Jim wrote: http://world.std.com/~mhuben/libindex.html The "FAQ" is a joke, right? You know this is strictly a bush-league effort when you read: "This diversity of libertarian viewpoints can make it quite difficult to have a coherent discussion with them, because an argument that is valid for or against one type of libertarianism may not apply to other types." ....you mean you actually have to LISTEN to people before you stick them in a conceptual box and slap your two-bit pre-made labels on them??? Say it ain't so!!!! Moron. You can take any philosophical position under the sun and always find idiots and straw men who "support" it to knock around, why should libertarianism be any different. There's plenty of room for real debate here, too bad he's not up for it. Oh well! (You got me to take the troll bait though, not bad... ;) ~Faustine. *** The future science of government should be called "la cybernitique". Andri-Marie Amphre, (1843).
On Thu, 21 Jun 2001 a3495@cotse.com wrote:
"This diversity of libertarian viewpoints can make it quite difficult to have a coherent discussion with them, because an argument that is valid for or against one type of libertarianism may not apply to other types."
....you mean you actually have to LISTEN to people before you stick them in a conceptual box and slap your two-bit pre-made labels on them??? Say it ain't so!!!! Moron.
And you're proud you don't have to listen to folks before you stick 'em in a box? Bullshit, Libertarians choose to call themselves by that label, it's a self imposed box. Your criticism is without merit. Or perhaps the ghost of Wittgenstein will walk through you... Further, you misrepresents what he says. Check the archives, various folks have made the distinctions between the various components of CACL quite clear, it's why I always make it clear what the particular 'common character' I am refering to when I 'lump 'em into one box'. It is also clear that a global critique of one 'view' isn't necessarily applicable to the other. In other words, there are a variety of issues with a concomitent multiplicity of views that get pushed into 'libertarian'. His point that this makes it hard to understand the fundamental characters to qualify for 'libertarian' is valid. It also happens to be a valid critique of its practitioners.
You can take any philosophical position under the sun and always find idiots and straw men who "support" it to knock around, why should libertarianism be any different. There's plenty of room for real debate here, too bad he's not up for it. Oh well!
Exactly, and if the philosophy can't stand on it's own two feet despite this then it deserves the ignomy it will receive. -- ____________________________________________________________________ "...where annual election ends, tyranny begins;" Thomas Jefferson & Samuel Adams The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage@ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------
On Thu, Jun 21, 2001 at 04:47:10PM -0500, Jim Choate wrote:
And you're proud you don't have to listen to folks before you stick 'em in a box? Bullshit, Libertarians choose to call themselves by that label, it's a self imposed box. Your criticism is without merit. Or perhaps the ghost of Wittgenstein will walk through you...
I'll regret responding to Choate sooner than later, I suspect, but in my experience, most people who are libertarians don't call themselves that. And they certainly don't identify as Libertarians. -Declan
participants (3)
-
a3495＠cotse.com -
Declan McCullagh -
Jim Choate