Panties In a Bunch
Today, we take a glimpse at Libertarianjackass.com and its discontents! First, the anarchist kids call LJ the "Howard Stern of libertarianism." I have a hunch that Coop's unique analysis frightens them! Honestly, the guy frightens me, but, he is an incredible defender of freedom.
Second, the "Greatest Commentary Site in the History of the World" managed to type up some comments on LJ's comments on their original comments. As mentioned in a previous post, sometimes it's safer for the kiddies to remain at the kiddie table with their coloring books rather than join the adults in the intellectual discussion.
But, a few comments are worth noting for entertainment value. He claims that "We could debate for hours the merit of government but luckily for the people on my side of the aisle (probably about 99% of all Americans) we probably won't have to experience anarchy and abuse at the hands of feudal warlords and wild west style bought "justice" anytime soon." Actually, you probably couldn't debate the merit of government for hours (more like several minutes at most)--because their is no defense of government based on reason and logic. Statism is rather a religious faith, as previously noted here and here.
Further, saying that "luckily for the people on my side of the aisle (probably about 99% percent of all Americans)," amounts to argumentum ad populum, a logical fallacy, and one which will not suffice for a debate on this subject.
Robert Nozick asserts that the fundamental question of political philosophy is whether there should be ANY state at all. This intellectual question precedes any question of how the State should be organized. Obviously, the justification which backs up the state is fundamental in ANY discussion of what the state ought to do (public policy).
In short, I will quote Hayek on the purpose of political and economic intellectuals and commentators for society: "I strongly feel that the chief task of the economic theorist or political philosopher should be to operate on public opinion to make politically possible what today may be politically impossible, and that in consequence the objection that my proposals are at present impracticable does not in the least deter me from developing them."
The collapse of the state is, I think, inevitable. The only question is when. Meanwhile, we continue spreading discontent because the future of human civilization is at stake. Cheers!
P.S. Instead of relying on myths perpetuated by the public schools, try "An American Experiment in Anarcho-Capitalism: The Not So Wild West."
Second, the "Greatest Commentary Site in the History of the World" managed to type up some comments on LJ's comments on their original comments. As mentioned in a previous post, sometimes it's safer for the kiddies to remain at the kiddie table with their coloring books rather than join the adults in the intellectual discussion.
But, a few comments are worth noting for entertainment value. He claims that "We could debate for hours the merit of government but luckily for the people on my side of the aisle (probably about 99% of all Americans) we probably won't have to experience anarchy and abuse at the hands of feudal warlords and wild west style bought "justice" anytime soon." Actually, you probably couldn't debate the merit of government for hours (more like several minutes at most)--because their is no defense of government based on reason and logic. Statism is rather a religious faith, as previously noted here and here.
Further, saying that "luckily for the people on my side of the aisle (probably about 99% percent of all Americans)," amounts to argumentum ad populum, a logical fallacy, and one which will not suffice for a debate on this subject.
Robert Nozick asserts that the fundamental question of political philosophy is whether there should be ANY state at all. This intellectual question precedes any question of how the State should be organized. Obviously, the justification which backs up the state is fundamental in ANY discussion of what the state ought to do (public policy).
In short, I will quote Hayek on the purpose of political and economic intellectuals and commentators for society: "I strongly feel that the chief task of the economic theorist or political philosopher should be to operate on public opinion to make politically possible what today may be politically impossible, and that in consequence the objection that my proposals are at present impracticable does not in the least deter me from developing them."
The collapse of the state is, I think, inevitable. The only question is when. Meanwhile, we continue spreading discontent because the future of human civilization is at stake. Cheers!
P.S. Instead of relying on myths perpetuated by the public schools, try "An American Experiment in Anarcho-Capitalism: The Not So Wild West."
Unknown @ 11:53 AM
Permalink
<< Home