What is a libertarian?

[Vic]

Originally posted by: hscorpio
It all boils down to this indivual vs collective debate. If anyone really wants to examine the real world implications of this debate I suggest you ltake a look at the difference between North and South Korea.

The problem is who decides whats best for the collective? Ultimately it is individuals that decide, be it either one dictator/king/tyrant/whatever or each individual. With collectivism/communism you will never see a situation where each individual decides through some means such as democracy. It will always be one individual (or a small group) that decides what they think is best for everyone, in other words forcibly imposing their will on the entire group. This is because of the collectivist mentality we can see in our friend Moonie's words, that the individual can't be trusted to decide for himself lest he hurt the collective by being selfish and hoarding. But somehow we are supposed to trust one individual with complete power to do whats best for everyone.

Thats what it boils down to for me. Who is going to decide whats best for me? NO one can make that choice better than myself.

Really it's because this collective group that Moonie loves to talk about so much doesn't exist except in concept. It's a figment. Reality is a collection of individuals. Rights are inherent, not bestowed, granted, or insured (sic). The group does not grant me freedom of speech, I simply have it from birth, and they couldn't take it away from me without killing me. Nor could the group do the same to anyone else.

But let's analyze Moonie's words and thought patterns. They are very revealing.

M: "Ah but I claimed the millions of years of history of our hunter gatherer existence as definitive proof that you are wrong."

Those millions of years are prehistory. No factual evidence exists beyond archeological conjecture.

M: "... it seems to me that Bush was the one who bombed Iraq."

All by himself, Moonie? :roll:

M: "You talk as though the need was for a stick of gum. The few have been dying for the many since societies of animals began."

And so violence is justified. By his own admission, no amount could possibly be considered inappropriate if the many are in need.

M: "The freedom of the individual is insured by the group not the other way round. Only others can grant you rights. Your rights are insured because you are part of the group and the group looks out for their own. It looks more and more like paranoia born of sociopathology lies at the root of libertarianism. Perhaps you feel rejected and now don't want to belong. Perhaps it is folks like you that form tight little clicks and gangs of cancer cells that prey on the whole, eh?"

This final paragraph is a paranoid attempt to establish conformity. The message is that we must all walk with the rest of the lemmings to the cliff or else. The reality is that the "group looks out for their own" only in the protection of individuals from other groups. "Join our gang and you won't be alone when the other gang comes around." The last sentence is the height of irony: it is the group-mentalities who form the gangs that they prey on the whole, because groups (being a fiction) can never grow large enough to include all of the whole. Thus, rival groups emerge and fight each other for power and control. Democrats and Republicans. Nations at war. It is folks like you, Moonie... you need to open your eyes.

 

[imported_hscorpio]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
M: "Libertarianism looks to me like an attempt to establish illusions to the contrary as normative thinking. "

hs: The bolded part is the belief you started this thread with (under the guise of not understanding libertarianism) and apparently no matter what anyone says to the contrary you are going to continue believing such.

M: Please....I am simply looking at the evidence presented to raise this suspicion and based on the fact there is no evidence to the contrary presented.

hs: You like to talk of arguments despite having not made one good argument throughout the entire thread, just many 'probing' questions based on your own unexameined assumptions.

M: You have been free right along to argue the validity of my case and point out my assumptions but all you do is say I am wrong and full of assumptions. You do not know how, apparently, to debate. I win every argument with you, therefore, by default. All you do is consistently say I am wrong. Try to get the fact that that is not an argument, OK.

hs: And you act as if now we can all share your 'discovery' that libertarianism is just an illusion based on unexamined assumptions. Who's really the one playing games in this thread?

M: You, of course, because you refuse over and over to put up logical reasoning that what I have discovered is wrong. The last time I argued about this subject the conclusions I drew were completely different than the ones I presented here because the course of that argument led in a different direction, but one again which had no answer. That tells me that I have no preconceived assumptions as you imply but am looking at the evidence presented.

