Rationalskepticism,lol part III.

[Seth]

But the left concerns themselves far more with "freedom from". Which is why they advocate, for instance, restrictions on free speech to protect poor little lambs from having their fee-fees offended, with those who dare to express an "offensive" opinion made to suffer under the full weight of the law (see: RatSkep).

"Freedom to", AKA Real Freedom, is a more important freedom in my book, and should always take precedence.

Yup. Important and well-stated distinction between the philosophy of collectivism and the philosophy of individualism.

And to forestall rEv's favorite strawman, no, that does not mean unbridled or unregulated "freedom to" on the part of the individual. As the Founders said, governments are instituted among men to secure the blessings of liberty. What this means is that the "freedom to" is the presumptive native condition of the individual, right up until his exercise of that freedom negatively impacts on the equal "freedom to" being exercised by others. In such cases some adjudication is required to determine which of the "freedom to" claims lies higher on the hierarchy of individual rights than the other and to find a rational compromise where necessary that serves both liberty interests to the maximum possible extent while minimizing the impairment of the enjoyment of "freedom to" on the part of each.

This principle is concisely stated by the aphorism "In a free country, everything is permitted unless it is explicitly prohibited, in socialism everything is prohibited unless it is expressly permitted."

[Hermit]

I'll get to this tomorrow. But the point with freedom is that no sane side of politics believe in literal total freedom.

No one but you has ever made or even implied this argument. You are erecting a strawman, and it's a huge one.

Barely four days ago:

All rights are subject to reasonable regulation in the public interest, including the right to free speech

[Brian Peacock]

[pErvinalia]

A neocon is just a libertarian with the balls to do something about it.

Neocons are not libertarian. Libertarian foreign policy stances are incompatible with neoconservative foreign policy stances.

While neocons tend to be somewhat supportive of classical liberal economics, which tends to be consistent with libertarian positions on that point, the rest of neoconservatism is diametrically opposed to libertarianism. Even on economics, libertarians tend to be against budget deficits and tend to be very much supportive of the ideas of Hayek, whereas neoconservatives are not. Libertarians agree that the growth of government influence on society and public welfare is "the road to serfdom" as Hayek put it, but neoconservatives are not against the growth of government influence on society and public welfare.

My take on what Brian is saying is something I've been on about for a while. Most right libbos aren't actually libertarians at all. They are neoliberals (via my definition which I linked to in an essay on my blog earlier in the thread) and neocons (just look at Seth). If you are a right libertarian you have to go the whole hog and you wind up holding psychopathic views like Murray Rothbard does.

So how do you figure I'm either a "neocon" or a "neoliberal?" And what sort of "psychopathic" views does this Rothbard person hold?

Last first: That parents aren't responsible for their children as it infringes on their (the parents) individual rights to freedom. (among a host of other repugnant views which you are well aware of as I've been discussing them on the other two sites for a decade with you and others).

You're a neocon as you advocate American exceptionalism and foreign projection of military power.

You're neoliberal because you support corporate hijacking of democracy, and are a social Darwinist.

[pErvinalia]

Neocons grew out of the left-wing of politics. That's how come they advocate top-down regime change. The idea that you can alter things from the top downwards is plucked straight from Marxian doctrine.

that's a simplistic view. Authoritarianism isn't solely a left or right thing. It infects both sides. Arguably, it's more of a rightist concept as it gels nicely with the respect for hierarchies and disrespect for individual autonomy inherent in conservatism.

See, you do understand that liberal fascism exists! Bravo!

As for "disrespect for individual autonomy inherent in conservatism" I'd really like to know how you come to that conclusion without also coming to the same conclusion about leftist hierarchies and disrespect for individual autonomy inherent in collectivism.

