lam,
since the truth is, that property is an axiom and the government doesn’t recognize this, then the government is rooted in dishonesty about human action. in essence government not only lies. it is a lie.
On the contrary, Rothbard was all for compromise if it lead to more liberty. I’m not comfortable with it, but that is why he tried to go left, then he tried to go right. He had no interest in either movement, only what he could advance through them.
Unfortunately, I think that his position, and yours, in the long run can’t succeed. It lacks consistency.
The manner by which you speak of property, it is anything but self-evident.
A most primitive, and unconvincing proof.
Hear, hear.
I’m tired of people who troll LvMI, so if you want to render a criticism of a collective nature, do it on your own blog. If you want to post here, stick to forming critiques of individuals and their individual opinions, ok?
Yes, Lam is very wrong because he abandons methodological individualism, refuses to acknowledge logical errors and makes appeals to populism, but that doesn’t mean we all do.
you are focused on what I said, yes ‘I speak’..
yes human action is primitive and one would have thought certain people would have been able to at least rise in the knowledge of what is at least primitively known. I mean what else is there to be said about your response? nothing. you are not convinced of human action. ok robot?
I did not say you “all” do. I said 99.99% of you do. [Superficially, at least, you appear to be the exception that proves the rule -but maybe not.]
At the present time I stand by that claim .
In other words , I say 99.99% of the libertarian/ anarcho-capiltalist/ freedom/" Austrian"/ movement are either willing or unwilling shills for the government, at least regarding the official 911 story [and what a “story” it is].
They [that99.99%] are entirely ignorant of both:
[1] the procedures necessary for unbiased , neutral scientific analysis of all evidence until all evidence is in,
and [even worse]:
[2] they are entirely ignorant of the procedures for evidentiary analysis in criminal trials as supposedly guaranteed by the Bill of Rights, where an automatic pre-bias against the truth of any and all submitted government evidence from whatever source , and therefor, by extension, against the governments case, was systemically pre-ordained ,and was/is supposed to be guaranteed . [ Meaning, in the absence of such trials, should not a “libertarian” etc. be routinely adopting the exact same rigorously dubious mindset in their individual reviews of any/all purported government “911 evidence”? Apparently not! ] [:)]
What the hell is wrong with this picture?
I repeat: as far as I can see, regarding 911 in particular, 99.99% of the libertarian/ anarcho-capiltalist/ freedom/" Austrian"/ movement are either willing, or unwilling shills for the governments story, and completely lack / are ignorant of the necessary tools and mindset and methodologies essential for meaningful review of any/all government and mainstream media supplied so-called " 911 evidence".
And I do not see what is wrong with saying that here, either. Why you would take it personally is beyond me.[update/correction- actually now I think I know why- but I won’t get into it.]
If you are unwilling to see this/ in denial about the overwhelming preponderance and non-critical acceptance of the official 911 story within the libertarian/ anarcho-capiltalist/ freedom/" Austrian"/ movement then all I can say is perhaps " wake up! Get a grip fer chrissakes!",“abandon all “freedom” movements- there’s hope for you yet !”
Hehe. Irony is dead? If anything you are the ideologue here. You subscribe to ‘minimal’ government ideology which is contradictory nonsense. And your denial of the nature and actions of the US government suggests it is you the one who’s out of touch with reality.
It all makes sense in a way. Once you accept an (absurd) ideology like ‘minimal government’ you can’t really understand the political world.
Still a generalizaton which is based on a fallacy.
I strongly suggest you employ methodological individualism from now on.
FYI, I don’t think anyone reads your long posts. I usually just skip them. It’s a wall of text, and poor written communication for this format. If you want to reach people, perhaps you should focus on making smaller, more concise and less dogmatic statements.
Poor Peter Schiff: mangled and then hi-jacked.
So are we now throwing around the term “neo-con” the way Repblicans threw around the word “liberal” or Bush threw around the word “terrorist”? Should we not just come to the point and use the word “witch”?
I don’t. Too long for me.
Isn’t this like the pot calling the kettle black? You’ve rolled out some 99.99% number that you’ve basically pulled from your arse and are now lecturing people on critical thinking?
No I’ve been trying to ask you this whole time what evidence is it that has convinced you that bin laden was behind 9/11 or that the reason for invading afghanistan is to arrest him and his associates.
I look at the actions of the US military- and dropping bombs on villages…doesn’t seem like the way to find and arrest someone. If you think it does- then please explain why for my understanding of your position. Do you believe all the Taliban fighting against the US are fighting just to defend Bin Laden? All you’ve been saying is “well you see the evidence is sound because it is.” I’m just asking to see what your point of view is,- do you defend the current occupation of Afghanistan?
I mean for example, lets say that we knew there was a criminal who resides in New York City- the Federal Government wants him and knows that he lives in property owned by Mayor Bloomberg, but Mayor Bloomberg doesn’t want to give him up. Is it perfectly fine for the federal government to send the military to flatten all of New York? The US has extended the crime of Bin Laden to all of Afghanistan, to Iraq- and now even to Pakistan.
When it comes to the Middle east- standard US operating procedure is to institute regime change, support tyrants, support invasions, or start invasions themselves. If you believe the “sound” story regarding Afghanistan, do you also believe the story regarding WMD in Iraq? No need to take it personally I just want to know how it is you came to the conclusions you did.
Bring out a syllabus of errors against me as much as you want, but you have not given a single sound scrap of evidence is support of:
Pretend, as you might, that you have a epistemologically superior position, you are completely incapable of giving any credible reason for believing this is true. Furthermore, let us visit the hall of tu quoque fallacies:
Let’s now forget the crowning moment of irony:
That’s O.K. Looks like the other thread has been hi-jacked.
Strong defense, pro free market seems to be where the political winds are blowing about now with the Republican party. I see Schiff’s position as being more opportunistic than ideological. He may have opted to fight the good fight on the home front and hope things work out with foreign policy. He could also be a closet dictator waiting to pounce. Guess we’d need to ask him.
I think most people tend to compartmentalize things. It takes work to come up with a consistent position across the board, whereas fitting in with the rest of the crowd seems to be the norm. That’s pretty much what you get with politicians. They have to play the numbers over their ideology just to get elected. An unelected politician is pretty much useless (actually, almost as useless as an elected politician).
I should caveat that “pro-free market” comment. I find few in politics advocating real free market principles. I shall call this the Disney version of a free market, where socialism is toned down for the younger audience, and sugar-coated to have a happy ending rather than the horrific death.
Come on. An unelected politician is far superior to an elected one.
To quote Karl Popper,. “That’s a stupid question.” All the evidence at hand point squarely towards bin Laden being the perpetrator responsible, and I’m not going to waste my precious time elucidating this. If that means to you that I am deluded, so be it.
That does not effect whether the United States military was engaged in a morally permissible action when they invaded Afghanistan.
That is irrelevant to the conversation and I don’t indulge petty surveys like this, sorry. My entire focus here has been the moral permissibility of the invasion of Afghanistan by the United States, and NATO subsequent the terrorist attacks of 9/11, and my answer to that is that it was a morally permissible action.
These are irrelevant topics. Whether or not the foreign policy of the United States before and after the invasion of Afghanistan has been morally impermissible does not effect whether the invasion itself war.
Lam, in case you missed it:
So, the U.S. government did not provide any evidence because the Afghan government said they would only extradite bin Laden to a country where he could be tried under Sharia law? Is anyone else confused? What does where the Afghan government would extradite bin Laden have to do with whether or not the U.S. government should provide evidence?
Cognitive dissonance.