EPTUS Politics Mega-thread - Page 1872
| Forum Index > Closed |
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please. In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. | ||
|
Silvanel
Poland4769 Posts
| ||
|
WolfintheSheep
Canada14127 Posts
On April 23 2015 16:35 Silvanel wrote: I have just read this: http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/crime/fbi-overstated-forensic-hair-matches-in-nearly-all-criminal-trials-for-decades/2015/04/18/39c8d8c6-e515-11e4-b510-962fcfabc310_story.html and on one hand it seems terrible but on the other hand i am very impressed by the FBI ability to come clean, i mean yes they were kinda pushed to this, but i see this as something that couldnt happen in Poland. Story like this would be shut down, no way anoyone in Poland would admit so grand mistake. This is one thing that actualy impress me about US. Shouldn't really be that impressed. The US has spent the last couple of years denying that leaked documents don't exist, let alone admitting to the actions they've committed in them. Isn't the CIA still pretending they never tortured anyone? | ||
|
Silvanel
Poland4769 Posts
| ||
|
Velr
Switzerland10989 Posts
They probably came clean because they simply had no other choice and it was the better way of doing it like this instead of having some news-media put it out. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States24505 Posts
On April 23 2015 17:28 Velr wrote: Yeah... how nice of them to admit having put a whole lot of persons into jail and even killed some due to bad work... They probably came clean because they simply had no other choice and it was the better way of doing it like this instead of having some news-media put it out. To be fair at least it puts them heads and shoulders above the financial industry when it comes to taking some form of responsibility. The financial sector had endless stories run, payed out billions in fines/settlements, and still claims they didn't do anything wrong. But like I said, the follicle thing was just the tip of the iceburg even just looking at the FBI. There are other similar issues like bite mark analysis, or other BS where they were pulling their 'science' straight out of their ass. Presumably those admissions should follow shortly. Then maybe we could talk about the locals doing the same shit with even less qualified people repeating the bullshit. | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On April 23 2015 11:52 Millitron wrote: Libertarianism isn't necessarily pro-democracy. You can have a libertarian dictatorship. What makes a society libertarian is how much autonomy individuals have, not how much control over the whole society individuals have. It's about how much control people have over their own lives, not how much control they have over other people's lives. It's just as easy for a dictator to leave his people alone as it is for a democracy to. One big disadvantage a democracy has when it comes to upholding libertarian ideals is that the people who don't want to leave you alone get a vote too. In a dictatorship, if the king wants people to be left alone, they get left alone. But in a democracy, there's always some segment of society trying to impose its will on the rest of society, and they have at least some of the authority to make it happen. some kind of deep end here surely. | ||
|
Paljas
Germany6926 Posts
On April 23 2015 09:43 Yoav wrote: Republicans (of the neocon stripe) are pro-foreigner in the sense that they think Arabs/Islam capable of democracy, where far-left democrats think the opposite. lmao how do you even make up this stuff | ||
|
farvacola
United States18876 Posts
 | ||
|
kornetka
Poland129 Posts
I guess what he means is that the Republicans started war in Iraq and tried to make it democratic, while the Democrats were against it. The logical conclusion of this is what he wrote. | ||
|
Wegandi
United States2455 Posts
Not true. There is some merit here as evidenced by the work of Hans-Hermann Hoppe on the complete and utter human disaster that is Democracy which lead to great achievements such as total war and the idea that we are 'the State'. Democracy makes people believe that it isn't us vs. the State as class warfare and civil society struggle, when it in fact has always been thus. Anyways, it's not a new idea - classical liberals held generally the same idea to have a liberal Monarchy (dictator), but that idea didn't work too well, which wasn't a big surprise because of Lord Actons admonishment. It is why a lot of libertarians are market anarchists (of the C4ss and Rothbardian variety). If you notice the best aspects of Democracy are actually the anti-Democratic ideals of strict individual rights guaranteed by Constitution(s) that cannot be infringed upon by said Government (in theory anyways...). There's also the idea put forth by the Anti-Federalists (what a misnomer...) about the viable size of Republican-States which pretty much backs up the idea of City-States instead of centralized Government and large Nation-States (by geography and population). I suppose a judicial-State where judges follow common law and guarantee(s) of rights + can be recalled at any time without Statutory rule would probably be the next evolution, but good luck getting that going (if we're to maintain a State - e.g. monopoly on law, etc.). Anyways, Democracy sucks. | ||
|
Wegandi
United States2455 Posts
On April 23 2015 14:06 Sub40APM wrote: How can you write these 3 sentences and not see their contradictions. "You can have all the freedom you want but since I am the dictator and thus I decide what it means 'control over other people's lives' I AM GOING TO KILL YOU if you ask me about why taxes are at 3% instead of 5%. So enjoy your freedom! WHILE YOU CAN. *evil laugh*" You can have a Laissez-Faire dictator. I know the common conception of dictator is tyranny, but all it means is absolute rule by one person. It doesn't say how they rule, just only that (1) is absolute head of state. It doesn't carry the familial lineage of rule or [divine right] that absolute Monarchy conveys, but it is essentially the same thing. The guy/gal could legalize pretty much everything and generally leave everyone alone. Good luck with that though as the 18th Century classical liberals tried this and it failed hard (for obvious reasons). | ||
|
puerk
Germany855 Posts
