Take Yer "Liberty" And Shove It!

[Sam Gunn (since nobody got Admiral Naismith)]

You're still stuck in a pigeonhole you can't escape, though.

It's called Nihilism.

+1.

I think I said this exactly a couple weeks ago to him also...

[error]

The only logical end of nihilism is suicide. Go for it.

This has been one of the better trolls I've seen on the BBS in quite a while.

[Peppermint Pig]

The "NAP" will not be "internalized", because the NAP is bullshit. As I mentioned ...it's just a veil to cover up the ugliness.

People can recognize the imperfect nature of the world and still value an ideal such as non-aggression. Your position is predicated on the notion that the NAP is bullshit, which isn't an actual argument. If people, in understanding the NAP, choose therefore to not initiate force on someone then it is not bullshit, and it's not a veil. It is effective and informative proof of the non-aggression principle in action.

I bring up Lew Rockwell because he is a sort of iconic figure in the movement, and since he is rich, and no romantic homeless vagrant spewing sublime and divine teachings, Rockwell can be used as an example for the libertarian ways, that is, pure exploitation in order to maintain a life of comfort.

You have no grasp of value theory whatsoever. If being rich makes someone's arguments wrong, how rich, or how poor must someone be in order to be correct? How does that make any fucking sense at all? Who has the authority to decide who is right?

Just because you give money to someone who is 'poor' doesn't mean your arguments are correct or that you're a good person, particularly if you take that money forcefully from someone else, according to the NAP. Under what ethical principle do you justify your position? 

Rockwell's veils of "liberty" and "freedom" are merely there to cover up his elitism, and desire to subjugate. And that's why I say...no matter what....somebody will have to clean Lew Rockwell's dirty shorts, but I'm not going to do it....nor will I continue to try to convince others into doing it ....by promoting a conceptual trap called "Liberty".

You're basing your position on what Rockwell thinks and then projecting that onto libertarianism.

Absolute liberty isn't possible. Is that why you're a nihilist, because you're frustrated that the universe doesn't afford you a utopia? You do not speak like you understand libertarianism at all.

And I don't "as if you believe you are the first person to ever discover that the world is imperfect and people can use imagery...blah blah blah." But, sometimes people need to be reminded of these things, otherwise, that search for "truth" may go on forever, while the individual forever gets ripped off by swindlers and hustlers.

Yes, you do, and you do it again in the same paragraph. You run away from the mere mention of a philosophical or ethical debate to attack Lew Rockwell and claim people are frauds.. but frauds according to what? Your own non-committal ranting? IF you wanted to discuss libertarian ideology, then you wouldn't be going through all this avoidance.
   

[cavalier973]

I'm not sure why Pubella thinks Lew Rockwell is an "oppressor" or "swindler"; he offers a service (a website with information on liberty), which people can accept or reject.  The continual reference to someone being forced to clean Rockwell's dirty undergarments makes me suspicious:
Are you, in fact, Lew Rockwell's wife?

[Amazing Richard]

The "NAP" will not be "internalized", because the NAP is bullshit. As I mentioned ...it's just a veil to cover up the ugliness.

People can recognize the imperfect nature of the world and still value an ideal such as non-aggression. Your position is predicated on the notion that the NAP is bullshit, which isn't an actual argument. If people, in understanding the NAP, choose therefore to not initiate force on someone then it is not bullshit, and it's not a veil. It is effective and informative proof of the non-aggression principle in action.

I bring up Lew Rockwell because he is a sort of iconic figure in the movement, and since he is rich, and no romantic homeless vagrant spewing sublime and divine teachings, Rockwell can be used as an example for the libertarian ways, that is, pure exploitation in order to maintain a life of comfort.

You have no grasp of value theory whatsoever. If being rich makes someone's arguments wrong, how rich, or how poor must someone be in order to be correct? How does that make any fucking sense at all? Who has the authority to decide who is right?

Just because you give money to someone who is 'poor' doesn't mean your arguments are correct or that you're a good person, particularly if you take that money forcefully from someone else, according to the NAP. Under what ethical principle do you justify your position? 

Rockwell's veils of "liberty" and "freedom" are merely there to cover up his elitism, and desire to subjugate. And that's why I say...no matter what....somebody will have to clean Lew Rockwell's dirty shorts, but I'm not going to do it....nor will I continue to try to convince others into doing it ....by promoting a conceptual trap called "Liberty".

You're basing your position on what Rockwell thinks and then projecting that onto libertarianism.

Absolute liberty isn't possible. Is that why you're a nihilist, because you're frustrated that the universe doesn't afford you a utopia? You do not speak like you understand libertarianism at all.

And I don't "as if you believe you are the first person to ever discover that the world is imperfect and people can use imagery...blah blah blah." But, sometimes people need to be reminded of these things, otherwise, that search for "truth" may go on forever, while the individual forever gets ripped off by swindlers and hustlers.

Yes, you do, and you do it again in the same paragraph. You run away from the mere mention of a philosophical or ethical debate to attack Lew Rockwell and claim people are frauds.. but frauds according to what? Your own non-committal ranting? IF you wanted to discuss libertarian ideology, then you wouldn't be going through all this avoidance.
   

You make too many words.... ideas....and quotes. And then when I don't address every single thing in yer flurry of things, you suggest that I am trying to avoid something.

I don't know what else to say:

Q: What is a conceptual trap?

A: "Liberty" is a conceptual trap.

Q: Why is "liberty" a conceptual trap?