Far from believing that human nature is essentially good or that human beings are fundamentally rational, conservatives tend to assume that human beings are driven by their passions and desires—and are therefore naturally prone to selfishness, anarchy, irrationality, and violence. Accordingly, conservatives look to traditional political and cultural institutions to curb humans’ base and destructive instincts. In Burke’s [one of the ‘fathers’ of political conservatism] words, people need “a sufficient restraint upon their passions,” which it is the office of government “to bridle and subdue.” Families, churches, and schools must teach the value of self-discipline, and those who fail to learn this lesson must have discipline imposed upon them by government and law. Without the restraining power of such institutions, conservatives believe, there can be no ethical behaviour and no responsible use of liberty.

[Seth]

I'll get to this tomorrow. But the point with freedom is that no sane side of politics believe in literal total freedom.

No one but you has ever made or even implied this argument. You are erecting a strawman, and it's a huge one.

Barely four days ago:

All rights are subject to reasonable regulation in the public interest, including the right to free speech

What's your point? rEv consistently strawman and red-herring's his way through an argument about Libertarianism by either directly or indirectly claiming that Libertarianism supports "absolute freedom."

And I consistently point out that his arguments are based on a strawman fallacy, as is the case here.

What neither of you seem able to comprehend is that "All rights are subject to reasonable regulation in the public interest" and "All rights are subject to whatever regulation the public is interested in" are not synonymous concepts at all.

The regulation of rights is only authorized and constitutional within a larger framework of constitutional law and the Founder's original intent when authoring the constraints on government authority inherent in the Bill of Rights.

Therefore it is false to assert that any regulation at all which some or even all of the community might deem "reasonable" that infringes on certain fundamental rights is automatically constitutional. This is simply not the case at all.

One hundred percent of the residents of Washington DC or any other state might agree that banning guns is a "reasonable" thing to do but such a ban would remain entirely unconstitutional because the rights of each individual when it comes to the keeping and bearing of arms supersedes and nullifies any popular democratic determination to the contrary. This concept of unalienable rights is the very foundation of our entire system of government and it says that no individual's rights may be "alienated", by which the Founders meant "taken away by popular vote or legislative action." The only way that certain fundamental rights like the RKBA can be completely (or effectively) denied to anyone is if the individual has somehow abused his liberty to exercise those rights or has proven, through his behavior, that he presents a clear and present danger of doing so due to some mental imbalance. And in any case those rights cannot be stripped away from an individual by popular vote, ever, but only after due process has been afforded and an adjudication by a court has made that determination. Much less can the majority vote away the rights of the minority to keep and bear arms, no matter how much it may desire to do so.

[Seth]

A neocon is just a libertarian with the balls to do something about it.

Neocons are not libertarian. Libertarian foreign policy stances are incompatible with neoconservative foreign policy stances.

While neocons tend to be somewhat supportive of classical liberal economics, which tends to be consistent with libertarian positions on that point, the rest of neoconservatism is diametrically opposed to libertarianism. Even on economics, libertarians tend to be against budget deficits and tend to be very much supportive of the ideas of Hayek, whereas neoconservatives are not. Libertarians agree that the growth of government influence on society and public welfare is "the road to serfdom" as Hayek put it, but neoconservatives are not against the growth of government influence on society and public welfare.

My take on what Brian is saying is something I've been on about for a while. Most right libbos aren't actually libertarians at all. They are neoliberals (via my definition which I linked to in an essay on my blog earlier in the thread) and neocons (just look at Seth). If you are a right libertarian you have to go the whole hog and you wind up holding psychopathic views like Murray Rothbard does.

So how do you figure I'm either a "neocon" or a "neoliberal?" And what sort of "psychopathic" views does this Rothbard person hold?

Last first: That parents aren't responsible for their children as it infringes on their (the parents) individual rights to freedom.

What does he mean by "children" and to what extent are parents relieved of responsibility for them?

(among a host of other repugnant views which you are well aware of as I've been discussing them on the other two sites for a decade with you and others).

Sorry, I don't recall these "Rothbardian repugnancies," you'll need to be specific and quote your source material because you have a serious habit of misstating what others have actually said or actually mean, so I'll need to review your citations for accuracy and honesty.

You're a neocon as you advocate American exceptionalism and foreign projection of military power.