On April 23 2015 21:48 Wegandi wrote: Not true. There is some merit here as evidenced by the work of Hans-Hermann Hoppe on the complete and utter human disaster that is Democracy which lead to great achievements such as total war and the idea that we are 'the State'. Democracy makes people believe that it isn't us vs. the State as class warfare and civil society struggle, when it in fact has always been thus. Anyways, it's not a new idea - classical liberals held generally the same idea to have a liberal Monarchy (dictator), but that idea didn't work too well, which wasn't a big surprise because of Lord Actons admonishment. It is why a lot of libertarians are market anarchists (of the C4ss and Rothbardian variety). If you notice the best aspects of Democracy are actually the anti-Democratic ideals of strict individual rights guaranteed by Constitution(s) that cannot be infringed upon by said Government (in theory anyways...). There's also the idea put forth by the Anti-Federalists (what a misnomer...) about the viable size of Republican-States which pretty much backs up the idea of City-States instead of centralized Government and large Nation-States (by geography and population). I suppose a judicial-State where judges follow common law and guarantee(s) of rights + can be recalled at any time without Statutory rule would probably be the next evolution, but good luck getting that going (if we're to maintain a State - e.g. monopoly on law, etc.). Anyways, Democracy sucks. When you defend ideas about reality with fervourous disapproval of empiricism, and try to predict human interactions from simple first principles, all your name dropping will not help you to make an actual relevant point. | ||
|
Wegandi
United States2455 Posts
On April 23 2015 22:03 puerk wrote: When you defend ideas about reality with fervourous disapproval of empiricism, and try to predict human interactions from simple first principles, all your name dropping will not help you to make an actual relevant point. What? Talk about a total non-sequitur. Anyways, I'm not against empiricism, I'm against positivism. | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On April 23 2015 21:48 Wegandi wrote: i'm not disputing totalitarianism as the realistic progression of libertarianism, just finding it hilarious that libertarians are okay with it. Not true. There is some merit here as evidenced by the work of Hans-Hermann Hoppe on the complete and utter human disaster that is Democracy which lead to great achievements such as total war and the idea that we are 'the State'. Democracy makes people believe that it isn't us vs. the State as class warfare and civil society struggle, when it in fact has always been thus. Anyways, it's not a new idea - classical liberals held generally the same idea to have a liberal Monarchy (dictator), but that idea didn't work too well, which wasn't a big surprise because of Lord Actons admonishment. It is why a lot of libertarians are market anarchists (of the C4ss and Rothbardian variety). If you notice the best aspects of Democracy are actually the anti-Democratic ideals of strict individual rights guaranteed by Constitution(s) that cannot be infringed upon by said Government (in theory anyways...). There's also the idea put forth by the Anti-Federalists (what a misnomer...) about the viable size of Republican-States which pretty much backs up the idea of City-States instead of centralized Government and large Nation-States (by geography and population). I suppose a judicial-State where judges follow common law and guarantee(s) of rights + can be recalled at any time without Statutory rule would probably be the next evolution, but good luck getting that going (if we're to maintain a State - e.g. monopoly on law, etc.). Anyways, Democracy sucks. | ||
|
puerk
Germany855 Posts
| ||
|
Wegandi
United States2455 Posts
On April 23 2015 22:15 oneofthem wrote: i'm not disputing totalitarianism as the realistic progression of libertarianism, just finding it hilarious that libertarians are okay with it. Who said I was proposing which you believe, which is pretty far off the map anyways. Apparently, history is not a strong suit for you (or at least classical liberal theory anywho). No one is defending the idea of a libertarian Monarchy/Absolute rule, because it is practically impossible, but that it is theoretically sound (assuming here for a second that a State can be 'libertarian'...which I'd argue it can't, but I digress). As a tautology libertarianism cannot be totalitarian. Now, we can argue all you want about self-ownership, Lockean property rights theory (Non-proviso), and the nature of rights if you want. Also, please, defend Democracy by defending the most heinously anti-Democratic parts of modern Democracy lol. Make me laugh some more. | ||
|
Yoav
United States1874 Posts
Hanging out with far-left democrats, mostly. Not all are like this, of course. But the Bill Maher contingent does exist. | ||
|
Wegandi
United States2455 Posts
On April 23 2015 22:51 Yoav wrote: Hanging out with far-left democrats, mostly. Not all are like this, of course. But the Bill Maher contingent does exist. The problem here is the idea that the free movement of people means giving all these people the vote/citizenship, which doesn't need to be the case. It's conflating two different policies. I'm an open borders no vote guy. We all ready have enough boobus' here all ready than to give those coming from countries without the same individualistic ideals / culture the vote. It's like if you transplanted the entire North Korean population into the US and gave them the 'vote' imagine the new institution(s) and power(s) that would come of it. Open the borders, get rid of the mercantilist trade agreements (GATT/NAFTA/etc.) and have unilateral free-trade. | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
| ||
|
Wegandi
United States2455 Posts
On April 23 2015 23:13 oneofthem wrote: well of course, instead of accepting totalitarianism in the name of liberty these situations cannot exist because tautology. Joseph II of Austria comes to mind. Anyways, there were many 'enlightened liberal absolutism' in the 18th Century, which was tried and mostly failed, but to completely dismiss it as theoretically inconsistent is silly. For a more modern perspective I suppose Kuehnelt-Leddihn is probably the most well-known (though been dead for a bit now...). | ||
| ||
