Using a dictionary, define "fascist" and explain how they both were.
February 17 - 1600 - Giordano Bruno is burnt alive by the catholic church. Aquinas : "much more reason is there for heretics, as soon as they are convicted of heresy, to be not only excommunicated but even put to death."
Poptech: Juan: And churchill and roosevelt were fascists. Using a dictionary, define "fascist" and explain how they both were.
Juan: And churchill and roosevelt were fascists.
I concur. They both were fascists.
At most, I think only 5% of the adult population would need to stop cooperating to have real change.
Poptech:Then using a dictionary define "neo-conservative".
I have only asked hundreds of times, yet NO ONE can do it
liberty student:If you don't read Ron Paul, and you don't read Tom Woods, and you don't read Lew Rockwell, and you don't read antiwar.com and you don't know what a Straussian is, and you don't know the work of Irving Kristol, then I just can't help you.
I've read all of them (though not everything they have written) and I think Irving Kristol is an idiot. Yet you just divert because you cannot define the word.
liberty student:People don't go to school, and get handed a dictionary, and when they have read A to Z, they leave. Words have context, and they evolve from usage.
The proper usage of words in school requires a dictionary. Schools do not accept freely defined words.
liberty student:You're either being dishonest (you know what neoconservatism is, and are playing a childish game to score meaningless points) or you're very poorly read on the topics you discuss. You know them to argue them online, but I suspect you don't actually know them well enough to discuss them with other people who know them.
Nope, I am pointing out the continued misuse of words.
liberty student:...you seem addicted to the same behaviour that lead to your removal at HotAir.
What? Not supporting a Christian Theocracy or not believing Sarah Palin is the right-wing messiah?
liberty student:You're strictly here to troll and argue, and you're not interested in Austrian theory or libertarianism at all.
Now you are lying. I would appreciate it if you would stop lying about me, thank you.
liberty student:At LvMI, the management does. If you want to see what the management thinks and does, then dig into Lew Rockwell's articles here, and start reading his blog. He gave a great speech on heroism in the Austrian tradition that is on the misesmedia YT channel. While Rockwell is not an economist, he is most certainly one of a handful of names synonymous with modern libertarian thought.
So if I disagree with Lew on an issue, I am wrong?
liberty student:To small L libertarians, big L libertarians are simply statists.
Only because they misuse the word "statist".
liberty student:All state is socialism, and your foreign policy views are imperialist.
Laissez faire is socialist?
Really my foreign policy views are imperialist? What country do I want the U.S. to control?
liberty student:You label yourself with an oxymoron.
Then big L Libertarians do not exist? You are now contradicting yourself.
liberty student:You don't want to go into etymology. It won't make you happy. Rothbard was a key figure in the establishment of American political and philosophical libertarianism. Have you read Ethics of Liberty or For a New Liberty yet?
Why can you not answer the question?
liberty student:If we eliminate your posts, it's barely a fraction of the discussion.
So it is discussed.
liberty student:I'm sure you're a big Bob Higgs fan, right
Yes I know he is an anarcho-capitalist.
liberty student:Anyway, drop the dictionary bit. Start reading. Ask some insightful questions.
I will when the misuse of words stops. I read all the time. "insightful" is subjective. I always ask questions to further my knowledge.
"Anarchism misunderstands the real nature of man. It would be practicable only in a world of angels and saints" - Ludwig von Mises
Juan:I will do that when you provide a dictionary entry defining what a "quasi-classical-liberal/conservative" is. Thanks.
quasi- (defined) - "To some degree; in some manner"
classical (defined) - "traditional in style or form", liberal (defined) - "believing in or allowing more personal freedom and a development towards a fairer sharing of wealth and power within society"
conservative (defined) - "belonging to or supporting the British political party which opposes sudden social change, high taxation and government involvement in industry"
Juan:How come you called churchill a neocon if the word can't be found in the dictionary?
Who says it cannot? You keep misusing words. So since you called me a neo-con, I want to know what you called me.
So since you called me a neo-con, I want to know what you called me.
Juan:By the way, do you realize that putting together "classical" and "liberal" you don't get the correct definition of classical liberal?
Then maybe you can define it for me but regardless I probably should not have used "classical liberal" but rather "UK liberal" or something to denote the UK liberal party's political beliefs.
Juan: You, like any self-respecting neocon, believe in the virtue of the american murderers known as 'the american military' and believe in the righteousness of WWII.
Please define neo-con.
Yes the American military is great. Ron Paul served in it too. Yes WWII was righteous.
Juan:It seems you also deny the clear fascist character of the american political system.
Define fascist and explain how the definition of the word describes the character of the american political system.
Have you ever lived in the United States?