American exceptionalism is not a neocon principle, at least not exclusively. As for "foreign projection of military power" my interventionist policies are strictly limited to the use of military force against those who have instigated force against the United States. I have no interest in using projected military force to nation-build or re-build, as the case may be. My policies are quite clear and restrictive: You attack us, we destroy you and your capacity to do so ever again. That's it. Perfectly Libertarian and not in the least bit "neocon."

You're neoliberal because you support corporate hijacking of democracy, and are a social Darwinist.

Cite one instance in which I have advocated or supported "corporate hijacking of democracy." But first, carefully define "corporate hijacking" so we can know what the fuck you are even talking about.

As for social Darwinism, you'll also need to carefully define what you mean because I don't think that a policy of expecting people to be personally responsible for their own actions or inactions and to accept without complaint the consequences of those actions or inactions constitutes "social Darwinism." It's just plain old common sense and fundamental fairness to insist that people not try to shift the blame for their own failings onto others, much less demand that others rescue them from their bad decision making.

Which cannot be read to mean that I object at all to voluntary altruistic and charitable efforts to support and assist those who are suffering.

I just object to being forced at the muzzle of a machine gun to pay for it against my will.

[pErvinalia]

Yeah, that sounds about right. In a sense Marxism is actually a conservative ideology, in that it has an elite element to it. And that definitely morphs into full on conservatism under Lenin and Stalin

It's laughable that you call Lenin and Stalin "conservatives."

They are conservative in the sense that they believed in an elite authoritarian system. Elitism and Authoritarianism is the natural home of conservatism for reasons I've already given and quoted. I think it's like that horseshoe ring theory. The more you wind up in the top left or top right of the 4-axis political spectrum, the more you become the same. Was there really much difference between Hitler and Stalin?

That's why the Anarchists like Luxomburgh etc broke away from the Socialists as they could see the authoritarian aspect to it and knew it was the antithesis to democratic socialism.

For all the good it did them.

Well, anarchy influenced movements live on strongly in the Occupy Movement and the Indignados movement. Of course, you think they are Marxists as they aren't right libertarian, so there's no point discussing that with you.

That's why the 4-axis political spectrum (left:right; authoritarian:libertarian) is most accurate and relevant. Yes, Marxism came out of the left, but it's not really accurate to call Stalin a leftist. He was probably more of a centrist highly authoritarian. Progressivism and authoritarianism aren't really logical bedfellows like conservatism and authoritarianism is. I doubt you'd find many actually progressives who rate high up on the Authoritarian scale. But you will find plenty of Fascists who rate high on the conservatism scale.

I'd also like to know what your definition of "progressive" is, because it's clearly not related to "Progressivism" as defined by Progressives, which is pretty damned authoritarian. Do you mean, by "progressive", a political philosophy akin to the neo-anarchist hippie model of everybody smoking dope and smelling of pachouli oil?

Or by "progressive" do you mean "democratic socialism on steroids that rapes the rich and enslaves the poor to the welfare state for no better reason than that I hate the rich and want to take what they have and redistribute it to others"? That sounds like pure-quill Marxism to me.

Progressivism is social liberalism. It's definitely not against the State using its power to enforce social equality (i.e. equal rights). But Marxism, Leninism and Stalinism aren't progressive ideologies as they subsume society under an elite hierarchy (which is what conservatives long for).

So what do you really believe? Why don't you publish your manifesto here so we can understand both your motivations and your plan for everyone who is not you?

Well, here's an article I wrote on my blog about Neoliberalism. I was intending to go back and expand on some aspects of it that are a bit thinly explained, but never got around to it. Perhaps one day. https://politicsforpeoplenotcorporation ... anisation/

[pErvinalia]

I'll get to this tomorrow. But the point with freedom is that no sane side of politics believe in literal total freedom.

No one but you has ever made or even implied this argument. You are erecting a strawman, and it's a huge one.

Heaps of people have made this argument, including Dave Dodo just this week. And the argument is made rhetorically when conservatives try to paint a simplistic picture that the right is for freedom and the left is for reduction of freedom. That's simply not true. Both sides restrict freedoms, so focusing on the left is disingenuous.

