Philosphical Pressupositions of Classical Liberal Ideology....

[RadioRaheem84]

Need a book or something that has been written that addresses the right libertarian concepts of individuality, economics and property, etc.

I just cannot argue with my right libertarian friend because we're just coming at each other with such different definitions and presumed arguments.

From what I gather, they seem to really argue from the logic of an owner. I have done pretty well arguing against him knowing this much but I need a bit more.

The Anarchist FAQ section on capitalism is really good but I would like something Marxist.

Thanks.

[Adil3tr]

I have one of those. You need to break the frame of his argument. Show how fascistic it it that he argues solely for the owners, not the worker. Workers outnumber the owners 1000 to one. Plus his magical small business free market world is dead. Small businesses now are either franchises or crushed by walmart. These libertarians hide themselves solely behind hypothetical to hide the fact that they are supporting the existing order or something even worse.

http://www.revleft.com/vb/picture.php?albumid=695&pictureid=6250

[RadioRaheem84]

Have there been any Marxist books, online pamphlets, etc. that directly challenge right libertarian logic and show their true colors?

[iskrabronstein]

I'm uncertain whether any pamphlets directly address libertarian logic. But having dabbled in libertarianism for a brief span of time, I can attest that the weakest point of the ideology itself is its total ignorance of practical economics. However, the social ideology itself is relatively self-consistent. The essential problem with libertarian thought is its projection of a subjective schema of "freedom" onto historical and existing political situations without context or reference. This may sound silly, but take into account the libertarian school of legal thought, originalism - it seeks to apply the governmental principles of the Constitution exactly as they were written, on the assumption that the historical growth in power and scope of the Federal state was due to corruption, or temporary exigencies never revoked, or "progressives" gaining power and wrecking shit - rather than the expansion of the class dictatorship of the bourgeoisie reacting to political necessity.

Libertarians are fundamentally unable to grasp, ideologically, the intertwined nature of economics and politics. For them, capitalism is not a social and economic stage of development - it is simply a system in which people exchange goods on a "free market", that may well have existed at many times in history, given the right conditions. Libertarian ideology cannot accommodate the idea that political measures of freedom are malleable, and dependent on social context - either a state is a flawed, but tolerable democracy, or a despotism. No social analysis, no class analysis.

And despite their parrotlike hymning to Mises and Hayek, I find their political line to be disconcertingly disorganized, ranging from constitutionalist libertarians, to survivalists, to neo-Confederates, to borderline fash.

Honestly I view their nonsense as similar to the fascist racial sociology popular in the 20's and 30's. It's pointless to try to argue reality to them - they have adopted an ideological model that is entirely untethered from it.

[REVLEFT'S BIEGGST MATSER TROL]

I don't think there has been a real Marxist attempt to address things like the "philosophy" of non aggression advocated by libertarians as it is very clearly bullshit.

For books that skirt around the subject, I can very much recommend "Possessive Individualism" by C.B Macpherson.

Since i've talked to enough of these saddos enough, i'll outline my thoughts on the matter.

Usually, they seem to start with attempting to define "force" and "freedom", which will be defined as threat or aggression against a person or property. Freedom being the absence of force. So far so consistent. This enables them to claim that anything that violates "voluntarily" traded or gained property (i.e. the state, or any leftist measures) is a violation of freedom. Which places the lefty in a pretty uncomfortable position.

I think the important thing is not to be blinded (as they are) by the standards of our society, and try to see past their unspoken (and unrealized to themselves) presumptions to the heart of the matter.

For instance, we can all agree that violating a person via aggression is forceful..but why property? The fact that libertarians are willing to advocate a certain method of distributing property and use force against anyone who disagrees with it seems highly aggressive to me. In reality, any system of property rights will require people to be forced to obey them..and who is to decide which is really "forceful" or not? To a libertarian, capitalist property might be totally voluntary, to a socialist it seems entirely involuntary (We don't agree that Wal Mart should make so much, but if we act on our disagreement, we'll be forced to obey with capitalist property rights..)

