The Student Room Group

Why can't liberals think for themselves

Scroll to see replies

Reply 60
Avatar for Lord A
Lord A
Original post by Messiah Complex
More assumptions and ad hominem attacks coming now. I completely disagree with Edmund Burke as I'm opposed to conservatism. Yes, I have read his work, some of it at least, and disagree with his viewpoints. Whilst he does make some credible arguments, they're not arguments that I personally morally agree with.
.


Of course people have different viewpoints to me... My entire point here is it is you who does not recognise this. There are facts and then there are opinions. What arguments by Burke are morally uncredible? (name one)
(edited 9 years ago)
Original post by young_guns
My dear fellow, you are confused.

Theft is the unauthorised taking of another's property. Taxation is authorised by the law the of the land, and by necessity and common sense besides.

Are you saying you don't believe in a police force or an army?



Just because it is 'law of the land' doesn't make it moral.
Why is the state authorised to take money at the point of a gun and not other people?

Police force would exist but they would be paid services like anything else. They would have to provide good services or would lose business. The current police do not. They always get paid regardless of their performance. You cannot switch security providers if you feel they are not up to the job.

As for an army there would be no need for one. There is no need to invade other countries and all people would have a gun in their possession.
Switzerland doesn't have any army but instead of all citizens have an assault rifle in their home in case of invasion.
Original post by Lord A
No he didn't. Your not helping.


http://home.comcast.net/~xtxinc/einstein.htm

Of course not...
Original post by Lord A
You've already wrongly dismissed Hayek.


Actually I was entirely correct in my dismissal of Hayek; that dismissal appears to have provoked some bizarre misquotations on your part

I doubt you've read Mises either, his work while extreme is not bad at all. You would know if you bothered to actually read any of it.


Ah yes, the reasoning of the third-rate, right-wing conspiracy theorist intellectual; 'if they don't come to the same conclusions I came to, they're either part of the conspiracy or they "don't get it"'.
Reply 64
Avatar for Lord A
Lord A
Original post by HigherMinion


[h="3"]who copied the theories of Lorentz, Poincare, Gerber, and Hilbert?[/h]
This isn't how science works.
Reply 65
Avatar for Lord A
Lord A
Original post by young_guns
Actually I was entirely correct in my dismissal of Hayek; that dismissal appears to have provoked some bizarre misquotations on your part



Ah yes, the reasoning of the third-rate, right-wing conspiracy theorist intellectual; 'if they don't come to the same conclusions I came to, they're either part of the conspiracy or they "don't get it"'.


And subsequently the musings of a left wing conspiracy theorist intellectual... You are the one dismissing fact. What edition of the work are you using?
Original post by Falcatas

Switzerland doesn't have any army but instead of all citizens have an assault rifle in their home in case of invasion.


Actually, it does

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_of_Switzerland#Land_Forces

And the idea that simply by adopting a bunch of whacky right-wing ideas, we will be protected from the military power of other countries, is utterly clueless and iditioc
Original post by Lord A
Of course people have different viewpoints to me... My entire point here is it is you who does not recognise this. Look at your avatar. There are facts and then there are opinions. What arguments by Burke are morally uncredible? (name one)


That property is essential to human life. That is probably the main thing I disagree with him on and the arguments that stem from that. You're entitled to your opinion but you're not going to change mine as I've already come to a conclusion based on extensive reading I've done. If your goal was to come on here and tried to get me to become more conservative then you're just blowing hot air.

Also, again, stop with the ad hominem attacks.
Original post by Lord A
And subsequently the musings of a left wing conspiracy theorist intellectual...


Is that the best you have? "I know you are, but what am I?". Struggling, really struggling. Though not surprising, given you appear unable to get along even with those on your own "side"

You are the one dismissing fact.


Is that what you call your crackpot ideas? If you say so.
Reply 69
Avatar for Lord A
Lord A
Original post by Messiah Complex
That property is essential to human life. That is probably the main thing I disagree with him on and the arguments that stem from that. You're entitled to your opinion but you're not going to change mine as I've already come to a conclusion based on extensive reading I've done. If your goal was to come on here and tried to get me to become more conservative then you're just blowing hot air.

Also, again, stop with the ad hominem attacks.


Don't be silly, i'm not foolish enough to think that I could 'convert' you. Nor are ad hominem attacks my prefered method, I am pointing out your insistence on arguments to authority.
I swear to God. Liberalism is RIGHT wing.
Reply 71
Avatar for Lord A
Lord A
Original post by young_guns
Is that the best you have? "I know you are, but what am I?". Struggling, really struggling. Though not surprising, given you appear unable to get along even with those on your own "side"



Is that what you call your crackpot ideas? If you say so. Good luck being a proponent of these ideas if you want to progress at all in public life.