Perhaps you should read the thread again. Once you finally got around to stating your predetermined conclusions about libertarianism I and several others responded and offered up evidence to the contrary. Just because you disagree or don't understand does not mean I have not presented my case, and definitely does not mean you magically win the argument you think never took place. Nice try though.

 

[imported_hscorpio]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
hs: It all boils down to this indivual vs collective debate. If anyone really wants to examine the real world implications of this debate I suggest you ltake a look at the difference between North and South Korea.

M: Nonsense. In neither society is there much concern for the welfare of the individual or the whole.

hs: The problem is who decides whats best for the collective? Ultimately it is individuals that decide, be it either one dictator/king/tyrant/whatever or each individual. With collectivism/communism you will never see a situation where each individual decides through some means such as democracy. It will always be one individual (or a small group) that decides what they think is best for everyone, in other words forcibly imposing their will on the entire group. This is because of the collectivist mentality we can see in our friend Moonie's words, that the individual can't be trusted to decide for himself lest he hurt the collective by being selfish and hoarding. But somehow we are supposed to trust one individual with complete power to do whats best for everyone.

M: Nonsense. We know that the hunter gatherer societies reach agreement based on consensus in which each individual buys in and that in such a society the phenomenon of hording does not arise. It is only a recent pathology that has created the notion of I me me mine.

hs: Thats what it boils down to for me. Who is going to decide whats best for me? NO one can make that choice better than myself.

M: Rubbish. Every drunk thinks he can drive a car. Every big-time depressed person thinks he should take his life. Every child is directed intimately by his or her parent(s). The thief is put in jail so he can't make those kinds of choices. You speak of choice without a conception or framework for determining the morality and ethics of your choice. At a Thanksgiving table do you choose to eat the whole turkey? Ah no, because you have been at least partially socialized.

See when someone offers up some evidence you just dismiss it as nonsense. Way to show off your impressive debating skills.

Equating individuals to drunks and children reveals a lot about your philosophy. Everyone is a danger to themselves and needs a figure of authority to take care of them right? Who gets to be that parent, you? Thats the problem with collectivist thinking that leads to things like the North Korean mess, but keep on thinking thats nonsense.

 

[imported_hscorpio]

Originally posted by: Vic
Really it's because this collective group that Moonie loves to talk about so much doesn't exist except in concept. It's a figment. Reality is a collection of individuals. Rights are inherent, not bestowed, granted, or insured (sic). The group does not grant me freedom of speech, I simply have it from birth, and they couldn't take it away from me without killing me. Nor could the group do the same to anyone else.

But let's analyze Moonie's words and thought patterns. They are very revealing.

M: "Ah but I claimed the millions of years of history of our hunter gatherer existence as definitive proof that you are wrong."

Those millions of years are prehistory. No factual evidence exists beyond archeological conjecture.

M: "... it seems to me that Bush was the one who bombed Iraq."

All by himself, Moonie? :roll:

M: "You talk as though the need was for a stick of gum. The few have been dying for the many since societies of animals began."

And so violence is justified. By his own admission, no amount could possibly be considered inappropriate if the many are in need.

M: "The freedom of the individual is insured by the group not the other way round. Only others can grant you rights. Your rights are insured because you are part of the group and the group looks out for their own. It looks more and more like paranoia born of sociopathology lies at the root of libertarianism. Perhaps you feel rejected and now don't want to belong. Perhaps it is folks like you that form tight little clicks and gangs of cancer cells that prey on the whole, eh?"

This final paragraph is a paranoid attempt to establish conformity. The message is that we must all walk with the rest of the lemmings to the cliff or else. The reality is that the "group looks out for their own" only in the protection of individuals from other groups. "Join our gang and you won't be alone when the other gang comes around." The last sentence is the height of irony: it is the group-mentalities who form the gangs that they prey on the whole, because groups (being a fiction) can never grow large enough to include all of the whole. Thus, rival groups emerge and fight each other for power and control. Democrats and Republicans. Nations at war. It is folks like you, Moonie... you need to open your eyes.

