Rationalskepticism,lol part III.

[Seth]

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.

The horseshit is not what EB wrote, it's what YOU added to what he wrote.

[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.

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.

No, it's perfectly true. This is because the purpose of regulating freedoms under "conservatism" is to enhance to the maximum extent possible consistent with ordered liberty the individual ability to enjoy all freedoms they wish to enjoy.

The purpose of regulating freedoms under collectivism is to prevent individuals from exercising freedoms that are deemed "unfair" to others, regardless of whether or not those exercises actually impact anyone else.

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

Because you know I'm right and you're wrong and dare not dip your toe in that particular pond lest I rise up like an alligator and take off your leg, which I've done many, many times in spite of your evasions.

[Seth]

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.

In what way? The essence of "freedom" is the lack of constraint upon one's individual actions, which necessarily implies "freedom to." The essence of "freedom from" is the imposition of constraints upon others exercise of freedom in the interests of others.

That is quite obviously not "freedom" it is in fact "constraint."

For example, in the US one has "freedom to" speak on any matter in any way (short of inciting imminent violence), but NO ONE has any right to claim "freedom from" having to allow speech which one finds offensive or disturbing. That "freedom from" is not actually a "freedom" at all, it is an artificial constraint placed upon the exercise of freedom of speech by others occasioned by the needs or desires of the listener. The only actual "freedom" one has with respect to speech one finds offensive or disturbing is the freedom to stop one's ears or walk away. That is indeed a "freedom to" avoid or distance oneself from offensive or alarming speech that does not impose any burden on the speaker to modify or moderate his speech to suit your desires or needs.

Thus, "freedom to" is indeed the only legitimate iteration of the concept and "freedom from" is merely a misnomer that has been concocted to sound appealing but which in fact is an authoritarian exercise in obstructing the freedoms of others.

[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?

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.

I've explained this a number of times now. Conservatives seek out hierarchies and authoritarian structures for safety, as their world view is driven by a fear of the unknown, a fear of difference and ultimately a distrust of themselves.

[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.

The horseshit is not what EB wrote, it's what YOU added to what he wrote.

I didn't add anything. It's a direct quote from Encyclopaedia Britannica.

[pErvinalia]

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.

In what way? The essence of "freedom" is the lack of constraint upon one's individual actions, which necessarily implies "freedom to." The essence of "freedom from" is the imposition of constraints upon others exercise of freedom in the interests of others.

That is quite obviously not "freedom" it is in fact "constraint."

For example, in the US one has "freedom to" speak on any matter in any way (short of inciting imminent violence), but NO ONE has any right to claim "freedom from" having to allow speech which one finds offensive or disturbing. That "freedom from" is not actually a "freedom" at all, it is an artificial constraint placed upon the exercise of freedom of speech by others occasioned by the needs or desires of the listener. The only actual "freedom" one has with respect to speech one finds offensive or disturbing is the freedom to stop one's ears or walk away. That is indeed a "freedom to" avoid or distance oneself from offensive or alarming speech that does not impose any burden on the speaker to modify or moderate his speech to suit your desires or needs.

Thus, "freedom to" is indeed the only legitimate iteration of the concept and "freedom from" is merely a misnomer that has been concocted to sound appealing but which in fact is an authoritarian exercise in obstructing the freedoms of others.

Only skim read as I'm more interested in hitting the beach as soon as possible. But Adam Smith, one of the fathers of Liberalism understood and discussed the validity of freedoms "from".

[Seth]

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.

Because I form my own opinions and arguments and I don't necessarily concur with or even become aware of everything any other Libertarian might have to say on the matter. That's why you don't find me quoting Ayn Rand at length. I don't necessarily agree with her arguments even though we both come down on the side of fundamental Libertarian beliefs about the initiation of force or fraud.

(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.[/quote]

My kind of Libertarian, that's who.

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.

