Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - SandStone

Pages: [1] 2 3 4
1
Meet the staff / Re: I have resigned as moderator.
« on: May 09, 2009, 09:20:10 pm »
To tell you the Truth, the objectively right choice was not made; I believe Gaius should have sided with you.

I should be banned right now, honestly. I hope he can be made to see his mistake and to judge matters more objectively in the future. Whether he and I like it or not, you are a member of a protected minority, and implying anything offensive toward that minority would be, in the real world, grounds for loss of job, maybe even prosecution, depending on circumstance.

This may not be the real world, but this forum should aspire to be at the very least, respectful. I was not. I hope you'll be reinstated as moderator.


Nope, this is a private forum - he can do what he likes.

It's a done deal for me, I have no desire to return to a leadership role on this forum at this time.

I resigned as moderator in order to get past this unpleasantness, because I really don't need to be stressed out by things like this at this point in time. It's better to just let it go, and move forward.

Perhaps I will change my mind at some point and he will want me back here, but I don't see that happening in the foreseeable future. I don't want my friendship with him strained anymore then it already is currently.

2
I hate to break this to you, but your brand of libertarian don't get to monopolize the word.

You can say, they aren't libertarians, we are. But they will say the same thing in response about you.

Since I don't have any allegiance to either point of view, from my perspective there are two libertarianisms. Your kind, and the socialist kind.

If you'd like to talk about the differences, and the similarities, instead of throwing a hissy fit about this topic and how you don't like me calling libertarian socialists libertarians even though that is what they are called, then by all means continue, otherwise cease and desist.

And before you start anything, I would remind you that you have every right to post your own topic to say whatever you want about this. But this topic, its subject, and its parameters have been defined, and if you want to post in it, you must follow them.

Of late, you have been extremely oppositional, and disruptive and I expect that to stop.

I'm not being disruptive, as far as I'm aware I haven't done anything against the rules in here and I'm certainly not throwing a "hissy fit". Unless those are words you use to show you dislike someone disagreeing with you and the premise of the thread.

You can think what you like, but you are wrong for the reasons I have already laid out. Libertarian Socialism derives from Anarchy not modern Libertarian philosophy, the fact they share the same label according to some people does not mean they are related. They are about as related as Conservatism and Neo-Conservatism, whereas Neo-Conservatism draws its roots from the progressive movement not from the Conservative one.

3
You who didn't even know about Ayn Rand before I told you about her, nor Milton Freedman before I told you about him, are now claiming you know more about libertarianism because you actually are one. I would argue that fact that you are one is proof that you have no idea what it is about.

Now, again you start the basis of your argument on a straw man. That I am saying your brand of libertarianism is the same as that of Noam Chomsky... are you on drugs?

Of course I'm not saying that, the entire point of this topic is to discuss why we have two ideologies claiming the same name that have so little in common.

And again, its not about you, not everything I do is about you. Get over yourself!

To add, Libertarianism started with Adam Smith, in Scotland. So no, its not American!

Do you even know who Adam Smith is, or do I need to teach you about him too?

Adam Smith did not start Libertarianism, though some site him as influential in formation of certain libertarian ideas. And yes I know who Adam Smith is, he's one of my favorite philosophers.

The fact that I didn't know who Ayn Rand is, is besides the point. She's not even a libertarian really, and I've decided I'm not really an "objectivist" as she defines the philosophy. Milton Freeman, is not as popular in Libertarianism as Rothbard and Mises (the two economists I have always looked to for economic philosophy), whom I have known about since I became libertarian 3 years ago. The fact that I didn't know about one guy who I don't much agree with anyways on several things does not speak to a lack of education on my own political ideology.

I am well versed in the differences and have had this discussion with numerous people. Libertarian Socialism is not historically or ideologically a brand of modern Libertarian philosophy. Just because they share a label does not make them at all similar or related.

My point is not likening the two, it is that you are incorrectly positing that two forms of libertarian ideology exist. Only one exists "libertarian socialism" is not libertarianism it is a form of anarchism that has nothing to do with libertarian tenets. Lots of people claim the label of libertarian incorrectly, Sean Hannity for instance is fond of doing this.

4
You seriously need to get over yourself, not everything is about you and your precious American security bubble.

Libertarianism is not "American" neither is democracy, in fact this country hasn't invented a goddamn thing! Everything you consider American existed in some form in Europe before America even existed.

And libertarian socialism does exist, and is a legitimate political philosophy, so get off your high horse!

You should know this topic had not a dam thing to do with you, it just so happens I watched some interesting lectures of Chomsky on youtube,

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ghoXQxdk6s

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ugq86q9KyPE

and I was inspired to make this topic, and draw the distinction between the two forms of libertarianism.

