*promote

Self promoting this video and sending it back into the queue for one more try; last queued Monday, September 27th, 2010 12:22pm PDT - promote requested by original submitter blankfist.

I think blankfist, you're confusing general liberal philosophy (of which libertarianism is a part) with libertarian philosophy.

There's never been a moral message in Star Trek I've ever disagreed with, including this one.

Thing is, libertarians would pick the Ferengi over the Federation in every situation.

Isn't that Q if my memory serves? Q in any shape or form is awesome - but mostly when it's John DeLancie's Q.

What about librarian philosophy?

*philosophy

Adding video to channels (Philosophy) - requested by notarobot.

>> ^NetRunner:

I think blankfist, you're confusing general liberal philosophy (of which libertarianism is a part) with libertarian philosophy.
There's never been a moral message in Star Trek I've ever disagreed with, including this one.
Thing is, libertarians would pick the Ferengi over the Federation in every situation.


Ferengi's entire government structure is about commerce and big business...which is more akin to governments of larger stature.

Roddenberry was a capitalist selling a commie fantasy. Shatner had unkind things to say about ole Gene.

The Ferengi purportedly represent "unfettered" capitalism.

"I think blankfist, you're confusing general liberal philosophy (of which libertarianism is a part) with libertarian philosophy."

Now say it in a vulcan voice. And give it to 20 decimal points while the whole room stares at u.

>> ^gwiz665:

Isn't that Q if my memory serves? Q in any shape or form is awesome - but mostly when it's John DeLancie's Q.


yes but this is another Q from the continuum.

>> ^NetRunner:

I think blankfist, you're confusing general liberal philosophy (of which libertarianism is a part) with libertarian philosophy.
Libertarianism is liberalism. You statists coopted the term and made it a lie. You are not a real liberal. You're a "someone created a wikipedia page calling Democrats liberals" liberal. Therefore, you are correct that this is a general liberal philosophy. But you're incorrect when you claim I'm the one that's confused.

>> ^blankfist:

>> ^NetRunner:
I think blankfist, you're confusing general liberal philosophy (of which libertarianism is a part) with libertarian philosophy.
Libertarianism is liberalism. You statists coopted the term and made it a lie. You are not a real liberal. You're a "someone created a wikipedia page calling Democrats liberals" liberal. Therefore, you are correct that this is a general liberal philosophy. But you're incorrect when you claim I'm the one that's confused.


it's the fucking conservatives that won't pay taxes, now they're after our word meanings. Now you see the violence inherent in the system.

I just wanted to add, that everywhere except the states, "liberal" means you're the opposite of socialist. The terms are confusing too, because there is overlap in some areas.

Both liberal (US terms) and libertarian focuses on freedom, exemplified in issues like abortion rights - moral freedom, you might call it, while libertarian takes it a step further and applies it to money stuff too, like freedom from taxes, freedom to fail and 'freedom' to live in poverty or riches depending on how you use your freedom.

That's how I understand it, anyway.

>> ^marinara:

>> ^blankfist:
>> ^NetRunner:
I think blankfist, you're confusing general liberal philosophy (of which libertarianism is a part) with libertarian philosophy.
Libertarianism is liberalism. You statists coopted the term and made it a lie. You are not a real liberal. You're a "someone created a wikipedia page calling Democrats liberals" liberal. Therefore, you are correct that this is a general liberal philosophy. But you're incorrect when you claim I'm the one that's confused.

it's the fucking conservatives that won't pay taxes, now they're after our word meanings. Now you see the violence inherent in the system.

>> ^blankfist:
Libertarianism is liberalism. You statists coopted the term and made it a lie. You are not a real liberal. You're a "someone created a wikipedia page calling Democrats liberals" liberal. Therefore, you are correct that this is a general liberal philosophy. But you're incorrect when you claim I'm the one that's confused.


But you are confused. You don't understand what liberals are about.

