200,000 Homeless Vets, How Discussting!
| Kaz | |
- Talking about how a libertarian philosophy will better solve the problems that people care about (and showing them how), effective.I'm with you on the second part, but not the first. There are two groups of liberals, the gimme poor like BigAllen and the Elitist well to do. - If the "BigAllen's" were ambitious enough to realize they would be better off in a libertarian system, they wouldn't be liberals to begin with. They would be making something of themselves and seeing where it got them. To tell him that he's better off in a system which doesn't foster dependency and provides actual incentives counter to every stated liberal objective is simply a connection that will never be made. - For the Elitist liberals, to them liberalism is emotional, not logical and it is geared towards themselves not the people they claim to help. They are the biggest problem because they are smarter then the BigAllen liberals and give them all their self serving talking points. But in the end, these liberals are in it to feel better about themselves and have everyone know it. And they are not stupid people. If they CARED that government fosters dependency and hurts those it claims it's trying to help then they would already acknowledge that and not need your help to point it out. So your pointing it out won't matter because they DON'T CARE. - Then there are the moralistic social Right Republicans. While they are technically generally fiscally conservative, that frankly takes a strong back seat to ensuring that other people don't do with their bodies what the moralistic Right would do with theirs. So the fiscal conservatism's lost. The only ones who are still on our side, sort of, are the fiscal non-religious (non-religious politically) Right. And most of them have accepted a slow death rather then fighting for fiscal conservatism. What program is more damaging in this country then Social Security/Medicare because it eventually makes everyone a welfare whore? And who is fighting them anymore even from the so called fiscal conservative Right? You say my arguments don't work. Again, I agree, I say NO arguments work. And I see still no reason for you to believe yours will. Edited by Kaz on Feb 20, 2008 4:47 PM |
|
| Nick Coons | |
|
dao jones,
it seems that you are making a long leap in assuming that Big Allen wants to actually have an intelligent conversation and is interested in doing anything besides attacking peope who don't agree with him. While I'm not new to message boards (have been participating since the late 80s), I am new to this board and to its inhabitants. I don't purport to know anything about Big Allen are his intentions, so I go off the safe assumption that he's here to honestly participate. I'm being told by two people that that's not the case, and that might be true. If it turns out that he wants to participate, then I'm engaging him in actual discussion. If he's just a troll, then it doesn't matter what I say. Therefore, my actions at best will be effective and at worse won't hurt anything. It's the "safe" assumption to make. if that were the case, i imagine peopple might be having long conversations with him, rather than getting annoyed with because he makes personal attacks about people he doesn't know. Of all of the replies I've written to him, he has yet to send a personal attack my way that I've noticed. i am a relatively new libertarian... Congratulations! so it's fine if you choose to believe that being really nice and explanatory will change everyone. I don't believe anything will change everyone.. I just believe that it will change more than the alternatives. for those of us who have tried to begin conversations with allen and have ONLY been attacked personally and politically, we are not mean people, we simply choose not to act as if allen will listen if we bend over backwards to prove our points. Though my posts may look like they take a lot of time and effort, it really isn't much of an imposition for someone who types 110 words/minute and has been spewing libertarian philosophy for years :-). - If the "BigAllen's" were ambitious enough to realize they would be better off in a libertarian system, they wouldn't be liberals to begin with. There isn't necessarily a correlation between ambition and self-realizing logical thought. There are plenty of ambitious activist liberals who simply believe their way is the right way, and with a logical argument, and appeal from someone who cares about the same issues that they do yet has another way of looking at them, will come to reconsider their positions. They would be making something of themselves and seeing where it got them. To tell him that he's better off in a system which doesn't foster dependency and provides actual incentives counter to every stated liberal objective is simply a connection that will never be made. If you're right, then I'm wasting my time doing what I do, and no harm done to anyone else (not just here, but elsewhere). If I'm right, then progress has been made. It's a low-risk/high-return scenario. For the Elitist liberals, to them liberalism is emotional, not logical and it is geared towards themselves not the people they claim