tagged w/ Libertardians
-
by David Shirk on May 25, 2011 in Philosophy
I was surprised to see some of the comments that I did on my last article – Thoughts of a Middling American Part 1 (http://current.com/1m4umkc ). I wonder if many of the readers even know where the term Middling came from. Empire of Liberty has a good few chapters on it – good book. That having been said, here is part two, and the answer to some of the comments.
“seems to me that you have made a whole lot of assumptions in your post.”
You do not seem to have read the entire article as I will now address.
“You said that any law that seeks to limit human behavior will fail. Well, I think the law that limits murder is a pretty good law, and yes it fails”
Murder is hardly normal human behavior – you then say “Isn’t the law there so people who do commit murder can be prosecuted for same?” And yet one need not go very far to see the very same law throwing people into prison or giving them life in prison (having been convicted of murder) – when the evidence was largely lacking – in addition, many have even had their innocence proven after the sentence has already been carried out. However I still see your point and consider it no less valid despite my opposing view on the matter – however how many laws do we have on the books in regards to murder as oppose to tax laws etc? Or if you believe that taxes are fully justified, then how about laws regarding trade, business transactions, ethics, civil rights etc? such laws have in the past benefitted some people, yet on the same token, cost far more to have to cut back as a result. Bastiat explained it far better than I ever could, and if you believe yourself to be smarter then he is in the grand scheme of things, then I would like to see you refute his points. Start with his short work – The Law.
“Funny, I find that we are being ruled more by the minority (large corporations) than by the majority (the people).” – We are ruled by the minority true – but does not the ‘majority’ as society calls it, elect the minority into office to ‘lead’ them? If so, then I stand by my corollary – “Even within the majority lies a major upset in belief systems. So how can a people honestly believe that whatever the majority on the whole agrees on will be beneficial to all? It cannot, and the notion people have that what works for them will work for me is offensive at best.”
“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.” – Trite. However consider this – if our leaders are so intelligent, then how is that after 230 years, we have become that which we fought against in the initial revolution? The truth is that there are libraries, seminars, bookstores, and a wealth of information online as well as discussion boards. Or even places to discuss ideas online. Besides, whether one has a degree or not is irrelevant – I could give you several essays and seminars written by a guy who holds a PhD and a masters degree, but because he disagree with your Phd and masters guy, it does not matter. This is why I listen to both, read the source material, watch for reactions, and judge for myself.
I have seen more attacks on the post then I have anything rebutting them – most are directed at the source not the content. Sad really.
Funny how the guy who did 10 years of law enforcement (and thus knows of which he speaks) was voted down simply for agreeing with me – most likely by those who never served themselves. Once again – kinda sad…I served 10 years in the army and am proficient in small team tactics. I would bet my bottom dollar that if I started posting these tactics on this forum, that they too would be voted down and have one sided comments thrown at them by those who never had any training or military studies at all. It seems that is what makes for intelligent talk on this forum.
More people argue the number of views then the content. I would laugh, but it’s really not funny. The truth is that I find it sick that people would rather argue about software bugs and rankings then actually debate on a comment based forum on the content of the article…oh well.
“since we have not spoken with these individuals personally, or seen any of their test scores, or IQ scores (altho IQ tests are no longer as popular as they once were) aren’t we actually engaging in the author’s style of ‘assumption’?” No you are not. If you catch someone in the act of murdering someone else, would you believe them if they were to finish killing, and then tell you that they didn’t do it? I judge off of actions taken – not by what the guys say. The more open your eyes are, and the more facts you gather to add context and depth, the more you reason and the less you assume.
“ I rather think that as finite humans we will engage in ‘assuming’ because on some level we must assume before we can prove or disprove a hypothesis (or assumption).”” We all make assumptions sometimes. I am certainly no exception. However I would never petition for a law based off of an ignorant assumption either. In addition – I know what I know, and what works for me – and would never try to impose my way of doing things onto you. I understand that you also know what you know, and like me – are sometimes forced into a position where you must assume. However there is nothing more dangerous than setting a policy or long term action based on assumption.
“I had a college instructor who always gave essay tests, but he stated at the outset of his class that you didn’t need to parrot back what he said was the correct answer, you merely needed to argue ‘your’ answer successfully — that is how we learn.” – Sounds like you had a good professor.
Okay – that’s enough of that; time for something completely different.
In martial arts, you try to keep yourself on guard and not present your opponent with an opening. If you overextend yourself or get off balance, you create an expanded target area that your opponent will take advantage of. National defense is no different – the more you expand your area of occupation, the more you open yourself up to attack.
If you see an injustice being visited upon someone else, and want to do something about it – then feel free. Just be aware that you don’t know the offender, or their capabilities. Also be aware of your surrounding and other potential threats to you should you choose to interfere, lest you to become a victim. The same goes for our foreign policy on ‘getting the bad guy’. Unfortunately we never bothered to learn the nature of what we attack before doing so hence the many ‘foreign interventions’ we have made – some over 60 years old – that we are still tied up in today.
It is noble to help someone else when you can. It is stupid if you try to help them and impoverish yourself in the process, for then someone will have to help you as well – the cycle never ends.
Someone who works for something themselves is far less likely to take it for granted, and far more likely to use the proceeds in a meaningful manner.
Do not attribute to malice what is done in ignorance. Wars start this way.
I have read entirely too many books not of the main stream. This is frustrating because few people read the books I read. Oprah sells more books than Allistair Horne, Wood, or Rothbard. People love commentary off of current events – people hate studying the history behind them.
We live in a snapshot society where the only reality that seems to matter is what is currently being felt or experienced. I cannot think of to many things more damaging to a people then the adoption of this mindset. When age old wisdom is replaced with common knowledge, the people doom the....
http://peacefreedomprosperity.com/5233/thoughts-of-a-middling-american-part-2/by David Shirk on May 25, 2011 in Philosophy
I was surprised to see some of the... more
-
-
