Korean Job Discussion Forums :: View topic - Libertarianism in one lesson

Speak Korean Now!

Teach English Abroad and Get Paid to see the World!

Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"

FAQ

Memberlist

Usergroups

Profile

Libertarianism in one lesson
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 Next

Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Off-Topic Forum

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author

Message

CapnSamwise

Joined: 11 Jan 2010

Posted: Wed Feb 10, 2010 9:42 pm Post subject:

Forward Observer wrote:

When the apocalypse comes, and people like you are slaughtered by the truckload, the "gun nuts" will have the last laugh. Razz

Until they run out of food in the irradiated hellscape they've confined themselves to.

And don't even pretend to think that the survivors would band together, the only people preparing for the apocalypse by stockpiling firearms are the sort of antisocial madmen that would murder you as soon as pick up a hoe.

Fox

Joined: 04 Mar 2009

Posted: Wed Feb 10, 2010 10:12 pm Post subject:

Sergio Stefanuto wrote:

drought and famine, massive loss of life, insecurity fuelled by rival warlords, victims systematically targeted on account of clan origin, thousands of civilians displaced, journalists arrested and human rights defenders threatened....
Amnesty

...police brutality, child abuse, child soldiers, martial law, freedom of speech (and press, assembly, association, religion, and movement) all restricted,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_Somalia

All right, these are some good examples. The simple question is, "Do these prove the absence of Libertarianism?" If they are a symptom of small central government and strong local government, then no, they don't; in fact, if they are such a symptom, they represent a complaint against Libertarianism rather than proof of its absence. Strong local government is one of my concerns with the Libertarian model, after all. I remember fairly recently someone (ontheway or bacasper I think) posted a list of really absurd laws on the CE forum; the fact that they were all laws enacted by local government was no surprise.

Sergio Stefanuto wrote:

If people don't feel confident enough to go to the store without being killed, it's not a particularly favorable business environment.

Agreed. So, if -- and please note that I'm still using if here -- this is a symptom of the sort of governmental model Libertarians often suggest, then it would be a strike against Libertarianism. As with all things sociopolitical, though, this is as hard for me to prove as it is for you to disprove. This is why I for one want more data before firmly and finally making up my mind.

Sergio Stefanuto wrote:

Fox wrote:

So far you've mentioned FGM -- which to me seems like excessive liberty with regards to parental rights

In which case, we could do with some conceptual analysis on 'liberty' in libertarianism. Strawman Liberty may permit FGM, since this is a natural, logical enough expression of parental liberty. This may strike one as coherent enough, but is it the position of Libertarianism? Is 'liberty', in Libertarianism, open-ended laissez-faire, including being able to destroy a person's capacity to enjoy sex (with the idea in mind that she remain a virgin until the night of an arranged marriage)?

I'm definitely not trying to strawman liberty here. What I do understand is that Libertarians tend to be for social and cultural freedom, for parental rights with regards to child rearing, and against governmental involvement like social services. Where this begins or ends has never truly and clearly been articulated from what I've seen. Indeed, it's something our own society still struggles with. Parental rights, responsibilities, and the role of government is a very, very complex topic.

Sergio Stefanuto wrote:

Clearly, forbidding wanton cruelty is elementary libertarianism.

You and I think FGM is wanton cruelty. Others thing otherwise. I'm no moral relativist; I think they're decidedly wrong. However, I think indoctrinating your child into inane religions is wanton cruelty too, and far worse than FGM from a certain perspective. I don't know where this "wanton cruelty" principle begins or ends, but I feel confident in saying that a Libertarian society couldn't simply have a law against wanton cruelty and leave it at that. That kind of open ended law is precisely what leads to the kind of governmental interference in our daily lives that Libertarians seem uncomfortable with.

Sergio Stefanuto wrote:

This is the second time I've needed to clarify our concepts in this thread (the first time being when Provence thought that monopolies are by definition anomolous in free markets, when clearly they are not). Neither does liberty, in Libertarianism, permit female circumcission. If intelligent adults like Fox and Provence fail to understand elementary libertarianism, what hope is there for the general public, who are, in general, a lot less intelligent?