Maybe you should educate yourself before jumping to biased and foolish conclusions.

Ok bud, you're totally right I'm the one that needs to educate myself by going to no name less then reputable websites and drawing conclusions from what some anonymous person rights.

I couldn't possibly be educated on what libertarianism is or where it started because it's not like I've been a libertarian for over 3 years now. Yes you are so totally right this isn't a pattern of behavior on your part talking about how libertarianism only appeals to radical mind sets and is full of neo-nazis, neo-confederates, racists, conspiracy theorists, and now socialists.

I didn't say this was about me but it seem you are the uninformed one and are drawing conclusions repeatedly from biased of nonfactual sources repeatedly in order to express some sort of bias towards libertarianism.

I wouldn't expect this kind of behavior out of you, I would expect someone like you to rationally debate the points of a philosophy or ideology if you have problems with it instead of attempting to go through some roundabout character assassination.

"libertarian socialism" is another term for socialist anarchism. It is not libertarian in origin it is anarchist in origin, because the first modern usage of the term libertarian was in an American Communist newspaper by a socialist writer.

The modern Libertarian movement and philosophy is in strict opposition to these ideals and WAS founded in America in the 1960s. The term has been in use far longer, but when you refer to "libertarianism" in the modern sense you are referring to the American philosophy and political movement not Socialist Anarchism who's main tenet is complete elimination of coercion in any and all forms not the freedom of the individual as is the main tenet and focus of modern libertarianism.

5
Yeah I'm calling bullshit on "libertarian socialism", seeing as how those two ideologies are markedly opposed to each other.

Also Libertarianism is American born, so "European" version of libertarianism are illegitimate ideologies. Especially if they involve Marxism which is strictly opposed to libertarian ideals.

You need to learn to stop pointing to individual biased sources and going "LOOK LIBERTARIANISM IS BAD! AND IT ACCEPTS MARXISTS AND RACISTS!"

Because that is not the case, and it is quite frankly getting really annoying.

And if this was aimed to get my attention, well it worked but you aren't going to change me into a "moderate" (if that is your intention) by pointing to a socialist website and showing "alternative" brands of libertarianism or showing  me some racists on youtube calling themselves (incorrectly I might add) libertarians.

6
So you want a balkanized America?

A strong culture and sense of community is critical to national survival. Without that, anarchy and sectarian violence is highly likely.

Historically, the collapse of communal groups, and the rejection of cultural values have always lead to the decline of nations. Persia, Athens, Sparta, Rome, Brittan, and now America.

I would like to know how you would maintain order an
Quote from: Giuliano Taverna link=topic=48.msg353
[quote author=Giuliano Taverna link=topic=48.msg353#msg353 date=1241542616
So you want a balkanized America? A strong culture and sense of community is critical to national survival. Without that, anarchy and sectarian violence is highly likely. Historically, the collapse of communal groups, and the rejection of cultural values have always lead to the decline of nations. Persia, Athens, Sparta, Rome, Brittan, and now America. I would like to know how you would maintain order and stability with the collapse of family, community, and social bodies. What you are proposing sounds to me like social anarchy.
+ Additional Options...#msg353 date=1241542616] So you want a balkanized America? A strong culture and sense of community is critical to national survival. Without that, anarchy and sectarian violence is highly likely. Historically, the collapse of communal groups, and the rejection of cultural values have always lead to the decline of nations. Persia, Athens, Sparta, Rome, Brittan, and now America. I would like to know how you would maintain order and stability with the collapse of family, community, and social bodies. What you are proposing sounds to me like social anarchy.
+ Additional Options...d stability with the collapse of family, community, and social bodies. What you are proposing sounds to me like social anarchy.
[/quote]

It caused the collapse of those nations because they existed before the modern era where we are bound by more practical things such as national identity, economic interdependence, political protection of rights, ect.

I suppose you could argue these things constitute the new American culture, but I don't really think of them as such personally. I would say they do however, serve as a more practical and useful alternative to a strong national culture (which is often responsible for racist hatred which I know you are against).

I want a society in which the individual does not bow before societal or cultural pressures and "controls" without just logical reason.

7
Meet the staff / I have resigned as moderator.
« on: May 05, 2009, 12:42:23 pm »
Due to conflicts with rules that go against my conscience, I have decided it would be better that I were not in any leadership capacity here.

8
I could have a competition with Sandy about who hates religion more. I might even win. But I still understand that a lot of the waning morality in the world comes from people who have had to be brainwashed into being moral: The Religious.