The rest of your "Marxist" and Stalinist rant has been ignored. As usual.

[pErvinalia]

But the left concerns themselves far more with "freedom from". Which is why they advocate, for instance, restrictions on free speech to protect poor little lambs from having their fee-fees offended, with those who dare to express an "offensive" opinion made to suffer under the full weight of the law (see: RatSkep).

"Freedom to", AKA Real Freedom, is a more important freedom in my book, and should always take precedence.

Yup. Important and well-stated distinction between the philosophy of collectivism and the philosophy of individualism.

And to forestall rEv's favorite strawman, no, that does not mean unbridled or unregulated "freedom to" on the part of the individual. As the Founders said, governments are instituted among men to secure the blessings of liberty. What this means is that the "freedom to" is the presumptive native condition of the individual, right up until his exercise of that freedom negatively impacts on the equal "freedom to" being exercised by others. In such cases some adjudication is required to determine which of the "freedom to" claims lies higher on the hierarchy of individual rights than the other and to find a rational compromise where necessary that serves both liberty interests to the maximum possible extent while minimizing the impairment of the enjoyment of "freedom to" on the part of each.

This principle is concisely stated by the aphorism "In a free country, everything is permitted unless it is explicitly prohibited, in socialism everything is prohibited unless it is expressly permitted."

I don't disagree that there is a divide between freedoms "to" and freedoms "from". But to claim freedoms "to" as "Real Freedom" is specious.

[pErvinalia]

I'll get to this tomorrow. But the point with freedom is that no sane side of politics believe in literal total freedom.

No one but you has ever made or even implied this argument. You are erecting a strawman, and it's a huge one.

Barely four days ago:

All rights are subject to reasonable regulation in the public interest, including the right to free speech

I think you are reading that wrong. He is agreeing with my view of freedom. All sides do restrict it to a degree (except certain extremists).

[pErvinalia]

Neocons are not libertarian. Libertarian foreign policy stances are incompatible with neoconservative foreign policy stances.

While neocons tend to be somewhat supportive of classical liberal economics, which tends to be consistent with libertarian positions on that point, the rest of neoconservatism is diametrically opposed to libertarianism. Even on economics, libertarians tend to be against budget deficits and tend to be very much supportive of the ideas of Hayek, whereas neoconservatives are not. Libertarians agree that the growth of government influence on society and public welfare is "the road to serfdom" as Hayek put it, but neoconservatives are not against the growth of government influence on society and public welfare.

My take on what Brian is saying is something I've been on about for a while. Most right libbos aren't actually libertarians at all. They are neoliberals (via my definition which I linked to in an essay on my blog earlier in the thread) and neocons (just look at Seth). If you are a right libertarian you have to go the whole hog and you wind up holding psychopathic views like Murray Rothbard does.

So how do you figure I'm either a "neocon" or a "neoliberal?" And what sort of "psychopathic" views does this Rothbard person hold?

Last first: That parents aren't responsible for their children as it infringes on their (the parents) individual rights to freedom.

What does he mean by "children" and to what extent are parents relieved of responsibility for them?

We've been through this tens of times before. How can you claim to be a right libertarian and be unaware of Murray Rothbard and his views?? "Relieved of responsibility" as in "abandon them" if they so want.

(among a host of other repugnant views which you are well aware of as I've been discussing them on the other two sites for a decade with you and others).

Sorry, I don't recall these "Rothbardian repugnancies," you'll need to be specific and quote your source material because you have a serious habit of misstating what others have actually said or actually mean, so I'll need to review your citations for accuracy and honesty.

Bullshit. We've had this debate 10's of times before and I've quoted directly from Rothbard. It's not my problem that your memory is shithouse. And again, what kind of right libertarian doesn't know about Murray Rothbard?? You aren't a right libertarian, you are a selfarian.

You're a neocon as you advocate American exceptionalism and foreign projection of military power.