Good points Vic.

The part about the collective is very telling. It appears that moonie and collectivists in general think that the most ethical situation is to try and maximize the benefit of the group. Thats fine, but then they go on and notice that if individuals are free to choose, some will want to be selfish and make choices that hurt the group. So they decide the group should be the one who decides things, but the problem is that the group can't decide anything, someone has to be in charge and do it, which goes nicely with the elitist mentality that people are children needing to be taken care of.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: hscorpio
Good points Vic.

The part about the collective is very telling. It appears that moonie and collectivists in general think that the most ethical situation is to try and maximize the benefit of the group. Thats fine, but then they go on and notice that if individuals are free to choose, some will want to be selfish and make choices that hurt the group. So they decide the group should be the one who decides things, but the problem is that the group can't decide anything, someone has to be in charge and do it, which goes nicely with the elitist mentality that people are children needing to be taken care of.

Thanks.

The fact is that collectivists are in a conflict caused by their own self-denial. "The group" is not any way, shape, or fashion all of humanity like they would represent it. Instead, it is simply themselves and those who agree with them based on like motivation. They're really just selfish, deceptive assholes who want to force the world into their own personal utopian vision, using this "greater good" bullsh!t to hide the truth from themselves and everyone else. No offense, Moonie, but it's true. "Greater good" according to whom? Oh... that's right... according to YOU. :roll:

 

[imported_hscorpio]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: hscorpio
Good points Vic.

The part about the collective is very telling. It appears that moonie and collectivists in general think that the most ethical situation is to try and maximize the benefit of the group. Thats fine, but then they go on and notice that if individuals are free to choose, some will want to be selfish and make choices that hurt the group. So they decide the group should be the one who decides things, but the problem is that the group can't decide anything, someone has to be in charge and do it, which goes nicely with the elitist mentality that people are children needing to be taken care of.

Thanks.

The fact is that collectivists are in a conflict caused by their own self-denial. "The group" is not any way, shape, or fashion all of humanity like they would represent it. Instead, it is simply themselves and those who agree with them based on like motivation. They're really just selfish, deceptive assholes who want to force the world into their own personal utopian vision, using this "greater good" bullsh!t to hide the truth from themselves and everyone else. No offense, Moonie, but it's true. "Greater good" according to whom? Oh... that's right... according to YOU. :roll:

Interesting observation considering Moonie appears to believe we are the ones in denial since he claims there is no such thing as an independent unencumbered self, and we are the ones supporting selfish hoarding as he likes to say.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: hscorpio

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: hscorpio
Good points Vic.

The part about the collective is very telling. It appears that moonie and collectivists in general think that the most ethical situation is to try and maximize the benefit of the group. Thats fine, but then they go on and notice that if individuals are free to choose, some will want to be selfish and make choices that hurt the group. So they decide the group should be the one who decides things, but the problem is that the group can't decide anything, someone has to be in charge and do it, which goes nicely with the elitist mentality that people are children needing to be taken care of.

Thanks.

The fact is that collectivists are in a conflict caused by their own self-denial. "The group" is not any way, shape, or fashion all of humanity like they would represent it. Instead, it is simply themselves and those who agree with them based on like motivation. They're really just selfish, deceptive assholes who want to force the world into their own personal utopian vision, using this "greater good" bullsh!t to hide the truth from themselves and everyone else. No offense, Moonie, but it's true. "Greater good" according to whom? Oh... that's right... according to YOU. :roll:

Interesting observation considering Moonie appears to believe we are the ones in denial since he claims there is no such thing as an independent unencumbered self, and we are the ones supporting selfish hoarding as he likes to say.

There is nothing BUT the independent self. We are all a vast collection of independent selves, trying and failing miserably to get along with each other, primarily because of an inability to properly communicate with each other (which starts because we can't even properly communicate with our inner selves).
How could there be an external WE? Scarcely anyone in the world can reconcile their own internal WE.

