Oh, never mind. I'm sure vhawk01 meant...

Which in this context means 'dead', which gives us...

Or to paraphrase...

Re: LOL @ all things libertarian-type !!!1!

Ah yes, the false dichotomy of language. Not a lot Wittgenstein fans here, I guess. Very easy to let words distort things when you have faith in their objective representation of reality.

Does libertarianism mean objectivism? Are they one in the same? Of course not.

For instance, objectivism: the most selfish thing from a complete genetic/species viewpoint probably is to get rid of money being tied to defined roles of set-in-stone careerism that create nothing but mediocrity, have some epic resource economy, the birth rate drastically lowers so the efficiency of every life is maxed out, and everyone on Earth is a scientist and philosopher rolled in one living in sci-fi castles of technology. We have complete control of genes, time, computing tech, knowledge, all that.

Reciprocal selfishness would dictate even the lowest standard of life in this world is incredibly high and lavish. For menial tasks there'd be a rotating schedule so no one is singled out as "janitor" and **** like that if technology couldn't do it on its own.

Is that objective from an evolutionary standpoint of survival? More or less, yes. That is following objectivism to a pedantic end, an end which IMO is pretty glorious and we'll reach eventually because it's pretty much built in that's where we are heading.

HOWEVER . . . It might be the "invisible hand" of evolution, no matter how evolved and efficient we get, will always have a stark difference between "winners" and "losers" . . . it may be an unshakeable algorithm, this difference. Who knows -- genetic engineering and quantum technology and more efficient economies will give us a better view of this when they progress.

This would prevent the pedantic objective society I just described -- in other words, "survival of the fittest" and the vanity of ego can't be scratched out or even culled to an ultra efficient state. If everyone is a scientist and philosopher rolled in one living in an epic resource economy maybe that is bad because it's too vulnerable to collapse. The might and ego and brute selfishness of the individual will be dulled and when you really need it if push ever came to shove, it's gone.

So then allowing this stark difference of living and classes is actually being "objective" for the long term survival of genes and our species, and not the pedantic castles of technology. It's optimal to have X amount of winners and losers to sum it up.


Libertarianism, or the free will that is championed in stuff like Atlas Shrugged and Milton Friedman, is not necessarily pure scientific objectivism and progress. Say someone wants to be a crack whore, live in prop 8 housing ghettos, never read anything at all, you get the picture. If they prefer that to palaces of the mind we can create, they have all the right in the world to do so.

Objectivism is pure rationality to distinguish cause and effect and to strive to live some sort of Game Theory Optimal life in all activities.

Libertarianism is the ability to live 100% on your own terms, playing whatever existential role you want, in squalor or luxury.


When you mix in economic markets it gets tricky, because if you're hiring for a position, do you reward the person with the highest objective talent? Or can you use free will, which if it's a privately business is fine, and just higher whoever you like most, even if you think they won't be the most productive? Surely you have free will to hire whoever you want even knowing full well it'll be to the detriment of your company. I'm not sure you'd do this, but that's not my concern.


Just an example of the existing dichotomy between the two terms. There is no mutual exclusivity.

I couldn't tell whether Daniel10 was for it or against it but he sure did post a metric ****tonne of bull****.

I only kinda skimmed it, but there seemed to be lots of ass burger. It takes a damaged to mind to not only believe human behavior can be understood with a handful of simplistic axioms, but to also think it would be desirable.

oh, ok

Most libertarian types love the state when it comes to denying immigrants and locking out people who just want to compete on a fair playing field.. so hypocritical.

Enhanced your post.

Libertarian-types are "anti-government" only when it impinges on the super-rich. Like ZOMG, why can't the Koch bros go around mountain-topping or union busting? Libertarian-types are 100% for any and all repression of working folk.

But what about socialist libertarians or the right of freedom of movement?

x-posted from the "experiment over" thread...
forchar 0-2.

Well said! Perfection.

Re: LOL @ all things libertarian-type !!!1!

