The point is to get them to realise it.
Radical liberalism = libertarianism?
Exactly the kind of misconception I’m talking about. Read Gerald Gaus and Jeffrey Friedman to understand what the liberal-movement is from a bird’s eye view, and stop trying to look for ‘Teh Tru Liberalism’. There is non - liberalism is a tradition with varying elements and varying theories, and libertarianism is in no shining exemplar of consistency or philosopical depth. It does have some consequential advantages, but that’s a different story.
Marx is probably more of a theoretical libertarian
Well, I feel like I understand Marx pretty well. Materialism, inevitability, progressivity, dialecticism, exploitation, alienation.
Maybe you do, maybe you don’t - but most libertarians don’t. Marx was, for example, a libertarian (in the sense of being for positive freedom). I’ll grant you his scheme was absolutely loopy. But that has nothing to do with whether he was a libertarian, and as a matter of fact Marx was influenced strongly by the liberal tradition. Many people have noted his resemblence to Smithian economics, for example.
I think generally people would call them right-wing statists, although I cannot be sure.
Most people, yes, but a lot of libertarians and conservatives like to distance themselves from Nazis. But, quite aside of the left-right nonsense there’s the fact that most libertarians understand nothing beyond the rudiments of Nazi economics; without understanding the ideological impetus behind it. Which was - to save western civilization from Bolsheviks. To shut down the banksters. To rid us of inept democratic bureacracies and mad theories of egalitarianism.
Yes, they tried to solve these problems ass-backwards.
Of the three, though, the libertarian ignorance of liberalism is the greatest and most biased. Libertarian philosophical theories are usually amateur as Hell. There are exceptions, of course, but given many major libertarians endorse ‘natural rights’ which they can’t make any coherent defense of even to eachother - and yet keep on insisting that Property is Inviolable, Men have Rights by Nature, etc. - it’s double-think. Libertarians gain a lot by just adopting a consequentialist position.
Sorry, I genuinely don’t understand what you’re getting at there.
No problem, it presumes a lot of the reader. Basically, Rothbard et. al have been interested in refuting Welfarism by reference to the problems of utilitarianism (you can’t interpersonally compare values, voluntary trade typically expects gain). And these are very good points - against utilitarianism. But most welfarists are NOT utilitarians. These welfarist, and their less-welfary liberal relatives, are NOT utilitarians. They’re individualists, they believe in personal freedom and expect their welfarist and interventionist measures will have a post-facto consequence of expanding freedom, or well-being.
Most liberals are not nearly, nearly as anti-market as you people seem to think. The Obamatards are not a good model to base your ideas of philosophical liberalism on.
Exactly. And the way to do that is NOT with elitist rants about how democracy is evil and greed is good (which is a mistake that some libertarians make).
LOL!! LOL!! LOL!! Sorry VIchy, some of your baseless assertions are especially, uh, baseless.
Right, that’s what I mean about bad marketing. Personally I think democracy is just another form of statism, and has no real outstanding merit, except when understood (by reinterpretation) as anarchism. And of course I don’t think greed is bad - I think it’s good - but it’s not exactly a good idea to go say that to a person who’s been taught to associate greed with “EVIL” their whole lives.
What do you think is the standard definition for “libertarian” ? And what is “positive freedom” ?
Oh ? Everybody knows that crackpot marx created his theories using copy and paste. He pasted some wrong value theory from Ricardo and Smith, pasted french socialism, pasted deranged hegelian ‘philosophy’ and came up with his ‘system’.
And if you know the basics, you should realize that Smith was no libertarian either, rather an ‘enlightened’ conservative.
Low IQ (and high T) correlates with poor impulse control which in turn correlates with criminal behavior. This is why the overwhelming majority of criminals are young adult men. The high IQ criminal mastermind is largely a fiction. It’s more like Goodfellas, not The Godfather. Poverty is also highly correlated with low IQ.
In what is seemingly a vacuum statement, connected to nothing quite possibly, what you seem to be saying by “poverty” is because you have a stack of 100 dollar bills in your desk drawer and somebody else has a stack of 1’s each pile containing 100 bills that somehow by osmosis the person with the stack of 100 dollar bills gets a higher IQ over time. Well if that’s what you mean then damn I should sleep with gold bars under my pillow and I’ll outwit anybody.
But maybe that’s not what you mean…
You are not really familiar with basic critical thinking are you ? All you do is present government statistics and propaganda in a forum which (supposedly) is concerned with individual action ?
Hmm. Madoff ? I think he was a young black living on foodstamps…
I was responding to Juan, who’s not talking to me.