I tried to help you, but you've made it pretty clear you're just here to argue and troll.
I'm sorry Poptech.
liberty student:I tried to help you, but you've made it pretty clear you're just here to argue and troll. I'm sorry Poptech.
So I am only allowed to agree? I am trolling for not joining the collective? Fascinating logic.
Alright. It is clear that poptech has discredited himself throughout much of this argument and has revealed himself to be the neocon that he is. Can you all stop hassling him and being so mean to him? He probably is having a heck of a good time doing this- but I did not intend for this topic to become one about Poptech. Poptech is a neocon who favors force.
I'm a libertarian. He isn't. He favors using the military force to suppress other nations who we don't need to be in a war with. He obviously doesn't understand the concept of liberty. I get that.
Can we please move on and discuss the topic at hand?
SilentXtarian:Alright. It is clear that poptech has discredited himself throughout much of this argument and has revealed himself to be the neocon that he is.
Really how?
SilentXtarian:Poptech is a neocon who favors force.
Define neo-con.
SilentXtarian:He favors using the military force to suppress other nations who we don't need to be in a war with.
I do? Prove it.
Juan:Done. Thanks for playing.
Juan:Can we please move on and discuss the topic at hand? Well, you asked how conservatives discredit libertarians and you had an object lesson ? =P
I really wanted to talk about Republican conservatism.
I didn't mean to make this thread about people who like Poptech say they're for small government but really endorse the use of force regardless by any means despite the fact that it's wrong.
I think that Republican conservatives discredit us as a whole when they talk about socialism. They talk about socialism and they don't change any of their side's statism. It's funny because Republicans will always say they're for smaller government... yet they never follow through their words with their actions. They don't take steps to make government smaller. They even make government bigger with the patriot act... and then they discredit even further the small government ideology they preach about while not practicing what they preach.
Poptech: SilentXtarian:Alright. It is clear that poptech has discredited himself throughout much of this argument and has revealed himself to be the neocon that he is. Really how? SilentXtarian:Poptech is a neocon who favors force. Define neo-con. SilentXtarian:He favors using the military force to suppress other nations who we don't need to be in a war with. I do? Prove it.
You discredited yourself when you said that Winston Churchill was a classical liberal. He wasn't a classical liberal of the sort. He favored central banking.
Plus, you continuously defend the wars that the US military wages (like WWII) out of some patriotic binge or something.
SilentXtarian:I didn't mean to make this thread about people who like Poptech say they're for small government but really endorse the use of force regardless by any means despite the fact that it's wrong.
What is wrong is subjective. I endorse the U.S. Military existing and being used for defensive purposes not nation building as you lied about above.
SilentXtarian: ...and then they discredit even further the small government ideology they preach about while not practicing what they preach.
...and then they discredit even further the small government ideology they preach about while not practicing what they preach.
yeap, that's why it's not working and many people are waking up to that fact.
Poptech:What is wrong is subjective. I endorse the U.S. Military existing and being used for defensive purposes not nation building as you lied about above.
The NAP is objective. Property rights are objective. Therefore the implications of what they provide are de facto objective.
'Men do not change, they unmask themselves' - Germaine de Stael
SilentXtarian:You discredited yourself when you said that Winston Churchill was a classical liberal. He wasn't a classical liberal of the sort. He favored central banking.
I said he was a classic liberal/conservative. Classic liberal defined as the ideology held by the UK liberal party. I have since redefined him as a neo-conservative (did you not read this?).
SilentXtarian:Plus, you continuously defend the wars that the US military wages (like WWII) out of some patriotic binge or something.
Yes I defend WWII and will continue to do so. Unlike you I was not a supporter of the socialist and fascist empires who were conquering countries.
Laughing Man:The NAP is objective. Property rights are objective. Therefore the implications of what they provide are de facto objective.
That has nothing to do with the word "wrong". What is "wrong" is subjective.
Poptech: SilentXtarian:You discredited yourself when you said that Winston Churchill was a classical liberal. He wasn't a classical liberal of the sort. He favored central banking. I said he was a classic liberal/conservative. Classic liberal defined as the ideology held by the UK liberal party. I have since redefined him as a neo-conservative (did you not read this?). SilentXtarian:Plus, you continuously defend the wars that the US military wages (like WWII) out of some patriotic binge or something. Yes I defend WWII and will continue to do so. Unlike you I was not a supporter of the socialist and fascist empires who were conquering countries.
To your first point- you should know by now that the political parties don't really mean anything in terms of their ideology. The Democratic party isn't really progressive. The Republican party isn't that conservative. It's more neo-conish. No, I must have missed you calling him a neocon.