 

[Votingisanillusion]

It is funny to watch how libertarians do not see how their comfortable technological modern lives are sooooo dependant on the goodwill and exploitation of soooooo many other people than their own little narcissistic self. Funny how they accuse the masses of being responsible for wars, while historians have proven time and time again that wars are always decided by tiny authoritarian minorities that brainwash or fool the majorities. Direct democracies would have avoided most wars.
It is true Moonbeam that our libertarians sometimes sound paranoid. What happened to them during their childhoods? Maybe they were little kings at home and were deeply hurt that outside, the groups they met did not immediately crown them? Or on the contrary, they never were the little kings of their moms, not breastfed, forbidden to taste the world with their mouths? Could they tell us about their oral and anal phases?

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Votingisanillusion
It is funny to watch how libertarians do not see how their comfortable technological modern lives are sooooo dependant on the goodwill and exploitation of soooooo many other people than their own little narcissistic self. Funny how they accuse the masses of being responsible for wars, while historians have proven time and time again that wars are always decided by tiny authoritarian minorities that brainwash or fool the majorities. Direct democracies would have avoided most wars.
It is true Moonbeam that our libertarians sometimes sound paranoid. What happened to them during their childhoods? Maybe they were little kings at home and were deeply hurt that outside, the groups they met did not immediately crown them? Or on the contrary, they never were the little kings of their moms, not breastfed, forbidden to taste the world with their mouths? Could they tell us about their oral and anal phases?

Libertarian philosophies created this comfortable technological modern life, thank you very much. Is there anything else you're going to be completely clueless or lie about?

Here's a tip for yourself so that maybe you can understand your own petty selfishness. By what right do you claim to speak for "the group," and claim to know what "the group" wants, when "the group" itself doesn't even know what it wants and most people want different things for themselves? You see, you don't speak for "the group." You speak for your own selfish interests and then pretend you're speaking for everyone. And funny thing, all those "tiny authoritarian minorities that brainwash or fool the majorities" were people who thought just like you.

 

[Cerb]

Moonie, Vic: you're both right and both wrong. How's that?

With the state of mankind, no collectivism will work, because some people want power.
OTOH, there is an internal/external 'we' (but trying to anywhere with that in ATPN is just stupid--teaching a pig about singing comes to mind), and even without that, an individual is part of a group.

The individual and the group are both very important, because the individual must help keep the group working together, and the group (the overlapping wills of those individuals) must endeavor to allow the freedom for the individual to both support the group, and pursue his or her own needs and wants beyond it. This requires an ideal state, or conditioning of a society to make those who would decieve them for power become outcasts.

 

[Moonbeam]

V: Really it's because this collective group that Moonie loves to talk about so much doesn't exist except in concept. It's a figment.

M: It is no more a figment than the notion of self.

V: Reality is a collection of individuals.

M: Of individuals in a group.

V: Rights are inherent, not bestowed, granted, or insured (sic).

M: You simply won't come to grips with the fact that rights are meaningless to an individual. Rights are defined relationships, your rights in regards to others, acknowledged and enforced by others.

V: The group does not grant me freedom of speech, I simply have it from birth, and they couldn't take it away from me without killing me. Nor could the group do the same to anyone else.

M: You simply assert this without proof, but it makes not the slightest difference at all. You owe the group the same rights as they owe you.

V: But let's analyze Moonie's words and thought patterns. They are very revealing.
--------------------
M: "Ah but I claimed the millions of years of history of our hunter gatherer existence as definitive proof that you are wrong."

V: "Those millions of years are prehistory. No factual evidence exists beyond archeological conjecture."

M: Nonsense, we have tons of historical evidence including the Kung.
----------------
M: "... it seems to me that Bush was the one who bombed Iraq."

All by himself, Moonie? :roll:

V: You mean that Kerry would have given the same order.
-----------------
M: "You talk as though the need was for a stick of gum. The few have been dying for the many since societies of animals began."

