You raped a child. I'm positive you did it. I remember seeing you do it. I'm not lying, this is my opinion. Employers, please don't hire this man. It as a matter of public record that he rapes children.
This is just an idea I had. Perhaps a legal court would not believe it, because of my total lack of evidence. But it must be allowed to compete with other ideas in the court of public opinion. So, how does your ideology differentiate between libel, and ideas that should be free? Why should there be libel laws? Shouldn't all ideas remain free? Hundreds of years ago many did not think that the Earth was round. To say so, you'd be laughed at: preposterous idea! Perhaps hundreds of years from now, the idea that you are a rapist will not be laughed at either. Should we not let the court of public opinion decide?
//' I'm sure the "Libertarian" weenies will have something insightful to say. "It will work out for the best in 150 years -- don't worry!" '//
Libertarian Response® to you.
It will work out! As long as we respect natural rights! It's a moral imperative! Would YOU like it if someone told you where to spend your money? That's just like stealing. We MUST respect natural rights and have laws and a police force to enforce it! We just have to, because the drafters believed in them! We must be forever bound to what they said because we live under their constitution! Moral beliefs should never change! Actually, there is no morality without respect for natural rights!
Do you all have some emotional conenction to Google or something? "Be strong, Google!" "I hope Google delists them in their index! That'll show them!" "They're just lowlifes! Trying to get money! I don't like them!" "I would hate to see Google cave in!"
Google loses. Pays millions of dollars. And...??? How are you affected? Why do you care about such a company? Do you own stock? Because they give you nice searches and that makes you feel good, you've gotten this idea they're worth defending? This all seems very lonely if you ask me. That is, when you bring up notions of hate(which can only mean it's corollary love, too) when talking about a shitty porn site suing what is essentially just another shitty advertisement company.
I realize the idea of posting on this site at all seems pretty lonely as well, though, heh.
Who cares about the productivity of society though? Mega-rich financiers? Megalomaniacs in general?
What if we could take everyone's brains out of their human bodies and put them into cyborg bodies? WE could then couple them with a control computer which tells them what to do. The control computer is in charge and just makes use of the memory and cognitive abilities of the human brain. These cyborgs could be hugely productive! They could all be programmed to work together with no strife and to work almost constantly! If laws are designed to maxmize the productivity of society, than if we came to a time where something like this was possible, shouldn't it be law to force its implementation?
For criminal investigations. There could be a criminal or even a terrorist on the loose and the authorities may wish to contact you because you may have some information that will help them solve the case. Actual human eyes will only see your transmitted location when the authorties look it up when they feel the need to contact you in these rare occasions. If you're doing nothing wrong there won't be any reason to fear this.
I'm not saying that all music is equally "good." I said what I said. I said that the particular technical proficiency that the "virtuoso" group(that general group, Vai and what not) has is just one form of technical proficiency. Nothing else really. My examples were examples of highly skilled guitarists who play in very different ways.
I have, but not much. I don't know much pure jazz. But those are both good examples of the point I'm trying to make. (I guess I was thinking solid-body electric players mainly - by training I'm actually a classical guitarist and would have listed a classical player at least, but I wanted to stick with the just that limited scope of instrument variety.) Look at Montgomery's heavy use of the thumb to get his particular tone. Joe Pass' love of the actual noise that the guitar makes: just plays it raw.
Just look at what has been listed here. Joe Pass' sound is complex, constantly shifting jazz. Yngwie Malmsteen sounds like perhaps what an electrified Pagannini would sound like. Keith Rowe sounds like, well, doesn't sound like a guitar but perhaps some atmospherics that you would think could only be made by a computer. Keiji Haino's sound switches between like some particularly demented Fred Frith and absolute noise.
Oh, get real! You "virtuoso" lovers who think the particular form of proficiency held by guys like Vai and Petrucci and Shawn Lane and whoever else is the only valid form are unreal. There's more than one way to play the instrument as everyone from Keith Rowe to Jimi Hendrix to Yngwie Malmsteen to Keiji Haino has showed us. Is Steve Vai amazing? Absolutely. Is Thurston Moore amazing? Just as. Are they amazing at different things? Yes. Keiji Haino could never play a Steve Vai song. And Vai could never play a Haino song. So who's better? Neither. They do different things even if they both play the electric guitar.
