User Tag List

First 78910 Last

Results 81 to 90 of 96

  1. #81
    will make your day Carebear's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INFP
    Posts
    1,449

    Default

    No use arguing with Nocturne really, Kiddo. He is writing from within a school of thought he's very competent in and seems to have read books upon books which both support and oppose his views (based on INTPc discussions about economics previously under a different nick). And yes he can be arrogant at times, but it's always with a dimpled smile.

    My point is that you'd have to throw books upon books at him to persuade him, and he'd answer with even more books, and even the experts fling books at each other and tear each others tiny tufts of gray hair over this issue, so it won't be resolved in a thread on MBTIc. For all I know he might be right, but as a history major writing from within a rather different school of thought, I have my doubts. Seems to me like the same problem the communist ideal had. Pretty on paper, doesn't work because it's ultimately dealing with people, not machines. (But then again the current economic system seems rather doomed in the long run as well, so it might be an improvement even if it's not ideal).

  2. #82
    Furry Critter with Claws Kiddo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    MBTI
    OMNi
    Posts
    2,790

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Carebear View Post
    No use arguing with Nocturne really, Kiddo. He is writing from within a school of thought he's very competent in and seems to have read books upon books which both support and oppose his views (based on INTPc discussions about economics previously under a different nick). And yes he can be arrogant at times, but it's always with a dimpled smile.

    My point is that you'd have to throw books upon books at him to persuade him, and he'd answer with even more books, and even the experts fling books at each other and tear each others tiny tufts of gray hair over this issue, so it won't be resolved in a thread on MBTIc. For all I know he might be right, but as a history major writing from within a rather different school of thought, I have my doubts. Seems to me like the same problem the communist ideal had. Pretty on paper, doesn't work because it's ultimately dealing with people, not machines. (But then again the current economic system seems rather doomed in the long run as well, so it might be an improvement even if it's not ideal).
    I don't really care whether he is right or wrong. The way he flamed me was what was inexcusable. If he had criticized my argument or provided alternative information then I would have appreciated the opportunity to learn something new. But instead he attacked me openly and told me I wasn't worth his time. I don't care how much he knows, if he is representative of his beliefs then its clear that he has nothing of worth to teach me.

  3. #83
    Oberon
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kiddo View Post
    Please, do provide examples.
    If you're serious, I certainly can. Be advised, though, the philosophical basis of Libertarianism, while it can be surveyed in a few days, can also turn into the pursuit of a lifetime. To really get it one should have a solid grounding in the literature of the Enlightenment, as Jefferson did, and which sadly I do not. That said...

    Libertarianism as I understand it (and by that I mean small-L libertarianism, a political philosophy, as opposed to large-L Libertarianism, i.e. membership in the Libertarian party--the distinction is important) is one contemporary expression of classical liberalism. (Please consider the Wikipedia links a jumping-off point for more serious research).

    In very concise sum, classical liberalism involves the primacy of individual rights, which are considered "natural rights." From them are extracted such familiar modern-day concepts as habeas corpus, trial by jury, due process under law, freedom from unreasonable search and siezure, and in short every freedom enumerated by any number of charter documents including the constitutions of every state in the United States, the US Constitution itself, and other statements of "natural rights" going all the way back to the Magna Carta, and some grounded before that in embryonic form in English Common Law.

    Compared to these, the collectivist theories being pursued by what we call "liberals" today were not tried on a large scale until the 20th century. The "liberal" experiments have yielded some notable successes (witness Norway and to a lesser degree Sweden), a few notable failures (such as Zimbabwe), and quite a few cases in which the jury is still out.

    Today, most developed nations fit somewhere between the poles of the socialist state and laissez-faire individualism. It is certain, however, that socialist political structures have proven to be more apt to be used as a path to absolute political power than classically liberal republics have been. Purple media rhetoric aside, the United States has never produced a leader with the cult of personality and absolute authority of a Lenin, or a Mao.

  4. #84
    Furry Critter with Claws Kiddo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    MBTI
    OMNi
    Posts
    2,790

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by oberon View Post
    If you're serious, I certainly can. Be advised, though, the philosophical basis of Libertarianism, while it can be surveyed in a few days, can also turn into the pursuit of a lifetime. To really get it one should have a solid grounding in the literature of the Enlightenment, as Jefferson did, and which sadly I do not. That said...

    Libertarianism as I understand it (and by that I mean small-L libertarianism, a political philosophy, as opposed to large-L Libertarianism, i.e. membership in the Libertarian party--the distinction is important) is one contemporary expression of classical liberalism. (Please consider the Wikipedia links a jumping-off point for more serious research).

    In very concise sum, classical liberalism involves the primacy of individual rights, which are considered "natural rights." From them are extracted such familiar modern-day concepts as habeas corpus, trial by jury, due process under law, freedom from unreasonable search and siezure, and in short every freedom enumerated by any number of charter documents including the constitutions of every state in the United States, the US Constitution itself, and other statements of "natural rights" going all the way back to the Magna Carta, and some grounded before that in embryonic form in English Common Law.

    Compared to these, the collectivist theories being pursued by what we call "liberals" today were not tried on a large scale until the 20th century. The "liberal" experiments have yielded some notable successes (witness Norway and to a lesser degree Sweden), a few notable failures (such as Zimbabwe), and quite a few cases in which the jury is still out.

    Today, most developed nations fit somewhere between the poles of the socialist state and laissez-faire individualism. It is certain, however, that socialist political structures have proven to be more apt to be used as a path to absolute political power than classically liberal republics have been. Purple media rhetoric aside, the United States has never produced a leader with the cult of personality and absolute authority of a Lenin, or a Mao.
    First off, you still haven't told me anything I didn't already know with one exception. I would like to know the names of some of the " laissez-faire individualism" nations you are suggesting make up a good part of developed nations. But I've learned pretty much all you just described in intro political science and off of Wiki.