I think the mistake you're making in your presentation is assuming that fairly vague, broad principles like the quotations you've provided extrapolate perfectly into a social model. For instance, I could see a society living under those laws condoning FGM. I'd consider them barbarous, but if they disagree with us that denying a woman sexual pleasure constitutes true harm, then no conflict occurs. This is one of the greatest weaknesses in ideologically-driven thinking instead of result-driven thinking: principles don't translate into actions anywhere near as clearly or distinctly as proponents of those principles would like them to. To people like you and I, FGM constitutes clear and obvious harm. To many people in the world -- many of whom would still be around in a Libertarian society -- it does not. We can't simply take our own viewpoints, ideas, and conceptions as granted in discussions of this nature.

I should also take a moment to point out that if the average person is unable to grasp the elements of Libertarianism, Libertarian society becomes impossible. Sooner or later the populace that had Libertarianism forced upon them will rebel against it, even if it was providing them with the best results they could possibly reasonably expect. Your comments about the difficulty of grasping Libertarianism (which I think are somewhat unreasonable given Libertarians themselves disagree about a great many things; acting like these are simply givens which I'm failing to grasp is questionable and frankly unfair) reinforces one of my concerns about it.

Sergio Stefanuto wrote:

Fox wrote:

violence is present. . .very possibly. . .an inevitable consequence of Libertarianism

Inevitable in Somalia, certainly. Inevitable anywhere else, I doubt it. Again, how strikingly similar Fox's comments are to creationists' ("if there's no such thing as God, everyone will just start raping and murdering each other!").

I know you're engaging in a tactic here of trying to turn my "Libertarianism is like a religion," argument against me, but this doesn't make much sense. We have plenty of examples of people living peaceful, ethical lives while not believing in God, disproving the theist's claim. We have no examples of modern-nation sized societies living in Libertarian fashion in a peaceful fashion. As such, the two are not comparable suggestions.

Sergio Stefanuto wrote:

Imagine we extinguish the governments in Singapore, Netherlands, Chile and Canada - implementing, instead, a libertarian utopia on Somali lines. Violence inevitable?

This is an incredibly complex hypothetical that you're just brushing over casually, Sergio. Shame on you. Extinguishing the government of Canada and simply forcing a new one on the people -- people who are in many cases used to democratically elected government -- is a massive social upheaval. This can't just be glossed over. How would you even begin to predict the results? This is an example of the faith-based nature of Libertarianism I spoke of earlier. This, "I just know it'll be fine," philosophy is a little scary. It's another huge reservation I have about ideologues anywhere near real power.

That said, I grant that it's possible Libertarianism and conflict aren't necessarily linked. That's why I used the word "possibly" after all. While you seem possessed of a solid, fervent certainty on the topic, I recognize I'm working with suspicions and inferences rather than hard facts when considering the possibilities of Libertarianism as a social model. This is why I push for more, better, harder data.

Sergio Stefanuto wrote:

In a minority of individuals, but it's difficult to imagine any other eventuality than a thoroughly civilized society re-emerging, with respect for social and economic freedom crucial. Granted, a libertarian society seems unlikely, too, but this is less important, for now, than at least trying to show the absurdity of the view that there's little standing in the way of countries, whoever they may be, becoming Somalia. It depends on the country.

Something else is important to note here. The people you're talking about partake a culture which has been shaped, at least in part, by participation in Socialist, democratic society. Indeed it's hard to imagine Canada becoming like Somalia, but it's just as hard for me to imagine it turning Libertarian, because of the very cultural values that make it difficult for it to become like Somalia. While you admit this, you dismiss it as unimportant, but I think it's quite important. I believe governmental model and culture are inter-related. This is yet another factor which causes me to question Libertarianism.

The point I'm trying to convey first and foremost is just how complex this issue really is. You seem to think that it can be boiled down to some profund-sounding quotations and some economic textbooks, but I prefer to treat the subject with the respect and care it deserves. Definitions of harm, cultural interactions with governmental model, the affects of governmental strength on social order (and in turn on economic growth), what people will or will not tolerate based on their ability to comprehend; these things and many more all play roles which I see no accounting for in your ideology.

The more we discourse on this, the more I do feel like Libertarianism is more faith than philosophy in some ways, and the pattern of ideology behind it is very reminiscent of Communism: we, the economically educated, have it all worked out. Just trust us, and it'll go great. Educate yourself and you'll agree with us; if you don't agree yet, you haven't educated yourself enough yet. A sufficiently large portion of the human race has been burned by this kind of ideological snake oil salesmanship in the past that I think we can skip learning the lesson again. If Libertarianism is the ideal model some would have us believe, it's going to have to be proven solidly and irrefutably before it's adopted at large. And it needs to happen outside of a text book.