to help. They are the biggest problem because they are smarter then the BigAllen liberals and give them all their self serving talking points. But in the end, these liberals are in it to feel better about themselves and have everyone know it. And they are not stupid people. If they CARED that government fosters dependency and hurts those it claims it's trying to help then they would already acknowledge that and not need your help to point it out. So your pointing it out won't matter because they DON'T CARE. Completely agreed, and I couldn't hope to convince these people to change their positions, nor do I try. People with these positions are usually the crop of Democrats that currently hold office. I don't try to convince them; I would try to convince their constituents to simply vote them out of office.. that would be easier. Then there are the moralistic social Right Republicans. While they are technically generally fiscally conservative, that frankly takes a strong back seat to ensuring that other people don't do with their bodies what the moralistic Right would do with theirs. So the fiscal conservatism's lost. Yes, this one is a tough sell too. Some of these people admire what America used to be, or at least what they think it used to be. So bringing up people, like Thomas Jefferson, who made this country great, and various things he said such as, "It does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg." But you're right, many of these people are old and stubborn and won't change, but younger generations are more open. You say my arguments don't work. Again, I agree, I say NO arguments work. And I see still no reason for you to believe yours will. No argument works 100% of the time.. it's an ongoing development. But I know that my arguments have worked many times because I've seen the results. Most people don't go for the "the government should just leave me alone" argument unless they've experienced government harassment; whether it be in the form of an IRS audit, arrest for a victimless "crime", had to cut their way through bureaucratic red tape, etc. For most people, the "here's how libertarian philosophies work better in a practical sense" arguments works well. It's not my goal to convince you of a given argument's effectiveness. Honestly, I was hoping there were more than three people here when I started participating. But even with one ardent non-libertarian, posing responses to liberal arguments is good practice. |
| Kaz | |
if that were the case, i imagine peopple might be having long conversations with him, rather than getting annoyed with because he makes personal attacks about people he doesn't know.Of all of the replies I've written to him, he has yet to send a personal attack my way that I've noticed. http://libertarian.me...  Edited by Kaz on Feb 21, 2008 9:18 AM |
|
| Nick Coons | |
|
|
if that were the case, i imagine peopple might be having long conversations with him, rather than getting annoyed with because he makes personal attacks about people he doesn't know.Of all of the replies I've written to him, he has yet to send a personal attack my way that I've noticed. Ah, I see a problem. If you view those replies to me as personal attacks, then I think you're being a little over-sensitive. I don't get discouraged quite that easily. |
| Kaz | |
Your question was on what HE has done and here you're shifting to US being over sensitive. I was just answering your question. Clearly in the conversation I was NOT being overly sensitive and you're obviously smart enough to see that and you're just being an ass about it. And that's an observation, not a reaction.Of all of the replies I've written to him, he has yet to send a personal attack my way that I've noticed. |
|
| Nick Coons | |
|
|
Ah, I see a problem. If you view those replies to me as personal attacks, then I think you're being a little over-sensitive. I don't get discouraged quite that easily. I didn't ask a question. I made a statement, which was "Of all of the replies I've written to him, he has yet to send a personal attack my way that I've noticed." Your response was a link to a thread where I wrote a message and Big Allen wrote a reply to that. Based on the context, it seemed to be implicated that you were attempting to show me an example of where he sent a personal attack my way. So I revisited that thread, and here was his response: "Would you be want to be operated on for a heart bypass by an unlicensed doctor? The private sector should be charged with what? You live in fantasy land." I don't see that as a personal attach towards me. If you do, which I inferred from the context of your message to me, then it appears that you would be overly sensitive to believe that something like, "You live in a fantasy land" is a personal attack. Clearly in the conversation I was NOT being overly sensitive and you're obviously smart enough to see that and you're just being an ass about it. Not at all.. I think there was a misunderstanding a few messages ago. I never denied that he's sent attacks toward you.. I said he never sent attacks toward me, to which you appeared to reply with the intent to dispute my claim, though that's difficult to know for sure since you only posted a URL. On the other hand, if you were trying to prove that he attacked you, then that's fine, but that's not how I understood your message. So let's look at it from that perspective: He started the thread, and understandably it contains no attacks because there was no one in the previously non-existent thread to attack. You responded to him with a sort of sarcastic unapproachable reply, but no actual attacks. His response to you was clearly a personal attack with a phrase like "You are the lack of caring moron that make up the Republican party." (I'm not sure which is more insulting, calling you a moron or a Republican  ).One has to wonder why he attacks you and dao jones, but not me. The two of you have been here longer, so maybe he just hasn't gotten around to me yet. He has replied to my messages, but no attacks. Is he attacking you because he doesn't like your philosophy, or because he doesn't like you? You and I share a common philosophy. On the other hand, perhaps it's the tone of my response. Without any disrespect intended, do you think an objective observer of these threads would describe you (based on reading your posts) as a likable and easy to talk to person, or do you come across a bit harsh in a way that would put someone off and not want to ask you questions for fear of feeling stupid? |
| Kaz | |
Without any disrespect intended, do you think an objective observer of these threads would describe you (based on reading your posts) as a likable and easy to talk to person, or do you come across a bit harsh in a way that would put someone off and not want to ask you questions for fear of feeling stupid?You're very good at shifting back and forth the axis of discussion between the general and the specific. I realize I could solve that by being specific in my replies, just an observation. But since I haven't you've used another skill of yours to strategically miss the obvious while at the same time being insightful to make your point. There's nothing wrong with any of that, just observing debating style. Anyway, I don't care that he insults me. But you were talking about several things related to "insults" and in the link I sent you my first reply was just a general anti-socialized medicine statement, nothing directed at him personally. His response was a direct insult and the name calling ensued post to post. I was just showing that, which you both got and missed (see above). He can call me all the names he wants and obviously I was not "over-reacting" to that. And BTW, being a Republican is FAR worse then being a moron because in the latter case one did not choose to be stupid. I also agree with your point quoted, though I've been pretty much saying that I don't expect my points to be effective at this point. My view is that both Conservative and Liberal ideologies are both better implemented politically through libertarianism. - Conservatism - People should be free to be moral in their own lives. They should be free to persuade others to be what they view as moral. When they go to government to inflict morality it a doesn't work and b wouldn't matter if it did and c is hypocrisy for the "small government" party. Why would "God" care if someone was forced to behave "morally" by the government? - Liberalism - People should be free to help others. They should be free to start effective charities. They live in the most generous country on the planet. But when government does it it doesn't work. There is nothing "Liberal" in any way about government fostering dependency and creating programs which don't help those intended to solve. A true liberal would want government out because of the "reality" that it doesn't help people. The mantra of liberalism. I am in a down stage now because I was making a concerted effort to be persuasive to both that the true path to their objective is libertarianism. I have over the last year or so come to realize they just don't care. You can have transactionally positive conversations on the subject, but even if they see the point the next day they are back to their comfortable ideological mantra. Maybe I'll bounce back, but now I'm just not trying to be diplomatic. Particularly with the Left who are so belligerent about it, I'm enjoying just pounding them down with their own tactics. So when he started with the insults, I was going to have some fun. The one thing you said that shocked me so far though was that my not wanting to pay taxes was just an infringement of MY liberty in keeping the government from stealing my money. Is that all you see? I was shocked a libertarian would say that. That is just the tip of the iceberg. What about: - Fostering government dependency - Growing government control over the economy (higher taxes/budget) - Growing the political power of politicians (over the dependent and the economy) - Disincenting achievement and economic growth - Raising the dead weight of non-achievers on our economy - Growing the dictatorial power of the IRS to expand it's reign of terror, power and influence in the name of collecting more tax revenue. Yet, the only "liberty" issue you saw was my not wanting to pay taxes? |
|
| Big Allen | |
|
Is there any topic that you do not go on and on and on and on!
|
| Nick Coons | |
|
|
Anyway, I don't care that he insults me. But you were talking about several things related to "insults" and in the link I sent you my first reply was just a general anti-socialized medicine statement, nothing directed at him personally. His response was a direct insult and the name calling ensued post to post. I was just showing that, which you both got and missed (see above). He can call me all the names he wants and obviously I was not "over-reacting" to that. And that's what I was getting at. When I first replied to your post that was simply a link, it seemed as if you were trying to contradict my claim that he didn't insult me since that was the context at that point in time. Upon reading your follow-up, as I've already mentioned, it seems more likely that you were trying to prove that he has indeed posts messages that were insults. That was never in dispute. And BTW, being a Republican is FAR worse then being a moron because in the latter case one did not choose to be stupid. Here here! I also agree with your point quoted, though I've been pretty much saying that I don't expect my points to be effective at this point. My view is that both Conservative and Liberal ideologies are both better implemented politically through libertarianism. I am in agreement with your assessment. I am in a down stage now because I was making a concerted effort to be persuasive to both that the true path to their objective is libertarianism. I have over the last year or so come to realize they just don't care. You can have transactionally positive conversations on the subject, but even if they see the point the next day they are back to their comfortable ideological mantra. It's difficult to overcome years worth of Republican or Democrat "values" with a single conversation, even one that ends positively. It's the same effect that motivational speakers see. Their audience is pumped up during and shortly after the event, but the vast majority of those people return to their normal selves the next day. It takes consistently hitting the point home, over and over again; saying the same things, over and over again; to the point where someone will automatically think of it next time the possibility of a big government solution crosses their mind. Maybe I'll bounce back, but now I'm just not trying to be diplomatic. Particularly with the Left who are so belligerent about it, I'm enjoying just pounding them down with their own tactics. So when he started with the insults, I was going to have some fun. And that's fine when it's a message board such as this where there aren't really any real-world consequences. Just don't be surprised when you get the responses that you do. Likewise, don't be surprised if I don't expect to get the responses that you get, because I don't post the way you have. When you first replied to me, you mentioned that I wouldn't have any persuasive success (a paraphrase), and I believe you cited the fact that you hadn't as your reason. But now you're saying you're just having fun. I'm not sure why I would gauge my ability to have any success against your success when our intentions seem very different. This isn't a criticism of your intentions, just observing the difference. Yet, the only "liberty" issue you saw was my not wanting to pay taxes? I assume this is in response to, "But explaining how the libertarian philosophy will actually solve the social problems they care about is much more effective than trying to tell someone that the government doesn't have a right to steal; it's certainly true, just not an effective argument." This wasn't meant to accuse you of anything. Some people call themselves Libertarians because they want to get out of paying taxes; the same selfish motives used by some people that call themselves Democrats because they want free stuff. I was not intending to put you into this group. What I was doing pointing out that some of your arguments tend to focus on the fact that government shouldn't take from people, and that usually doesn't work. As an example, see your first post in this thread: http://libertarian.me... As I mentioned before, I am new to this message board (as of a couple of weeks ago). I read some of the previous threads just to get a feel for the atmosphere, but I wasn't thorough since some of the messages were months old. But again, if your intention is to have fun (which is fine), then you probably shouldn't be too taken back when someone points out that your posts aren't exactly persuasive. If other posts you've made reference any of the other items you've listed (i.e. fostering government dependency), then I was not referring to those. Is that all you see? I was shocked a libertarian would say that. I've seen many libertarians argue that way, which is why many of them have so much difficulty convincing anyone. It doesn't shock me to see those arguments. |
| Kaz | |
When you first replied to me, you mentioned that I wouldn't have any persuasive success (a paraphrase), and I believe you cited the fact that you hadn't as your reasonNo, that wasn't even part of my argument on that point. On your not being persuasive to someone who's not a libertarian I was just talking about your not being persuasive. I also said I'm not trying to be persuasive and I took you back to the post where I started not being persuasive, but I never made directly or indirectly any connection between your and my being persuasive. Now you can disagree with me that you are persuasive to non-libertarians, but that still has nothing to do with whether I am or not. And what you are saying about my arguments in this board is true. While you keep saying that I'm not persuasive and I keep agreeing with you you keep arguing I'm not persuasive. OK, I AGREE with you I'm not being persuasive and I keep SAYING so! You can only react to what you see. But you have no idea if I CAN be persuasive or not because as I said, I'm not trying to be. And I'm tired of this "argument" where you keep arguing a point I keep agreeing with and not going to continue it anymore. you probably shouldn't be too taken back when someone points out that your posts aren't exactly persuasiveExcept to say, that was a deep insight (eye roll) when I agreed with you that my posts weren't persuasive, I wasn't trying to be persuasive and said I was being "belligerent" like the liberals are. You thought after that I was "taken aback?" OOoooookkkkkaaayyyyyyy. OK, but that's not what this quote was in reference to. This quote was in reference to the context I wrote it that the only infringement on liberty of welfare is not just my liberty to keep my own money.Is that all you see? I was shocked a libertarian would say that. I'm not going to respond to any more posts on that my arguments aren't persuasive anymore. If I actually DISAGREED with that I would. |
Powered by mvnForum
