someone who is telling people to vote for Obama is trying to explain libertarianism? Obama is a left authoritarian, almost the complete opposite of libertarianism.

Well he's one of the largest civil libertarians in the senate today. He opposed the patriot act, he opposed the protect america act, he's against the administrations widespread intrusions into privacy, etc. So while he might be leftist economically, he is one of the more libertarian senators out there on civil rights, and certainly far more so then either of the other presidential candidates. I guess you can say that they are all authoritarians, but that seems like a silly argument as they are the choices we have.

Exactly. Thank you. I'll take what I can get for now and hope for more later. At least Obama would be a step forward. While the other 2 would be steps backwards IMO.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Dissipate
All three will cause damage to the country, that is certain. Any self respecting 'libertarian' would realize that and refuse to support or advocate voting for any three of these goons.

I will say though that Obama and Hillary's plans for tax hikes could devastate the economy, which is already faltering.

One of those 3 "goons" is going to become President whether we like it or not. Pardon me for supporting the lesser of the evils.

The second part you're wrong about. The economy is faltering because of the government's debt and deficits. Our credit and our dollar is failing on the global economy. We have to start paying our debts.

 

[ayabe]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Someone who is telling people to vote for Obama is trying to explain libertarianism? Obama is a left authoritarian, almost the complete opposite of libertarianism.

Well he's one of the largest civil libertarians in the senate today. He opposed the patriot act, he opposed the protect america act, he's against the administrations widespread intrusions into privacy, etc. So while he might be leftist economically, he is one of the more libertarian senators out there on civil rights, and certainly far more so then either of the other presidential candidates. I guess you can say that they are all authoritarians, but that seems like a silly argument as they are the choices we have.

You guys are all confused, guess you didn't get the memo.

The only correct way to frame Obama now is that he's a socialist and a pinko.

Please stay on message.

 

[Dissipate]

Originally posted by: Vic
First, you're an anarchist who likes to tell people you're a libertarian. Yeah... NOT. Even Ayn Rand believed in the rule of law and some form of state (no matter how minimal) to uphold it.

Have you ever read anything on Ayn Rand's stance on anarchism? It is completely absurd, replete with a ridiculous notion of some kind of 'voluntary taxation.' Not to mention the fact that Ayn Rand basically took the egoism of Max Stirner and ravaged it.

The 'rule of law' is an elusive and devoid concept that has nothing to do with reality. It is really based on a mythology, which people like you completely set aside and ignore because of childish fears of the 'state of nature.' For as long as I have looked into what makes minarchists tick, I have found that it is the same that makes authoritarians tick. They completely sweep aside all rational thought, create a mythological concept called the 'rule of law' and then try to convey it in a way that isn't contradictory and insane, all in the name of avoiding the 'state of nature.' Coming up with an absurd concept of the 'rule of law' is like pulling a blanket over your head and pretending that you are now officially protected from other's volitions or evil intentions. It's make believe. And not any less make believe than the games children play. Just like the king's powers were make believe, the emperor's or the dictator's. The only difference between me and you is that I recognize that it is all make believe, not just the political systems that I don't like or aren't popular.

Second, have you not seen the other 2 candidates? Obama practically is a libertarian compared to the witch and the warmonger.

Someone who wants to tax the living shit out of the economy is not a libertarian in any sense of the word.

And Obama is not a left authoritarian either, he's a liberal populist. I have my reservations about his populism, but his conviction to *true* liberalism is quite strong, and I admire that.

So if you have some kind of criticism to what I posted besides my sig, I'd love to hear it. Otherwise, I'm going to assume you don't and are just being petty.

'True liberalism' never really existed, and never will because the concept, like religion, is made up and has nothing to do with reality at all. It is a make believe fairy tale like unicorns.

 

[Dissipate]

Originally posted by: Vic

One of those 3 "goons" is going to become President whether we like it or not. Pardon me for supporting the lesser of the evils.

You aren't pardoned because that's how we got from what you call a 'classical liberal' society of the Founding Fathers to where we are today(even though 'Classical Liberal' is meaningless). Nobody is willing to step up to the plate and simply reject engaging in a degrading process of social decay.

The fact that you even engage in politics or advocate one candidate over another makes you just like any other authoritarian. Your fantasies are just slightly different than the mainstream.