They might attempt in some lame way to justify capitalist property rights as the "only" just way to have property..which will either be some transparently weak crap (PROPERTY IS THE ESSENCE OF FREDUM!!!!!) or will require them to resort to consequentialist arguments, in which case, you are in familiar territory and can just engage them in argument like any ordinary person on the street.

[RadioRaheem84]

My friend has written me back a scathing email filled with choice and selective definitions that argue against my arguments and how I argue. Apparently, I am not using words right, logical fallacies, etc. Yet the guy gets to frame the debate any which way he pleases and thinks that his way is the standard for rational discourse. I question his idealistic assumptions and he writes back to me that insisting that his arguments are reasonable because he has a cause, I make baseless assertions. Yet the damn fool presupposes everything he says to be all ready damn defined and is therefore an argument.


"Evidence in the form of a moral principle".

"rights, in the context of your "debate", are granted by laws, moral principles, or legal prescription (law of precedent).
"Individual rights are individual rights for everybody - that is why we call them "rights". That you or someone may resent feeling less wealthy has no bearing upon the principles. Also, that you might wish to penalize those who have exercised their rights (and minds, and muscles) wisely to improve their personal well being (wealth. health, happiness) has no moral basis."
"Individuals are granted the property rights by law, by the practical morality of objectivism, and by the precedent of individuals as owners dating into antiquity. "Assert much?

One thing that I have to give credit to the Libertarians and objectivists is that sure can take command of language and have really razor sharp yet contrived philosophical arguments that can seem intimidating at first, especially to those unskilled in such debates. They look for fallacies, or things they think are fallacies, and then pick them apart from their presumed worldview.

Oh and does anyone have any data on how Russia has sunk to the bottom since it's neo-liberal venture?



Follow this syllogism.

An economic and social system identified by group ownership of means of production is defined as communism.

A form of trade unionism identified by a group intention of ownership of the means of production is defined as syndicalism.

The successful pursuit of syndicalism is defined as communism .

[RadioRaheem84]

The point is, with objectivists and libertarians, the debate is philosophical not really economics.

That is why the objectivists and libertarians are the ones that last the longest in OI.

I need more strength studying their philosophical assumptions and rather circular reasoning; "It's true because it's morally applicable and whatnot".

Liberals are easy, conservatives even easier, but right-libertarian objectivsts are kind of fucking hard. I am getting creamed, yet I know that he is wrong, but I cannot quite put it into words like he does.

[Zanthorus]

There's some good stuff by Cyril Smith which talks about the relation between the enlightenment ideas of atomism and how it was transplanted into society creating modern bourgeois individualism versus the hermetic tradition which Hegel took inspiration from:

Hegel, Marx and the Enlightenment (http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/smith-cyril/works/articles/interim.htm)

Excerpt:


Let us look briefly at some of the main characteristics of the Enlightenment way of thinking, the thought of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, when modern bourgeois society was taking shape. This is more or less what Hegel calls ‘the Understanding’, [Verstand, as opposed to Vernunft = Reason]. It sees the world from the point of view of one of these social atoms. The natural world and society looked like collections of discrete bits and pieces, machines made up of smaller machines. When the ‘single individual’ thought about this mechanical world, he could only think of himself as yet another machine, quite unchanged by interaction with the rest. In trying to think about these assemblies of atoms, many problems arose, but these could be answered if you broke each of them into separate sub-problems.

5. The individual got his knowledge of the world by logically decoding messages conveyed to him through his senses. Apart from these bulletins, the knowing subject and the object of knowledge were utterly different and separate from each other, as were Nature and humanity. Freedom, which for this outlook means the removal of ‘external’ restrictions on the individual, did not exist in nature, where movement was rigidly determined.

This probably isn't exactly what your looking for, but an understanding of the origins of classical liberalism and it's imposition of Newtonianism (Actually quite divorced from the work of Sir Isaac Newton, who was an unrepentant mystic) into the social world could be useful.

I guess Bordiga's writings on violence (http://www.marxists.org/archive/bordiga/works/1946/violence.htm) might also be of interest here:


It is necessary to recognise its [violence's] fundamental role in all forms of social organisation even when it acts only in its latent state, that is through pressure, threat and armed preparation which produce the most widespread historical effects even before there has been bloodshed, after it, or without it.

