Turn on thread page Beta

The Commons Bar Mk IV watch

Announcements
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tehFrance)
    Sex Bill? please don't tell me they are banning sex it better be about better sex education as when it comes to sex this country is full of prudes :pierre:
    Tis a Liber bill - never gonna happen. :p:

    I have a feeling half of our party will agree, and half won't.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tehFrance)
    Sex Bill? please don't tell me they are banning sex it better be about better sex education as when it comes to sex this country is full of prudes :pierre:
    Yes, the Libertarians are banning sex. :rolleyes:
    • PS Reviewer
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    PS Reviewer
    Damn authoritarian Libertarians.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    Omg, I'm allowed in this thread again :teehee:
    Offline

    15
    (Original post by jesusandtequila)
    Yes, the Libertarians are banning sex. :rolleyes:
    Well you never know... you could of done.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tehFrance)
    Well you never know... you could of done.
    You do know what Libertarians stand for, right?

    From the wiki :

    "The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilised community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others.”
    John Stuart Mill

    That is, in one line, what TSR Libertarian Party believe in. We believe that each and every adult is the sole and sovereign owner of their life and legitimately owned property; thus people should have the freedom to live in whatever manner they desire, so long as they do not infringe upon the freedom of others to do the same. Therefore, the main function of Government should be the defence of the individual against force or fraud by others. We believe in individual liberty, personal responsibility, and freedom from needless Government intervention in both social issues and economic affairs.
    Offline

    15
    (Original post by jesusandtequila)
    You do know what Libertarians stand for, right?
    :facepalm: it was a lame attempt at humour
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jesusandtequila)
    You do know what Libertarians stand for, right?

    From the wiki :

    "The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilised community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others.”
    John Stuart Mill

    That is, in one line, what TSR Libertarian Party believe in. We believe that each and every adult is the sole and sovereign owner of their life and legitimately owned property; thus people should have the freedom to live in whatever manner they desire, so long as they do not infringe upon the freedom of others to do the same. Therefore, the main function of Government should be the defence of the individual against force or fraud by others. We believe in individual liberty, personal responsibility, and freedom from needless Government intervention in both social issues and economic affairs.
    That's the Harm Principle :yep: Good stuff. You would also like Ayn Rand.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    I think he knows what it is
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by magnum.opus)
    That's the Harm Principle :yep: Good stuff. You would also like Ayn Rand.
    I don't like Rand, or objectivism, actually.

    The fundamental axiom of identity: A is A does not hold. I know that sounds ridiculous, but consider the implications. The identity axioms states that things are identical with their properties and characteristics. This implicitly denied quantum theory (since particles themselves do not have properties, therefore particles do not exist so the world around us does not exist) and relativity theory (because the axiom of identity implies objectivity of knowledge - contradictory with relativity theory).

    Furthermore, she maintains that reason is the only way to garner knowledge, and thus all knowledge is objective. That is fundamentally false (As shown by her views on art), as much knowledge interpreted from art is subjective, for example, much of it is down to opinion, and there is no 'better' art than another. It is relative and subjective.

    She contradicts herself with regards causation/free will. She takes a deterministic view on causation (fitting considering she implicitly rejects quantum theory, the refutation of determinism) but then goes onto argue that we have free will. Free will is not compatible with a deterministic view on causation. Simply, things are already determined or they are not, the being makes little difference.

    From a political point of view she shows no justification with majority rule. If the government is one only involved in the defence of rights, with no coercion by way of taxation, economic regulation or social control then everybody, including newborns should have the right to vote. If it is one that violates rights, no-one should have the right to vote (why should the majority decide which rights are violated?). Rand never justifies the legitimacy of government, she only sets out limits to it. Anarchy is the only ethical solution from her axioms, yet she recognised it (perhaps incorrectly) as impractical.

    Rand fails to solve the is-ought gap, you cannot derive an ought from an is, with sound logic. From just facts you cannot derive morals, as morals themselves require a value judgement, an ought to start with. Anyone attempting to do this has sneaked in an implicit value judgement from which they derive other ethics, else they are logically invalid. Indeed, for Rand she assumes that death is morally wrong. She argues that productive work to survive is man qua man, but yet for those that prefer death to survival, are their preferences morally evil? Certainly in fitting with Mill's non-aggression axiom they are not.

    She subscribes to the view that there is an objective theory of value (implied by the objective view of knowledge), that values are a real product of physiology and external reality, and cannot be arbitrary, falsified or devised. This doesn't with with the Austrian School of Economics (who's policies she advocates with gusto) and the subjective theory of value. That value changes depending on situation, whims and wants of individuals, fashion and other arbitrary things. Also, the law of diminishing marginal utility means that for each unit bought, the value decreases. This is true, yet Rand implicitly refutes it.