Is my case really so unreasonable?

mises

Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired

Posted: Thu Feb 11, 2010 7:06 am Post subject:

Quote:

Somalia is not anarchy. Somalia has an incredibly weak central government and effective local government and law enforcement. This is why I feel it matches up so strongly with Libertarianism. It's results might look like anarchy insofar as there's lots of conflict, but that's to be expected if my suggested theory that small central government + strong local government leads to civil strife is accurate.

You're essentially trying to disqualify Somalia because it's not peaceful and orderly enough, but that completely ignores that one of my objections to Libertarianism as many describe it is that attempts to keep order would fail over time.

Here's what FP says:

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2009/07/02/the_least_free_places_on_earth?page=0,4

Quote:

Technically, the country is governed by the Ethiopian-backed Transitional Federal Government (TFG), but its actual control is minimal. There are no effective political parties, and the political process is driven largely by clan loyalty. Conflict continued in Somalia throughout 2008 between the TFG and insurgent groups, including the Islamist militant group Shabab, causing further civilian deaths and the displacement of thousands of Somalis, particularly from the capital, Mogadishu.

This is what you think libertarians want? You think that is a reasonable comparison?

Quote:

And then there's ontheway's Libertarianism, which is far more extreme than that. He's the single loudest voice regarding Libertarianism hereabouts, and none of the other self-professed Libertarians on these forums contradict him with any frequency, while you all have expressed general agreement with him at least at some point. As such, by and large, that's the Libertarianism I'm going to address, as it's the most clearly fleshed out model, and one that our Libertarians have almost invariably not attacked as unrepresentative of Libertarianism, despite our Libertarians being quite vocal and aggressive in their posting style.

If you feel, in your heart, that your Libertarianism is substantially different from his (and I think, based on the ideas you've posted and the discussions we've had, that it is), then simply remember my criticisms of Libertarianism largely don't apply to your model. If on the other hand, you feel your system more or less is identical to his, then the policy you support is far more extreme than what you've described in this thread.

Ontheway and I used to argue. I don't bother anymore. Frankly, the whole bailouts and wars regime has validated his fascist/socialist to a scary degree. I usually only argue (as I'm sure you've noticed) about 1) wars and 2) propraganda about the health of the economy.

Fox

Joined: 04 Mar 2009

Posted: Thu Feb 11, 2010 5:32 pm Post subject:

mises wrote:

Quote:

This is what you think libertarians want? You think that is a reasonable comparison?

I don't think it's what Libertarians want, but I do think it's where the policies many Libertarians advocate -- again, not necessarily yourself -- could end up leading to. Communists didn't want the USSR to turn out like it did either, but their desires had little impact on the reality. As I said, though, I'm willing to entertain the possibility that a minimal national government coupled with fairly strong local government could have better results, when we start getting some actual proof.

mises wrote:

That's reasonable enough.

Sergio Stefanuto

Joined: 14 May 2009
Location: UK

Posted: Thu Feb 11, 2010 9:18 pm Post subject:

Fox wrote:

We have no examples of modern-nation sized societies living in Libertarian fashion in a peaceful fashion. As such, the two are not comparable suggestions.

But we've no reason to assume that the only thing standing between civilized life and Somalia is government. Clearly, Somalia is a particularly unwholesome combination of Africa and Islam, and that really is all there is to it.

Fox wrote:

This is why I push for more, better, harder data.

No shortage of hard data here

Fox wrote:

You seem to think that it can be boiled down to some profund-sounding quotations and some economic textbooks

Bringing forth profound-sounding things wasn't my intention. I don't even think they are profound. My intention was to show simply that peaceful conduct, leaving others be (particularly physically) and nonaggression are crucial in the version of 'liberty' endorsed by libertarianism, and so there's little point taunting libertarians with grotesquely-violent societies. Capitalism requires efficient government, for homeland security and civil redress. But government has become little more than a cancer, in my eyes.

Senior

Joined: 31 Jan 2010

Posted: Thu Feb 11, 2010 9:27 pm Post subject:

Sergio Stefanuto wrote:

Capitalism requires efficient government, for homeland security and civil redress. But government has become little more than a cancer, in my eyes.