[RadioRaheem84]

Thanks Zanth

I found some liberal critques of libertarianism and objectivism.

I found a lot of religious critiques of libertarianism and objectivism.

But no Marxist critiques. Strange.

[GPDP]

Thanks Zanth

I found some liberal critques of libertarianism and objectivism.

I found a lot of religious critiques of libertarianism and objectivism.

But no Marxist critiques. Strange.

Indeed. It's actually the one really glaring omission in the "Critiques of Libertarianism" website. There's anarchist critiques there (though I think a lot of those are from an individualist "left-libertarian" stance), but where the hell are the Marxists on this?

[Os Cangaceiros]

Self Ownership, Freedom and Equality by G.A. Cohen

[RadioRaheem84]

:lol: Thanks, Explosive!

[RadioRaheem84]

http://mises.org/misesreview_detail.aspx?control=106&sortorder=issue

The right libertarians at Mises.org are tripping over this book aparently. They "respect" him and think that he a good Marxist. They just think that he is weak.

[REVLEFT'S BIEGGST MATSER TROL]

"Individuals are granted the property rights by law, by the practical morality of objectivism, and by the precedent of individuals as owners dating into antiquity. "

I assume you've questioned where these "property rights?" come from? If this is his best response, I think you've "won" the debate right there.

Just dig in here; he can't think "law" is a proper justification morally...or else he'd support the state's right to tax those on land it claims part (at the least) ownership of, since that is what the law is. (Ironically, libertarians cannot actually consistantly oppose the state's property rights and hold that all current owners of property are just.)

By the practical morality of objectivism? Get him to explain what he actually means by this? Since he's talked about practicality, Is he trying to suggest that capitalistic property will result in good outcomes? Then you've got a normal argument.

And precedent justifying something? Can this guy really believe that? Is goverment justified by it too? Or slavery? I'd lay into him here, try and appeal to his everyday morality..if it was the case that communistic rights were better for people overall, would he really value historical precedent over what people actually want? How libertarian. :rolleyes:

And yeah, there stuff can seem intimidating because they use a lot of bullshitty big words, and, due to huge amount of hidden assumptions that pepper their arguments (but often go unnoticed since they aren't questioned in our daily lives either). Though, I think their stuff is really quite laughably weak and vulgar, once you actually get to understand it.

[REVLEFT'S BIEGGST MATSER TROL]

Indeed. It's actually the one really glaring omission in the "Critiques of Libertarianism" website. There's anarchist critiques there (though I think a lot of those are from an individualist "left-libertarian" stance), but where the hell are the Marxists on this?

99 percent of that site is a load of crap though

[RadioRaheem84]

Good points Gangsterio. Yes, objectivists seem to mimic everything about Ayn Rand, even down to her character; a snobby *****. My friend, understood one of my arguments because he dissected it but refused to answer me because the syntax was wrong.

Beneath all the fluffy bullshit and high brow wording they end up coming up with the most idealistic shit I have ever encountered when you simply ask them, "OK, so where do these rights come from" ? They respond sort of dumbfounded, " Well, duh, from the moral practicality of objectivism, then the law which rubber stamps it". :rolleyes:


Though, I think their stuff is really quite laughably weak and vulgar, once you actually get to understand it. Very weak. I am just trying to understand their world to sort of understand where they're coming from so I can effectively communicate with them and show them why they're so wrong. It's just hard because they're so self-assured of their presumed bullshit that to negate them is like questioning the standard for which rational discourse is based on and coincidentally they end up defining what that standard is.

[RadioRaheem84]

Practical morality is the name of the moral code defined in The Epistemology of Objectivism. I am not suggesting anything. I am stating that practical morality is the proper name of a specific moral code, defined in a formalized epistemology. Epistemology is an element of philosophy that defines how decisions are made, what is right and wrong, and many other questions of the practical application of philosophy.



No. I illustrated that rights are defined in a way that allows law to grant them.

The belief that law is a moral justification is called Appeal to Authority.


Again, I illustrate that rights, by their definition, can be defined in the context of rights which have a precedent. Historian's fallacy, the fallacy of asserting that because something has been in the past it must be now. I did not say that precedent is a moral justification, only that rights can be defined by precedent.