 

[Arkaign]

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: Vic

One of those 3 "goons" is going to become President whether we like it or not. Pardon me for supporting the lesser of the evils.

You aren't pardoned because that's how we got from what you call a 'classical liberal' society of the Founding Fathers to where we are today(even though 'Classical Liberal' is meaningless). Nobody is willing to step up to the plate and simply reject engaging in a degrading process of social decay.

The fact that you even engage in politics or advocate one candidate over another makes you just like any other authoritarian. Your fantasies are just slightly different than the mainstream.

Hmm. Well there are valid reasons indeed for supporting the lesser evils presented against us.

I dare anyone to say this country wouldn't have been better off with 8 years of Gore/Lieberman compared to 8 years of Bush/Cheney.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: Vic
First, you're an anarchist who likes to tell people you're a libertarian. Yeah... NOT. Even Ayn Rand believed in the rule of law and some form of state (no matter how minimal) to uphold it.

Have you ever read anything on Ayn Rand's stance on anarchism? It is completely absurd, replete with a ridiculous notion of some kind of 'voluntary taxation.' Not to mention the fact that Ayn Rand basically took the egoism of Max Stirner and ravaged it.

The 'rule of law' is an elusive and devoid concept that has nothing to do with reality. It is really based on a mythology, which people like you completely set aside and ignore because of childish fears of the 'state of nature.' For as long as I have looked into what makes minarchists tick, I have found that it is the same that makes authoritarians tick. They completely sweep aside all rational thought, create a mythological concept called the 'rule of law' and then try to convey it in a way that isn't contradictory and insane, all in the name of avoiding the 'state of nature.' Coming up with an absurd concept of the 'rule of law' is like pulling a blanket over your head and pretending that you are now officially protected from other's volitions or evil intentions. It's make believe. And not any less make believe than the games children play. Just like the king's powers were make believe, the emperor's or the dictator's. The only difference between me and you is that I recognize that it is all make believe, not just the political systems that I don't like or aren't popular.

Second, have you not seen the other 2 candidates? Obama practically is a libertarian compared to the witch and the warmonger.

Someone who wants to tax the living shit out of the economy is not a libertarian in any sense of the word.

And Obama is not a left authoritarian either, he's a liberal populist. I have my reservations about his populism, but his conviction to *true* liberalism is quite strong, and I admire that.

So if you have some kind of criticism to what I posted besides my sig, I'd love to hear it. Otherwise, I'm going to assume you don't and are just being petty.

'True liberalism' never really existed, and never will because the concept, like religion, is made up and has nothing to do with reality at all. It is a make believe fairy tale like unicorns.

Ah yes... I forgot that, to you, every political ideology is fairy tale unicorns except for your own. Pardon me when I say you're going to have to do better than that.

The rule of law is like having rules for a sporting game. It's just pre-decided conditions that most people can agree on in order to encourage the ideas of justice and fairness. You talk "elusive," "devoid," and "absurd," but you seem to forget that politics is anything but a hard science.

And finally, liberalism is not a religion, but the scientific approach to politics. Meaning that it changes and adapts when it doesn't work. This is why conservatives, with their ram-their-heads-against-the-wall-until-the-desired-result-is-achieved approach, are rightly looked down upon. As well as any other ideologies that refuse to recognize their own failures and change according.

Your solution BTW, to throw it all out because you don't like it, is very authoritarian in its own way, as you tell people who want the system that they can't have it just because you don't like it. Too bad. I think people like you should be allowed to "opt-out" if you choose, and go live like the Unabomber for all I care. But if you want society's benefits, you're going to have to pay society's price.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: Vic
One of those 3 "goons" is going to become President whether we like it or not. Pardon me for supporting the lesser of the evils.

You aren't pardoned because that's how we got from what you call a 'classical liberal' society of the Founding Fathers to where we are today(even though 'Classical Liberal' is meaningless). Nobody is willing to step up to the plate and simply reject engaging in a degrading process of social decay.

The fact that you even engage in politics or advocate one candidate over another makes you just like any other authoritarian. Your fantasies are just slightly different than the mainstream.

There's something bizarre and ironic about being told I have political fantasies by an anarchist.