I supported taking out Saddam because he was a clear and present danger to world peace and because he refused to play nice and abide by the rules he agreed to when we agreed not to hang him the first time. On the other hand, I disagreed with the nation-building effort and always have. I've made my position quite clear about how one wages war and it does not include the tar-baby of trying to build a nation in place of the one we've just defeated. I don't know how much more clear I can be as I've said this dozens if not hundreds of times over the years. So, Mr. Pot, you'd best stop nattering on about kettles being black and having faulty memories. Your ability to remember what I wrote ten minutes ago is nonexistent, and I suspect quite deliberate given the consistency with which you deliberately misquote and lie about what I've said.

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.

In other words you DON'T know what the fuck you're talking about and you refuse to explain yourself for fear of contradicting yourself, which you do with regularity.

Meh.

[Seth]

I've explained this a number of times now. Conservatives seek out hierarchies and authoritarian structures for safety,

With good reason, as all the other iterations of social structure have been tried again and again and fail miserably every time, usually resulting in huge numbers of deaths and intolerable human misery.

as their world view is driven by a fear of the unknown, a fear of difference and ultimately a distrust of themselves.

I think it's more "fear of the jackasses who think they know everything and would turn social structures on their heads without a single thought to the consequences of doing so and the human misery they will cause in so doing."

Every time one of you dipshits has come up with some newfangled social order and gotten away with implementing it disaster has ensued. Disaster, privation, misery, starvation, death and mass murder. Every. Fucking. Time.

I think therefore that "conservatives" are quite wise to look to the safety of those who will suffer when some dipshit know-it-all comes along with some revolutionary social structure he thinks will make everything all rainbow unicorn farts and lollipops.

Your side's record of reducing or preventing human misery and privation after the implementation of liberal/socialist/Marxist ideals is perfectly lousy.

Frankly, given how long the Marxist experiment in maximizing human misery has been going on it's hardly unconscionable to suggest that anyone who advocates it in any way, shape or form should simply be put up against the nearest wall and shot as a philosophical and political Typhoid Mary. Or at least banished to some barren island in the middle of the ocean with all the other dipshits who think they know better than history how society ought to run, where they can community organize together to eat each other.

[pErvinalia]

So you basically agree with my description of conservatism, yet you still don't understand how that is the natural home of authoritarianism?

[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

What's your point?

You can't work it out on your own? The point is so simple that any moron can recognise it. Or so I thought. It's that you managed to flat out contradicted yourself within barely four days in order to support your argument. Now I shall spell out some implication of this: Using two utterly contradictory statements to support one's argument 1. make both rather useless for that endeavour, 2. reveal the debater to be seriously confused, 3. or mendaciously (I know you love that word, so I add it for decorative purposes) dishonest, 4. or both.

[Brian Peacock]

Both left and right stake a claim to the normative ground of freedom and liberty but ultimately what we characterise as left and right are two polarised perspectives on life. Like a couple who are constantly taking issue and falling out with each other the rhetoric of both the left and the right boils down to each one criticising the other for not being more like themselves. But the serious problems with both perspectives stem from each hardening their positions to the extent of citing the difference in perspectives as justifying claims for the truth, reasonableness, wholesomeness, or righteousness of 'our' views over 'your' views, This is when political perspectives stop responding to society and become the self-sustaining memes of an ideology, where an ideology is fixed view essentially expressed with the dogmatism typical of religious fanaticism. Fanatics shouting about how justified they are to be fanatical is not only boring, add no meaningful information to political discourse, but also dangerous because, as with all ideologues, ultimately the prime justification for their ideas is that they are 'their ideas' and are asserted on that basis.

Basically, if you think politics is about being right then you've missed the point. If you think political activity is about securing the rightness of your perspective and aligning society with it then basically you're engaged in a program with fundamentally theocratic aims - and once that is under way then the ends will always be brought to bear to justify the means.

Yeah, that lot at ratskep have got a lot to answer for. What's with those guys.

[MrJonno]

So you basically agree with my description of conservatism, yet you still don't understand how that is the natural home of authoritarianism?