Anarchism |= socialism, regardless of the number of times you assert it. Etymologists fallacy, the fallacy of asserting that an original definition of a term has primary importance over its current definition.


Intentional fallacy. The fallacy of asserting that the intention of an author is of primary importance over the meaning of the words the author used. Intention over action. Fallacious, invalid, erroneous, sophomoric.

The last one justifies Orwell's work to be anti-socialist. And that state = socialist is a valid critique. So socialists and communists can talk about transcending the state in a capitalist society all we want, or insist that our ultimate goal is not nationalization, because no matter what the intent, communist = state control, authoritarianism, the end of liberty as we all know it, etc.

[RadioRaheem84]

Oh and....


Parcel post delivery is distributed as a merit good by the USPS. I have not made any other claim.

[mollymae]

Need a book or something that has been written that addresses the right libertarian concepts of individuality, economics and property, etc.

The best book that comes to mind for this would be the very influential The Law by Frederic Bastiat. It's generally economics-oriented but it also really goes into the general moral principles behind libertarianism and such. It's fairly short and easy to read, and I'm sure you could find it online for free. It's not from a Marxist perspective so I can't guarantee that it would help you in this debate in particular, but it would certainly help in understanding right-wing libertarianism overall.

[Os Cangaceiros]

The best book that comes to mind for this would be the very influential The Law by Frederic Bastiat. It's generally economics-oriented but it also really goes into the general moral principles behind libertarianism and such. It's fairly short and easy to read, and I'm sure you could find it online for free. It's not from a Marxist perspective so I can't guarantee that it would help you in this debate in particular, but it would certainly help in understanding right-wing libertarianism overall.

I agree that The Law is a very important work to read in order to understand libertarian philosophy. Bastiat also was one of the originators of the "broken window theory" of economics, which Miseans generally support.

*Interesting side note: Bastiat mentions the "Proudhonians" in The Law, and he had a debate with Proudhon at one point (I think about private property?)

[mollymae]

He also influenced Henry Hazlitt, who wrote Economics in One Lesson. Libertarians often suggest this book to people who are curious about libertarianism, so reading it would be helpful in debating libertarians since it is basically an outline of the most common economic-related arguments they use. Hazlitt also explains the broken window theory in this book.

Just curious- would you say this is a moderate libertarian you are debating with, or less moderate?

[Zanthorus]

Interesting side note: Bastiat mentions the "Proudhonians" in The Law, and he had a debate with Proudhon at one point (I think about private property?)

It was actually about interest. The whole debate is online here (http://praxeology.net/FB-PJP-DOI.htm).

[Thirsty Crow]

The last one justifies Orwell's work to be anti-socialist. And that state = socialist is a valid critique. So socialists and communists can talk about transcending the state in a capitalist society all we want, or insist that our ultimate goal is not nationalization, because no matter what the intent, communist = state control, authoritarianism, the end of liberty as we all know it, etc.
This person has no notion whatsoever about linguistics, especially sociolinguistics. Maybe you could point him to the work of the Soviet linguist Mikhail Bakhtin (the gist of one of his arguments is that words are as well "battlefields" of social struggle; they are invested with social interest)
Oh, and he doesn't know what epistemology is. It is NOT a an "element of philosophy that defines how decisions are made" but the philosophical study of the conditions under which knowledge itself is possible. Ethics deals with decisions and their underlying justification.
And he most certainly didn't explain what "pracitical morality of objecitivism" means. Waht he did was to give a doctrinaire reference.

I illustrate that rights, by their definition, can be defined in the context of rights which have a precedent.

Sounds like circular logic to me.
On top of that, historical precedent is a really crappy way of ascertaining human rights. This method could account for the reimposition of barbaric pracitces.

Anarchism |= socialism, regardless of the number of times you assert it. Etymologists fallacy, the fallacy of asserting that an original definition of a term has primary importance over its current definition.

Etymologists fallacy? Not at all, just the struggle over the meaning of a term. And who dictates the current definition of the word? here you should refuse to play his little game in which he granted himself the role of the rule maker. Just ask him who argued, and from which position, this "current meaning".

