poking around, I read that libertarians are neoliberals who extend their base assumptions about a "free market" to all aspects of life (social, political, etc), whereas neoliberalism is confined strictly to economics

I've also stumbled upon the term "repressive desublimation", which I've been chewing on for about half an hour or so

it's still pretty tasty


it's not just catharsis. it has more systemicy and direction.

Birdman will tell you this is what capitalism does. I'll say it's the way of the ptb.

Regardless--the point is that it's not about helping people in any way whatsoever but about applying profit driven solutions to areas where they haven't necessarily been applied before. And oftentimes it's from problems that they themselves have created. The whole hegelian dialectic thing..

Which would make neoliberalism the same sort of power grab on the domestic front that neoconversativism is geopolitically.

markets are good sometimes and bad sometimes

i know that is a bold statement

If the right to bear arms is a political right (which seems clear based on the constitution and precedent), what sort of standard should be used to overturn it? Is it the same as any other rights? Are there any that are "inalienable" or are they all up for grabs, and if so were they ever even really rights?

I assume no one here is strictly utilitarian and most believe people have rights that come before the common good.

Libertarians are mostly cranks with an elegant view of the world based on completely misunderstanding it.

You can just Google what the process is to overturn legal rights. Talking about inalienable rights seems like a wholly separate thing since it's just philosophical. Inalienable legal rights don't really exist afaiu.

I was speaking philosophically

Would removing or changing the 2A affect any of these inalienabe rights?

Maybe. Depends what you think of Rights and where they come from.

Goddammit this guy is so ****ing stupid.


https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/...72757025001472

For instance let's say that the key to cure cancer was in someone's blood/organs and the only way to get at it would be to kill and harvest them. I assume everyone here thinks he has the right to not get murdered. Is it wrong to even socially pressure him into voluntarily killing himself? And how similar it's it to gun thing, if at all.

Do we blame people who want to own guns for being responsible gun owners as not giving up their right?

I've made it pretty clear what I think. I'm not sure on your stance.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

Rights are convenient legal fictions useful for negotiating with the state. That's it.

I dunno what your stance/principle is in general. I know you hate guns.

I don't get it

I think they are kinda fiction as well but don't get the state narrative. Probably emergent.

I can imagine in some alternate universe people may be socially conditioned to give up their lives for the good of the whole and it's just a social norm. Like killing themselves to provide organs for people in need.

They are overlapping sets of course. Neoconservatism: foreign policy intervention starts with no presumptions against and should be decided using the newest (unreliable) evidence with no negative consideration of the past or future. This is total faith in governments. Neoliberalism is total unfaith in governments for social problems, only competition can save the worthy. It looks like it a conflict of principles but the conflict of principles is never an actual problem for people who are both neocon and neolib.


It is the case. Rand Paul is a prototypical neoliberal. Your zerohedge is all neoliberal. Anybody saying "government is not the answer" is going to be neoliberal if they also say "the market has the answer"; markets aren't the only alternate answer. "do what makes me personally richest" is the oligarch answer.

I can apply the principles of neoliberalism to imagine neoliberal foreign policy. You need a merit test to divide worthy from unworthy. Aid should come with strings to encourage our preferred policies; but not from selfishness but because we are certain that our preferred policies are best. Having described the principle, the IMF is a perfect fit. The IMF is a neoliberal foreign policy institution. OTOH, the UN is not. The UN isn't a lot of things and it definitely isn't applying 'neutral' merit tests and privatization to hand out rewards and punishment.

It is interesting how much mindshare neoliberalism holds. It's 99% of both parties. The libertarians won quite the series of victories to make it so. It's hard to imagine alternatives because they are outside the bounds of serious conversation.

There is no such thing as an inherent right. Rights can only be granted by and taken away by governments. Not believing in a god makes it very easy for me to say that. Any right that anybody could come up with and say it's inherent, I could describe a way it could be taken a way and therefore not be inherent.

No money for new books, copies, colored pencils, etc., but plenty of money for metal detectors, guns, and training.


The teacher is supposed to shoot their student. With other students standing around.



anything but sensible licensing requirements, please

But you argue ideological points all the time? Mostly about abortion as I remember. "right to body/choice" and such.

To be honest from the way you argue I don't really think of you as an aethiest.

I would say if believe granting rights to be generally good them when tough times come up those are the times to buckle down and keep them, not sell them for 2 cents on the dollar.

People wanted to with the anti free speech rhetoric after Charlottesville. Obviously most people here don't care about guns and are fine giving away that right. I think that's kinda the end game.