Something you may not know: If you click “replied on,” it will re-direct to the post to which the response is addressed. That should clarify things.
Ever hear of a Gaussian distribution? Sure Madoffs exist, but young thugs exist in far greater numbers.
Did I make a baseless argument? This is a public forum. Byzantine, you can always pm Juan, but that might be something you didn’t know.
LOL!! LOL!! LOL!! Sorry VIchy, some of your baseless assertions are especially, uh, baseless.
Once again, this demonstrates a lack of familiarity with basic liberal theory. People are either to be free from, or free to, do things in various proportions. Essentially, by an evaluation of what circumstances lead to ‘maximum freedom’. The problem is, in real life, liberties are incommensureable. One man’s freedom is another man’s slavery, and various elements and interpretations of ‘liberty’ have existed since the Levelers. Equality and Property, often exemplified in ‘the rights of man’ were held to be supreme; though other consequentialist and utilitarian veins existed.
Marx wanted to remove the need for coercion from human life, along with all evil which would make coercion (defense, retaliation) necessary. He wanted humans to have the maximum positive freedom, by essentially always choosing what was right and themselves being broad, truely autonomous individuals - seperated from the the ‘scarcity’ caused by private property.
It’s a wacky idea, but it’s definitely libertarian.
What’s Wrong with Libertarianism by Jeffrey Friedman
Oh ? Everybody knows that crackpot marx created his theories using copy and paste. He pasted some wrong value theory from Ricardo and Smith, pasted french socialism, pasted deranged hegelian ‘philosophy’ and came up with his ‘system’.
It’s not so nefarious as you make it sound, but yes, he was kind of a crackpot. He integrated various themes in English and continental philosophy, or tried and never really quite got it to work. Marx was definitely a moralist more than economist or technical philosopher, though. And Hegel’s not that bad, but he’s got some cranky ideas. No worse than Spinoza, though.
You referenced my statement as being in a vacuum. It was actually a response to something Juan posted. That’s all I was pointing out. As to the merits of your post, it’s over my head.
Oh, my apologizes. What I meant by “vacuum” is if I go by the narrow definition of poverty that I gave is that the kind of conclusion you’re trying to make. In other words, the event of poverty doesn’t happen in a “vacuum”, IQ doesn’t happen in a “vacuum”. There are way more factors than just trying to correlate IQ with strictly money. Leads to the osmosis scenario, meaning, I don’t get what you’re saying. I mean if you pile criminal activity and difficult social relations to get past the drug gangs or the gang down the street that will kill you if you don’t join the gang on the other street, then that factors in whole other scenarios. Your IQ therefore would get killed unless you know the IQ of the streets. And I’ve met a lot of youth from the streets and they are very intelligent in how they handle their situations.
If you put a high IQ person in such situations, they are generally able to handle themselves absent predatory violence by someone. Or, they’ll use their skill set to make enough money to hire a thug to protect them from thugs. By contrast, a low IQ individual will have to rely on some degree of largesse in complex society.
Low IQ doesn’t mean you can’t be quite savvy in assessing status within groups but that’s pretty instinctual. Animals and children do it too.
A bell curve, yes. Did you understand my point about gov’t statistics ? I take it you chose to ignore it ? Further, I imagine you’re familiar with the dictum “correlation is not causation” ?
You’re ignoring a major factor in criminal activity: extremely high pecuniary returns and access to the black market.
It’s where they grew up. It’s not a vacuum situation is the point. And since your here cause you don’t like the State meddling with you, then don’t you think the State is meddling with them. I’ve seen the State meddle with them constantly and making it worse at times. The impact in those areas is much higher whereas the maid and butler take the cushion punch for some people. And no I dealt with them, you can’t just run and get your butler or maid to deal with them. You need to make decisions on the spot.
For somebody complaining about the State you now think the State only messes with you? But maybe you hire out a butler for your IQ too. That’s a bit ridiculous in real-time. If you can’t handle them your self and need somebody to do it for you that says a lot.
So should I sleep with gold bars upon my pillow or what to get that god-like IQ? These are silly questions for silly scenarios.
Correlation is evidence of causation. Criminals (i.e., murderers, rapists, robbers) are high time-preference individuals with poor impulse control. This is well correlated with low IQ. Again, the Ted Bundys exist, but they are at the tail end of the distribution.
If you compare the TV show Law & Order with who’s actually committing physical violence, then the show is basically unwatchable. Unless you believe that the government is trying to suppress the fact that intelligent middle class people are just as dangerous as low IQ welfare dependents.