Bollocks.

[REVLEFT'S BIEGGST MATSER TROL]

"Practical morality is the name of the moral code defined in The Epistemology of Objectivism. I am not suggesting anything. I am stating that practical morality is the proper name of a specific moral code, defined in a formalized epistemology. Epistemology is an element of philosophy that defines how decisions are made, what is right and wrong, and many other questions of the practical application of philosophy."

Might want to point out to this clown that Epistemology is the philospohy of knowlege, not "what is right and wrong." How embarrsing.

"Epistemology (from Greek (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_language) ἐπιστήμη (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%E1%BC%90%CF%80%CE%B9%CF%83%CF%84%CE%AE%CE%BC%CE%B 7) – epistēmē, "knowledge, science" + λόγος (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%CE%BB%CF%8C%CE%B3%CE%BF%CF%82), "logos (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logos)") or theory of knowledge is the branch of philosophy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy) concerned with the nature and scope (limitations) of knowledge (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knowledge).[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistemology#cite_note-0) It addresses the questions:


What is knowledge?
How is knowledge acquired?
What do people know?
How do we know what we know?"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistemology

Since he doesn't even know what the word he is using means..I'm guessing he's just spouting a load of crap in hope you won't see though his bluff.

Additional evidence for this is from how he's spamming fallacy accusations...pretty standard for someone who doesn't actually want to engage in debate - either let your opponent accept that he has made a fuckload of fallacies, and make him look bad, or confuse matters and drag down the debate by having him try and defend himself from numerous accusations.

If you reallly want to continue with this person, who seems to not know what he is talking about at all, i'd imagine just asking him to explain his epistemology of objectivism to you would be a the logical next step? (Unless he's already done that?)...Objectivism being the crankiest, and most lowly regarded branch of libertarianism really.

Tbh, you get a tonnnnne of guys like him on the internet, who spout all this formal crap in such a self righteous, indignant manner, while most likely knowing very little about the subjects they speak. Straight out of the prime libertarian factory of reading a few articles on Mises.org, and thereafter thinking you have the everything there is to know about philosophy, politics, economics exactly right. I wish some psychologist would lauch a study anylysing why libertarianism is the crack of chubby asocial white kids? :S

[RadioRaheem84]

Deliberately misrepresenting my words, "Epistemology is an element of philosophy that defines how decisions are made, what is right and wrong, and many other questions of the practical application of philosophy", certainly doesn't provide you any basis to validate your arguments or point of view.






(In my own words), Epistemology is the necessary branch of philosophy that determines how we come to philosophical conclusions. Each philosophy has as its underpinnings a clear (sometimes maybe not so clear) epistemology that is essential to how it draws its conclusions. Therefore, epistemology is essential to philosophical thought.


Apparently, he contiunes to define his way.

[GPDP]

Honestly, dude? The guy is a completely lost cause. A randroid in every way. He will never stop trying to set the terms of the debate to favor himself, nor will he desist from redefining things to suit his agenda. He's just gonna keep parroting all of his randroid talking points over and over until you give up, at which point he'll smugly proclaim himself the winner of the debate. I know people like that: they "win" debates simply by jibber-jabbering endlessly, and with as many convoluted talking points as possible, until the other person gives up and ends the debate.

So, for your sanity's sake, I suggest you end the debate. It's clear he's bullshitting his way through this, so why play his game and keep at it? Take solace in the fact that you are not as sad as he is.

[RadioRaheem84]

I kind of gathered this much from his first reply! LOL.

I just had hoped I could penetrate through all the randian bs.

Apparently, it's too strong.

Anyone else notice how much they also want to parrot Rand's attitude? It seems like they bathe in her smugness too!

[GPDP]

It's the egoism inherent in objectivism. It's all about ME ME ME. It does weird shit with people's minds.

Also, the main reason I'm suggesting you end the discussion is because it's all private. Had it been on a public forum, that would be a different story. But debating with someone so immersed inside their own bullshit one-on-one makes no sense. All you're doing is giving his views more credit than they deserve to be given.

