Why are you so afraid of it? If your ideas and viewpoints hold intellectual weight then you wouldn’t be so intimidated by such a challenge and would indeed embrace such a thing. The fact that you keep beating around the bush and crying “foul!” at every stop just shows you don’t have any desire to confront this topic with any intellectual integrity and would rather continue to rely on obfuscation and informal exchange to support your views.
Personally, I wouldn’t say that I necessarily agree with everything Giles says (I wouldn’t personally call myself a conservative or a leftist or whatever fancy names people come up with to “pick sides”), but you are certainly not doing your stance or side of the issue any favors by continually dodging any sort of attempt at formal intellectual exchange. I’ve read the constant bickering back and forth for quite a while now, and it is kind of ironic to see the so-called “anti-conservatives” wanting to continue to uphold the status quo of back and forth informal strawmen and petty bickering between both “sides” as opposed to defending their ideas in a different and new organizational structure. Why is that, sir?
I’m not sure if I’m going to debate the issue, but I will raise a couple of issues that I have to pick on the basis of the debate.
Manorialism being called a form of feudalism I believe is faulty on the grounds that the prime definition requires not merely a monopoly within a region on land ownership (and exclusive use therein), but also that one owns those who live on the land, including the products of their labor. Manorialism under this definition is not feudalism: period and end of story. Any attempts by anyone to shoehorn it into the frame of reference of feudalism as defined is being intellectually (and morally) dishonest.
There is also more of the false division of human values into extremes called left and right. Tolerance, empathy, individualism, and etc are not ‘left’ values, they are human values. Honesty, temperance, fidelity, and etc are not ‘right’ values, they are human values. They are all human values because their standard of being a value is the human animal. Thus, cultural conservatives and liberals in their attempt to subvert the nature of human values only do so to make a worldview that only accepts certain expressions of human values. In short, both liberals and conservatives in this frame of reference are base liars and epistemological perverts. So, if Giles and company (both left and right) continue to make a false dichotomy of ‘left’/‘right’ values, I will not accept any of their arguments on the grounds so written.
I point these issues out because it’s not a matter of social conservative versus social liberal that is at stake, but two warped forms of viewing the human animal versus the real world form of viewing that same animal (the only view that is ever defensible).
Also, whether or not Giles will accept the reality that humans by various means of chance and choice come out the way they do is not my problem, but his. To him, everyone must come out as he did as if there is a human factory that only spits out Giles Mark 1s somewhere. This absurd view of his is fundamentally that is stake. Unless he can show me the basis for such a monoculture in any part of the world, regardless of presence (and effectiveness) of state tyranny, he has no leg to stand on. When he gets the guts to admit his monoculture conceptions have no sound basis in fact, then we can move forward. Until then, he can quite literally take a long walk off of a short pier (btw, he’ll be doing the same walk with many social liberals as well because they are your logical opposite, as they seek a monoculture of their own kind as well…).
Then do please tell me what your imaginary society contains?
The last time I checked you’ve railed against atheism, non-christians, homosexuals, rock’n’roll music (I’d love to see how you and Hoppe will kill off what amounts to a fusion of Celtic and African folk music traditions…), and a number of other things which you have arbitrarily defined as ‘liberal’ without any substantive definition of what is ‘liberal.’
They dont have to. With no intelluctual property laws, there will be alot less rock music around. The only ones who will play will be the ones that actually want to tour, and not just sit back and collect royalty checks.
(note: I disagree with Giles on this one. I personally like ‘rock’ music, generally speaking)
Rock’n’roll has been played prior to its popularity, thus prior to assumed profitibility. Also, bands don’t make their cash on IP, unless all the members are writers (hint: writers get cents on the dollar per-play, bands get lump sum. Please write about what you are knowledgeable, and not which you are not.). So, your logic fails. I’m not trying to be mean, but you need to actually study the IP issue beforehand when discussing it with me (I use to be a huge P2P-‘pirate’ back in the day, so I had gigs of music on platter and in backstore, which I had no issue with sharing then…).
Also, it seems more rock bands are being formed today than ever before. Want proof? Goto Jamendo and take a peek. I’d argue that rock’n’roll even in its blues form will become predominate in the listening audience than say Nu Metal if IP laws were rescinded.
Yes, and thats why I said ‘those who want to tour’. However there are many groups, particularly ones that rarely do tours who basically make money off of IP. Don’t pretend that such a thing wouldnt kill off alot of lazier groups. Note that I wasnt even disagreeing with you exactly, and yet as always you manage to be insulting in your replies.
If you mean studio bands, yes, they’ll die off considering they are a new phenomenon. But even with bands like NIN literally giving away their albums along with selling special live tour recordings to make a profit, they seem to be making more cash than not by not leveraging IP. There’s been at least two studies that suggest music ‘piracy’ has no causal relationship with in/de-crease in album sales. So, I doubt there’s going to be that many talented musicians or genres dying off.
It’s about whether or not pseudo-feudalism will lead to some magical Jerry Falwell society (which it won’t, people are too diverse to be forced into some arbitrary monoculture).
Some parts might, places like San Fran obviously wont. Personally, I just want a strongly Catholic neighborhood. But without the biggest social engineers of all, the state, I do agree with Giles that cultural conservatism will become the norm.
And I accept your apology, I didnt see you edited your earlier post. I think we disagreed on very little on the music point so we were just talking past each other.
Beer contains ethylic alcohol which is a mind altering substance. People who drink beer are drug users and have high time preference. People who take drugs such as alcohol are tampering with their god-given body and perverting the natural god-ordained order of this world.
Drinking beer is definitely a libertine trait and as such will be non-existent in a free society (read conservative society). At best, beer drinking would be practiced by a few marginalized outcasts.