The leftward side of philosophy always results in some guy with a smoking rifle standing over terrified peasants and yelling, "Do we have to go over this equality thing, AGAIN?" I try to pull open leftists down that rabbit hole with me to see if they see the same thing I do, or if they can point out some logical error that would've taken us to a different result. We always get halfway there when they start yelling at me that I'm trying to trick them.
What does this even mean?
I assume he means that any time you deviate from the free-market orthodoxy and start using the government to make economic decisions, you start ending up as terrible dictatorships like Sweden and Canada
Ok Arturick, I think it's time for you present a coherent, cogent argument about something. anything.
Coherency attracts the liberal mind, only because you presuppose arguments should "cohere"; i.e. you perceive collectivism has objective value outside the subjective value framework in which you operate. A conservative mind, wary of rhetoric which reduces the freedom of ideas, regards cogency as repellent. Each idea is morally valuable, and coercing them into collusion is an incremental surrender of liberty.
Laissez-faire capitalism with some sensible restraints always, in my head, results in an imperfect world, but nothing horrid.
Buy this book. Read it.
I read that book, if those freeloading Lithuanians had just stayed out of our country then they wouldn't have had the trouble they did, and they deserved, for not speaking english
Note: I know two individuals who believe this firmly after having read the jungle (or having claimed to have read it, although I suspect they read a conservative cliffnotes version at some libertarian website)
So apparently Nevada has been called for Reid. Will Angle's militia assault DC tomorrow, or will they take more time to mobilize?
She's lucky to live in a country with such a toothless news media. Not that the Canadian media is significantly better, but there are at least handful of reporters who are still employed who would go and ask her something similar.
The local media was fairly aggressive with her, from what I've seen (on Maddow). The national media is a joke, just like they were with Palin.
enlightenedbum on
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
So apparently Nevada has been called for Reid. Will Angle's militia assault DC tomorrow, or will they take more time to mobilize?
She's lucky to live in a country with such a toothless news media. Not that the Canadian media is significantly better, but there are at least handful of reporters who are still employed who would go and ask her something similar.
The local media was fairly aggressive with her, from what I've seen (on Maddow). The national media is a joke, just like they were with Palin.
yeah, I listened to a clip where she said "I hope the media starts asking important questions", and then a reporter started asking her tough foreign-policy questions, and her response was, "i'll answer after I'm elected." Looks like we've got another 2-4 years before we find out if she wants us to drop out of the UN or not.
Ok Arturick, I think it's time for you present a coherent, cogent argument about something. anything.
Coherency attracts the liberal mind, only because you presuppose arguments should "cohere"; i.e. you perceive collectivism has objective value outside the subjective value framework in which you operate. A conservative mind, wary of rhetoric which reduces the freedom of ideas, regards cogency as repellent. Each idea is morally valuable, and coercing them into collusion is an incremental surrender of liberty.
Medical care is nebulous, caring is an act, but is it a separate act from viewing an MRI or gauzing a wound or are those acts somehow interrelated? MRIs are only photon interaction, and what is gauze but one repeating pattern of cotton fibers over another, at right angles to each other. 'Right' should be sharply defined as a ninety degree angle, or more precisely, perpendicular, not as 'right' popularly defined as a moral act in opposition to a 'wrong', or immoral act. We're trying to have this discussion without the pitfalls of relative morality.
Posts
I assume he means that any time you deviate from the free-market orthodoxy and start using the government to make economic decisions, you start ending up as terrible dictatorships like Sweden and Canada
Coherency attracts the liberal mind, only because you presuppose arguments should "cohere"; i.e. you perceive collectivism has objective value outside the subjective value framework in which you operate. A conservative mind, wary of rhetoric which reduces the freedom of ideas, regards cogency as repellent. Each idea is morally valuable, and coercing them into collusion is an incremental surrender of liberty.
I read that book, if those freeloading Lithuanians had just stayed out of our country then they wouldn't have had the trouble they did, and they deserved, for not speaking english
Note: I know two individuals who believe this firmly after having read the jungle (or having claimed to have read it, although I suspect they read a conservative cliffnotes version at some libertarian website)
The local media was fairly aggressive with her, from what I've seen (on Maddow). The national media is a joke, just like they were with Palin.
yeah, I listened to a clip where she said "I hope the media starts asking important questions", and then a reporter started asking her tough foreign-policy questions, and her response was, "i'll answer after I'm elected." Looks like we've got another 2-4 years before we find out if she wants us to drop out of the UN or not.
I have tickets to see them tonight.
Does... does that make me a Nazi then?
Anyway, this has been a fascinating read. The points I've wanted to make have been made (likely better than I would have) by others.
Medical care is nebulous, caring is an act, but is it a separate act from viewing an MRI or gauzing a wound or are those acts somehow interrelated? MRIs are only photon interaction, and what is gauze but one repeating pattern of cotton fibers over another, at right angles to each other. 'Right' should be sharply defined as a ninety degree angle, or more precisely, perpendicular, not as 'right' popularly defined as a moral act in opposition to a 'wrong', or immoral act. We're trying to have this discussion without the pitfalls of relative morality.