Thoughts of a Middling "American"

Let me respond to this long-winded rant with one of my own. It's probably a better use of your time than this is, or at least equivalent to it.

You spend half this of this essay making a distinction between assumptions and information, presumably with the intention that this applies to opponents of Libertarian ideas (which is pretty much everyone), but honestly, I was thinking of you the whole time. Which is why it's a bad argument, it's vague, and means whatever the reader wants it to mean.

First off, the distinction is trivial and axiomatic (like most Libertarian distinctions). Deciding what's "information" and what's an assumption will always be subjective, because no amount of empirical evidence ever changes an assumption into information, it merely makes that assumption more reliable.

Every premise in a logical argument is essentially an assumption unless it is a definition. The key to good reasoning and, by extension, good thought, is asking yourself what assumptions are fairly reliable and what things you should definitely question.

Since no deductive argument that isn't essentially a long-winded definition can ever be substantiated, it's a question of whether the induction is reliable or not. Of whether the assumptions you've made can be trusted (because you will never know whether or not your information is reliable).

That's the key to good reasoning, regardless of the field.

This is already pretty long, so let me just quote a few things and show you why your reasoning is bad.

"Therefore all a democracy can ever be is the rule of the majority over the minority."

This is true of any system ever, and it would be true of your own. You think I would suddenly agree to not having public schools were you clowns to take over?

Hell, this is true even in a UTOPIA, because criminals and sociopaths would be the minority, ad thus they would be "oppressed" by those icky moral rules the majority puts down on them.

Even if JUST ONE PERSON disagrees, it satisfies your statement. Imagine how childish that is, one fucking person saying he is an oppressed minority when everyone else is living just fine.

So then, clearly, this distinction is meaningless. Who gives a fuck exactly how your government is set up? We could be ruled a robot overlord for all I care.

-The key question is how much (meaningful) freedom do you have and how high is your standard of living?-

That's the root of the question here, and the Libertarian ignores it in favor of "how well does this system match my ideals of what freedom should look like?"

Did it ever occur to you that a piece of paper which tells you your rights means jack shit in a world where private businesses have a right to fuck up your entire life should you attempt to use them? Yeah, black people in the south are going to be so "free" when you finally get rid of the voting rights and civil rights and housing rights acts.

Ignore your axioms, pay attention to the results.

"By changing the legal definition of a word, the law turns a civil right into a privilege. Under such a governing body, there is no freedom."

What's truly stupid here is that a civil right IS a legal definition, so you've essentially said that freedom is, by definition, impossible. Because you need governments to have civil rights (that's what a CIVIL right is, as opposed to a human right) and apparently once you have those they become privileges.

Again, this is more of the same definition-muddling, axiomatic, Libertarian double-speak. It destroys meaningful philosophy and conversation because it forces you to accept a definition that is incomplete, vague and inaccurate. Much like the false "force and fraud or upstanding citizen" dichotomy.

Again, ignore the language, ask the IMPORTANT question.

What are my rights and am I allowed to exercise them? If not, why not, and how do I fix that? Do other people agree? If not, are their arguments meaningful and well-supported?

Because fuck anything else, the core goal is the ability to say whatever I want, do whatever I want and be free from harassment given the confines of freedom we've all agreed to.

"Any law that seeks to limit human behavior will fail no matter how well thought out."

Then your own society is doomed to fail, horribly, since even you agree that you need laws to prevent "force and fraud."

Obviously, you don't believe that, so why in the fuck would you -say- it?

Aren't we done with this shit yet? I'm getting tired of repeating myself to the same old, tired Libertarian talking points.

I'm tired of this vague, Utopian ideology which claims vague generalities, poorly defined, as a justification for eliminating all social benefits and workers' rights, with no mention to the specifics as to their effectiveness, and is, more or less, uninterested in the results.

Libertarians, in my experience, don't appear to really care what happens to our society so long as their meaningless goals are obtained, and that's EXACTLY the kind of thinking you want to avoid, as all meaningful thought is pragmatic and results-based.

That sound too harsh? Think about this. All Libertarians assert (and all their opponents vehemently disagree) that a Libertarian society has never once manifested itself anywhere on the planet.

Let's assume for a moment that this is true. Then the Libertarian flatly asserts that his entire ideology is yet unproven and will almost certainly shake up the entire world order (or, in my opinion, solidify it) and yet is -certain- (that is the correct word) that it will to lead to peace and prosperity and the end of all wars and blah blah blah, without any demonstration of how this is supposed to happen.