If non-Libertarians take nothing else away from this argument, I hope it is this part. It is hard to argue that the size and scope of govt today isn't too large. Every week dozens of examples pop up where, almost everyone agrees, the govt doesn't need to be poking its nose in there. The license for Yoga instructors was a recent one where almost everyone on the thread was in agreement that it was outside of the govt's purview.

It's possible to cite thousands of examples of pork and stupid regulations that are almost impossible to defend. Yet, we call for more regulation and more spending.

The Happy Warrior

Joined: 10 Feb 2010

Posted: Thu Feb 11, 2010 10:56 pm Post subject:

Its gratifying to see Sergio and mises put this Somalia-is-libertarianism canard to rest.

It still seems Fox is playing the if-ontheway-espouses-something-and-I-don't-see-other-Libertarians-arguing-with-him-then-he-must-be-representative card.

Fox wrote:

The more we discourse on this, the more I do feel like Libertarianism is more faith than philosophy in some ways, and the pattern of ideology behind it is very reminiscent of Communism: we, the economically educated, have it all worked out. Just trust us, and it'll go great. Educate yourself and you'll agree with us; if you don't agree yet, you haven't educated yourself enough yet. A sufficiently large portion of the human race has been burned by this kind of ideological snake oil salesmanship in the past that I think we can skip learning the lesson again. If Libertarianism is the ideal model some would have us believe, it's going to have to be proven solidly and irrefutably before it's adopted at large. And it needs to happen outside of a text book.

Fox, a good example of Libertarianism would be the United States during the 19th Century. One of the reasons for the collapse of this form of Libertarianism was the poison of slavery, which was something that bound the Slave states in chains. One could not call a system founded on slave labor Libertarian, and the mistake the Supreme Court made following the establishment of the 14th Amendment was to interpret it as loosely as possible to preserve States' Rights and their Constitutional protections of citizens. Instead, the court should have just said, "The Federal gov't acts as a check on State gov'ts regarding personal liberties [and common national defense] only." The failure to align the check on Federal-State powers with the guarantees of liberty made within the Federal Constitution's Bill of Rights led to the Supreme Court's hijack of the Commerce Clause to lay low the Jim Crow segregation regime in the South. Because the 14th Amendment only checks State action, and not private action, the Federal gov't felt compelled to use a now limp Commerce Clause (see Wickard v. Filburn for America's wartime embrace of Communism) to protect Black-Americans' rights to check into a hotel or buy food from a restaurant. The destruction of the Commerce Clause now complete, the Federal gov't became a superstructure over the States which would allow the latter's discretion over its own domain as a mere administrative convenience, rather than an idea of gov't that could respect regional autonomy.

The great use of the Federal gov't during the late 19th Century was its expansionism: the Federal gov't waged war and consolidated the West through the use of Federal troops and moneys. Railroads were constructed across new territories, and as development reached a certain threshold, these territories ascended into Statehood. That was back when Statehood meant something more than just electoral votes, representation, and a State bird. De Tocqueville admired this system so much that he designated it the American genius of administrative decentralization and governmental centralization. One head of state for homeland security, fifty state legislatures for administrative localization and the preservation of individual action.

De Tocqueville was in many senses the original libertarian, and I urge mises and Sergio to read Democracy in America. And his treatise was not a theoretical textbook, it was a description of a young democracy that had a bright future and a very real existence.

Fox

Joined: 04 Mar 2009

Posted: Fri Feb 12, 2010 2:14 am Post subject:

Sergio Stefanuto wrote:

Fox wrote:

We have no examples of modern-nation sized societies living in Libertarian fashion in a peaceful fashion. As such, the two are not comparable suggestions.

An unwholesome combination of Africa and Islam? You're willingness to go out of your way to blame every factor except their lack of solid central government is just reinforcing in my mind that this is a religion for you, Sergio. Anything good about Somalia you're willing to label as something that flatters Libertarianism. Anything bad? Of course it's got nothing to do with the lack of solid governance; it's just the fact that they're Muslim Africans that's the problem!

Maybe this kind of rhetoric works when you're preaching to the converted, but it's not going to convince anyone.

Sergio Stefanuto wrote:

Fox wrote:

This is why I push for more, better, harder data.

No shortage of hard data here

None of it sufficient to prove a Libertarian-style society workable, for the vast number of reasons I've all ready ennumerated. Maybe your intellectual cult thinks it can boil society down to economics. The Communists thought so too, and it didn't turn out too well for them. The parallels are pretty striking, honestly; the only real difference is that the Communists actually managed to talk some serious nations into trusting them, while no one is buying the snake oil Libertarians are selling.