[RadioRaheem84]

Also, the main reason I'm suggesting you end the discussion is because it's all private. Had it been on a public forum, that would be a different story.

How so?

[GPDP]

How so?

Because then the object becomes to show everyone else watching the debate that your opponent is full of shit and should not be taken seriously. You prevent the further spawning of future objectivist progeny that way. :D

[RadioRaheem84]

Because then the object becomes to show everyone else watching the debate that your opponent is full of shit and should not be taken seriously. You prevent the further spawning of future objectivist progeny that way. :D


Yeah but it would depend on the forum. If I was in an objectivist one, I would most assuredly be hassled by like three at one time backing the original guy up.

[GPDP]

Yeah but it would depend on the forum. If I was in an objectivist one, I would most assuredly be hassled by like three at one time backing the original guy up.

Well yeah, but why would you ever subject yourself to that? lol

[RadioRaheem84]

This person has no notion whatsoever about linguistics, especially sociolinguistics. Maybe you could point him to the work of the Soviet linguist Mikhail Bakhtin (the gist of one of his arguments is that words are as well "battlefields" of social struggle; they are invested with social interest)


Linguistics is not syntactics. They are competing schools of thought about the role of language. One relies on intention and presumed comprehension to engage the meaning making process (the meaning making process refers to Dervin's model of information seeking), the other relies on definitions. Interpretation v. definition.


Oh, and he doesn't know what epistemology is. It is NOT a an "element of philosophy that defines how decisions are made" but the philosophical study of the conditions under which knowledge itself is possible. Ethics deals with decisions and their underlying justification.

Epistemology is the branch of philosophy that studies knowledge. It attempts to answer the basic question: what distinguishes true (adequate) knowledge from false (inadequate) knowledge? Practically, this question translates into issues of scientific methodology: how can one develop theories or models that are better than competing theories? It also forms one of the pillars of the new sciences of cognition, which developed from the information processing approach to psychology, and from artificial intelligence, as an attempt to develop computer programs that mimic a human's capacity to use knowledge in an intelligent way.
I have emphasized the crucial portions of the definition you have chosen to ignore.


Yes. If you wish to know what practical morality is, read The Epistemology of Objectivism.

I will not continue to define intrinsic, nor any mutation of intrinsic, beyond the fact that something which is intrinsic is defined as itself. Definitions are defined, that is a property intrinsic to all definitions. To those who understand (intrinsic identity) no explanation is needed, to those who do not no explanation will suffice.

Ethics pertains to values and motives, not the decision making process (reduction of uncertainty). Good and bad may be part of the decision making process, but they may also be irrelevant to the decision making process. Ethics is only applicable if you prescribe to a morality which requires right and wrong to influence decisions. Practical morality does not require right and wrong to influence the decision making process, only rational self interest (the use of logic to determine which decision will benefit oneself the most).



Sounds like circular logic to me.
On top of that, historical precedent is a really crappy way of ascertaining human rights. This method could account for the reimposition of barbaric pracitces.


True. I do not advocate for the use of precedent to determine any element of the present, I only state that rights can be defined by precedent. Definition by precedent is part of the definition of rights. The use of precedent to determine present illustrates yet another fallacy, the historian's fallacy, or the fallacy of asserting that what once was should now be.


Etymologists fallacy? Not at all, just the struggle over the meaning of a term. And who dictates the current definition of the word? here you should refuse to play his little game in which he granted himself the role of the rule maker. Just ask him who argued, and from which position, this "current meaning".

What you refer to is semantic ambiguity, the theory that the meaning of words is uncertain and subject to the intention of the author and the interpretation of the reader. This model requires that you accept that any combination of characters can mean anything and that no combination of characters has a precise definition. For a premise to be true it must be true in all cases. Symbols (any character used in communication) combine to form data (sets of symbols organized in a fashion), data in context becomes information (data is not information unless it has meaning), information becomes knowledge when it has the potential for use. This is a cornerstone of information theory.


Just ask him who argued, and from which position, this "current meaning".

Nobody did. Clearly you misunderstand lexicography. Definitions are not argued, as argument requires premises which demonstrate cause and consequence. Definitions are observed in use and documented in context (the reason there is more than one definition for any individual entry within a dictionary).