By way of illustration, I'll say it again: I believe this non-DeLancie Q is absolutely correct. I'll go even further, any liberal who disagrees with it is not really a liberal.

Where we differ is that libertarians say "individual rights" means property rights and nothing else, while liberals realize that doesn't protect our basic rights as individuals at all.

My common example these days would be the old practice of businesses refusing to serve blacks. Libertarians think that as far as rights are concerned, the discriminating shop owner has a right to do it, and has a legitimate expectation that law enforcement will uphold his right to do so, right down to physically removing black people from his store if necessary.

To liberals, the issue of rights breaks the other way.

If you are interested in learning about the political philosophy of liberals, read this and its follow-up.

If you just want to be a mindless jerk who constantly refuses to look at what he's so busy insulting, just keep behaving as you always do.

^ Absolutely correct, Thanks Netrunner!

@NetRunner, @marinara

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

Liberalism is libertarianism (with a small "L"). It's always meant the same. I'm not making this shit up. Now, because the term 'liberal' has been coopted by both Dems and Repubs, liberalism is now known as classic liberalism, and progressives are now known as modern liberals.

Liberalism used to mean a belief in individual freedom, and it was a term that arose during the 17th Century Age of Reason, which influenced some of the important early founders of the US. Modern liberals, such as progressives, decidedly do not believe in individual freedom. They believe in civil rights and personal choice for the most part, but they believe the individual's labor should be owned by the state (or at least whatever the state requires), and they tend to believe in the greater good comes before the individual which is classic collectivism vs. individualism.

This is all history. This isn't some Daily Kos, Glenn Beck or whatever else partisan talking point. Hell, the root word of liberal is liber which means free.

NetRunner knows all this, so I'm a bit shocked to see him debating it still.

@marinara, P.S. I'm not a conservative. Libertarians aren't conservatives either. Pass it along.

Wow the irony of your statement is astounding! You engage in partial-truth statements about another group of people in order to try and make your party look better all the while insulting them and trying to reflect your own ignorance upon them. I find it a pathetic attempt at social politics in order to supposedly benefit your group. The problem is that many people see through your little charade. Unfortunately many do not and that's what you prey upon.

Since I was previously a democrat I have a good idea what they are about. There are moralistic qualities that are admirable however they are misguided in many ways as well. I like many of the philosophies of the libertarian group however I don't agree with all of them there either. Your assumption that libertarians would prefer seeing the black man thrown on the street and refused service is rediculous and absurd. You're merely trying to play a race card that really isn't there. I find that many will use the race card when it's their only avenue of recourse. This is VERY pathetic and it actually hurts your cause when you do this.

BTW, nobody likes the Ferengi.


>> ^NetRunner:

But you are confused. You don't understand what liberals are about.
By way of illustration, I'll say it again: I believe this non-DeLancie Q is absolutely correct. I'll go even further, any liberal who disagrees with it is not really a liberal.
Where we differ is that libertarians say "individual rights" means property rights and nothing else, while liberals realize that doesn't protect our basic rights as individuals at all.
My common example these days would be the old practice of businesses refusing to serve blacks. Libertarians think that as far as rights are concerned, the discriminating shop owner has a right to do it, and has a legitimate expectation that law enforcement will uphold his right to do so, right down to physically removing black people from his store if necessary.
To liberals, the issue of rights breaks the other way.
If you are interested in learning about the political philosophy of liberals, read this and its follow-up.
If you just want to be a mindless jerk who constantly refuses to look at what he's so busy insulting, just keep behaving as you always do.

>> ^blankfist:

@NetRunner, @marinara
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_liberalism
Liberalism is libertarianism (with a small "L"). It's always meant the same.

Where on that page does it say classical liberalism and libertarianism are one and the same forever and always? Why is there a separate page for libertarianism?

Have you read the Classical Liberalism wikipedia page you just linked? How about just the first paragraph? Clicked on some of the links? Click on the link for utilitarianism, does that sound like libertarianism, or something a little more like what you don't like about liberalism?