American exceptionalism is not a neocon principle, at least not exclusively. As for "foreign projection of military power" my interventionist policies are strictly limited to the use of military force against those who have instigated force against the United States. I have no interest in using projected military force to nation-build or re-build, as the case may be. My policies are quite clear and restrictive: You attack us, we destroy you and your capacity to do so ever again. That's it. Perfectly Libertarian and not in the least bit "neocon."

You suppoted Iraq 2003. THAT is the biggest Neocon misadventure ever.

You're neoliberal because you support corporate hijacking of democracy, and are a social Darwinist.

Cite one instance in which I have advocated or supported "corporate hijacking of democracy." But first, carefully define "corporate hijacking" so we can know what the fuck you are even talking about.

As for social Darwinism, you'll also need to carefully define what you mean because I don't think that a policy of expecting people to be personally responsible for their own actions or inactions and to accept without complaint the consequences of those actions or inactions constitutes "social Darwinism." It's just plain old common sense and fundamental fairness to insist that people not try to shift the blame for their own failings onto others, much less demand that others rescue them from their bad decision making.

Which cannot be read to mean that I object at all to voluntary altruistic and charitable efforts to support and assist those who are suffering.

I've debated these points with you literally hundreds of times before. I don't do that any more. If you want to know my argument, just review any of the hundreds of other times we have discussed these points. And/or read my blog post I link above.

[Seth]

Far from believing that human nature is essentially good or that human beings are fundamentally rational, conservatives tend to assume that human beings are driven by their passions and desires—and are therefore naturally prone to selfishness, anarchy, irrationality, and violence.

Sounds like a pretty accurate, if somewhat broadly-drawn analysis of ordinary human behavior supported by plenty of psychological science.

Accordingly, conservatives look to traditional political and cultural institutions to curb humans’ base and destructive instincts.

That falls under the general rubric of "if it ain't broke, don't fix it." There is after all a reason that political and cultural institutions become "traditional," and that is because they work.

Dorks like you want to reinvent the wheel every generation just because you don't like the way it squeaks, thinking somehow that you've thought of something that a thousand generations before you haven't already thought of and tried out only to see it fail.

There's a reason Marxism and other like socialist systems always fail, and always will fail. It's a very obvious and well-tested reason having to do with human nature and behavior which is in fact largely driven by evolution and which does indeed result in tendencies towards selfishness, anarchy (which isn't actually anarchy, it's the biological drive for individualism against the pressures of the collective for "acceptable" behavior), irrationality and violence, which is the last resort when the organism and it's basic needs and drives are threatened. Collectivism only works so long as there is an adequate surplus of resources needed for survival (and satisfaction) and the personal labor cost of collectively participating in such collective actions is not excessive or burdensome and does not deny the individual either resources or individual satisfaction with his or her life. Once that surplus is gone, competition for the remaining resources automatically reverts human behavior to selfishness, individualism (not anarchy), irrationality and violence. The fewer resources for basic survival and satisfaction there are, the more humans naturally revert to their genetically programmed behavior, as they should in order to survive.

These "political and cultural institutions" referred to are things like "government" and "religion," which exist and persist in human society because they have evolutionary survival utility that has proven itself over the millennia of human development. You're not nearly smart enough to come up with something "better" than what evolution has created over the span of hundreds of thousand of years, and it's hubris for you to even think you are.

In Burke’s [one of the ‘fathers’ of political conservatism] words, people need “a sufficient restraint upon their passions,” which it is the office of government “to bridle and subdue.”

A bit overstated for my taste but fundamentally correct.

Families, churches, and schools must teach the value of self-discipline,

If they don't, who will? Self-discipline is a vital and necessary component of a healthy adult personality.

and those who fail to learn this lesson must have discipline imposed upon them by government and law.

Well, yes, if they become antisocial dangers to the community, of course they must.

Without the restraining power of such institutions, conservatives believe, there can be no ethical behaviour and no responsible use of liberty.

[/quote][/quote]

Well, that's largely a load of propagandistic horseshit you've come up with and imposed on conservatives rather than any sort of authoritative argument. Clearly you don't know what "conservatives believe" and so you've made something up so you can knock it down again. We have a name for that...now what is it again...???