You know who else asked the world to believe their new theory of human organization on faith? You know who else asserts that their dream has never been recognized on earth? You know who else asserts that they (and only they) possess the ideology which is the true way for freedom and prosperity that all humans on earth MUST accept? You know who else flatly asserted that their way didn't need to be tested, that its axioms proved its effectiveness?

I'll give you a hint, it starts with c and rhymes with ommunist.

Isn't it ironic that Libertarians are essentially identical to the ideology they most despise? It's like a Shakespearean foil, opposite personality, but same frame of reference.

Just some shit to think about.

Things are not always black and white. Clearly there benefits that the state provides. The questions that market anarchists should focus on are 1) Do the costs outweigh the benefits? 2) Could state functions be provided more efficiently on the private market? Clearly all market anarchists would answer these two questions, "Yes!" However, by taking magically existing natural rights and their corollary, the non-aggression principle, as absolutes sometimes market anarchists come off sounding like neo-conservatives ("Your either with us or your against us!") or fundamentalist preachers ("You're a sinner!" i.e., statist thug). Are there statist thugs? Yes; however, clearly there are shades of gray as well. Believing that some form of the state is necessary for provision of law, defense, and dispute resolution does not automatically in and of itself make someone a statist thug who is the equivalent of a mass murderer. The end result is what I call "turn or burn libertarianism" that does nothing but turn people off and lead to absurd assertions. I'm not saying make unjustifiable compromises or be wishy-washy, but clearly some pragmatism is required when "pitching" the message.

Just to put things in perspective, your armed forces are not your enemy. Little known fact: U.S. Personnal oversee old Soviet Union Nuclear test sites where no real nuclear material is available but thousands of tons of dirty nuclear material still stand, unguarded by Russia and your own fellow Americans work to insure these materials do not fall into the terrorist hands that could be calamity. Remember, when you think you know a lot, you don't know enough!!!!

well done..

fuck yeah....

A little psychology mixed with some systems theory... very nice. Despite some of the naysayers I'm seeing here, this is a pretty decent Op Ed piece - and since I usually and vehemently disagree with you, that's saying something. And since this piece seemingly wasn't written with the context of 'abolish government and legalize everything' as most of your earlier pieces were, I'd have to say I wholly agree with your words here. Or, at least, I agree with the meaning that my perception has prescribed to them.

After reading the comments here I have come to the conclusion to simply stop searching for the popular posts. I now only use the "new" feature this way I am sure not to miss some posting that may not be interesting to the majority but very interesting to me.

Always wondered about that since i don't have the time to flip through pages upon pages of postings. This way I am sure to see anything that I might care about.

Ho yea and as far as this posting is concerned it just seems like an essay written for an English class with a few good ideas mixed in with a lot of crap to achieve the minimum required words. Nothing to do with Current news.

Another dose of libertarian spam from the developmentally delayed and conceptually confused libertarian circle jerk.

To those saying this is gamed... Shanklin has a ton of followers that jump on here when he posts (and use Facebook Connect to vote up)

Also, ranking usually has something to do with the strength of the account of the person posting and their history. Shanklin has a history of adding popular content that gets views and gets voted up.

Would seem to me that is not a faulty algorithm. Digg, Reddit, StumbleUpon have been using that type of ranking for a while.

It seems to me that you have made a whole lot of assumptions in your post. You seem to be doing the very thing that you dislike. Making huge generalizations to make your point.You said that any law that seeks to limit human behaviour will fail. Well, I think the law that limits murder is a pretty good law, and yes it fails (in a way) because there will always be those that murder. But does it really fail? Isn't the law there so people who do commit murder can be prosecuted for same?
Your idea that a democracy is a rule of the majority over the minority, is technically correct. Funny, I find that we are being ruled more by the minority (large corporations) than by the majority (the people).
I guess you think that if a person has an "ivy league" education that they are some how not fit to hold office. Perhaps you would rather they not be educated at all.
I could go on, but won't. Enough.

You know Mike, making these Libertarian-Anarchist posts of yours on a Liberal website does you more harm than good.

Over and over we engage you and your ilk in rational debate, and over and over you come up short or run away.

If anything, we are converting more and more of your wavering sheep into free-thinking Liberals.

Great article.

I spent a decade in the government's enforcement arm. This is so right on.