V: "And so violence is justified. By his own admission, no amount could possibly be considered inappropriate if the many are in need."

M: You mean the violence that is used to maintain property rights? We know, do we not, that violence begets violence.
----------

M: "The freedom of the individual is insured by the group not the other way round. Only others can grant you rights. Your rights are insured because you are part of the group and the group looks out for their own. It looks more and more like paranoia born of sociopathology lies at the root of libertarianism. Perhaps you feel rejected and now don't want to belong. Perhaps it is folks like you that form tight little clicks and gangs of cancer cells that prey on the whole, eh?"

V: This final paragraph is a paranoid attempt to establish conformity. The message is that we must all walk with the rest of the lemmings to the cliff or else. The reality is that the "group looks out for their own" only in the protection of individuals from other groups. "Join our gang and you won't be alone when the other gang comes around." The last sentence is the height of irony: it is the group-mentalities who form the gangs that they prey on the whole, because groups (being a fiction) can never grow large enough to include all of the whole. Thus, rival groups emerge and fight each other for power and control. Democrats and Republicans. Nations at war. It is folks like you, Moonie... you need to open your eyes.[/quote]

M: I opened my eyes and saw that those who want things for themselves as opposed to things for all are the people who use group force to maintain their invented rights. These are they who form criminal gangs. The aim is always the personal betterment of the self.

 

[HomeBrewerDude]

libertarian = isolationist

 

[jumpr]

Libertarian:

One who wants the Democrats out of their wallet and the Republicans out of their bedroom.

 

[Dissipate]

Originally posted by: jumpr
Libertarian:

One who wants the Democrats out of their wallet and the Republicans out of their bedroom.

Last time I checked the Republicans were in our wallets as well.

 

[HombrePequeno]

Originally posted by: HomeBrewerDude
libertarian = isolationist

Well that's not really all that true. Libertarians definitely are for free trade which goes against isolationism. But if you're just talking about not wanting to have our military scattered all over the globe for no real reason, then yes most Libertarians would be considered fairly isolationist.

 

[Moonbeam]

hs: Perhaps you should read the thread again. Once you finally got around to stating your predetermined conclusions about libertarianism I and several others responded and offered up evidence to the contrary. Just because you disagree or don't understand does not mean I have not presented my case, and definitely does not mean you magically win the argument you think never took place. Nice try though.

M: You state that you presented evidence. Saying you did is not the same as stating the argument that is the evidence. Once again you offer nothing but claims in the form of words. I also assured you my conclusions are not predetermined. In fact I as still asking questions about my conclusions, questioning them. And I actually know I've let this discussion guide me in a non predetermined fashion whereas you have no idea at all since you can't read my mind or know what I know. Again, you seem to be living under the delusion that because you say something that makes it an argument and even one that is true. Try not stating things as fact and show me your reasoning. How does your opinions work from a to z?

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: hscorpio

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
hs: It all boils down to this indivual vs collective debate. If anyone really wants to examine the real world implications of this debate I suggest you ltake a look at the difference between North and South Korea.

M: Nonsense. In neither society is there much concern for the welfare of the individual or the whole.

hs: The problem is who decides whats best for the collective? Ultimately it is individuals that decide, be it either one dictator/king/tyrant/whatever or each individual. With collectivism/communism you will never see a situation where each individual decides through some means such as democracy. It will always be one individual (or a small group) that decides what they think is best for everyone, in other words forcibly imposing their will on the entire group. This is because of the collectivist mentality we can see in our friend Moonie's words, that the individual can't be trusted to decide for himself lest he hurt the collective by being selfish and hoarding. But somehow we are supposed to trust one individual with complete power to do whats best for everyone.

M: Nonsense. We know that the hunter gatherer societies reach agreement based on consensus in which each individual buys in and that in such a society the phenomenon of hording does not arise. It is only a recent pathology that has created the notion of I me me mine.

hs: Thats what it boils down to for me. Who is going to decide whats best for me? NO one can make that choice better than myself.