    Second, its nice you made the distinction between Libertarians and libertarianism, and perhaps you should go back and read and see which one I have been talking about.

    Third, I have nothing against libertarinism, and I believe it is just as decent a political philosophy as any. My issue with it is the same as I have with any, and exactly as Carebear eloquently put, "It deals with people". Since people aren't perfect, it can't be anywhere near perfect either. And just as I love to make fun of dogmatic Liberals, Conservatives, and Socialists; I enjoy challenging the views of hard nose Libertarians. Although usually when I do it with the other three, they have the decency to cite example of why I may be wrong before accusing me of being ignorant.

    Finally, in response to your rep comment. An ad hominem is an attack on a person rather than their argument. When you say that someone is ignorant if they don't agree with you, then that is an alluded attack. And in case you don't know the rules.

    Trolls: No Trolling. Trolling is considered a post that is one of the following:
    An attempt to bait a user into an off topic debate within a thread based upon a personal insult or "flame."
    An attempt to make a user "go off" on the other through use of personal insult or allusion to personal insult.
    The only reason I have left you unignored up until now was so you could have the opportunity to apologize, but since you are too good to do so, I don't have anything further to discuss with you and will be putting you on my ignore list now.

    Have a nice life.

  5. #85
    Oberon
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kiddo View Post
    First off, you still haven't told me anything I didn't already know with one exception. I would like to know the names of some of the " laissez-faire individualism" nations you are suggesting make up a good part of developed nations.
    I didn't say there were any such nations; I said that laissez-faire individualism was one end of a range on which nations lie.

  6. #86
    Oberon
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kiddo View Post
    Finally, in response to your rep comment. An ad hominem is an attack on a person rather than their argument. When you say that someone is ignorant if they don't agree with you, then that is an alluded attack.
    I never directed that comment to you personally. If you wish to consider yourself part of the set of people I described as "ignorant of history," that's entirely your own issue.

    I wish you well. Hopefully something useful will come of this exchange.

  7. #87
    Oberon
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kiddo View Post
    The only reason I have left you unignored up until now was so you could have the opportunity to apologize, but since you are too good to do so, I don't have anything further to discuss with you and will be putting you on my ignore list now.

    Have a nice life.
    Haight, Ivy, Jennifer... did I do something I need to apologize for?

    'Cuz if I did, I will.

  8. #88
    @.~*virinaĉo*~.@ Totenkindly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    FREE
    Enneagram
    594 sx/sp
    Socionics
    LII Ne
    Posts
    42,333

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by oberon View Post
    Haight, Ivy, Jennifer... did I do something I need to apologize for? 'Cuz if I did, I will.
    I don't see anything you did wrong here, Oberon. You were actually very polite and supported your points thoroughly (although I don't know enough about the topic to judge the accuracy of the claims, it's just not my field of interest).

    (If anything, Kiddo should be blocking Nocturne... but perhaps he is already doing that. And even that road seemed to be a two-way street.)
    "Hey Capa -- We're only stardust." ~ "Sunshine"

    “Pleasure to me is wonder—the unexplored, the unexpected, the thing that is hidden and the changeless thing that lurks behind superficial mutability. To trace the remote in the immediate; the eternal in the ephemeral; the past in the present; the infinite in the finite; these are to me the springs of delight and beauty.” ~ H.P. Lovecraft

  9. #89
    Oberon
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jennifer View Post
    I don't see anything you did wrong here, Oberon. You were actually very polite and supported your points thoroughly (although I don't know enough about the topic to judge the accuracy of the claims, it's just not my field of interest).
    Well, oddly enough, I hadn't actually yet got around to talking about individual libertarian policy points. All I'd done thus far was outline some of the underlying philosophy. The specific policies, such as income tax reform, drug decriminalization, and so on, were coming up.

    Oh well.

  10. #90
    Furry Critter with Claws Kiddo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    MBTI
    OMNi
    Posts
    2,790

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jennifer View Post
    I don't see anything you did wrong here, Oberon. You were actually very polite and supported your points thoroughly (although I don't know enough about the topic to judge the accuracy of the claims, it's just not my field of interest).

    (If anything, Kiddo should be blocking Nocturne... but perhaps he is already doing that. And even that road seemed to be a two-way street.)
    My issue was with this post.

    Quote Originally Posted by oberon View Post
    Most of the Libertarian distinctives (not "assumptions") are based on old, tried-and-true ideas about what works better, but they're assumed to be unproven ideas by those who are ignorant of history.
    I didn't see him politely supporting any points here. Only saying that I was ignorant because I felt Libertarian views were unproven. But perhaps that was an overreaction on my part from being called "stupid" by nocturne, followed by "ignorant" by Oberon. I'll let it be since Oberon probably took the brunt of my frustration from noturne's comments. Had it stood alone, I may not have been offended by what Oberon said.

Similar Threads

  1. Many have failed to type me, will you be the one to succeed?
    By Doctor Business in forum What's my Type?
    Replies: 80
    Last Post: 09-25-2014, 08:18 PM
  2. Ron Paul opposes CISPA. Do you?
    By Rail Tracer in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 04-23-2012, 11:51 PM
  3. Would you be willing to work for an organisation that..
    By Octarine in forum Academics and Careers
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: 01-16-2011, 11:03 AM
  4. [ISTJ] ISTJs, can you be the life of the party?
    By NewEra in forum The SJ Guardhouse (ESFJ, ISFJ, ESTJ, ISTJ)
    Replies: 27
    Last Post: 10-05-2009, 06:43 AM
  5. media coverage of the tea parties Part 2, (the video they don't want you to see)
    By cogdecree in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 04-24-2009, 06:36 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO