Lolbertarians [GIF - 522KB] | Poal: Say what you want.

(post is archived)

You are currently inside a comment thread.

Click here to see all the comments (43).

[–] • 0 pt

Sure, you could. But you'd have to do something about the claim.

Yes

They are acting like their claim is true. If you acted like your claims were true, you'd probably get shut down. So if they are acting like their claims are true, and it looks like they are based on everything happening, then why aren't they true?

It's not a question of who currently controls the west, it's question of who should. Currently the jews control it, do you think that situation should continue?

They'll fight you on the basis of their claims.

Gee whiz, ya think?

Who is morally right? Or maybe we could say, who is truthfully right? Is there an objective claim possible to say that the Commies are wrong? Or just unbeaten?

There is no question of truth in this situation. You're arguing yugos are more true than fords because you're driving a yugo.

parent
link

[–] • 0 pt

>it's question of who should

Who has the moral authority to say so?

>You're arguing yugos are more true than fords because you're driving a yugo

Ah, so are we saying this is strictly a relativistic issue?

I am trying to speak to issues of authority and justification.

Let's try to situate it in practical terms. You are calling us to fight against Jewish control because you say it should not continue. Without any kind of moral backdrop, their 'right' to control is just as fair as yours. On your terms, this is simply an issue of who can stake a claim and back it up.

On what grounds should people take up your fight? It's certain you think that people should find Communism wrong, and that they should be defending something you say is theirs. We'll take this to be something like shared history and cultural legacy. Okay, that sounds great. I'm sure there are people who will agree with you, a majority of which likely frequent sites like this.

But it raises the question: why do so many people who share your cultural background also believe Communism is a good thing, or, a form of progress. They will argue that just because something hasn't existed in the past, doesn't mean that it doesn't represent a form of progress. Especially given the fact that these Jews have such an entrenched global-scale power structure, what reason have you given people to fight for your cause (when it might mean the total eradication of their currently comfortable life)?

Without an appeal to some moral authority, you've got, "Well, well, we are the same color and our ancestors shared this ground. You ought to defend it."

If this kind of thing is the best you've got, a kind of morality-free game theoretic situation, you've got shit. You're seeing it play out now. Go. Gather up your hardline trad conservatives and see what you can manage. Anybody intelligent can see you're going to fail, and fail miserably.

The truth is incredibly relevant here. We require an appeal to something higher than being offended about violation of non-aggression principles. Men need to be unified by something transcendent to themselves, and in this day and age, that's not the notion of freedom. We've run that course about as far as it can go. We need righteous structure now, and that doesn't happen in a libertarian society. You will never foster the kind of group ethic and tendency to self-sacrifice by fighting in a cohesive way through libertarian principles.

>>it's question of who should Who has the moral authority to say so? >>You're arguing yugos are more true than fords because you're driving a yugo Ah, so are we saying this is strictly a relativistic issue? I am trying to speak to issues of authority and justification. Let's try to situate it in practical terms. You are calling us to fight against Jewish control because you say it should not continue. Without any kind of moral backdrop, their 'right' to control is just as fair as yours. On your terms, this is simply an issue of who can stake a claim and back it up. On what grounds should people take up your fight? It's certain you think that people should find Communism wrong, and that they should be defending something you say is theirs. We'll take this to be something like shared history and cultural legacy. Okay, that sounds great. I'm sure there are people who will agree with you, a majority of which likely frequent sites like this. But it raises the question: why do so many people who share your cultural background also believe Communism is a good thing, or, a form of progress. They will argue that just because something hasn't existed in the past, doesn't mean that it doesn't represent a form of progress. Especially given the fact that these Jews have such an entrenched global-scale power structure, what reason have you given people to fight for your cause (when it might mean the total eradication of their currently comfortable life)? Without an appeal to some moral authority, you've got, "Well, well, we are the same color and our ancestors shared this ground. You *ought* to defend it." If this kind of thing is the best you've got, a kind of morality-free game theoretic situation, you've got shit. You're seeing it play out now. Go. Gather up your hardline trad conservatives and see what you can manage. Anybody intelligent can see you're going to fail, and fail miserably. The truth is incredibly relevant here. We require an appeal to something higher than being offended about violation of non-aggression principles. Men need to be unified by something transcendent to themselves, and in this day and age, that's not the notion of freedom. We've run that course about as far as it can go. We need righteous structure now, and that doesn't happen in a libertarian society. You will never foster the kind of group ethic and tendency to self-sacrifice by fighting in a cohesive way through libertarian principles.

parent
link

[–] • 0 pt

Let's try to situate it in practical terms. You are calling us to fight against Jewish control because you say it should not continue. Without any kind of moral backdrop, their 'right' to control is just as fair as yours. On your terms, this is simply an issue of who can stake a claim and back it up.