So the value of an idea is determined by its acceptance? No. You have still yet to answer the question: 'What edition of the work are you using'. I think you got some dodgy pdf copy online which is why you're ignoring it. It is absolutely fact that Hayek supported social insurance, he wrote it in another work

"here is no reason why in a free society government should not assure to all, protection against severe deprivation in the form of an assured minimum income, or a floor below which nobody need descend. To enter into such an insurance against extreme misfortune may well be in the interest of all; or it may be felt to be a clear moral duty of all to assist, within the organised community, those who cannot help themselves. So long as such a uniform minimum income is provided outside the market to all those who, for any reason, are unable to earn in the market an adequate maintenance, this need not lead to a restriction of freedom, or conflict with the Rule of Law"

Law, Legislation and Liberty 1973
Original post by Lord A
Of course people have different viewpoints to me... My entire point here is it is you who does not recognise this. Look at your avatar. There are facts and then there are opinions. What arguments by Burke are morally uncredible? (name one)


Looks like Messiah has utterly disembowelled you, intellectually speaking

It's probably sensible to slink away at this point, to save your dignity (such as it remains intact)
Original post by young_guns
Actually, it does

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_of_Switzerland#Land_Forces

And the idea that simply by adopting a bunch of whacky right-wing ideas, we will be protected from the military power of other countries, is utterly clueless and iditioc


We wouldn't need much protection if we stopped dropping bombs on other countries.

Isn't it fascinating the that the most internally free states like America are more aggressive in foreign policy than unfree states like the former USSR.
Reply 74
Avatar for Lord A
Lord A
Original post by young_guns
Looks like Messiah has utterly disembowelled you, intellectually speaking

It's probably sensible to slink away at this point, to save your dignity (such as it remains intact)


Unfortunately for you, you have no authority, certainly not when it comes to intellectual matters; since you dismiss fact at will when being given opposing evidence. Messiah has no intellectual capacity; he has done nothing more than recite authority, you're agreeing with him because he agrees with you.
Original post by Lord A
So the value of an idea is determined by its acceptance? No.


Actually, to some degree, yes; and you can't disagree with that proposition if you believe in a free market of ideas.

Your position is the equivalent of some crackpot inventor claiming his product is 'inherently' worth a million pounds even though the market will only pay a dollar
Original post by Lord A
Unfortunately for you, you have no authority


How do you define/measure 'authority'? Or must we accept this fatuous, subjective concept you offer us at face value?

Messiah has no intellectual capacity


Now that is utterly ungentlemanly; it seems to me that you are getting hot under the collar. You should apologise for that intemperate remark

he has done nothing more than recite authority, you're agreeing with him because he agrees with you


I'm agreeing with him, (a) because he's right, (b) because he's making an utter fool of you.

I know that frustrates you, but you really should learn to control your emotions
Reply 77
Avatar for Lord A
Lord A
Original post by young_guns
Actually, to some degree, yes; and you can't disagree with that proposition if you believe in a free market of ideas.

Your position is the equivalent of some crackpot inventor claiming his product is 'inherently' worth a million pounds even though the market will only pay a dollar


I don't even support the free market... bloody hell your insistence on denying facts is unbelievable. I am a moderate social democrat.

Once again you avoid the question, worse yet you ignore more evidence to the contrary of your views.

You are a hypocrite. Good day. To quote Popper '“No rational argument will have a rational effect on a man who does not want to adopt a rational attitude.”

I am not emotional, my language is emotional because I have no respect for people who deny facts. I know I have no chance of convincing you with logic, as you have just demonstrated.

Nice one playing the subjectivity card. The last refuge of the scoundrel.
(edited 9 years ago)
Original post by Falcatas
We wouldn't need much protection if we stopped dropping bombs on other countries.

Isn't it fascinating the that the most internally free states like America are more aggressive in foreign policy than unfree states like the former USSR.


I would make two points. The first is that I agree; it is a paradox that, while enjoying considerable internal freedom, we in the west inflict substantial amounts of violence on others (look at the numbers killed by the Iraq sanctions in the 1990s, in Yugoslavia, in the Libya campaign, etc)

On the other hand, it wouldn't be fair to say the former USSR is peaceable; Russia's intervention in Ukraine puts paid to such an idea. Furthermore, their lack of external interventions probably has more to do with lack of capability, lack of money, than a peaceable nature
I see nobody he replied to my posts on this thread. I wonder why.

Quick Reply

Related discussions

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you