And I wouldn't allow anyone to have marriages that go against the laws of the country. Again, nothing like "beating your wife is acceptable" or "you may **** her". But allowing for more than one definition of marriage is a logical step, I think.


I doubt you could beat me in the religious hatred department, that's something I'm rather proficient at.

9
This problem stems from the collapse of community networks which resulted from the industrial revolution which allowed common people to travel for the first time since the fall of the roman empire.

Because families no longer create bonds and form communities with commonly accepted traditions and practices, there really is no moral authority outside of religious institutions which were always just a part of the social network, and not a monolithic force that could remain stable by itself.

I think we should encourage community organization and the formation of local clubs, traditions, parties, and councils that mix secular, religious, and cultural practices. I even think local governments should embrace and support such efforts. But I draw the line at imposing laws made by them. If people want to brake such laws, we should empower the groups that make them to eject these people from their groups, but beyond that they should be free to live however they want.

This is necessary to maintain a stable society, if such measures are not taken. Eventually the country will collapse.

I want a weaker culture not a stronger one. Most aspects of culture are illogical and unneeded, not to mention problematic.

That said, I don't think it's the government's job to be promoting any kind of community organization let alone religious institutions which is strictly prohibited in the Constitution.

10
Debate / Re: Can we withdraw from Iraq?
« on: May 05, 2009, 11:34:05 am »
The ideology is similar, the belief in a totalitarian regime set to conquer the world. The difference is that the Islamic revolution is closer to the Bolshevik in that it is taking place in separate nations near simultaneously. While the front of Islamic fundamentalism is divided, it exists. And despite internal divisions it will eventually form a block from which we will have to defend ourselves against. We cannot avoid this eventuality, we must nip it in the bud.

Just because the ideology is similar does not mean the threat is. Islamic Terrorism is in no way comparable to Nazi Germany's imperialist move to conquer all of Europe. We don't need to "nip it in the bud" because they are a bunch of rag tag sand people that don't bare us any real threat.

That's an absurd argument. We occupied the country in at attempt to remove the Taliban from power and dismantle al Qaeda. To that end the continued existence of the Taliban is something we must face to achieve our objectives, and we cannot hope to expand into Pakistan without first securing Afghanistan, and time is of the essence.

It is both of critical strategic interest, and of moral obligation. It is most certainly "our problem."

No we invaded Afghanistan in order to apprehend the masterminds behind 9/11. We were not on a mission to spread democracy. The Taliban got in our way that's why they were "dismantled" at the time. Although as recent events have clearly shown any attempt to dismantle said group is short lived and futile. It's like trying to forcefully break up the mob... which didn't happen for decades until internal circumstances broke them for us. Furthermore, it's like trying to break up the mob in a different country. It's simply not feasible nor is it our problem. Our only moral obligation is to the U.S. it's interests and it's citizens.

That won't happen, and it would be meaningless if it did. Osama isn't the problem, he is a figure head. The problem is the condition of the Islamic world that creates people like Osama, and that won't be effected by removing him. We must safe guard our allies, and keep the middle east open. Only with an open middle east can we see the gradual economic improvements that will end terrorism.

Osama was the one ultimately responsible for the 9/11 attacks, I didn't say he was a problem now. The condition of the Islamic world is not our problem, and further meddling in middle east affairs will only lend us more grief later on. As is seen from the result of our arming the Taliban in the 80s. No amount of war can solve cultural and religious hatred, in fact it's like pooring gasoline on a fire.

Of course its our place, if we don't they will fall into anarchy and we will have a slew of other problems, or should I remind everyone of the Balkans, and Rwanda?

Whether or not a middle east country falls into anarchy is not our concern. Not our citizens, not our country, not our business. Rwanda was a perfect example of why we should stay the hell out of savage nations that don't want us there. How many more American soldiers have to die for foreigners that hate us and hate our ideals before the globalist "moral imperative" is complete? Considering this ideology has been in practice since Vietnam and possibly Korea going on 50 to 60 years now it seems needlessly endless when the fruits of the labor are by any measure less then amicable.

First off your premise is a conspiracy theory and I find it not worth debating simply because it is ludicrous. Secondly globalism is progress, it is what we need to end a number of problems currently afflicting humanity, and I find any pretense of nationalism or isolationism to be an excuse for the xenophobic and the racist.


It's a conspiracy that Bush lied about WMDs being in Iraq? It's a lie that is apparently well documented then everything from false testimony given to congress by Secretary Powell to distorted evidence presented by Rumsfeld about "mobile weapons caches" that never existed. That's not a conspiracy that's an open lie made to the public. Globalism is not progress because it seeks to undermine and artificially change human nature before human nature is ready. It won't work, and it's "progress" has brought us 3 major wars now 2 of which look like they will have lasted more then a decade before all is said and done. They've brought us financial ruin, loss of sovereignty, too much emphasis on foreign treaty, wasted hours and effort in search of middle east peace, and millions of lost American lives. You can keep your progressive globalism, I don't want it. Our primary concern should not be with humanity it should be with U.S. citizens end of story.