M: Rubbish. Every drunk thinks he can drive a car. Every big-time depressed person thinks he should take his life. Every child is directed intimately by his or her parent(s). The thief is put in jail so he can't make those kinds of choices. You speak of choice without a conception or framework for determining the morality and ethics of your choice. At a Thanksgiving table do you choose to eat the whole turkey? Ah no, because you have been at least partially socialized.

See when someone offers up some evidence you just dismiss it as nonsense. Way to show off your impressive debating skills.

Equating individuals to drunks and children reveals a lot about your philosophy. Everyone is a danger to themselves and needs a figure of authority to take care of them right? Who gets to be that parent, you? Thats the problem with collectivist thinking that leads to things like the North Korean mess, but keep on thinking thats nonsense.

Look just because your debating skills are practically non existent doesn't make mine impressive, I assure you. If you will look I said nonsense but then gave a reason why.

In the case of North and South Korea, for example I stated that neither society cares too much for the individual or it's whole. Your job, to rebut, should have been to take issue with that. Show me how one or the other is some wonderful ideal.

Equating individuals to drunks and children reveals reveals nothing about my philosophy because I made no such equation. That is simply your stereotyping imagination. I am simply pointing out the absurdity of the notion that people always make the best decisions for themselves or that we should always allow them to. It is morally wrong to let a mentally ill person destroy themselves in there is a likely cure for their disease. We intervene in people's free choice all the time just like we do with children. Are you saying that rational people can't identify and help the insane or shouldn't? My point is that your notion is absurd when put to the extreme and that some normative values must prevail. Other people will inject themselves into your affairs if you are judged incapable of acting in your group determined self interest. But that this was my point, I think, was obvious.

 

[Moonbeam]

Vic: There is nothing BUT the independent self. We are all a vast collection of independent selves, trying and failing miserably to get along with each other, primarily because of an inability to properly communicate with each other (which starts because we can't even properly communicate with our inner selves).
How could there be an external WE? Scarcely anyone in the world can reconcile their own internal WE.

M: So we are a multiplicity of I's then are we? Hehe, then which of them is the libertarian? Yes, as I have said, the notion of an independent I is an illusion.

But then you also want to claim that we are nothing but the independent self. Who is this self? Is it a self you remember via self reflection in thought? If so that self is dead, a self that thought created our of the past from some molecules that form memories. Are you the molecules or the memories? Or is the self that which observes silently in perfect reflection in the now that which is? There can be no self there, however, because that is the state in which the self disappears in being. Oh my Beloved, everywhere I look it appears to be Thou, me the group and the universe all one without boundary, no?

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: Cerb
Moonie, Vic: you're both right and both wrong. How's that?

With the state of mankind, no collectivism will work, because some people want power.
OTOH, there is an internal/external 'we' (but trying to anywhere with that in ATPN is just stupid--teaching a pig about singing comes to mind), and even without that, an individual is part of a group.

The individual and the group are both very important, because the individual must help keep the group working together, and the group (the overlapping wills of those individuals) must endeavor to allow the freedom for the individual to both support the group, and pursue his or her own needs and wants beyond it. This requires an ideal state, or conditioning of a society to make those who would decieve them for power become outcasts.

My guess is that that's what you get, not with conditioning, but in its absence, the natural state of man.

 

[marvdmartian]

A libertarian is one of them people that works at the big building with all them books in it, right??? :laugh:

 

[Cerb]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: Cerb
Moonie, Vic: you're both right and both wrong. How's that?

With the state of mankind, no collectivism will work, because some people want power.
OTOH, there is an internal/external 'we' (but trying to anywhere with that in ATPN is just stupid--teaching a pig about singing comes to mind), and even without that, an individual is part of a group.

The individual and the group are both very important, because the individual must help keep the group working together, and the group (the overlapping wills of those individuals) must endeavor to allow the freedom for the individual to both support the group, and pursue his or her own needs and wants beyond it. This requires an ideal state, or conditioning of a society to make those who would decieve them for power become outcasts.

My guess is that that's what you get, not with conditioning, but in its absence, the natural state of man.

Well, we get a lot of it any where, at any time, but not usually in an ideal way.

That raises the question, though, of what is the natural state of man? Since we can change the state of our environment, and our own perspectives on it, and others, with our being taught how to view the world from birth (or maybe even earlier)...how can a 'clean' state be defined?

 

[Meuge]

Originally posted by: Cerb

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: Cerb
Moonie, Vic: you're both right and both wrong. How's that?

With the state of mankind, no collectivism will work, because some people want power.
OTOH, there is an internal/external 'we' (but trying to anywhere with that in ATPN is just stupid--teaching a pig about singing comes to mind), and even without that, an individual is part of a group.

The individual and the group are both very important, because the individual must help keep the group working together, and the group (the overlapping wills of those individuals) must endeavor to allow the freedom for the individual to both support the group, and pursue his or her own needs and wants beyond it. This requires an ideal state, or conditioning of a society to make those who would decieve them for power become outcasts.

My guess is that that's what you get, not with conditioning, but in its absence, the natural state of man.

Well, we get a lot of it any where, at any time, but not usually in an ideal way.

That raises the question, though, of what is the natural state of man? Since we can change the state of our environment, and our own perspectives on it, and others, with our being taught how to view the world from birth (or maybe even earlier)...how can a 'clean' state be defined?

Natural state of man is a militant anarchy. It's really not a difficult conclusion.

 

[imported_hscorpio]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
hs: Perhaps you should read the thread again. Once you finally got around to stating your predetermined conclusions about libertarianism I and several others responded and offered up evidence to the contrary. Just because you disagree or don't understand does not mean I have not presented my case, and definitely does not mean you magically win the argument you think never took place. Nice try though.

M: You state that you presented evidence. Saying you did is not the same as stating the argument that is the evidence. Once again you offer nothing but claims in the form of words. I also assured you my conclusions are not predetermined. In fact I as still asking questions about my conclusions, questioning them. And I actually know I've let this discussion guide me in a non predetermined fashion whereas you have no idea at all since you can't read my mind or know what I know. Again, you seem to be living under the delusion that because you say something that makes it an argument and even one that is true. Try not stating things as fact and show me your reasoning. How does your opinions work from a to z?

Did you honestly enter this thread with no predetermined thoughts about libertarianism? You honestly didn't already hold a generally collectivist belief that you knew was at odds with libertarianism? If so then I apologize for saying you did, it's just your questions and statements suggested otherwise to me.

And every criticism you have of me should apply to your own arguments. Several times you stated something as if it were fact without offering any detailed proof besides vague references to parts of mans evolutionary history, then when I disagree and say why you hold me to a higher standard of proof as if I have to write a thesis paper for you.

 

[imported_hscorpio]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: hscorpio

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
hs: It all boils down to this indivual vs collective debate. If anyone really wants to examine the real world implications of this debate I suggest you ltake a look at the difference between North and South Korea.

M: Nonsense. In neither society is there much concern for the welfare of the individual or the whole.

hs: The problem is who decides whats best for the collective? Ultimately it is individuals that decide, be it either one dictator/king/tyrant/whatever or each individual. With collectivism/communism you will never see a situation where each individual decides through some means such as democracy. It will always be one individual (or a small group) that decides what they think is best for everyone, in other words forcibly imposing their will on the entire group. This is because of the collectivist mentality we can see in our friend Moonie's words, that the individual can't be trusted to decide for himself lest he hurt the collective by being selfish and hoarding. But somehow we are supposed to trust one individual with complete power to do whats best for everyone.

M: Nonsense. We know that the hunter gatherer societies reach agreement based on consensus in which each individual buys in and that in such a society the phenomenon of hording does not arise. It is only a recent pathology that has created the notion of I me me mine.

hs: Thats what it boils down to for me. Who is going to decide whats best for me? NO one can make that choice better than myself.