>> ^blankfist:
I'm not making this shit up. Now, because the term 'liberal' has been coopted by both Dems and Repubs, liberalism is now known as classic liberalism, and progressives are now known as modern liberals.

The only thing true here is that you, personally, aren't making this up. It's because there's disagreement between modern liberals about who's staying more true to "classical liberalism" that makes us have to develop separate nomenclature. Personally, I'm not too worried about whether the philosophy I believe in exactly matches what someone came up with in the 17th century. I don't think philosophers conclusively settled all modern arguments about morality and the proper role of the state over 300 years ago.

For example, to really burnish my nerd-cred, the specific thing this not-DeLancie Q is talking about is wanting to commit suicide. John Locke, classical liberal, says that's not his right to do because John Locke doesn't believe in self-ownership, and thinks in fact that people's bodies, minds, and souls are the property of God, so we shouldn't do things like kill ourselves.

>> ^blankfist:
[Liberals] tend to believe in the greater good comes before the individual which is classic collectivism vs. individualism.

Now you're showing your ignorance of classical liberalism. Click the link for utilitarianism. Read John Stuart Mill. Hell, even just read the links from my previous post.

Just educate yourself for once, rather than lashing out at us like we're monsters.

>> ^blankfist:
This is all history. This isn't some Daily Kos, Glenn Beck or whatever else partisan talking point.

Yes, it is history, and you're the one preaching a Glenn Beck vision of liberalism at me. Stop being partisan and listen to what I'm trying to tell you for once.

I'm trying to explain to you what liberalism really is, not what Mises, Reason, and CATO want you to think liberalism is.

Downvote this comment if you think NetRunner is a dumb-dumb.

>> ^ButterflyKisses:

Your assumption that libertarians would prefer seeing the black man thrown on the street and refused service is rediculous and absurd.

http://videosift.com/video/Rand-Paul-Flip-Flops-on-Civil-Rights-Act-Blames-Media?loadcomm=1#comment-1001073

Why would a rationalist care about prison laws? It's virtually impossible for a rationalist in a Western nation to go to prison unless he or she intentionally breaks the law for a chance of gain.

Netrunner, I'd prefer to see his father run again.

I don't quite understand the support for breaking the other way. Why shouldn't a business owner have the right to turn away anyone they wish, for any reason they wish, regardless of whether or not anyone disagrees? Why should they be forced to do something they don't wish to do? Because someone else thinks they're wrong? Does that justify taking away their rights to their own property? Does taking away those rights require a majority? If so, does a majority have that right?

Don't get me wrong; I would find the example abhorrent and would take my business elsewhere, as a turned-away customer is also free to do.

>> ^NetRunner:

My common example these days would be the old practice of businesses refusing to serve blacks. Libertarians think that as far as rights are concerned, the discriminating shop owner has a right to do it, and has a legitimate expectation that law enforcement will uphold his right to do so, right down to physically removing black people from his store if necessary.
To liberals, the issue of rights breaks the other way.

@Xax, I could easily turn that back around -- why is it abhorrent if there's so much moral weight behind property rights working that way?

I would say the reason liberals think the rights break in favor of the customer is because our conception of liberty is an egalitarian one. Everyone should be free to shop wherever they want, so long as they don't individually do something to earn the ire of the proprietor.

Liberals don't think that, @NetRunner. Oh, you meant modern liberals. Gotcha. The kind of self-prescribed liberal that believes they have the solution to curing matters of the heart using the barrel of a gun. That's some real bastardized freedom you got there.

@blankfist, it's not about changing the shop owner's heart, it's about stopping him from taking away other people's liberty.

Your way doesn't change the involvement of guns in the equation. In your case, you expect the state to point the gun at the oppressed, in mine I expected it to be pointed at the oppressor.

Except, of course, in my way you sue after the fact, and guns aren't likely to really come into the picture, whereas your way the shopkeeper expects police to eject unwanted minorities from his property at gunpoint...