Yea actually Libertarians often pay lip service to the issue but they will throw in ridiculous caveats like: 'first we must abolish the welfare state and the government'.. I admit I have found lots of support especially among the LibertarianLeft.

Liberals are usually no better, but this is a libertarian thread.

As an ex-pat in China, I'm pretty damn Libertarian on most issues since we recognize how corrupt and self serving government is here.

The government being corrupt and self-serving is not necessarily a good argument for having no government, whereas it's certainly a good one for having a better one.

WTF did TrollyMcTrollson do to missiledawg?

He's gone completely mad. Like the joker turning the dude into two face.

It was the statist victory over the anarchy threads, went straight to his head.

Not only am I not gonna read that, but with the punctuation I'm not even sure I can. I guess my point was to draw a bit of a parallel. You laugh at libertarian-types because they seem to fall for these bad scams, and then you laugh at the libertarian-types who DONT fall for these scams, because they are still culpable, and if they deny it, its just them claiming No True Scotsman. Tight little package, I guess?

Well, using that logic, the War on Drugs is a pretty massive scam. Not only is it millions of times larger scale, it has been going on for decades, the cost is untold human lives and suffering, AND YOU GUYS KEEP SIGNING UP FOR IT, day after day, year after year.

Of course, the trick in my post is the "YOU GUYS" part, but you've sort of already conceded defeat there..

My analogy does nothing to refute your point. That you think it meant to is a bit shocking, and disappointing. It was meant to show you the (presumably) unpleasant consequences of your chosen approach. You could certainly still be right, but it goes badly for you.

I know quite well what No True Scotsman is, btw, its the valid essential tool (the only one necessary but not the only one available) to deflect any type of ad hominem fallacy. You know...like this thread.

No one argues against having a better one. They argue against having a bigger one, with people who universally conflate the two.

It certainly wouldnt be without precedent. Not much of a scientist are ya?

Is bigotry against people with Asperger's somehow not as bad as bigotry towards people of various races?

So if I call a person responsible for bad graphic design 'color blind', am I now guilty of being bigoted towards color blind people?

If you call a man who is weaker than the average man a woman, are you guilty of being bigoted towards women?

Perhaps not, but it does encourage bigotry in others, so it shouldn't really be encouraged, should it? Personally working hard to remove "******ed" from my vocabulary. It's not easy!

well let me use a racists favorite argument.. it's not aspergers people i hate.. it's just "THEIR CULTURE"

but seriously, way to miss the forest for the tree

Re: LOL @ all things libertarian-type !!!1!

Wat?

Libertarian-type-ism is a bad scam. Any libertarian-type who has, by definition, already fell for libertarian-type-ism has already fell for a bad scam... that's why they're libertarian-types.

Just like a shape can't be both a circle and a square... oh never mind.

And here we go... you're done flat out done talking about libertarian-type-ism completely... oh wait, you never started. Once again, you're trying to lump all non-libertarian-types one side of your simplistic Manichean world view.

And once again... what does this possibly have to do with me personally. And... once again we're being subjected to libertarian-type "branding". WTF has any libertarian-type ever done to actually stop any real war... or to do anything at all against the war on drug users.

The answer is nothing. Period. Nothing at all.

I've personally done more than all libertarian-types combined, for the entire 35 year history of libertiarian-type-ism combined.

This should be especially LOLtastical... what exactly to you imagine my "chosen approach" might be?

No, not even close. And LOL... ZOMG you certainly don't understand fallacies at all. This thread isn't "ad hominem" anything... I'm not saying libertarian-types are bad because they're associated with libertarian-type-ism. I'm saying libertarian-type-ism is flat out LOLIdiotic crap. Flat out.

Well, two things. One, plenty of people do argue against having a better one. They make out it's plain impossible so we should just not have any at all. O they want a smaller one in ways that are not better, just smaller. Two, better may in fact be bigger. Or it may be bigger in ways you don't like, but all the same better.

The assumption that smaller is automatically better would be just as wrong as the assumption that bigger is automatically better. It depends what you think governments should be doing.