[RadioRaheem84]

Objectivist libertarians are filling up the ranks of many fortune 500 companies, news rooms, rags, and think tanks. John Stewart admitted that most of his writing staff are libertarian, and more libertarian leaning philosophies are being embedded into films. I wouldn't want this type of bile to become a a fad again.
How do we even make sense of their nonsense if they really rely on Rand's own definition of nearly everything!

[RadioRaheem84]

GA Cohen seems to be an analytical Marxist. Apparently, he goes beyond a theory of exploitation being bad because those who do not work take the goods which are produced by those who work. He thinks of it as bad because it takes away autonomy. I am an unfamiliar with his branch of Marxism so I am still reading on it, but is he seems rather unorthodox. While I don't see this as a bad thing, is this another situation where he belongs to a relatively small school that thinks they're Marxist, when they're really not according the overwhelming majority of Marxists?

Thanks

Anyone else feel free to chime in.

[Raúl Duke]

I agree with GPDP, in fact I share his exact views.

Libertarians are hard if not virtually impossible to convince (just like...oh never mind) and it really is a waste of time unless it's in a public sphere (and one where the audience are normal persons who are neither libertarian or leftists; mostly apolitical) where you can frame the debate in a way to expose the fallacies of libertarianism/objectivism. Sometimes they make it easy for you, openly saying that they have contempt for democracy (especially so if they're objectivist or a libertarian from a branch that is not constitutionalism) and sometimes saying that slavery will be permissible; opinions that people normally find "batshit insane."

[Thirsty Crow]

D A M N.
This guy is an utter moron.

Linguistics is not syntactics. They are competing schools of thought about the role of language. One relies on intention and presumed comprehension to engage the meaning making process (the meaning making process refers to Dervin's model of information seeking), the other relies on definitions. Interpretation v. definition.

This is just bollocks. Syntactics is a linguistic discipline that studies syntagmatic relationships within a linguistic unit usually not larger than a sentence. Syntactics studies, in other words, the impact of the order of words within a sentence. He is just making this up, it's unbelievable. And linguistics is the general study of language, not meaning (that would be semantics).

And again, he doesn't understand the interrelationship between language and social reality (in which ideology plays an important role):

Nobody did. Clearly you misunderstand lexicography. Definitions are not argued, as argument requires premises which demonstrate cause and consequence. Definitions are observed in use and documented in context (the reason there is more than one definition for any individual entry within a dictionary).

To be frank, I'm really tired of going through this shit, maybe I'll give it a shot later.

[Raúl Duke]

Might want to point out to this clown that Epistemology is the philospohy of knowlege, not "what is right and wrong." How embarrsing.

"Epistemology (from Greek (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_language) ἐπιστήμη (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%E1%BC%90%CF%80%CE%B9%CF%83%CF%84%CE%AE%CE%BC%CE%B 7) – epistēmē, "knowledge, science" + λόγος (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%CE%BB%CF%8C%CE%B3%CE%BF%CF%82), "logos (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logos)") or theory of knowledge is the branch of philosophy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy) concerned with the nature and scope (limitations) of knowledge (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knowledge).[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistemology#cite_note-0) It addresses the questions:


What is knowledge?
How is knowledge acquired?
What do people know?
How do we know what we know?"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistemology

Since he doesn't even know what the word he is using means..I'm guessing he's just spouting a load of crap in hope you won't see though his bluff.




Good call

The guy is clearly confusing ethics with epistemology.

What's amusing is that I'm betting that while he's blathering about epistemology as morality or what not he probably has a stupid smug look in his face and yet he doesn't know that he doesn't know what the fuck he's talking about. Priceless.


Tbh, you get a tonnnnne of guys like him on the internet, who spout all this formal crap in such a self righteous, indignant manner, while most likely knowing very little about the subjects they speak. Straight out of the prime libertarian factory of reading a few articles on Mises.org, and thereafter thinking you have the everything there is to know about philosophy, politics, economics exactly right. I wish some psychologist would lauch a study anylysing why libertarianism is the crack of chubby asocial white kids? :S

I would love to see such a study.