The Free Talk Live BBS
Free Talk Live => The Rubber Room - Not Safe for Work => Topic started by: marmenthol on December 03, 2010, 04:48:20 PM
-
http://www.dancarlin.com/phpbb3/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=24515
-
flood em with posiitve comments
-
Interesting to read the typical Dan Carlin listener's view, particularly of Ian. I listen to Carlin and forgive him for his latent statism, but you can tell how people really feel about Ian when they're not particularly principled. Really, integrity and principles seem to be his strengths, and when they're unappreciated, his faults are greatly magnified. (Yes, I'm quite aware I also have faults.)
-
wait a sec... marmenthol is actually a love human and not a spambot?
-
Really, integrity and principles seem to be his strengths, and when they're unappreciated, his faults are greatly magnified.
He's just been hanging around the Keene Libertarian Ghetto too long.
-
I read the comments on the thread at the Hardcore History forum.
Seems like several of the resident posters were trying to find every reason to explain how freedom is fundamentally flawed because they couldn't think up a solution to a pet issue which didn't rely on the violence to get what they wanted. They used the status quo of state violence as a crutch for their lack of ethical reasoning and as a justification for accusing Ian of being an 'idealist'.
Ideals are the compass by which people try to find ethical/moral direction and satisfaction. Holding ideals does not imply that one is out of touch with 'reality'. In fact, the better your ideals, the better your understanding of the world you live in and how to move in such a direction that your ideals are more likely to be realized. Believing you can force others to do what you want to achieve an ideal is fantasy (socialism, communism, involuntary democracy). It's intellectual sloth and tyranny to obligate others to your own ideals.
One issue in particular which came up was zoning... as if people couldn't figure out how to conveniently structure their property on their own without being dictated to by a panel of bureaucrats who have no financial stake in the matter. Moral hazard ring any bells? The economization and compartmentalization of human interests and industry is a natural activity of civilization and markets.
To turn the question around, who should have the authority to tell you how to use your own property without consent? If you can't answer this one without arbitrary claims of authority to politicians and bureaucrats, then the next question, however secondary to the heart of the issue, can be asked: How and why is your particular solution for the organization of people and their assets validated as being the most satisfactory/economical/ideal to the individuals you would involve? Are you therefore claiming that your ideals are more important than the ideals of other individuals? Again, why do you have the authority to justify your values be forced on someone else?
Why is the initiation of force viable in any situation?
It's only difficult to answer if you assume others know better how a society should function, and your profession of uncertainty leads you to unquestionably yield at every instance an authority would command you to. It's easy to be ruled by fear that way.