This I agree with. People obsessed with the fidelity don't even listen to the music. They always say, "I just want to hear the music like it's supposed be heard!" But total fidelity make the music disappear. Like a collector. What he collects disappears into the collection, which all follows a model inside his head.
...sounds like my old Vox AC30 with JJ/Tesla vacuum tubes. Thank you Slovakia or whichever former bloc country makes these things. And thank you too the enviroment, which lets yourself be destroyed by the hugely enviromentally unfriendly production practices in place to makes these things.
I felt my argument was effective. You disagree, whatever, I can't please everyone so I try to please myself. I said what I wanted without too much contradiction. Could it have been said with more literary grace? Yeah, of course. I don't feel like spending so much time, however. But then again, here I am.
Original poster? The post I originally replied to? I hope that's what you mean. I did not agree with him. What I felt he said was pretty much, "I can laugh at your post because you considered Marx. Marx was wrong, his theories should not be considered, and considerations are worthy of being laughed at. So I will laugh: LOL!"
That's what he seemed to be say8ing. Maybe I'm wrong. I said in my original post(although you seem to say that this isn't clear) that just because Marx was wrong, doesn't mean his theories should be ignored. I was responded to with essentially, "Marx was wrong. Ask any Russian. Look at these facts; Marx was wrong." as if he was arguing against me. Why would he think that he is arguing against me with such statements? I assumed it was because of the saturation of the more popular argument of "Marx versus capitalism!" so he thought I was some how aligned with the "Marx" side of that argument. In reality, I have nothing to do with that argument. As I said, maybe I was too hasty to assume that, but I can't see why else he would respond with the statements he did. They don't seem to address my argument at all. To be clear: it seems to me that the poster I originally replied to seemed to be doing what I described(the "LA LA LA" bit).
Which I guess brings me to my next point. You say I should have said that in the first place. So...maybe that's why he didn't address my argument? Was it not clear? I felt it was. Was it insulting though? I'll admit it was a bit scornful. But I don't feel as scornful as the post I replied to. He outright laughed at the thoughts of his parent. I tend to reply with scorn to scornful posts. Maybe that's not best, you're probably right on that.
I never said it was a success. As you can't quite easily extract, I said quite the opposite: that he was wrong.
Just because in the end people's theories were wrong, doesn't mean they are not to be looked at.
I don't have to ask someone, I do believe you, I made that clear.
Some people...it's like you see some sort of argument which I'm not making. Just because it's a popular argument, you assume that's what I'm making? Like I'm a Marxist and I'm trying to espouse Marxism or something. I don't care if Marx was wrong. What I care about is people plugging their ears and closing their eyes screaming "LA LA LA LA LA!" whenever some theories they don't like are mentioned.
Modern unions own more to the Mob than Marx? And, as a bonus for your imaginary argument, the Mob is rooted in capitalism! Because we all know that I mentioned Marx that I'm obviously arguing against capitalism! What did I say? That modern unions and syndicalists have been influenced by Marx. Is this disputed?
The PRC moved far far away from Marx's ideas? Great. Never said they haven't. What did I say? That Mao used his ideas. Is this disputed in any way?
Look at what I have said, not what other people have said.
You're so right. Marx didn't have any influence on the world. His works are totally forgotten by any serious scholar of philosophy and economics and theory in general. His ideas weren't used by people through the 20th century to overthrow old governments and create the basis for some of the most powerful countries the world has ever seen. The USSR never existed, and they definitely weren't the first ones into space. Mao didn't exist, and neither does modern day China. You're so right. Modern syndicalists and unionists owe nothing to Marx. Barthes owes nothing to Marx. Althusser didn't exist. Situationists didn't exist. Le Corbusier designed nothing. The International Movement didn't happen. What was Bauhaus? You're so right.
On that thought. Aristotle was wrong too! The four elements? Preposterous. Let's forget Aristotle ever existed. Same with Descartes. The world is deterministic? Ha! Newton? Corpuscles? Not likely! Let's forget all these historical figures and their entire work because in the end they were incorrect. They must have nothing to teach us.
We're already ensured of our demise. You will die, I will die. We'll all die.
What I've extracted is that you place maximum "reproduction" as an imperative. Not everyone agrees.
Perhaps you're right. Perhaps killing off the people you suggest will help you reach that ideal. Why does essentially no one else care about your particular analyses? Because they don't share your ideals.
Evolution is not heading anywhere. It's just a meandering based on mutation/natural selection. Giving it some sort of telos is completely your own operation; not part of some essence inherent to it.
This is preposterous. How come every post that starts with a sarcastic "yeah" or "yep" are always the most pathetic posts I read. Maybe because these people don't understand that sarcasm is supposed to be used for at least some sort of humor(even if it is an argument) and using it otherwise is just being a mean-spirited asshole. As if the person they're responding to doesn't even deserve to be talked to seriously
He plainly said, "kind of like." And yet you are saying "JUST LIKE." What the fuck kind of mindest were you win to interpret "kind of like" as "JUST LIKE?" That is just so depraved of any sensibility, it's disgusting.
Here's my sarcasm. It's me writing a post like you in response to some Walt Whitman:
"Let death be inaugurated! / Let nothing remain but the ashes of teachers, artists, moralists, lawyers, and learn'd and polite persons! / Let him who is without my poems be assassinated!"
Yeah, not having your poems is worthy of being murdered.
Far too many people think they DESERVE to be respected. My take is this guy is one of them.
Well if it's true that a soul is 21 grams, than it should be alright with such religious folk who otherwise disagree to abort foetuses under 21 grams, right? I mean, we're not killing anyone if they don't have a soul.
With regards to naming: I knew that, I messed up. Where I say Libertarian i want the big L(I want to focus on the Libertarian party at hand here, instead of speaking of a larger group). But where i said "Libertarianism" I should be using a small "l."
I still see just a reforumlated problem. Essentially what I'm saying is that I'm seeing a group of related people who call themselves (big L for the sake of scope, simplicity) Libertarians that sees their ideology as defining reality. Their ideology being, (let's use your formulation: I believe it could be rewritten in a myriad of ways, that's just me) "relations between people should be voluntary."
So this is their imperative. I cannot but see this as anything but a faith. When I said earlier that their imperative was "total personal liberty" I was responding to the answer to the question of "how is this not just a faith, what's the basis of this(the imperative we're discussing now) belief?"
And that is my problem with their political philosophy. It does not seem to be a philosophy which reflects on reality, but which tries to define it. They have their beliefs first and want reality to conform to them. They say "government should only defend these natural rights! Only defend voluntary associations!" Then how come many governments do not do that? Why would a government do something that it should not do? If it shouldn't do it: then, simply, it shouldn't do it! Just like say laws of physics. The first law of thermodynamics says, basically, "Energy cannot be created, or destroyed, only modified in form." If energy is actually created or destroyed, this means the law is simply not true! The same can be said with this Libertarian "law" of only voluntary associations. Involuntary associations happen, all the time. Libertarians say they shouldn't happen: reality disagrees.
So what is their reason for saying they shouldn't happen? I think it's obviously not based upon an observation and reflection of the world. I can only conclude that it's purely a faith. And that is essentially my original question, is it not? How is their imperative not just a faith? I still don't see this as answered. Everytime I read their literature is seems to say, "natural rights MUST be upheld! They just must!" They insist that they must, but I don't see why this is so. Why must they? Why should I take up the Libertarian imperative and not the hundreds of others that people have also told me to take up?
"Relations between people should be voluntary." How is this statment necessarily true? How is it not just ideology? Why should I believe this?
If you concede that this is just belief, just an opinion, then why are they telling people that that's the way it must be? By doing that, and it just being belief, then obviously they are just trying to get people to believe the same way they do. They are like every other solictor out there: trying to get people to do things their way. Like the salesman who phone me when I'm eating dinner telling me I should subscribe to The Gazette. I should subcribe to The Gazette. I should subscribe to libertarianism. These statments don't seem different in essence to me.
That's your objection? "He's obviously talking about the objective!" Of course he's talking about "the objective." That's what he actually fucking said: "The objective of securing the safety of Americans from crime and terror has been achieved." You don't have to say "it is obvious": it actually is. But then you go on to say what "the objective is." He says what the objective is: "the objective of securing the safety of Americans from crime and terror." You don't have to offer your intepretation of what "the objective" is friend, he tells you right there what it is. Quit trying to precariously argue for the existence of the "liberal bias" the foam-mouthed AC above(probably you) reflexively screamed out.
The paragraph:
"The demands of justice are both rewarding and depleting. I take great personal satisfaction in the record which has been developed. The objective of securing the safety of Americans from crime and terror has been achieved. The rule of law has been strengthened and upheld in the courts. Yet, I believe that the Department of Justice would be well served by new leadership and fresh inspiration. I believe that my energies and talents should be directed toward other challenging horizons."
Wether he actually meant what he said is another thing. Which I don't care about one way or the other. Useless politics...
Krzysztof Wodiczko was doing this since the seventies I believe. He projected Third Reich styled swastika emblems onto the South African embassy for one.
But maybe no one could remember how to spell his name so everyone just forgot about it. Seven consonants in a row spells trouble...trzxscrouble.
It's not graffiti though. Graffiti isn't a play with signs and within the code; graffiti is supposed to smash the code.
So, Libertarians agree with the anarchists: total personal liberity is an ideal. But, the Libertarians don't take the governmental acualisation of this imperative as a finality. They import some utilitarianism. My objection to this formulation of Libertarianism is that it has merely moved the problem I raised(and others as I've read in this story dicussion) of "why are these/(which) liberties (are) an imperative for the government to protect?" to "what laws will maximise well-being for all in general?"
However, we've reached a similar and equally insoluble situation. For the sake of good measure: Anarchists(if one could imagine utilitarianistic anarchists -- they sure wouldn't have too much problem coming to a conclusion utilitarianisticly - ha!) would say "no laws!" Marxist-Leninists would say something else, distinguishably none that defend private property etc. Again, it becomes a matter of ideology/beleif of what a functional society is/what is a moral imperative etc.
Sometimes I think I should be studying philosophy instead of physics, particularly right now when i should be studing for midterms. Oh well, I can consider this leisure time. But what a sad Friday evening that makes this...
Well that's what I'm questioning. I'm questioning where Badnarik/Libertarians/the Consitution gets the knowledge that the rights they say are natural are actually natural.
It's as me asking, "How do I know God is real?" and you asnwering, "Because God says so in the Bible." It's not very helpful, you know? You can say "It's a matter of faith," and I'll accept that answer for what it is. But, I don't see the former answer as actually answering the question, it seems more like an appeal to an authority which has not been established in any way.
Slashdot Mirror
Then how can there be libel?
You raped a child. I'm positive you did it. I remember seeing you do it. I'm not lying, this is my opinion. Employers, please don't hire this man. It as a matter of public record that he rapes children.
This is just an idea I had. Perhaps a legal court would not believe it, because of my total lack of evidence. But it must be allowed to compete with other ideas in the court of public opinion. So, how does your ideology differentiate between libel, and ideas that should be free? Why should there be libel laws? Shouldn't all ideas remain free? Hundreds of years ago many did not think that the Earth was round. To say so, you'd be laughed at: preposterous idea! Perhaps hundreds of years from now, the idea that you are a rapist will not be laughed at either. Should we not let the court of public opinion decide?
That's pretty much what he'll say, but he'll just throw in more about natural rights and the drafters.
//' I'm sure the "Libertarian" weenies will have something insightful to say. "It will work out for the best in 150 years -- don't worry!" '//
Libertarian Response® to you.
It will work out! As long as we respect natural rights! It's a moral imperative! Would YOU like it if someone told you where to spend your money? That's just like stealing. We MUST respect natural rights and have laws and a police force to enforce it! We just have to, because the drafters believed in them! We must be forever bound to what they said because we live under their constitution! Moral beliefs should never change! Actually, there is no morality without respect for natural rights!
Do you all have some emotional conenction to Google or something? "Be strong, Google!" "I hope Google delists them in their index! That'll show them!" "They're just lowlifes! Trying to get money! I don't like them!" "I would hate to see Google cave in!"
Google loses. Pays millions of dollars. And...??? How are you affected? Why do you care about such a company? Do you own stock? Because they give you nice searches and that makes you feel good, you've gotten this idea they're worth defending? This all seems very lonely if you ask me. That is, when you bring up notions of hate(which can only mean it's corollary love, too) when talking about a shitty porn site suing what is essentially just another shitty advertisement company.
I realize the idea of posting on this site at all seems pretty lonely as well, though, heh.
Who cares about the productivity of society though? Mega-rich financiers? Megalomaniacs in general?
What if we could take everyone's brains out of their human bodies and put them into cyborg bodies? WE could then couple them with a control computer which tells them what to do. The control computer is in charge and just makes use of the memory and cognitive abilities of the human brain. These cyborgs could be hugely productive! They could all be programmed to work together with no strife and to work almost constantly! If laws are designed to maxmize the productivity of society, than if we came to a time where something like this was possible, shouldn't it be law to force its implementation?
For criminal investigations. There could be a criminal or even a terrorist on the loose and the authorities may wish to contact you because you may have some information that will help them solve the case. Actual human eyes will only see your transmitted location when the authorties look it up when they feel the need to contact you in these rare occasions. If you're doing nothing wrong there won't be any reason to fear this.
I'm not saying that all music is equally "good." I said what I said. I said that the particular technical proficiency that the "virtuoso" group(that general group, Vai and what not) has is just one form of technical proficiency. Nothing else really. My examples were examples of highly skilled guitarists who play in very different ways.
Whoa, I thought the post I was replying to was a reply to my post. How strange.
I have, but not much. I don't know much pure jazz. But those are both good examples of the point I'm trying to make. (I guess I was thinking solid-body electric players mainly - by training I'm actually a classical guitarist and would have listed a classical player at least, but I wanted to stick with the just that limited scope of instrument variety.) Look at Montgomery's heavy use of the thumb to get his particular tone. Joe Pass' love of the actual noise that the guitar makes: just plays it raw.
Just look at what has been listed here. Joe Pass' sound is complex, constantly shifting jazz. Yngwie Malmsteen sounds like perhaps what an electrified Pagannini would sound like. Keith Rowe sounds like, well, doesn't sound like a guitar but perhaps some atmospherics that you would think could only be made by a computer. Keiji Haino's sound switches between like some particularly demented Fred Frith and absolute noise.
Oh, get real! You "virtuoso" lovers who think the particular form of proficiency held by guys like Vai and Petrucci and Shawn Lane and whoever else is the only valid form are unreal. There's more than one way to play the instrument as everyone from Keith Rowe to Jimi Hendrix to Yngwie Malmsteen to Keiji Haino has showed us. Is Steve Vai amazing? Absolutely. Is Thurston Moore amazing? Just as. Are they amazing at different things? Yes. Keiji Haino could never play a Steve Vai song. And Vai could never play a Haino song. So who's better? Neither. They do different things even if they both play the electric guitar.
This I agree with. People obsessed with the fidelity don't even listen to the music. They always say, "I just want to hear the music like it's supposed be heard!" But total fidelity make the music disappear. Like a collector. What he collects disappears into the collection, which all follows a model inside his head.
...sounds like my old Vox AC30 with JJ/Tesla vacuum tubes. Thank you Slovakia or whichever former bloc country makes these things. And thank you too the enviroment, which lets yourself be destroyed by the hugely enviromentally unfriendly production practices in place to makes these things.
I felt my argument was effective. You disagree, whatever, I can't please everyone so I try to please myself. I said what I wanted without too much contradiction. Could it have been said with more literary grace? Yeah, of course. I don't feel like spending so much time, however. But then again, here I am.
Original poster? The post I originally replied to? I hope that's what you mean. I did not agree with him. What I felt he said was pretty much, "I can laugh at your post because you considered Marx. Marx was wrong, his theories should not be considered, and considerations are worthy of being laughed at. So I will laugh: LOL!"
That's what he seemed to be say8ing. Maybe I'm wrong. I said in my original post(although you seem to say that this isn't clear) that just because Marx was wrong, doesn't mean his theories should be ignored. I was responded to with essentially, "Marx was wrong. Ask any Russian. Look at these facts; Marx was wrong." as if he was arguing against me. Why would he think that he is arguing against me with such statements? I assumed it was because of the saturation of the more popular argument of "Marx versus capitalism!" so he thought I was some how aligned with the "Marx" side of that argument. In reality, I have nothing to do with that argument. As I said, maybe I was too hasty to assume that, but I can't see why else he would respond with the statements he did. They don't seem to address my argument at all. To be clear: it seems to me that the poster I originally replied to seemed to be doing what I described(the "LA LA LA" bit).
Which I guess brings me to my next point. You say I should have said that in the first place. So...maybe that's why he didn't address my argument? Was it not clear? I felt it was. Was it insulting though? I'll admit it was a bit scornful. But I don't feel as scornful as the post I replied to. He outright laughed at the thoughts of his parent. I tend to reply with scorn to scornful posts. Maybe that's not best, you're probably right on that.
I never said it was a success. As you can't quite easily extract, I said quite the opposite: that he was wrong.
Just because in the end people's theories were wrong, doesn't mean they are not to be looked at.
I don't have to ask someone, I do believe you, I made that clear.
Some people...it's like you see some sort of argument which I'm not making. Just because it's a popular argument, you assume that's what I'm making? Like I'm a Marxist and I'm trying to espouse Marxism or something. I don't care if Marx was wrong. What I care about is people plugging their ears and closing their eyes screaming "LA LA LA LA LA!" whenever some theories they don't like are mentioned.
Modern unions own more to the Mob than Marx? And, as a bonus for your imaginary argument, the Mob is rooted in capitalism! Because we all know that I mentioned Marx that I'm obviously arguing against capitalism! What did I say? That modern unions and syndicalists have been influenced by Marx. Is this disputed?
The PRC moved far far away from Marx's ideas? Great. Never said they haven't. What did I say? That Mao used his ideas. Is this disputed in any way?
Look at what I have said, not what other people have said.
You're so right. Marx didn't have any influence on the world. His works are totally forgotten by any serious scholar of philosophy and economics and theory in general. His ideas weren't used by people through the 20th century to overthrow old governments and create the basis for some of the most powerful countries the world has ever seen. The USSR never existed, and they definitely weren't the first ones into space. Mao didn't exist, and neither does modern day China. You're so right. Modern syndicalists and unionists owe nothing to Marx. Barthes owes nothing to Marx. Althusser didn't exist. Situationists didn't exist. Le Corbusier designed nothing. The International Movement didn't happen. What was Bauhaus? You're so right.
On that thought. Aristotle was wrong too! The four elements? Preposterous. Let's forget Aristotle ever existed. Same with Descartes. The world is deterministic? Ha! Newton? Corpuscles? Not likely! Let's forget all these historical figures and their entire work because in the end they were incorrect. They must have nothing to teach us.
We're already ensured of our demise. You will die, I will die. We'll all die.
What I've extracted is that you place maximum "reproduction" as an imperative. Not everyone agrees.
Perhaps you're right. Perhaps killing off the people you suggest will help you reach that ideal. Why does essentially no one else care about your particular analyses? Because they don't share your ideals.
Evolution is not heading anywhere. It's just a meandering based on mutation/natural selection. Giving it some sort of telos is completely your own operation; not part of some essence inherent to it.
It was fucking hilarious.
This is preposterous. How come every post that starts with a sarcastic "yeah" or "yep" are always the most pathetic posts I read. Maybe because these people don't understand that sarcasm is supposed to be used for at least some sort of humor(even if it is an argument) and using it otherwise is just being a mean-spirited asshole. As if the person they're responding to doesn't even deserve to be talked to seriously
He plainly said, "kind of like." And yet you are saying "JUST LIKE." What the fuck kind of mindest were you win to interpret "kind of like" as "JUST LIKE?" That is just so depraved of any sensibility, it's disgusting.
Here's my sarcasm. It's me writing a post like you in response to some Walt Whitman:
"Let death be inaugurated! / Let nothing remain but the ashes of teachers, artists, moralists, lawyers, and learn'd and polite persons! / Let him who is without my poems be assassinated!"
Yeah, not having your poems is worthy of being murdered.
Far too many people think they DESERVE to be respected. My take is this guy is one of them.
Well if it's true that a soul is 21 grams, than it should be alright with such religious folk who otherwise disagree to abort foetuses under 21 grams, right? I mean, we're not killing anyone if they don't have a soul.
Thanks.
With regards to naming: I knew that, I messed up. Where I say Libertarian i want the big L(I want to focus on the Libertarian party at hand here, instead of speaking of a larger group). But where i said "Libertarianism" I should be using a small "l."
I still see just a reforumlated problem. Essentially what I'm saying is that I'm seeing a group of related people who call themselves (big L for the sake of scope, simplicity) Libertarians that sees their ideology as defining reality. Their ideology being, (let's use your formulation: I believe it could be rewritten in a myriad of ways, that's just me) "relations between people should be voluntary."
So this is their imperative. I cannot but see this as anything but a faith. When I said earlier that their imperative was "total personal liberty" I was responding to the answer to the question of "how is this not just a faith, what's the basis of this(the imperative we're discussing now) belief?"
And that is my problem with their political philosophy. It does not seem to be a philosophy which reflects on reality, but which tries to define it. They have their beliefs first and want reality to conform to them. They say "government should only defend these natural rights! Only defend voluntary associations!" Then how come many governments do not do that? Why would a government do something that it should not do? If it shouldn't do it: then, simply, it shouldn't do it! Just like say laws of physics. The first law of thermodynamics says, basically, "Energy cannot be created, or destroyed, only modified in form." If energy is actually created or destroyed, this means the law is simply not true! The same can be said with this Libertarian "law" of only voluntary associations. Involuntary associations happen, all the time. Libertarians say they shouldn't happen: reality disagrees.
So what is their reason for saying they shouldn't happen? I think it's obviously not based upon an observation and reflection of the world. I can only conclude that it's purely a faith. And that is essentially my original question, is it not? How is their imperative not just a faith? I still don't see this as answered. Everytime I read their literature is seems to say, "natural rights MUST be upheld! They just must!" They insist that they must, but I don't see why this is so. Why must they? Why should I take up the Libertarian imperative and not the hundreds of others that people have also told me to take up?
"Relations between people should be voluntary." How is this statment necessarily true? How is it not just ideology? Why should I believe this?
If you concede that this is just belief, just an opinion, then why are they telling people that that's the way it must be? By doing that, and it just being belief, then obviously they are just trying to get people to believe the same way they do. They are like every other solictor out there: trying to get people to do things their way. Like the salesman who phone me when I'm eating dinner telling me I should subscribe to The Gazette. I should subcribe to The Gazette. I should subscribe to libertarianism. These statments don't seem different in essence to me.
That's your objection? "He's obviously talking about the objective!" Of course he's talking about "the objective." That's what he actually fucking said: "The objective of securing the safety of Americans from crime and terror has been achieved." You don't have to say "it is obvious": it actually is. But then you go on to say what "the objective is." He says what the objective is: "the objective of securing the safety of Americans from crime and terror." You don't have to offer your intepretation of what "the objective" is friend, he tells you right there what it is. Quit trying to precariously argue for the existence of the "liberal bias" the foam-mouthed AC above(probably you) reflexively screamed out.
The paragraph:
"The demands of justice are both rewarding and depleting. I take great personal satisfaction in the record which has been developed. The objective of securing the safety of Americans from crime and terror has been achieved. The rule of law has been strengthened and upheld in the courts. Yet, I believe that the Department of Justice would be well served by new leadership and fresh inspiration. I believe that my energies and talents should be directed toward other challenging horizons."
Wether he actually meant what he said is another thing. Which I don't care about one way or the other. Useless politics...
Krzysztof Wodiczko was doing this since the seventies I believe. He projected Third Reich styled swastika emblems onto the South African embassy for one.
But maybe no one could remember how to spell his name so everyone just forgot about it. Seven consonants in a row spells trouble...trzxscrouble.
It's not graffiti though. Graffiti isn't a play with signs and within the code; graffiti is supposed to smash the code.
Now we're talking.
So, Libertarians agree with the anarchists: total personal liberity is an ideal. But, the Libertarians don't take the governmental acualisation of this imperative as a finality. They import some utilitarianism. My objection to this formulation of Libertarianism is that it has merely moved the problem I raised(and others as I've read in this story dicussion) of "why are these/(which) liberties (are) an imperative for the government to protect?" to "what laws will maximise well-being for all in general?"
However, we've reached a similar and equally insoluble situation. For the sake of good measure: Anarchists(if one could imagine utilitarianistic anarchists -- they sure wouldn't have too much problem coming to a conclusion utilitarianisticly - ha!) would say "no laws!" Marxist-Leninists would say something else, distinguishably none that defend private property etc. Again, it becomes a matter of ideology/beleif of what a functional society is/what is a moral imperative etc.
Sometimes I think I should be studying philosophy instead of physics, particularly right now when i should be studing for midterms. Oh well, I can consider this leisure time. But what a sad Friday evening that makes this...
Well that's what I'm questioning. I'm questioning where Badnarik/Libertarians/the Consitution gets the knowledge that the rights they say are natural are actually natural.
It's as me asking, "How do I know God is real?" and you asnwering, "Because God says so in the Bible." It's not very helpful, you know? You can say "It's a matter of faith," and I'll accept that answer for what it is. But, I don't see the former answer as actually answering the question, it seems more like an appeal to an authority which has not been established in any way.