    Furthermore, she provides no argument for her system of entitlement-rights based upon property rights. Especially with fitting her definition of man qua man (productive work) then what of the landowner who can charge rent for his land which does nothing productive yet he survives. He is akin to the thief yet she tries to ethically justify a system of entitlement based upon private land ownership.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cambo211)
    I think he knows what it is
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tehFrance)
    :facepalm: it was a lame attempt at humour
    That much is true.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by paddy__power)
    Damn authoritarian Libertarians.
    We're awful, aren't we.

    Made a dent on the reading, by chance?
    Offline

    15
    (Original post by jesusandtequila)
    That much is true.
    I'm not amused... most likely as I am currently sober :cry:
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jesusandtequila)
    I don't like Rand, or objectivism, actually.

    The fundamental axiom of identity: A is A does not hold. I know that sounds ridiculous, but consider the implications. The identity axioms states that things are identical with their properties and characteristics. This implicitly denied quantum theory (since particles themselves do not have properties, therefore particles do not exist so the world around us does not exist) and relativity theory (because the axiom of identity implies objectivity of knowledge - contradictory with relativity theory).

    Furthermore, she maintains that reason is the only way to garner knowledge, and thus all knowledge is objective. That is fundamentally false (As shown by her views on art), as much knowledge interpreted from art is subjective, for example, much of it is down to opinion, and there is no 'better' art than another. It is relative and subjective.

    She contradicts herself with regards causation/free will. She takes a deterministic view on causation (fitting considering she implicitly rejects quantum theory, the refutation of determinism) but then goes onto argue that we have free will. Free will is not compatible with a deterministic view on causation. Simply, things are already determined or they are not, the being makes little difference.

    From a political point of view she shows no justification with majority rule. If the government is one only involved in the defence of rights, with no coercion by way of taxation, economic regulation or social control then everybody, including newborns should have the right to vote. If it is one that violates rights, no-one should have the right to vote (why should the majority decide which rights are violated?). Rand never justifies the legitimacy of government, she only sets out limits to it. Anarchy is the only ethical solution from her axioms, yet she recognised it (perhaps incorrectly) as impractical.

    Rand fails to solve the is-ought gap, you cannot derive an ought from an is, with sound logic. From just facts you cannot derive morals, as morals themselves require a value judgement, an ought to start with. Anyone attempting to do this has sneaked in an implicit value judgement from which they derive other ethics, else they are logically invalid. Indeed, for Rand she assumes that death is morally wrong. She argues that productive work to survive is man qua man, but yet for those that prefer death to survival, are their preferences morally evil? Certainly in fitting with Mill's non-aggression axiom they are not.

    She subscribes to the view that there is an objective theory of value (implied by the objective view of knowledge), that values are a real product of physiology and external reality, and cannot be arbitrary, falsified or devised. This doesn't with with the Austrian School of Economics (who's policies she advocates with gusto) and the subjective theory of value. That value changes depending on situation, whims and wants of individuals, fashion and other arbitrary things. Also, the law of diminishing marginal utility means that for each unit bought, the value decreases. This is true, yet Rand implicitly refutes it.

    Furthermore, she provides no argument for her system of entitlement-rights based upon property rights. Especially with fitting her definition of man qua man (productive work) then what of the landowner who can charge rent for his land which does nothing productive yet he survives. He is akin to the thief yet she tries to ethically justify a system of entitlement based upon private land ownership.
    I'll respond later when I have time to read this
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    I'll be surprised if you respond at all. The issue was briefly, but superbly blown out of the water.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Stricof)
    I'll be surprised if you respond at all. It was superbly blown out of the water.
    Well, I do try.

    It's merely that she tries to derive something from too few moral axioms, and when you do that, small errors in those axioms can cause the whole philosophy to unravel (as it does in this case).

    Ta for the rep, btw.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Stricof)
    QFA
    Your sig is awesome.
    My favourite part is where he rips Donald Trump. Specifically, "Donald Trump says he's friends with the blacks. Unless the blacks is a white upper class family I very much doubt that."
    Or something to that effect.

    I found that highly amusing.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    Guys can we stop all this Donald Trump bashing? I have one video that sums up our feelings in the most pathetic-American-Sports way possible:




    It's a shame wrestling isn't real - if it was, I would watch it. :moon:
    Offline

    5
    ReputationRep:
    My latest article for LibDem Voice http://ldv.org.uk/24058
 
 
 
Poll
Cats or dogs?

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.