I'm a Liberal Liberatarian!

angelica

gue_barium wrote:

Right about what?

I'm not anything about right and wrong. Mainly, as for my post regarding FFG's opinions (or ideologies or values, lol), I'm talking about better English, better communication.

Okay.

I'm saying he's right about the differentiation between morality, politics, economics, etc.

And I'm seeing that he's been saying if we are missing this fine point, we, who look at more of the big picture, are distorting what we see. And that's correct.

gue_barium

angelica wrote:

Okay.

I'm saying he's right about the differentiation between morality, politics, economics, etc.

And I'm seeing that he's been saying if we are missing this fine point, we, who look at more of the big picture, are distorting what we see. And that's correct.

Well, I was taking all that I know of his posting history into account, not just that one line, of which, btw, I was inferring that his libertarian stumping here does suggest: in the post that you quote (the part you left out) he says it would harder to wage wars in a Libertarian-based society.
And then he says it wouldn't? (in the part that you quoted)

See the double-speak?

angelica

gue_barium wrote:

It would be if you did a revision to many of FFG's post with a pre-emptive "In My Ideolgy" or "My ideology works like this". He doesn't come across that way, though. And whenever he is challenged he falls back into the "what value is to me? or what value is it to you?" mode.

It's a tiresome shtick.

See, I believe criticisms are "non-existent" points. So I gloss over the points. It's hard for me to "listen to" and understand them. I gloss over all kinds of criticisms on this board. I think they come from a flawed premise.

Now constructive criticism--where it is presented as a positive case, regarding an inaccuracy, that I can grasp. (and it takes more than a smiley face to make a criticism constructive. )

What he said stood on it's own because it was a truthful existing principle, presented as such. There was no "it would be" imo.

gue_barium

angelica wrote:

See, I believe criticisms are "non-existent" points. So I gloss over the points. It's hard for me to "listen to" and understand them. I gloss over all kinds of criticisms on this board. I think they come from a flawed premise.

Now constructive criticism--where it is presented as a positive case, regarding an inaccuracy, that I can grasp. (and it takes more than a smiley face to make a criticism constructive. )

What he said stood on it's own because it was a truthful existing principle, presented as such. There was no "it would be" imo.

see above post.

farfromglorified

angelica wrote:

How do you differ from a Libertarian?

A Libertarian's philosophical basis is a belief in the primacy of liberty. My philosophical basis is a belief in the primacy of reason.

I am an Objectivist, not a Libertarian. Objectivism extends far outside politics, and its political components only stem from its primary moral principles. Libertarians simply hold similar political positions to the ones that extend from Objectivist morality.

Pure Libertarian ideology would say an absence of government coersion is a good thing, by default. I would say however, that an absence of government coersions is nothing, by default. It only becomes a good thing when other moral and economic qualities emerge from it outside of political ideologies.Libertarians often invoke moral principles as extending from political ones, which is backwards. I disagree with the default existence of the state, as well as elements of Libertarian ideology that would still invoke the concepts of "social contract" or "silent consent". Libertarians are primarily Constitutionalists, and while I prefer strict Constitutionalism to non-Constitutionalism, I believe the concepts of both are flawed.

gue_barium

farfromglorified wrote:

A Libertarian's philosophical basis is a belief in the primacy of liberty. My philosophical basis is a belief in the primacy of reason.

Pure Libertarian ideology would say an absence of government coersion is a good thing, by default. I would say however, that an absence of government coersions is nothing, by default. It only becomes a good thing when other moral and economic qualities emerge from it outside of political ideologies.

I am an Objectivist, not a Libertarian. Objectivism extends far outside politics, and its political components only stem from its primary moral principles. Libertarians simply hold similar political positions to the ones that extend from Objectivist morality.

In practical terms, I disagree with little Libertarian ideology. I disagree with the default existence of the state, as well as elements of Libertarian ideology that would still invoke the concepts of "social contract" or "silent consent". Libertarians are primarily Constitutionalists, and while I prefer strict Constitutionalism to non-Constitutionalism, I believe the concepts of both are flawed. Most importantly, I disagree that a limited state is, by default, "good". Only what people then do, absent that state influence, can be "good" or "bad". In other words, Libertarians often invoke moral principles as extending from political ones, which is backwards.

I think you're just a mammal that has a lot of time to think about nothing.

angelica

gue_barium wrote:

Well, I was taking all that I know of his posting history into account, not just that one line, of which, btw, I was inferring that his libertarian stumping here does suggest: in the post that you quote (the part you left out) he says it would harder to wage wars in a Libertarian-based society.
And then he says it wouldn't? (in the part that you quoted)

See the double-speak?

You are thinking differently than I do. I am seeing that he presented a case and no amount of criticism can minimize what he said, so I speak to that.

Now on the other hand, you may have a case here, it's just that I don't really "hear" negatives. I didn't notice the points you are making, either. My own agendaed filters picked up on something different. My agenda has nothing to do with finding fault with farfromglorified. It has to do with understanding what he's saying. I'm not saying your view is inaccurate in any way, just that I don't even look in that direction.

angelica

gue_barium wrote:

I think you're just a mammal that has a lot of time to think about nothing.

