Dakryn's Batshit Theory of the Week

[V.V.V.V.V.]

That's likely the problem

 

[Cythraul]

It's the solution, my friend.

 

[Vimana]

Your mom is the solution.

 

[The Ozzman]

Hitler has the final solution

 

[Vimana]

MOAR METH. LESS JEWS.

 

[zabu of nΩd]

 

[cookiecutter]

I am an anarchist.

In a strange way this makes me respect you more. I don't believe Anarchism is viable but at least it's not a load of horsehockey conspiracy theories.

EDIT: Just to clarify I think it's better to have a coherent position, even if it is wrong, rather than just a bunch of nonsense held together by an all consuming paranoia.

 

[BlackMetalWhiteGuy]

*fewer Jews.

 

[V.V.V.V.V.]

*more, while you're at it

 

[zabu of nΩd]

horsehockey!

 

[Einherjar86]

Anarchy and nihilism are pretty much essential if you want to be a true libertarian.

 

[V.V.V.V.V.]

And in my opinion both of those are almost entirely relegated to the "armchair" end of political thought and not realistic or doable at all so that's my problem with libertarianism then.

 

[The Ozzman]

Anarchy and nihilism are pretty much essential if you want to be a true libertarian.

Could you explain how being libertarian means that you are a nihilist? I would think that some of the values that libertarians hold are antithetical to nihilism since nihilism holds that values don't really exist.

 

[Einherjar86]

Could you explain how being libertarian means that you are a nihilist? I would think that some of the values that libertarians hold are antithetical to nihilism since nihilism holds that values don't really exist.

Libertarianism basically stems from the resulting beliefs of the Enlightenment Era (despite what others here might argue). The Enlightenment Era was divided into two portions: the Classical Enlightenment, and the Radical Enlightenment, which came on the heels of the Classical. The Classical Enlightenment encouraged idealistic principles such as justice, equality, freedom, as well as, of course, reason. The Radical Enlightenment took these principles one step further, into a more extreme sense. The Radical Enlightenment encouraged reason and logic to its utmost extent; systems such as the scientific method. This then led to what is known as mechanistic materialism, or, essentially, the belief that reason alone cannot prove values or morality; basically, what the Radical Enlightenment thinkers believed was that there is no rational way to support an absolute moral truth.

This then gave birth to scientific determinism, which in turn led to the disbelief in the concept of free will; therefore, no individual can be held responsible for his or her own actions.

We then arrive at utilitarianism; people will only do what benefits them and leads to their own personal pleasure.

This, then, takes us to nihilism; the disregard and disbelief in all values, morals, and systems that support them. People will only do what benefits them as an individual; hence, libertarianism.

Granted, this is not the form of libertarianism we see in our country; but it is, essentially, the skin and bones definition of ideal libertarianism.

 

[Cythraul]

And in my opinion both of those are almost entirely relegated to the "armchair" end of political thought and not realistic or doable at all so that's my problem with libertarianism then.

First of all, define what you mean by 'the armchair end of political thought.' Second of all, are your pronouncements concerning doability or what's realistic themselves matters of armchair speculation or not?

We then arrive at utilitarianism; people will only do what benefits them and leads to their own personal pleasure.

What you describe is not utilitarianism; it's egoism.

This, then, takes us to nihilism; the disregard and disbelief in all values, morals, and systems that support them. People will only do what benefits them as an individual; hence, libertarianism.

You clearly don't understand what libertarian political philosophy is all about. Libertarianism is a doctrine about what the State should be allowed to do (and some versions concern whether the State should exist at all). It can take either a deontological or a consequentialist position on the issue. This is moralizing. It clearly presupposes that we can investigate and say true things about the morality of the State. The theoretical foundations of libertarianism have nothing to do with what you're describing.

 

[V.V.V.V.V.]

First of all, define what you mean by 'the armchair end of political thought.' Second of all, are your pronouncements concerning doability or what's realistic themselves matters of armchair speculation or not?

I mean that it's what people who don't know anything or much at all about how politics work think would work (as in, it's idealism with little or no knowledge about actual political processes and other things of that nature). Not claiming to know more since I very likely don't, but you have to admit, I think, that anarchism is very much an "ideal" (to you, anyway) way of thinking and that it is certainly unrealistic considering human tendencies towards corruption, strict codes of rule (otherwise everything is totally messed up, as opposed to in our current system where quite a few things are messed up, but generally there is some semblance of order which functions rather decently), etc.

 

[youdontknowme]

Anarchy and nihilism are pretty much essential if you want to be a true libertarian.

this.

 

[Cythraul]

I mean that it's what people who don't know anything or much at all about how politics work think would work (as in, it's idealism with little or no knowledge about actual political processes and other things of that nature).

How very condescending of you. I guess all those academic economists, philosophers, and political theorists who have advocated the views in question, all of whom have most certainly thought longer and harder about these things than folks like you have, are just a bunch of ignorant fools who don't understand politics!

Not claiming to know more since I very likely don't, but you have to admit, I think, that anarchism is very much an "ideal" (to you, anyway) way of thinking and that it is certainly unrealistic considering human tendencies towards corruption, strict codes of rule (otherwise everything is totally messed up, as opposed to in our current system where quite a few things are messed up, but generally there is some semblance of order which functions rather decently), etc.

I suspect you are familiar with very little, if any, academic work concerning anarchism. Serious anarchists generally do not argue for having no rules and no order. Moreover, neither I nor any anarchist theorist that I've ever read have any particularly naive views regarding human nature.

 

[V.V.V.V.V.]

Pretty sure I got that dude Death Aflame to agree that anarchism is very much a "pipe dream" before and he was super into it so... yeah. Anyway, I'm not really interested in discussing anarchism further as I don't particularly care about it and I didn't know this would become a discussion about it.

edit: also just because you think long and hard about something doesn't mean it's right or even very smart or possible

edit2: if there are rules and order, it's not anarchism...then anarchism is just a catchy buzzword for another kind of democracy, essentially a version like the one in the US but better in every way as far as I can tell, which, sorry, is impossible due to human nature and human error

 

[cookiecutter]

There was a whole thread about this already