That is how the world works, yes. If you lose it doesn't matter how right you are. You still lost.

On what grounds should people take up your fight?

Because it's in their interests to do so.

But it raises the question: why do so many people who share your cultural background also believe Communism is a good thing, or, a form of progress.

Because jews infiltrated the media/education system and my forbearers were too tolerant of them.

what reason have you given people to fight for your cause (when it might mean the total eradication of their currently comfortable life)?

Nothing. They won't recognise that they're fighting for their survival and the survival of their people until their life ceases to be comfortable.

Without an appeal to some moral authority, you've got, "Well, well, we are the same color and our ancestors shared this ground. You ought to defend it."

No. Nationalism is a natural inclination in all humans. It has currently been suppressed in white people but it will reassert itself given the right conditions.

If this kind of thing is the best you've got, a kind of morality-free game theoretic situation, you've got shit. You're seeing it play out now. Go. Gather up your hardline trad conservatives and see what you can manage. Anybody intelligent can see you're going to fail, and fail miserably.

We are. Yes.

The truth is incredibly relevant here. We require an appeal to something higher than being offended about violation of non-aggression principles. Men need to be unified by something transcendent to themselves, and in this day and age, that's not the notion of freedom. We've run that course about as far as it can go. We need righteous structure now, and that doesn't happen in a libertarian society. You will never foster the kind of group ethic and tendency to self-sacrifice by fighting in a cohesive way through libertarian principles.

Oh boy, this crap again.

I never once argued that a libertarian order should be atheistic, that I'm atheistic, or that a property rights system should be the totality of anyone's world view. I argued that it's a good way of delimiting power. That's it.

Next time you feel the inclination to slide the conversation into something completely irrelevant, please feel free not to.

> Let's try to situate it in practical terms. You are calling us to fight against Jewish control because you say it should not continue. Without any kind of moral backdrop, their 'right' to control is just as fair as yours. On your terms, this is simply an issue of who can stake a claim and back it up. That is how the world works, yes. If you lose it doesn't matter how right you are. You still lost. >On what grounds should people take up your fight? Because it's in their interests to do so. >But it raises the question: why do so many people who share your cultural background also believe Communism is a good thing, or, a form of progress. Because jews infiltrated the media/education system and my forbearers were too tolerant of them. >what reason have you given people to fight for your cause (when it might mean the total eradication of their currently comfortable life)? Nothing. They won't recognise that they're fighting for their survival and the survival of their people until their life ceases to be comfortable. >Without an appeal to some moral authority, you've got, "Well, well, we are the same color and our ancestors shared this ground. You ought to defend it." No. Nationalism is a natural inclination in all humans. It has currently been suppressed in white people but it will reassert itself given the right conditions. >If this kind of thing is the best you've got, a kind of morality-free game theoretic situation, you've got shit. You're seeing it play out now. Go. Gather up your hardline trad conservatives and see what you can manage. Anybody intelligent can see you're going to fail, and fail miserably. *We* are. Yes. >The truth is incredibly relevant here. We require an appeal to something higher than being offended about violation of non-aggression principles. Men need to be unified by something transcendent to themselves, and in this day and age, that's not the notion of freedom. We've run that course about as far as it can go. We need righteous structure now, and that doesn't happen in a libertarian society. You will never foster the kind of group ethic and tendency to self-sacrifice by fighting in a cohesive way through libertarian principles. Oh boy, this crap again. I never once argued that a libertarian order should be atheistic, that I'm atheistic, or that a property rights system should be the totality of anyone's world view. I argued that it's a good way of delimiting power. That's it. Next time you feel the inclination to slide the conversation into something completely irrelevant, please feel free not to.

parent
link

[–] • 0 pt

(edited )

>Oh boy, this crap again.

I had a similar thought.

If you have the time, please walk out for me how a monotheistic religious tradition (that is, a socially functional religious system) exists in a libertarian political paradigm. I'd really like to know how this works. Not only is this sort of freedom totally anathema to any theological framework, to make it so would remove almost all of the features of God that constitute the positive social effects.

It is in the nature of a true religion to be prescriptive in all of the relevant factors of life about which people would be concerned over their freedom.

parent
link

Load more (2 replies)