Sorry?? What was that?? I can't understand you......

farfromglorified

gue_barium wrote:

Well, I was taking all that I know of his posting history into account, not just that one line, of which, btw, I was inferring that his libertarian stumping here does suggest: in the post that you quote (the part you left out) he says it would harder to wage wars in a Libertarian-based society.
And then he says it wouldn't? (in the part that you quoted)

I say it would be hard, everywhere. What I don't say is that it's impossible. It's not "double-speak". It's simply understanding that war is not just a function of political structure, but also of morality and economic means.

I believe socialist and statist political positions do much to promote war and violence. But it's entirely possible to have a socialist structure that is purely peaceful. The morality of the individuals involved will dictate it as much as the political structure in which they live.

farfromglorified

gue_barium wrote:

I think you're just a mammal that has a lot of time to think about nothing.

I am a mammal. And you can't think about "nothing". You can, however, not think.

gue_barium

farfromglorified wrote:

I am a mammal. And you can't think about "nothing". You can, however, not think.

Sure you can, but that's just semantics.

gue_barium

farfromglorified wrote:

I say it would be hard, everywhere. What I don't say is that it's impossible. It's not "double-speak". It's simply understanding that war is not just a function of political structure, but also of morality and economic means.

I believe socialist and statist political positions do much to promote war and violence. But it's entirely possible to have a socialist structure that is purely peaceful. The morality of the individuals involved will dictate it as much as the political structure in which they live.

And what do you suppose determines that morality? Obviously a corrupt, immoral leader, such as the president is, cannot deter the morality of his people. Or, can he?

farfromglorified

gue_barium wrote:

And what do you suppose determines that morality? Obviously a corrupt, immoral leader, such as the president is, cannot deter the morality of his people. Or, can he?

Morality emerges from the values a person holds. The values a person holds can either be dictated by themselves, by society, or a mixture of the two. In other words, a president (good or evil) can certainly determine the morality of witless subjects.

gue_barium

farfromglorified wrote:

Morality emerges from the values a person holds. The values a person holds can either be dictated by themselves, by society, or a mixture of the two. In other words, a president (good or evil) can certainly determine the morality of witless subjects.

So, under your system, the "witless" should suffer the consequences of their witlessness?
Sounds primal.

farfromglorified

gue_barium wrote:

So, under your system, the "witless" should suffer the consequences of their witlessness?

Sure. I prefer suicide to murder-suicide.

Sounds primal.

Primal would be blaming "witlessness" on spirits and ghosts, or even worse, pretending it doesn't exist.

gue_barium

farfromglorified wrote:

Sure. I prefer suicide to murder-suicide.



Primal would be blaming "witlessness" on spirits and ghosts, or even worse, pretending it doesn't exist.

Or, blaming (blaming is the key word here: your word) on the victims themselves.

farfromglorified

gue_barium wrote:

Or, blaming (blaming is the key word here: your word) on the victims themselves.

The witless are victims of their own witlessness. So yes, I'm blaming the victim. I'm also blaming the transgressor. A suicide is always primarily the fault of the suicidal, even though he is also the victim.

If you're against "blaming" period, that's perfectly cool. But that would mean you couldn't blame me for my own positions. So I don't think you're against blaming unless it helps you out of a jam.

gue_barium

farfromglorified wrote:

The witless are victims of their own witlessness. So yes, I'm blaming the victim. I'm also blaming the transgressor. A suicide is always primarily the fault of the suicidal, even though he is also the victim.

If you're against "blaming" period, that's perfectly cool. But that would mean you couldn't blame me for my own positions. So I don't think you're against blaming unless it helps you out of a jam.

Why are you talking about suicide?

Should I be concerned about you?

farfromglorified

gue_barium wrote:

Why are you talking about suicide?

Both suicide and witlessness are moral transgressions a person can commit against themselves. Furthermore, witlessness is the slowest route to suicide a person can take. Human life requires reason, at least at some level in society. The witless, as it stands today, simply loot to survive, rather than create. The instant they run out of things to loot is the instant they'll start starving.

Should I be concerned about you?

The more you're concerned about me, the better I'm probably doing.

angelica

farfromglorified wrote:

Both suicide and witlessness are moral transgressions a person can commit against themselves. Furthermore, witlessness is the slowest route to suicide a person can take. Human life requires reason, at least at some level in society. The witless, as it stands today, simply loot to survive, rather than create. The instant they run out of things to loot is the instant they'll start starving.

So, how do you feel about these "transgressions" within the larger picture? Do you feel the "transgressions" stand alone, in a vaccum, so to speak, or do you see that even those at the bottom of the totem pole have a valid a necessary position in the evolutionary overview? I'd love to hear some detail in your answer, if at all possible.

edit: my apologies, people, for the fact that I seem to perpetually misspell "vacuum".