@NetRunner, it's this theoretical bigot's store which is created from his labor. If the government can be used to force him to serve people he doesn't want to serve, then the government thereby owns and has a right to his labor.

Being refused service does not take away one's liberty. That's absurd. Forcing people to serve other people is slavery, not liberty.

"Your way doesn't change the involvement of guns in the equation. In your case, you expect the state to point the gun at the oppressed, in mine I expected it to be pointed at the oppressor."

>> ^blankfist:

@NetRunner, it's this theoretical bigot's store which is created from his labor. If the government can be used to force him to serve people he doesn't want to serve, then the government thereby owns and has a right to his labor.

My car is "created" from my labor. If the government can be used to force me to hit my brakes when people jaywalk, then the government thereby owns and has a right to my labor.

Absurdity, in the extreme.

@NetRunner, always with the extreme examples, you. Obviously him operating his store doesn't inflict physical harm on another person. Obviously hitting a jaywalker with your car does.

Absurdity, indeed.

>> ^blankfist:

If the government can be used to force him to serve people he doesn't want to serve, then the government thereby owns and has a right to his labor.

That's the original statement. Now you're saying we're allowed to use the government to force him to do things, if we can prove that physical harm would result from him not doing it?

Most regulation can be justified under this revised standard.

Hell, even things like food stamps, social security, and universal healthcare can be justified under it as well.

@NetRunner, are you purposely trying to be obtuse? Your example is petty is silly, but I'll bite.

I'm saying if someone hits someone with their car, then, yes, they should be held accountable. It doesn't matter if they bought that car or a gun or a walking stick or a pack of gum with their money (labor); it's incidental and irrelevant like most of your argument comparisons.

I am also saying a man's labor should be owned by him and not by others. That has nothing to do with the car he purchases, as long as it's not stolen from him, which would be an act of aggression and he should have full rights to do whatever he can in his power to thwart the theft. Compulsory taxes on his labor, however, is theft. Also forcing him to serve those he chooses not to serve is a form of slavery.

If I forced you to program my website under the threat of violence, would that not be immoral?

>> ^blankfist:
I'm saying if someone hits someone with their car, then, yes, they should be held accountable.

In your opinion, should it make a difference in the eyes of the law what the circumstances were? For example, should there be a difference in penalty for someone saying "fucking jaywalker needs to learn a lesson" and hitting him intentionally, or someone who tries his best to stop but can't?

If the jaywalker dies in both cases, and all that matters is property damages, then those two situations should be equivalent.

Is that the way you think justice should work?

@NetRunner, of course not. I think it's fair to say that the number of people willing to say, "fucking jaywalker needs to learn a lesson" are incredibly few if they exist at all, so I think we're treading in extreme absurdity land again.

I think involuntary manslaughter is a waste of human life as it is today. I don't think locking someone up for an accidental death is productive. First, it doesn't appropriately accommodate the damage party's family because the man behind bars cannot monetarily work off any debt he may owe to them. Secondly, his life is instantly wasted, he can no longer function as a productive member of society, and he becomes a tax burden.

Is that the way you think justice should work?

@blankfist vehicular homicide isn't some myth, people commit murder with their car all the time.

Also, there's a lot of people accidentally killing pedestrians with cars.

We have very different ways of dealing with those situations under the eyes of the law.

Which is to say, the state tells you that you need to hit your brakes, or else they'll violently coerce you.

Just like they tell you to test for salmonella in food before you serve it to people, or else they'll violently coerce you.

And you're okay with letting it do so.

Which, according to the standard of "If the government can be used to force him to [do something] he doesn't want to [do], then the government thereby owns and has a right to his labor," means you're in favor of slavery.

Which means I should violently resist your oppression of people's liberty.

Keep in mind that none of this is my idea; it's your philosophy, consistently applied.

All absurdity that's been involved along the way has been yours.