Sergio Stefanuto wrote:

Fox wrote:

You seem to think that it can be boiled down to some profund-sounding quotations and some economic textbooks

Yes, and efficient production and distribution of goods in an economically successful fashion was crucial to the vision the Communists advanced. That fact availed them little when it didn't turn out the way they had hoped. Something's presence being crucial doesn't ensure that thing will be present. Seriously, the longer this conversation goes on, the more Libertarians sound like Communists to me. So certain their model will work, so willing to test it out at the expense of entire societies.

Fox

Joined: 04 Mar 2009

Posted: Fri Feb 12, 2010 2:23 am Post subject:

Senior wrote:

Sergio Stefanuto wrote:

Capitalism requires efficient government, for homeland security and civil redress. But government has become little more than a cancer, in my eyes.

If non-Libertarians take nothing else away from this argument, I hope it is this part. It is hard to argue that the size and scope of govt today isn't too large.

There's a difference between saying, "Government is too large, let's reduce its size somewhat," and saying, "Government is too large, so let's go for extreme minimalism instead!" The former is a moderate, reasonable response. The latter is fanaticial, knee-jerk over-reaction. So let's stop creating false dichotomies; there are more options availible than the two you're construing.

Senior wrote:

It's possible to cite thousands of examples of pork and stupid regulations that are almost impossible to defend. Yet, we call for more regulation and more spending.

The existence of a stupid regulation in no way proves a certain new regulation wouldn't be valuable and useful. All it proves is that a stupid regulation happens to exist. I agree with you, there are stupid regulations, stupid laws, and wasteful uses of money out there. Those stupid regulations, laws, and uses of money can be delt with without fundamentally reshaping our system of government into a tyranny of the minority (and a tyranny of the minority is the only way you'd be able to keep a Libertarian system in place; any majority rule society will vote more governmental intervention into place quite quickly).

Fox

Joined: 04 Mar 2009

Posted: Fri Feb 12, 2010 2:28 am Post subject:

The Happy Warrior wrote:

Fox, a good example of Libertarianism would be the United States during the 19th Century.

Yeah, this came up earlier in the thread and I all ready pretty much obliterated it. Unless you consider government subsidies, government taxing and spending, racial segregation, and entire ethnic populations forcibly being bottled up in reservations to be part of the Libertarian ideal, you're just parroting a talking point you never really thought out. And if you do consider those things to be part of the Libertarian ideal, then your understanding of it seems completely incomptable with the understanding others seem to be putting forward.

Either way, I've addressed what you said. Feel free to go back and read it if you like. But if that is the society you're holding up as your model, then I -- and many, many others -- simply want no part of it, and justifiably so.

The Happy Warrior

Joined: 10 Feb 2010

Posted: Fri Feb 12, 2010 4:26 am Post subject:

Fox wrote:

The Happy Warrior wrote:

Fox, a good example of Libertarianism would be the United States during the 19th Century.

There's nothing about Libertarianism that necessarily would lead to expansionism, although I do support the expansion of the United States during the 19th Century as the expansionism of a free, democratic society. Indeed, a modern incarnation of Libertarianism would probably be more pacifist than Clinton's two terms, for example.

I've already addressed the slavery issue in detail, and stated that slavery corrupted otherwise countervailing Libertarian practices during that time. The United States was not a completely Libertarian society anymore than the United States during the 1960s was a completely modern liberal social democracy. I was holding out an example of a rather successful application of Libertarianism that existed outside textbooks, rather than holding up everything that happened in the 19th Century as emblematic of Libertarianism. The Supreme Court blatantly ignored the 14th Amendment in Plessy, and so it was an activist supporter of the Jim Crow regime. I don't see how you can read that case and pin that on 'Libertarianism' so much as on racism. And yes, there was racism during that time.

The key point is that the 19th Century exhibited the kind of administrative decentralization and governmental centralization that would be characteristic of a modern libertarian state.

Granting a Commerce Clause exception for protection against discrimination (which is Libertarian) while reviving its protection against gov't interference in interstate commerce without adopting the pro-business judicial activism of the early 20th Century would be a great step towards getting us to a moderately Libertarian order. Of course, individual states like California would be free to adopt liberal policies in accordance with its citizens' desires.