M: Rubbish. Every drunk thinks he can drive a car. Every big-time depressed person thinks he should take his life. Every child is directed intimately by his or her parent(s). The thief is put in jail so he can't make those kinds of choices. You speak of choice without a conception or framework for determining the morality and ethics of your choice. At a Thanksgiving table do you choose to eat the whole turkey? Ah no, because you have been at least partially socialized.

See when someone offers up some evidence you just dismiss it as nonsense. Way to show off your impressive debating skills.

Equating individuals to drunks and children reveals a lot about your philosophy. Everyone is a danger to themselves and needs a figure of authority to take care of them right? Who gets to be that parent, you? Thats the problem with collectivist thinking that leads to things like the North Korean mess, but keep on thinking thats nonsense.

Look just because your debating skills are practically non existent doesn't make mine impressive, I assure you. If you will look I said nonsense but then gave a reason why.

In the case of North and South Korea, for example I stated that neither society cares too much for the individual or it's whole. Your job, to rebut, should have been to take issue with that. Show me how one or the other is some wonderful ideal.

Equating individuals to drunks and children reveals reveals nothing about my philosophy because I made no such equation. That is simply your stereotyping imagination. I am simply pointing out the absurdity of the notion that people always make the best decisions for themselves or that we should always allow them to. It is morally wrong to let a mentally ill person destroy themselves in there is a likely cure for their disease. We intervene in people's free choice all the time just like we do with children. Are you saying that rational people can't identify and help the insane or shouldn't? My point is that your notion is absurd when put to the extreme and that some normative values must prevail. Other people will inject themselves into your affairs if you are judged incapable of acting in your group determined self interest. But that this was my point, I think, was obvious.

So when I make a point about a real world example showing the difference between collectivism and individualism you can simply dismiss it by saying the example doesn't give any insight into the debate without even saying why it doesn't? But then you expect me go into detail over why your wrong? Come on lets try to apply the standards equally ok?

If you think north korea does not represent a collectivist state then explain... give some kind of evidence other then just saying it isn't. North Korea is well known for its collectivism, anything that even remotely suggests the individual is important is not allowed there. Even musicians must only play music deemed not to support individualism, which rules out almost all western music, even classical stuff like Beetoven. Whether or not the leaders of north korea actually care about its citizens is besides the point. The point is that their government represents what happens when the collectivist mentality is dominant and the individual is looked down upon. It leads to some type of authoritarian person in charge of the collective, since as I've said many times the collective can not lead itself.

In regards to the drunks, you are saying that just because we have to make choices for those who can't do it themselves (children, or someone impaired) then its ok to make choices for all the rest of the rational adults. It doesn't work that way, rational adults can choose for themselves. The fact that you infer that we should choose for everyone simply because we choose for the irrational is what I am disagreeing with.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Vic: There is nothing BUT the independent self. We are all a vast collection of independent selves, trying and failing miserably to get along with each other, primarily because of an inability to properly communicate with each other (which starts because we can't even properly communicate with our inner selves).
How could there be an external WE? Scarcely anyone in the world can reconcile their own internal WE.

M: So we are a multiplicity of I's then are we? Hehe, then which of them is the libertarian? Yes, as I have said, the notion of an independent I is an illusion.

But then you also want to claim that we are nothing but the independent self. Who is this self? Is it a self you remember via self reflection in thought? If so that self is dead, a self that thought created our of the past from some molecules that form memories. Are you the molecules or the memories? Or is the self that which observes silently in perfect reflection in the now that which is? There can be no self there, however, because that is the state in which the self disappears in being. Oh my Beloved, everywhere I look it appears to be Thou, me the group and the universe all one without boundary, no?

Ah yes, and which one of them is the one who gets to decide what is the greatest good for the greatest number? Who gets to decide who gets to live and who gets to die? Oh my Beloved, how many will you kill?