A: Because the foundational practice of existence is mere survival, while striving for pleasure over pain, and so whatever techniques to achieve such a goal will be employed...and this includes the designs of concepts...such as "liberty". And all of these techniques are disingenuous, and so therefore....The NAP Is Crap...and Crap Is The NAP.

And so therefore...it is all about exploitation in this quest for comfort. Lew Rockwell is the "poster boy" of this.

[Amazing Richard]

I'm not sure why Pubella thinks Lew Rockwell is an "oppressor" or "swindler"; he offers a service (a website with information on liberty), which people can accept or reject.  The continual reference to someone being forced to clean Rockwell's dirty undergarments makes me suspicious:
Are you, in fact, Lew Rockwell's wife?

You just opened up a can of worms! Are women mere shitty underpants washers??? This is why chicks want to marry rich guys...like Rockwell, so that they don't have to do degrading work like that. When the chick becomes rich, she can just pass that job onto some illegal mexican....and then sip on her Pina Colada ....or whatever the fuck that rich chicks do.

[cavalier973]

You just opened up a can of worms! Are women mere shitty underpants washers??? This is why chicks want to marry rich guys...like Rockwell, so that they don't have to do degrading work like that. When the chick becomes rich, she can just pass that job onto some illegal mexican....and then sip on her Pina Colada ....or whatever the fuck that rich chicks do.

Okay...so this whole rant is about illegal immigration, then?

[Peppermint Pig]

You make too many words.... ideas....and quotes. And then when I don't address every single thing in yer flurry of things, you suggest that I am trying to avoid something.

I'm not expecting you to respond to everything I'm saying. But when you choose to comment or critique on what I say, try actually addressing the content of my post. Your non sequitur assertions are an avoidance tactic.

This...

Q: What is a conceptual trap?

A: "Liberty" is a conceptual trap.

Q: Why is "liberty" a conceptual trap?

A: Because the foundational practice of existence is mere survival, while striving for pleasure over pain, and so whatever techniques to achieve such a goal will be employed...and this includes the designs of concepts...such as "liberty". And all of these techniques are disingenuous, and so therefore....The NAP Is Crap...and Crap Is The NAP.

and this...

And so therefore...it is all about exploitation in this quest for comfort. Lew Rockwell is the "poster boy" of this.

are conflicting statements. If existence is mere survival, and creatures inevitably take advantage of other creatures to survive, then to argue it is exploitation is irrelevant as this is an opinion of subjective moral value and therefore outside the realm of ontological discourse. The NAP is also irrelevant in this framework, as is any ethical argument you're trying to drive home with, especially these specious and derisive Lew Rockwell statements of yours. So... disingenuous? According to what??? A world absent of any values, except of course the ones you decide are relevant?

[Amazing Richard]

You make too many words.... ideas....and quotes. And then when I don't address every single thing in yer flurry of things, you suggest that I am trying to avoid something.

I'm not expecting you to respond to everything I'm saying. But when you choose to comment or critique on what I say, try actually addressing the content of my post. Your non sequitur assertions are an avoidance tactic.

This...

Q: What is a conceptual trap?

A: "Liberty" is a conceptual trap.

Q: Why is "liberty" a conceptual trap?

A: Because the foundational practice of existence is mere survival, while striving for pleasure over pain, and so whatever techniques to achieve such a goal will be employed...and this includes the designs of concepts...such as "liberty". And all of these techniques are disingenuous, and so therefore....The NAP Is Crap...and Crap Is The NAP.

and this...

And so therefore...it is all about exploitation in this quest for comfort. Lew Rockwell is the "poster boy" of this.

are conflicting statements. If existence is mere survival, and creatures inevitably take advantage of other creatures to survive, then to argue it is exploitation is irrelevant as this is an opinion of subjective moral value and therefore outside the realm of ontological discourse. The NAP is also irrelevant in this framework, as is any ethical argument you're trying to drive home with, especially these specious and derisive Lew Rockwell statements of yours. So... disingenuous? According to what??? A world absent of any values, except of course the ones you decide are relevant?

I don't give a shit if you don't think I'm relevant. I'm making statements based on my observations ...and I guess that's the best I can do. I CERTAINLY am not trying to be a pretentious show off ...like you, by using big words like "ontological" ....and things like that. I don't need to use those words to make my point. I don't even need to use "logic" or whatever to make my point. I don't even need to make a point.

I can tell that you are getting all freaked by my method of approach. You want to throw all kinds of words at me like "ontological"...as if it's going to make my knees buckle. You can't argue with me...because there is nothing to argue with.

[Terror Australis]

death=freedom from choice.

[Peppermint Pig]

I don't give a shit if you don't think I'm relevant.

That's fine. I'm discussing your ideas. I never suggested whether you were or not.

...and I guess that's the best I can do. I CERTAINLY am not trying to be a pretentious show off ...like you, by using big words like "ontological" ....and things like that. I don't need to use those words to make my point. I don't even need to use "logic" or whatever to make my point. I don't even need to make a point.

I can tell that you are getting all freaked by my method of approach. You want to throw all kinds of words at me like "ontological"...as if it's going to make my knees buckle.

If you're not intimidated by the use of big words, then why are you complaining?? If you're offended by the use of words to explain a position, you're in the wrong place.

Pull up your big kid pants, princess. The burden of proof is on you to prove your position with, yes, the use of logic, deduction, or empirical evidence. You're not willing to have that discussion...

You can't argue with me...because there is nothing to argue with.

Yet more deflection and avoidance. Well aren't you a philosopher king, or princess rather...