Reality is that your ideology is hemmed-in by the silliest of hypocrisies. If people choose to organize themselves into governments, that is their right. You tell them they shouldn't be allowed that right, and call them authoritarians!
In the meantime, my concern is just to encourage people to choose governments that are just and fair, respectful of each and every individual. It's not a battle I expect to win, but neither is it one that I can think can be won. I just don't want things to get worse.

So uh yeah, WTF are these fantasies of mine you're spouting off about? I predict that, in a decade or so, you're going to end up a disillusioned right-wing authoritarian.

 

[sandorski]

I'd agree that a Citizen gives up some "Rights" to a Government with authority over Him/Her, but I don't think that the "Right to Privacy" needs to be one of those. Especially if that Person is not a Suspect in some Crime. Government should not have the authority to Spy on all Citizens "just because" though. Even in times of War, especially in "Wars" like the WoT, Government powers to troll for Intel needs to be tightly controlled and focussed on Suspects and not Citizens.

 

[SleepWalkerX]

Originally posted by: Atreus21
When I speak to or about Libertarians, it seems that, above all, they wish to be left alone by the government, so that they may live their lives largely apart from government meddling.

While I understand the ideal behind this stance, it raises some questions for me.

The first of which is: Why do we clamor about the importance of voting when we don't want our elected officials to touch us?

Because I get uncomfortable when my representative touches me.

But seriously, Libertarians aren't for no government, they are just for less government.

Originally posted by: Atreus21
The second, and more complex: Do we have a right to privacy, and therefore do we have the right to demand that government leave us alone?

You're right, we don't have a right to privacy. Its nowhere in our Constitution. We only have the expectation of privacy in our society.

Originally posted by: Atreus21
My answer to that is no, we do not and should not have a general right to privacy. When we elect a government, we enter into the Social Contract. That is, we enter into a contractual obligation with the government in which we acknowledge that we are willing to sacrifice some liberties so that the government and society can function and provide services. Moreoever, we are dishonest when we draw benefits from society while claiming freedom from the contractual obligation upon which those benefits are contingent.

I pull this from J.S. Mill's "On Liberty."

Thoughts, please. Open for discussion.

Playing Devil's Advocate here, who's this "we" you speak of you say "we elect a government?" Is it all encompassing? Does it include people who do not agree with the "social contract"? Can I withdraw my contractual obligation? When did I agree to it?

For the second bolded part, who's the judge of how much liberty we sacrifice? How much is too much? Why not sacrifice all our liberties? I mean, that would make it easier for the government to do its job, right? Lets say your house is in the way of a major highway. They can't provide the basic service of roads if your house is in the way so shouldn't we give them the right to bulldoze that bitch down? (actually they already have this priviledge, its called eminent domain)

For the third, I don't know about you, but I never asked for social security, medicare, and many poorly run beaucratic services so why should I be forced to pay for it?

 

[Dissipate]

Originally posted by: Vic
Ah yes... I forgot that, to you, every political ideology is fairy tale unicorns except for your own. Pardon me when I say you're going to have to do better than that.

I don't have a political ideology or agenda. My stance is the absence of political ideology.

The rule of law is like having rules for a sporting game. It's just pre-decided conditions that most people can agree on in order to encourage the ideas of justice and fairness. You talk "elusive," "devoid," and "absurd," but you seem to forget that politics is anything but a hard science.

Not only is it not a science, but it is really a belief system based on mythology, just as religion is.

And finally, liberalism is not a religion, but the scientific approach to politics.

How can you have a scientific approach to something based entirely on mythological concepts? This is just like theology, a completely bogus field of study.

Meaning that it changes and adapts when it doesn't work. This is why conservatives, with their ram-their-heads-against-the-wall-until-the-desired-result-is-achieved approach, are rightly looked down upon. As well as any other ideologies that refuse to recognize their own failures and change according.

Your solution BTW, to throw it all out because you don't like it, is very authoritarian in its own way, as you tell people who want the system that they can't have it just because you don't like it. Too bad. I think people like you should be allowed to "opt-out" if you choose, and go live like the Unabomber for all I care. But if you want society's benefits, you're going to have to pay society's price.