Obama isn't going far enough, and neither did bush. I am happy that Obama is sending in more troops. But time is critical and we cannot afford to lose Iraq. I think we should seriously consider a draft, a solution to the manpower question might be found in awarding illegal immigrants amnesty in exchange for serving in the military. Historically this has been a popular and effective means of integration.


Obama isn't going far enough? I suppose if you are in favor of European Socialism and foreign interventionism then I could see why you might think that. I'm not in favor of that. I'm not happy that he's sending in my friends and our people to die for people that don't want us in their country, and for a vague non-specified cause. Seems like we are having war just for the sake of war these days. We are leaving Iraq in June or did you not hear the Iraqi prime minister told us to get the hell out? I say good we should have never been there in the first time, it's about time we brought home our soldiers from a course not worthy for them to lose their lives over. And you think we should institute a draft? The government can draft me when I'm dead.

11
Debate / Re: The new face of the neo Nazi movment.
« on: May 05, 2009, 11:07:53 am »
for 30 years... without Paul lifting a finger or uttering a word in condemnation of it... sure... that's believable.

It is given the convoluted structure and practices that take place in Washington.

12
Rules / Re: Rules for Mods
« on: May 05, 2009, 11:05:48 am »
I take it the "ideological basis" is for me? Funny considering I thought I didn't alter anything based on ideological basis.

13
The way I see it, religious communities already have the power to enforce their rules, its called excommunication. If Catholics want to stand up to divorce they should start damming damning people to hell Hell over it.

I Can concede that... Largely. Excommunication seems flaccid and impotent in a world where next door, the people living there don't even accept those rules. I have no problem creating a legal institution specifically for people who accept from the outset that marriage isn't something you can just get out of.

There's still the problem of religious fundamentalists not wanting to be a part of the same unions gays can now partake in. As much as I hate these people and their moral superiority and denunciations, I can truthfully see where they're coming from, and there's no reason they shouldn't be accommodated. After all, while marriage has been a legal union in this country, it existed long before as a way to keep the community civilised. Without it, men would either **** or cohabit briefly then leave, and women who could not compete - and were not allowed to compete - for labour, would not be able to support the offspring.

This has existed since time immemorial, and was put in religious context because people pretty much universally obeyed religious law, at least on the surface.

So I can see where they're coming from. I'd give any religion that wanted it their own type of marriage defined as they wish (within the limits of the law and decency, obviously nothing that says beating your wife is permissible or anything of that nature) and I'd back them up with the full extent of the law. They'd be happier that way, and wouldn't need to force their definitions of marriage on anyone else.


Nope, I'm against legal authority for religions for the same reason I'm against Mormon courts and Sharia law. We are a secular nation. If they don't like that they can leave and go live in the vatican where divorce is handled under vatican law.

Religious rights stop where they interfere with the rights of life liberty and the pursuit of happiness of the individual as far as I'm concerned.

Which is why I am against a whole host or "religious rights", including child indoctrination and circumcision.

Ultimately I'd like nothing better then to see religion fade from the conscience of humanity all together.

14
My views on marriage are that it has always been a very poor blend of religious and legal. Either take the religion out of it all together, or make it totally religious and let the Church deal with divorces, and who can marry in the first place and why or why not. I still think that's fair; if you don't like the stringency of qualifying for a Catholic Marriage, get a Unitarian Marriage.

I find the idea of making marriage completely religious in nature to be not only unwarranted (historically speaking) but also highly impractical to implement given all the current legal entanglements regarding the process. Marriage in this country at least is a civil state institution it never has been a religious one (in this country), though religions of all types have marriage rights they do not dictate official recognition of who is married and who is not the state does.

Most fundamentalist Christians don't understand this and that is where a large amount of conflict arises regarding this topic.

15
I'm really not against gay marriage.

But I do think a lot of the people for it are hypocrites, because they don't support the rights of other nontraditional unions such as polygamy.


Meh, that's besides the point though I do agree. I support polygamy and even incestual couples as long as they are between consenting adults.

I draw the line at consent (for obvious logical reasons that are easy to arrive at), so bestiality and child marriage are out of the question.

I do think age of consent laws are very flawed though in some instances and should probably be lower which would allow for some minors to "consent" to marriage, however that's a completely separate argument.

Pages: [1] 2 3 4