As to your second point I take the position that WWII need not have happened if WWI had happened. WWI was an unjust war, and, just because I don't like WWII doesn't mean that I support dictators like Hitler or Stalin.
Poptech:That has nothing to do with the word "wrong". What is "wrong" is subjective.
...The NAP [ a principle of non-aggression which states 'keep your hands to yourself' ] dictates right/wrong behavior.
Laughing Man: Poptech:That has nothing to do with the word "wrong". What is "wrong" is subjective. ...The NAP [ a principle of non-aggression which states 'keep your hands to yourself' ] dictates right/wrong behavior.
You subjectively believe in the NAP, according to some people it is just a philosophical fallacy, so peddling it as "objective" is a moot point.
Abstract liberty, like other mere abstractions, is not to be found.
- Edmund Burke
laminustacitus:You subjectively believe in the NAP, according to some people it is just a philosophical fallacy, so peddling it as "objective" is a moot point.
You believe in is valid to initiate violence? Rationalize your position.
Juan:Lam, your grasp of philosophy is rather poor...You might subjectively believe otherwise of course...
All "morailty" including the NAP is subjective.
SilentXtarian:I think that Republican conservatives discredit us as a whole when they talk about socialism. They talk about socialism and they don't change any of their side's statism. It's funny because Republicans will always say they're for smaller government... yet they never follow through their words with their actions.
Poptech:All "morailty" including the NAP is subjective.
Really? Explain how a legal system would work in which each individual has subjective morality.
Juan: SilentXtarian:I think that Republican conservatives discredit us as a whole when they talk about socialism. They talk about socialism and they don't change any of their side's statism. It's funny because Republicans will always say they're for smaller government... yet they never follow through their words with their actions. Yes. And when socialism/government fails, people blame the market since the conservatives paid lip service to it. It's a loose loose proposition.
That's a reactionary response. People don't really want to blame the government for the economic collapses so they just either say that the free-market is bad, or, that it's good but it has its faults. They never look to where the federal reserve is and what it's doing usually. It's good that more and more people are waking up to what they're doing and wanting to do something about it though.
And Lauging Man if you want to know how people would legislate subjective morality just ask any Republican. They'll be able to tell you how they would do it. Poptech probably is a Republican I'm guessing so he would have some ideas on that.
Poptech: What is "wrong" is subjective.
What is "wrong" is subjective.
that's why you don't know you support criminals cause you admit you don't know the difference between what is right and what is wrong...lol
Laughing Man:Really? Explain how a legal system would work in which each individual has subjective morality.
It cannot which is why anarcho-capitalism is an idealistic fantasy.
SilentXtarian:And Lauging Man if you want to know how people would legislate subjective morality just ask any Republican. They'll be able to tell you how they would do it. Poptech probably is a Republican I'm guessing so he would have some ideas on that.
Positive liberty is a contradiction. It transgresses the most basic liberty principles.
Juan:By the way, why do you object to my stating the fact that the american military are despicable murderers?
Because they are not murders (actual definition).
SilentXtarian: if you want to know how people would legislate subjective morality just ask any Republican. They'll be able to tell you how they would do it. Poptech probably is a Republican I'm guessing so he would have some ideas on that.
if you want to know how people would legislate subjective morality just ask any Republican. They'll be able to tell you how they would do it. Poptech probably is a Republican I'm guessing so he would have some ideas on that.
good answer
Poptech:It cannot which is why anarcho-capitalism is an idealistic fantasy.
That makes no sense....you said all morality is subjective...then you say anarcho-capitalism can't work...
wilderness:that's why you don't know you support criminals cause you admit you don't know the difference between what is right and what is wrong...lol
Who defines what is right and wrong? You? Me? Who is the authority to define this? I thought you do not believe in "authority". What I stated is morality is subjective and it is, this is irrefutable.
Laughing Man: Positive liberty is a contradiction. It transgresses the most basic liberty principles.
and that's why Poptech supports it. cause he don't know what's right or wrong. so it's all what Poptech arbitrarily decides in his sophist world in which the blind lead the blind. No light of reason in Poptech's worldview. no point in even bothering anymore. since he doesn't even know what is right or wrong he'll change the goal posts and arbitrarily say whatever he wants. in his worldview he can do anything and get away with it, including murder, rape, and stealing cause there isn't any right or wrong. it's a sadistic joke.
see ya Poptech. bye-bye
wilderness:and that's why Poptech supports it. cause he don't know what's right or wrong. so it's all what Poptech arbitrarily decid
Who knows what is right and wrong? You? You are no better than the socialists who want to force their "ideals". You just want your "laws", your "morality". It is all becoming very clear. You don't even realize the weakness in your arguments because it is all based on your subjective morality.
How naive.