What Are Your Rights? (page 11)

Nevuela

Defending rapists and murderers, and blindly believing their word over actual evidence, eyewitness testimony, and the victims themselves IS just as bad as being a Nazi. THAT is why you get compared to one. Stop defending human garbage, stop victim blaming, and stop deflecting sound arguments with "what about ____?" and people will stop calling you a Nazi. Simple as that.

As one famous quote making its way around the internet states: "I can't believe I have to explain to you why you should care about other people."

Spoletta

MeanMuStard. So, I think what you're saying is that Libertarians say things in such a way that you can pretty much defend anything they say by simply saying "you just don't understand it!"

I don't, and since that puts me in with the majority of intelligent, clear thinkers, I think we should leave it at that.

Thanks!

MeanMrMustard

@Spoletta:

Nope, not what I said. I defined terms, gave examples, and cited sources. I did these things becuase you asked, and it was with the goal of explaining (hence attempting to help you understand).

I’m sorry, but here you’ve still got it exactly backwards: 1) Clear thinkers practice defining terms and making distinctions. Clear thinkers try to see beyond the first level of cause and effect. The don’t one binge smear campaigns. Clear thinkers tend to engage with ideas. 2) The majority of people aren’t clear thinkers. Public schools have done a bang up job of assuring that.

The horrible thinkers tend to be the ones that make arguments like Nevuela, which is basically: If you don’t like being called a Nazi, then just agree with my shallow socialism and it’ll stop.

OnTheWayOut

I think the biggest problem in America (and apparently spreading to Canada) is the huge chasm between the left and the right. We used to be able to agree on some things and disagree on some things. Now, people talk from one extreme end and just piss off the people on the other.

Simon replying to OTWO:
"Yes, and the evidence is that the left has lurched hard to the left but the right has hardly moved...."

Thanks for making my point.

Simon

Not quite the same - the left is becoming fundamentally extreme whereas even pretty normal mainstream views* are now labelled extreme right / nazi but that doesn't make them extreme.

The left is like a boat sailing further from the shore, with everyone on it thinking they are fixed and the people on land are moving away from them.

* like infanticide being "wrong" for instance, belief in due process etc...

MeanMrMustard

Why is disagreement a problem? Seriously, we have one side that can’t seem to comprehend the difference between rights and entitlements, the economic effects of blurring those lines, and the immorality of the socialist redistributive mindset. The divide between each “side” is getting wider because for the most part we’ve reached the end. You can’t compromise anymore. We are at the point where “being able to agree on certain things” means giving up the fundamental definition of rights that has been the bedrock or the entire western world, the entire economic system that has brought people out of poverty in any meaningful way. So really, why is “agreement” any sort of standard by which we would judge political success?

Spoletta

Simon,

You are correct that the left is moving further from the shore. I think it's a good thing. Thank you for saying "the left" rather than "Democrats".

Any serious student of history will discover that the left (which I will from this point call liberal) has been responsible for all legislation that has helped the poor and disenfranchised. Abraham Lincoln would fall under that definition by today's terms.

Social Security, Medicare, and the Voting Rights Bill were all advocated by liberals and fought against by conservatives.

Strom Thurmond, arguably one of most racist of legislators, left the Democratic Party when it became obvious that racism was no longer welcome there. How do you think the term "Dixiecrat" came into being?

In 1939, 78% of the elderly were living in extreme poverty. Thanks to Social Security, that rate has fallen to 10% (still too high in my opinion.)

Thanks for making the point that liberals are moving away from conservatives. I wouldn't have it any other way.

Simon

Any serious student of history will discover that the left (which I will from this point call liberal) has been responsible for all legislation that has helped the poor and disenfranchised. Abraham Lincoln would fall under that definition by today's terms.

An outright lie. The left (the democrats) opposed civil rights at nearly every step along the way. Lincoln was a Republican.

The other lie is that the parties switched. The democrats were always the party of slavery and the klan, they just found different ways to enslave black voters - notably the welfare system which chains them to the state (combined with poor schools and prison sentencing).

The democrats have been devastating black communities since they brought them over on ships ...

Spoletta

MeanMrMustard,

You do realize, that in the United States, people have been lifted out of poverty in a large measure due to the activities of liberals?

In the early 20th century, at a time when philanthropy by private individuals, family, churches and charities (the libertarian idea of the best way to help the poor) were the only options for aid, the rates of extreme poverty were magnitudes higher than today.

At the end of the 19th century, we were much closer to a libertarian society than we are today. At one time, before we had entitlements, there were large numbers of people living on the streets of New York's Bowery. Were they too lazy to better themselves, could they all, by dint of hard work and entrepreneurial savvy, become wealthy?

I never see libertarians like Ron Paul advocate everyone starting from scratch, each with the same resources, property, and education. It's more like, "let's live under Libertarian principles starting right now!" while retaining all the property and advantages they've accrued up till this moment.

You point out the many failures of Socialism, while never giving any examples of the successes of pure Libertarian societies. And why is that? Whereas Socialism seems appealing in many ways, most would agree that it requires a mix of some socialist ideas with capitalism, to achieve a fair balance. Despite your declarations of doom, countries with such socialist ideas as free healthcare and education, haven't fallen into ruin. You proclaiming they're on the slippery slope to total collapse doesn't make it so.

Without making me wade through hours of tedious, biased videos, and hundreds of pages of charts, diagrams and theoretical opinions. can you, in your own words, explain why no one has attempted setting up a pure Libertarian society, or, if they have, what was the result?

You are very articulate, obviously intelligent, probably well educated, either through schooling or private study, so you should be able to answer the question without the use of other's words.

I look forward to your reply.

JeffT

My wife and I are collecting social security. If that was all we had, we'd be impoverished. I'm not sure that is a step forward. If the voting rights act was such a good deal, why did they not make it apply to the whole country?

I think the biggest problem we have is each side trying to define what the other side thinks. I've read too many articles (and a good number of posts on this site) that start out "Liberals believe that..." or "Conservatives think that..." those to phrases then followed by something about how the other side feeds kittens to wolves or some such nonsense. It destroys what little conversation we have left in us.

What Are Your Rights?

Share this