Specific examples? I know what the term means, I’m just confused how it applies here. Do you mean 9/11 truthers, people who think there’s a conspiracy running the world financial sector &c.? Yeah, unfortunately libertarianism does attract a disproportionate amount of that kind of people (yet so do various leftist ideologies.) Yet a lot of what the government and “mainstream” believe in is pure nonsense (including some of the more politicised branches of science, “natural” or social), and so I would not call someone a crank for disagreeing with it. Rather it’s merely the institutionalisation of stupidity. So I am going to guess you mean very specific instances of crankishness.
You might be correct. Most “Libertarians” are stupid and cranky. But that is only due to your definition of a Libertarian. Since you refer to members of the LP as Libertarians, then you are probably right. Many people who call themselves Libertarians are very stupid and cranky.
Now, if you claimed that market anarchists were stupid and cranky, you would be wrong. (obviously)
I think I’m a rather cheerful person.
And I do have an IQ of 138, which isn’t that bad, is it?
. And as far as excluding the LP (and objectivists, for example) - I say, BS. These people are clearly philosophically identified and self-identified as libertarians (in the American sense). It’s a tradition, not a single definite philosophy. You may as well exclude Block because you disagree with 5 interpretations he takes on NAP or something. “No true scottsman,” reasoning is silly. But even if you exclude the CATO-ites and objectivists - well, I presume you’ve seen the majority of people on libertarian forums and message boards? Anti-State.com is a hive of crankishness.
Well, since I don’t want to offend the living, I’ll list a few of the dead cranks:
Leonard Read, Robert LeFevre, Murray Rothbard, Ayn Rand, Frank Meyer, John Locke, the Levelers, Thomas Paine, Henry David Thoreau
This is not to say none of them were intelligent (many weren’t) or didn’t believe some things that were true (many did). It’s to say that they had cranky views, in both senses.
And I say it is BS to include anyone who simply labels themselves as a libertarian but instead adheres merely to “small government”, especially when libertarianism is the ideology conservatives or even liberals often take on when disgruntled by their parties of preference. Regarding Objectivists, they’re as libertarian as any other minarchist (though their foreign policy views leave me dubious of that); it’s they themselves who flatly deny the applicability of the label to their ideology, and to a degree I do not blame them and agree, especially when it comes from the Peikovian branch. At least they’re aware of the differences between the ideologies. A minority of them are even libertarians, mostly post-/neo-Objectivists (i.e. those who aren’t more concerned about “terrorists” than the encroachments of the State.)
Anyway I was asking for specific examples of crankishness. Because, as I said, if it means shirking the garbage many in the mainstream believe in I am disinclined to take it as a negative… except in marketing the ideology.
They have very little in common with market anarchists. You are grouping Bob Barr and Murray Rothbard in the same category.
Aristotle and Einstein were cranks…Your crank label is meaningless.
Don’t talk about things that you don’t know about. The biggest difference between a flashlight and a laser is that a laser emits COHERENT LIGHT. All of the waves are aligned. This is why when you do experiments with single- and double-slit diffraction, they only work with lasers and not a flashlight.
So before you go off calling people stupid and idealogs, make sure that you don’t say anything that you’re not completely sure you know.
I can’t help but wonder what is really wrong with Vichy. She seems to be kinda pissed off by libertarians ?
My first guess is, Vichy doesn’t like the fact that some people don’t take her little, stupid, amoral theories seriously …
Which is funny given that her ‘philosophy’ seems to entail a complete disregard for anything but her-self. So, why should Vichy worry about stupid libertarians ?
This thread is starting to get very stupid.
xAristotle and Einstein were cranks…Your crank label is meaningless
Not if you understand it properly - it’s not just that their views are outside the mainstream, it’s that they defend them unreasonably and - specifically on their obscure, ‘crankish’ views - they are oblivious to criticism. It doesn’t even mean they’re wrong, though I think they sometimes are.
This is what I have gathered from my (and other people’s) dealing with run-of-the-mill libertarians, including ‘anarchists’. Of course I do not deny that there are cranks who aren’t libertarians - Paul Krugman is a crank, and an idiot. But that doesn’t somehow negate libertarian crankishness.
The biggest difference between a flashlight and a laser is that a laser emits COHERENT LIGHT. All of the waves are aligned. This is why when you do experiments with single- and double-slit diffraction, they only work with lasers and not a flashlight.
I didn’t think that was relevant to the example. The most relevant difference IS energy concentration - which coherence is great at generating. That’s why a heat-lamp burns your skin and a high-powered laser will boil you so fast you explode. The point is that proportionality and ‘limitations’ on what is aggression are conventional manners that can not be answered in any a priori fashion.
I can’t help but wonder what is really wrong with Vichy. She’s seems to be kinda pissed off by libertarians?
When all else fails, resort to psychologizing!
I’m not ‘pissed off’ by Libertarians, I think libertarianism, liberalism and humanism are literally false doctrines. I think many libertarians are cranks, and not infrequently stupid cranks.
It’s easy to manipulate people once you know what buttons to push.
Firstly, do you accept the axiom that “humans act”?
Dear Mr. Fernandez:
Vichy, is her post directed at me, stated that the primary difference between a flashlight and a laser is “energy concentration”. This is correct; whereas an ordinary light bulb sends light waves in all directions, a laser, or coherent light, is highly concentrated. Perhaps Ms. Fournier actually does know what she is talking about. Perhaps you should just stop picking on little girls.
Regards,
Ama gi
I think here, we don’t have cranks, as much as we have a few very cranky people.
But then I suppose crankery is all relative.
Who in your opinion is not a crank?
I could concentrate ordinary light the same way just by directing it with some mirrors. However, from a physical perspective, the coherence is the most important aspect of a laser.
Haha. Sorry, nothing failed and I am indeed commenting on your motives, because, you see, your philosophy is boring trash. You can perhaps provide some amusement but certainly no enlightenment.
You would have a hard time concentrating enough ordinary light to destroy a SCUD missile.
Indeed. In a laser all photons have the same phase. But concentrated non-coherent light can cause damage just like coherent light. Try looking at the sun through a telescope. Anyway, the flashlight objection is just another stupid objection made by people taking cheap shots at libertarianism.