The term authoritarianism is meaningless everyone wants and can fears authority , law and order etc. Politically means as much as 'freedom', ie nothing

[pErvinalia]

Simplistic black and white thinking.

[Seth]

So you basically agree with my description of conservatism, yet you still don't understand how that is the natural home of authoritarianism?

Except it's really not, at least not any more so than socialism is.

Government is always about power and control, which is to say authoritarianism, no matter which side of the political spectrum it comes from.

While conservatives might be "authoritarian" about preserving useful social institutions and moderating change to avoid the failings of revolutionary change, socialists are no different when it comes to authoritarian protection and preservation of the Marxist dialectic and the power and authority of the socialist elite, who by their very nature feel that the lumpen proletariat is simply too stupid to know what's good for it and therefore must be closely watched and carefully controlled lest they slip the leash, turn on the Marxist elite and eat them for failing to provide what was promised.

The simple fact is that all collectivist societies are far, far more "authoritarian" than most "conservative" societies because of the nature of collectivism and human nature.

So no, I'd say that "liberalism" or "socialism" or "collectivism" or "Marxism" or whatever the fuck you want to call left-wing political ideology is the natural home of authoritarianism and that this is a clearly demonstrable fact that rests on top of the corpses of 100 million people murdered by the authoritarians of the left.

Whatever you THINK "liberalism" is, or is supposed to be, it's not and you're living in a delusional fantasy and denying historical reality when you claim that the left wing of the political spectrum protects the liberties of the individual. It doesn't, and never has. Ever. The fact is that someone persuaded you that the IDEAL of collectivism protecting individualism exists within socialism, using glowing terms and lofty rhetoric to delude the ignorant useful idiot proletarians upon whom the Marxist elite rely, but that propaganda and indoctrination is just that, propaganda and indoctrination, and it's entirely false, as proven by every single hard-left collectivist society that has ever existed on the face of the earth, all of which have failed utterly to keep the promises made to the proletariat and almost all of which have ended up murdering millions of counterrevolutionary dissenters in a desperate attempt to quash the natural behavior of people who have been lied to and deceived by Marxists.

[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?

You can't work it out on your own? The point is so simple that any moron can recognise it. Or so I thought. It's that you managed to flat out contradicted yourself within barely four days in order to support your argument. Now I shall spell out some implication of this: Using two utterly contradictory statements to support one's argument 1. make both rather useless for that endeavour, 2. reveal the debater to be seriously confused, 3. or mendaciously (I know you love that word, so I add it for decorative purposes) dishonest, 4. or both.

Ah, I get it now. You simply misunderstand to what I was responding. The argument by rEv that I was rebutting was not his statement "no sane side of politics believe in literal total freedom", which is of course something that we do agree on, it's the underlying and quite common (for him) implication that I, or perhaps Libertarians in general, make an argument supporting "literal total freedom." We don't and never have done so. He just thinks we do.

rEv concocts this particular strawman every time Libertarianism is mentioned. He either has a delusion that Libertarians call for "literal total freedom" or he's just mischaracterizing Libertarianism deliberately, which is what I suspect, because I've educated him hundreds of times. His form of argument is the deliberate strawman attack in the Alinsky oblique personal insult style wherein he either flatly states, or deviously rhetorically implies that Libertarianism and/or Libertarians (specifically me) advocate "literal total freedom" as part of the Libertarian philosophy, which is of course not true. Then, despite being told literally hundreds of times in excruciating detail that this is not the case, he proceeds to erect more strawmen while completely ignoring the detailed explanations of Libertarianism demonstrating the falsity of his claim and uses them to again attack the individual with whom he is debating while completely ignoring the actual subject under discussion. He quite simply blithely rejects any information that is contrary to his delusional and frankly psychotic interpretation of Libertarianism and proceeds to rant and rave against "libertards" (a place-holder for "Seth" to evade the personal attack rule) by falsely stating Libertarian principles.

I hope you now understand.