Both sides: leave out the insults (crank, lunatic shill, etc).
Ah, Lilburne. I’ll just use my better judgement and cease acknowledging the cranks and lunatic shills 
“You should learn something about psychology and signaling.”
Maybe I should but I have only finite time on my hands and I choose not to do so due to other interests. Signaling I’m somewhat familiar with from a labor economics class but psychology I am mostly ignorant in. I’m all ears for how this would absolutely prevent these types of people from ever getting into politics, as you did say it was impossible and that seems an incredibly strong statement, which is what I was attacking.
They exist, I’ve known them. Why is it impossible that their kind would be found in government?
Thanks,
Curtis
They exist, I’ve known them. Why is it impossible that their kind would be found in government?
I never said it was impossible, I said it was stupid to pretend that’s how/why governments act like they do. It’s confusing intentions with results, just like the Progressives do. Most politicians are just slightly charismatic slightly above average relatively normal people who accept the environment and opportunities they’ve been raised in. Politically, socially, morally, psychologically and religiously libertarians are way the Hell weirder than politicians.
Psychologically speaking, people who think the government is a big scam usually don’t get into government. But people who think that the State is the method for resolving social problems are likely to get into the government, and be accepted by other members of the government, promoted in its ranks and will find plenty of things to confirm their bias. To a person with a hammer, everything looks like a nail.
when I hear the term ‘indoctrination camps’ I think of something like the Soviet Union. I think its pretty easy to see how there would have been a pro-state bias in their schools and that it would have actually come down from the top to only praise the state, etc.
But I think its pretty clear that the purpose of public schools in America is to take care of kids while their parents are at work, and to provide them enough of an education so that they can go on to college or at least be able to read and write.
You don’t need to introduce anyone planning to feed these people a pro-state message so that they will grow up to be obedient to the state to see why public schooling sucks. I think at best, from a conspiracy side of things you can talk about how the model for public schooling which the American system is based on, was actually designed to instill obedience, and that government isn’t adaptive enough to change it ways.
BTW, David Kramer is another big conspiracy nut who posts at LRC all the time.
Welcome to the party, Vichy! Capital Bumper mentioned him over 7 hours ago.
Not surprised, I rarely read any post not directed at me.
^@ Vichy/Liberte, out of curiousity, do you subscribe or identify yourself with any school of thought? You say you hate libertarians, and besides such statements (and your Mussolini quote which makes me think you sympathize with facists), I’ve sorta of seen you as the Ayn Rand of libertarians here, as in you say you aren’t, say you despise them, but you pretty much are.
How do you know if a post is directed to you without reading said post to determine if said post is directed to you? Or do you use some other method of determining if a post is directed to you that doesn’t require you to read said post?
You say you hate libertarians
That’s more to say personally and in their ideological framework. I don’t have serious criticism of standard fare right-libertarian economic and social theory; at least it is chock full of goodness. However their moralism and crazy worldview is obnoxious, and the alternative of Cosmpolitan beltway libertarians and populist stupid libertarians is not a choice I relish.
I’ve sorta of seen you as the Ayn Rand of libertarian
Ayn Rand is sort of like a moralist’s parody of me: elitist, cerebral and unabashedly self-centered.
I basically agree with Austrian economics and a critical history of the State and social order. I think customary law is perfectly workable, probably more so the lest people are inclined to be moralistic herd animals. I’m an amoral egoist, and primarily interested in my fairly narrow self-interest. That being said, if I had to live in a social order aside from one where I was the immortal emperor of Earth I would tend towards a customary law propertarian society.
As far as the Fascisti go, I appreciate their anti-communist strikebreaking and stuff, and their cool outfits. Obviously economically they’re crazy and all that nationalistic stuff is a bunch of mystical garbage. However, nationalism isn’t any sillier than natural rights.
@Daniel: I speed-read fairly well.
Have you read the 9/11 Commission Report? Have you heard the common criticisms against it?
As someone who has researched this topic, your position seems kind of silly at first glance, which is why I’m asking for some clarification first.
Even if this was true (it’s not), how could you possibly know this? By making such (obviously false) claims, you discredit yourself.
It is funny that a fascist sympathizer cannot concieve of people conspiring to take over the government and institute campaigns of death from behind the scenes… I believe that is the definition of irony.
I think education is basically a mix of the goals of teacher’s unions, the quixotic nature of some ‘true believers’, and some people who thought it would be awesome to have a job where you don’t have to work in the summer. And of course the unintended consequences of not thinking very much about what children want, but instead substituting this for whatever these three interest groups want out of them. And children knowing police will be all over them if they don’t buck up and like it. Which is completely arbitrary (except to recieve funding to keep it going) – rather than towards some bigger goal.
The whole of the state, which is intangible anyway, or some other thing probably doesn’t play into it. It’s just the sum of the types who run this show.
Do you always generalize like this or only when it’s conducive to your worldview?
LOL, first of all that’s true; secondly juding by your other posts I don’t give a damn what you think. 
First of all, it’s not. Secondly, that’s convenient. Better to ignore any questions regarding your ridiculous positions/generalizations, right?
EDIT: Please back up your assertions regarding “most politicians” and “libertarians” that you made a mere 15 hours ago. Also, please respond to my questions on the 9/11 Commission Report.
The self-serving so-called objectivists (what objectivity?) have no need for this socialist idea of “truth.” Anything they say is true, because they said it. Trying to disprove them is trying to make them part of the collective, and wrong. I mean, that is Ayn Rand in a nutshell right… right?!
(Satire, btw)
Not giving a damn doesn’t save you from poor arguments. Psychos don’t give a damn either, but it doesn’t mean their positions are any less stupid/insane. I think liberte just hates on libertarians out of narcisism. How does it feel to hate on the people who would probably be most sympathetic to your positions? Your ego must be climaxing every time you post.
I don’t dislike you, even if your a dick.
I’m not going to get into a linguistic wrangling match with a person whose opinion I don’t care about on a subject of no importance to make a point I consider obvious. I’m not here to convince people, or even to debate them. I’m here to talk to the people who can understand me and whose opinions I value. The fact that the rest of you are even here is just unfortunate.
I felt like it was a reasonable request given the massive scope of your assertions. I’d like to see some information to back up your claims regarding most politicians and libertarians. As they stand, they’re meaningless assertions and will not be taken seriously by anyone who is intellectually honest.
I would also like to know what research you’ve done on the topic of 9/11 given your outspoken position (see OP) against those who would question the official story.
Maybe it’s time you left this public forum to satisfy this desire since anyone who registers on this site can post in this thread, not only those whose opinion you value.
EDIT: Looking back at the OP, it seems that all of your positions are based on absolutely nothing. Your comments in the OP are an ad hominem and the article you posted is actually sympathetic towards the people who don’t believe in the official story of 9/11.