The Chick-Fil-A/Libertarian/Gay Marriage thread ;)

thanks Rob. Don't think the quote has much to do with realism, but thanks for locating it for me.

I wonder why I would locate it for you if I only cared about myself.

And you are welcome.

That quote has everything to do with realism. I would like to change a lot of stuff, but realize it isnt going to happen and roll with those things I cant change. Or ignore them if to oppressive.

Another example - if I ever ran for office (which I wont, all politicians are corrupt douchebags, even the ones I vote for), I would run on the following platform (taken directly from CS Lewis):

To live his life in his own way, to call his house his castle, to enjoy the fruits of his own labour, to educate his children as his conscience directs, to save for their prosperity after his death --- these are wishes deeply ingrained in civilised man.

I dont think that is utopian in the least.

I'm not sure what common ground we are going to find when we have totally different views on the social contract. Earlier you said my characterization of libertarianism was a strawman. And you are correct, except libertarianism only exists in opposition to what is. I understand fiscal conservatism. I don't agree with it, but I understand it as a political theory. It's a viable political theory. Libertarianism isn't. It's a utopian ideal that exists on the premise that ignoring is not an option. The only option is an unreachable ideal (just like Marxism).

I see that you've created a title to describe your stance. So, there might be reality in your own approach. But that's the same thing as saying there's a reality in certain social democratic approaches to a degree that there is not in Marxism. I like to call that being Marxian -- which is the acceptance of the limitations of Marxism because of reality.

I'm getting a headache, so I'm going to take a break.

But that's the libertarian creed - care only about oneself, but hide behind some concept of liberty when doing so. And I guess I meant that combatively, seeing as you provided me few other options.

Wrong. Libertarians just believe that all values don't have to be enforced by the government.

But why would you care for other options? An idea of a social good or a social contract means nothing to you. Were all just autonomous moral characters only connected by our participation in the free market. Any other connection not driven by one's liberty is coercion perpetuated by the government. Somehow, though the free market itself is never viewed to be coercive.

Oh, what's the point. I should have stopped when I said I was going to.

One of the big problems with government solutions is the one size fits all approach. By social good and social contract, do you mean only those codified into law? I pay tips even though there is no law. Should I stop since it's not against the law?

I'm not sure what common ground we are going to find when we have totally different views on the social contract. Earlier you said my characterization of libertarianism was a strawman. And you are correct, except libertarianism only exists in opposition to what is. I understand fiscal conservatism. I don't agree with it, but I understand it as a political theory. It's a viable political theory. Libertarianism isn't. It's a utopian ideal that exists on the premise that ignoring is not an option. The only option is an unreachable ideal (just like Marxism).

Well, there are utopians from the left and the right. So, it is a strawman as far as Rob is concerned. You present something that doesn't represent his views, and then knock it down. You could think about what the spectrum of libertarianism is.

Clearly Rob is not the anarcho-capitalist that your strawman represents, nor am I. But, clearly he and I agree that our current government could be improved by incorporating more libertarian principles.

Clearly Rob is not the anarcho-capitalist that your strawman represents, nor am I. But, clearly he and I agree that our current government could be improved by incorporating more libertarian principles.

Yeah, I get in arguments with anarchists on libertarian websites all the time. They are delusional utopians.

They point out the contradictions in minarchy and I point them to Goedel.

The only principles we need to get back to are these:

http://www.constitution.org/constit_.htm

http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/document/

It's not a bad idea to read these things and refer back to them periodically.

And this is where the rubber meets the road, and where this kind of debate, no matter how well-intentioned the participants, is bound to fail. I find this line of thinking - not speaking of you, Rob, but of the Randian/right-libertarian philosophy in general - to be essentially naive and out of touch with the real world. It sets up strawman opponents and then declares victory by knocking them down.

This why I don't self identify as libertarian. It's a loaded term, because everybody thinks they know what it means. Libertrainism is a spectrum from, let's say, Jeffersonian Priciples to anarcho-capitalism. By muddling all those together, it's easy for you to blow off all of them.

History is loaded with examples to the contrary, from the New Deal to the civil rights struggle to Great Society, and as Santayana famously warned, those who aren't willing to learn history's lessons are doomed to repeat them.

We have already been debating Civil Rights. It's not a tidy argument against Libertarianism because racism WAS enforced by the government.

The Great Society has failed in it's stated goals. The situation is arguably worse than it was before.

The New Deal programs might be salvagable, if it weren't for the Great Society programs sucking the cow dry.

The only principles we need to get back to are these:

http://www.constitution.org/constit_.htm

http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/document/

It's not a bad idea to read these things and refer back to them periodically.

Let's start by putting the commerce clause on CPR and getting it ambulatory again.

Then we can talk about the 17th amendment.

The only principles we need to get back to are these:

http://www.constitution.org/constit_.htm

http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/document/

It's not a bad idea to read these things and refer back to them periodically.

Let's start by putting the commerce clause on CPR and getting it ambulatory again.

Then we can talk about the 17th amendment.

1913 was a really bad year.

Both amendments blow. And combined, they are even worse.

1913 was a really bad year.

Both amendments blow. And combined, they are even worse.

I'm gonna have to go all Burkian and submit that repealing the 16th Amendment is probably too big a bite to take all at once.

1913 was a really bad year.

Both amendments blow. And combined, they are even worse.

I'm gonna have to go all Burkian and submit that repealing the 16th Amendment is probably too big a bite to take all at once.

I dont disagree. Probably true for the 17th too.

Although you cant really half repeal that one. But I dont see the point in repealing the 17th until after the 16th is gone. The state legislature as a check on the taxing power of the senate was powerful, but both would have to be repealed. So the 17th can wait until the 16th is gone.

Now the 18th...oh wait, already taken care of.

I dont disagree. Probably true for the 17th too.

Although you cant really half repeal that one. But I dont see the point in repealing the 17th until after the 16th is gone. The state legislature as a check on the taxing power of the senate was powerful, but both would have to be repealed. So the 17th can wait until the 16th is gone.

Now the 18th...oh wait, already taken care of.

Interesting. I was thinking that repeal of the 17th would be a good step toward denationalizing Senate elections, thereby strengthening the Federalism model. Anything that returns politics to the States is a net positive, IMHO.

Some of you may find this site interesting: http://www.zompist.com/libertos.html

That Chic-fil-A sure has some tasty chicken.

Some of you may find this site interesting: http://www.zompist.com/libertos.html

See my previous comment about not understanding that there is a spectrum of opinions that are commonly called "libertarianism".

The whole thing is analogous with saying: Liberalism=Communism. Therefore, Liberalism is bad.

Not very persuasive.

Some of you may find this site interesting: http://www.zompist.com/libertos.html

Let's just leave the libertarians (yeah, I said it!) to agree and disagree amongst themselves. They are so misunderstood anyway. Now we know what happens to emo kids when they grow up.