I haven't told anyone they can't have a government. I just explain in very clear terms that the entire concept of 'government' is leftovers from primitive prehistorical evolutionary psychology, and is based on mythology propagated by political 'philosophers,' just like how every religion is based on myth. Brain scans even confirm that political thoughts fire up the emotional side of the brain, rather than the rational.

People may continue to play political games and continue to obey buffoons who dress up in nice suits and military costumes with a variety of symbolic adornments, but I reserve the option of putting those same buffoons permanently out of business if they disrupt what I choose to do with my time & energy. Of course I will take into account the probability of getting caught. The difference with you of course is that since you believe in the sanctity of the political process, you will continue to worship and obey those who wave papers around that they claim is the 'law,' because they passed a political 'test' of popularity, or whatever the current flavor of criteria is for ruling other people. It used to be that the king's reign was supposedly ordained by god, and now the current flavor of this huge pile of bullsh!t is that the president's reign is supposedly ordained by the 'people.'

Due in part to 'minarchists' like yourself who continue to engage in these childish displays of mudslinging, arrogance, incompetence and whoredom, the individual is dead. We have now all been replaced by the 'mass mind' of public opinion, to be fleeced and controlled at every turn.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: Vic
Ah yes... I forgot that, to you, every political ideology is fairy tale unicorns except for your own. Pardon me when I say you're going to have to do better than that.

I don't have a political ideology or agenda. My stance is the absence of political ideology.

The rule of law is like having rules for a sporting game. It's just pre-decided conditions that most people can agree on in order to encourage the ideas of justice and fairness. You talk "elusive," "devoid," and "absurd," but you seem to forget that politics is anything but a hard science.

Not only is it not a science, but it is really a belief system based on mythology, just as religion is.

And finally, liberalism is not a religion, but the scientific approach to politics.

How can you have a scientific approach to something based entirely on mythological concepts? This is just like theology, a completely bogus field of study.

Meaning that it changes and adapts when it doesn't work. This is why conservatives, with their ram-their-heads-against-the-wall-until-the-desired-result-is-achieved approach, are rightly looked down upon. As well as any other ideologies that refuse to recognize their own failures and change according.

Your solution BTW, to throw it all out because you don't like it, is very authoritarian in its own way, as you tell people who want the system that they can't have it just because you don't like it. Too bad. I think people like you should be allowed to "opt-out" if you choose, and go live like the Unabomber for all I care. But if you want society's benefits, you're going to have to pay society's price.

I haven't told anyone they can't have a government. I just explain in very clear terms that the entire concept of 'government' is leftovers from primitive prehistorical evolutionary psychology, and is based on mythology propagated by political 'philosophers,' just like how every religion is based on myth. Brain scans even confirm that political thoughts fire up the emotional side of the brain, rather than the rational.

People may continue to play political games and continue to obey buffoons who dress up in nice suits and military costumes with a variety of symbolic adornments, but I reserve the option of putting those same buffoons permanently out of business if they disrupt what I choose to do with my time & energy. Of course I will take into account the probability of getting caught. The difference with you of course is that since you believe in the sanctity of the political process, you will continue to worship and obey those who wave papers around that they claim is the 'law,' because they passed a political 'test' of popularity, or whatever the current flavor of criteria is for ruling other people. It used to be that the king's reign was supposedly ordained by god, and now the current flavor of this huge pile of bullsh!t is that the president's reign is supposedly ordained by the 'people.'

Due in part to 'minarchists' like yourself who continue to engage in these childish displays of mudslinging, arrogance, incompetence and whoredom, the individual is dead. We have now all been replaced by the 'mass mind' of public opinion, to be fleeced and controlled at every turn.

....someone's just finished a philosophy 101 class. zzzz.

 

[manowar821]

Originally posted by: Arkaign
"My answer to that is no, we do not and should not have a general right to privacy."

^^^

Dumbest line of rotten bullshit I've read here this year, and that includes TLC's raving and rambling diatribes.

0/5

I'm with you 100%, Arkaign. :thumbsup:

That is absolute bullshit, some of the finest I've ever witnessed.

 

[Dissipate]

Originally posted by: eskimospy
....someone's just finished a philosophy 101 class. zzzz.

Did you even interpret what I said? Philosophy 101 is the O,P. My statements will not be found in any philosophy 101 class, But for someone who thinks that voters are dumber than shit, I guess that you finished political science 101.