Fox

Joined: 04 Mar 2009

Posted: Fri Feb 12, 2010 5:04 am Post subject:

The Happy Warrior wrote:

I've already addressed the slavery issue in detail ...

The era in question has more than slavery. It has slavery, followed by black citizens being legally discriminated against and segregated (not simply going unprotected, but being treated actively unfairly by the law). It has Chinese people categorically being denied immigration opportunities due to their race. It has Native Americans being forced onto reservations via the threat of violence and bottled up there. It has government subsidization of farming. It has government subsidization of private railroad companies, enriching the all ready wealthy. It has people being taxed in order to purchase more land for the government. It has the government engaging in a foreign policy involving active interference in the affairs of other nations. It goes on and on and on.

This era simply doesn't resemble Libertarianism as anyone describes it, and if it is your example of Libertarianism, then don't be surprised when the majority of us want no part of it. More likely, you were simply told by someone else that this was a good example of Libertarianism, so you run with it.

Sergio Stefanuto

Joined: 14 May 2009
Location: UK

Posted: Fri Feb 12, 2010 5:32 am Post subject:

Fox wrote:

Anything good about Somalia you're willing to label as something that flatters Libertarianism. Anything bad? Of course it's got nothing to do with the lack of solid governance; it's just the fact that they're Muslim Africans that's the problem!

That seems an entirely reasonable summary of my position. The case of Somalia satisfactorily demonstrates that economic growth and increased prosperity can easily flourish in the complete absence of government, but efficient government on libertarian lines - concerning itself with homeland security and civil redress - is very badly needed in order to supress violent warlordism, should the latter exist in the first place, and empower, rather than at best neglect, Somalian capitalism. Clearly, should the Somalians implement a government empowering social and economic liberty, the Somalians' lot would improve beyond all measure virtually overnight.

Senior wrote:

If non-Libertarians take nothing else away from this argument, I hope it is this part

And perhaps also:

Andrew Bernstein, in 'The Capitalist Manifesto', wrote:

Contrary to [egalitaians'] wishes, the freedom of the capitalist system will always lead to enormous disparities of income, because, in fact, individuals are not equal. They are not equal in talent, they are not equal in initiative, they are not equal in capacity to satisfy customer demand. Left free, some individuals will cure cancer, some will make the baseball Hall of Fame, some will drop out of school, some will work in the local grocery store, some will refuse to work.

The enormous general prosperity of the capitalist countries � the ability of capitalism to inherit widespread poverty and then proceed to create a vast middle class � does not and will not begin to impress egalitarians. Consequently, they admire the �equal� destitution of Cuba�s citizens and repudiate the unequally-shared wealth of America. To them, it is morally superior if everybody subsists roughly equally on $1,000 annually and morally inferior if some possess millions while others live on �merely� $15,000 or $20,000 or $30,000. Rational men prefer to earn $15,000 in a country where others are millionaires to $1,000 in a country where others are equally poor. But egalitarians loathe the economic inequalities necessitated by the freedom of the capitalist system.

Sergio Stefanuto

Joined: 14 May 2009
Location: UK

Posted: Fri Feb 12, 2010 5:49 am Post subject:

Fox wrote:

None of it sufficient to prove a Libertarian-style society workable

Come on, Fox. You can't wriggle your way out of this one. Dan Mitchell proved, actually proved that the price of gigantic governments is economic growth. Millions lie in poverty, and are kept in poverty, by this condition. The entire liberal-left worldview lies in tatters at this point, I'm afraid.

The Happy Warrior

Joined: 10 Feb 2010

Posted: Fri Feb 12, 2010 6:11 am Post subject:

Fox wrote:

The Happy Warrior wrote:

I've already addressed the slavery issue in detail ...

Yes, this is a standard liberal position on Libertarianism. They argue: If it were to exist today, it would be racist and discriminatory and all the evils of the past would be repeated. Its not extremely serious, however, as I've not met many Libertarians who look back to the 19th Century and say, 'Gosh, lets put the Blacks, Native Americans, and Chinese down again.' But whatever.

The allegations about how I came to this line of reasoning are as worthless as is your Somalia-is-libertarianism canard.

Display posts from previous:

	Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Off-Topic Forum	All times are GMT - 8 Hours Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 Next
Page 7 of 9

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

TEFL International Supports Dave's ESL Cafe