That being said, we have millennia of proof of the fact that without the "restraining power" of these evolved "institutions" of social order and control, chaos, anarchy, disorder and death inevitably follow.

That being the case I'd ask what you propose to replace those institutions of social order and control with that will work better than what's evolved over the last hundred thousand years of so?

You seem to be under the mistaken impression that conservatives thought this all up within the last 50 years or so, which is simply historical ignorance on display.

[pErvinalia]

That makes no sense. You largely agreed with the EB quote and then called it a "load of propagandistic horseshit". And then you go on to agree with it again.

[Seth]

Yeah, that sounds about right. In a sense Marxism is actually a conservative ideology, in that it has an elite element to it. And that definitely morphs into full on conservatism under Lenin and Stalin

It's laughable that you call Lenin and Stalin "conservatives."

They are conservative in the sense that they believed in an elite authoritarian system. Elitism and Authoritarianism is the natural home of conservatism for reasons I've already given and quoted. I think it's like that horseshoe ring theory. The more you wind up in the top left or top right of the 4-axis political spectrum, the more you become the same. Was there really much difference between Hitler and Stalin?

Yes, the result is the same but the impetus is diametrically opposed. And that's why Libertarianism lies at the bottom of the horseshoe (or as I put it a ring with a gap at the top, through which society falls when pushed too far in either direction, ending up through the natural gravity of human behavior at Libertarianism at the bottom of the ring, after passing through chaos, anarchy and death)

How that supports the idea that elitism and authoritarianism is any more the home of conservatism than it is the home of liberalism I don't really know.

That's why the Anarchists like Luxomburgh etc broke away from the Socialists as they could see the authoritarian aspect to it and knew it was the antithesis to democratic socialism.

For all the good it did them.

Well, anarchy influenced movements live on strongly in the Occupy Movement and the Indignados movement.

The what movement? Oh, you mean that bunch of panty-waist lefty-liberal nitwits who don't know which side of the bread their butter is on? Pfaugh!

Of course, you think they are Marxists as they aren't right libertarian, so there's no point discussing that with you.

They look like Marxists (what with their Che Guevara tee shirts), they act like Marxists (what with their bourgeoisie class warfare rhetoric) and they certain smell like Marxists, what with their not bathing and all. So, yeah, they are Marxists, or rather the useful idiots of Marxism.

That's why the 4-axis political spectrum (left:right; authoritarian:libertarian) is most accurate and relevant. Yes, Marxism came out of the left, but it's not really accurate to call Stalin a leftist. He was probably more of a centrist highly authoritarian. Progressivism and authoritarianism aren't really logical bedfellows like conservatism and authoritarianism is. I doubt you'd find many actually progressives who rate high up on the Authoritarian scale. But you will find plenty of Fascists who rate high on the conservatism scale.

I'd also like to know what your definition of "progressive" is, because it's clearly not related to "Progressivism" as defined by Progressives, which is pretty damned authoritarian. Do you mean, by "progressive", a political philosophy akin to the neo-anarchist hippie model of everybody smoking dope and smelling of pachouli oil?

Or by "progressive" do you mean "democratic socialism on steroids that rapes the rich and enslaves the poor to the welfare state for no better reason than that I hate the rich and want to take what they have and redistribute it to others"? That sounds like pure-quill Marxism to me.

Progressivism is social liberalism. It's definitely not against the State using its power to enforce social equality (i.e. equal rights). But Marxism, Leninism and Stalinism aren't progressive ideologies as they subsume society under an elite hierarchy (which is what conservatives long for).

Well, that ain't Progressivism by any stretch of the imagination, it's social liberalism. Why don't you just call a spade a spade?

So what do you really believe? Why don't you publish your manifesto here so we can understand both your motivations and your plan for everyone who is not you?

Well, here's an article I wrote on my blog about Neoliberalism. I was intending to go back and expand on some aspects of it that are a bit thinly explained, but never got around to it. Perhaps one day. https://politicsforpeoplenotcorporation ... anisation/

I'll have a look and get back to you. Thanks for the linky.