Why so many bleeding-hearts?

[GhostWriter16]

Just to play devil's advocate, was Vader really on the wrong side, or just the losing side? The Empire, from what I can tell, was a well oiled machine and efficient administrator of a galactic-wide civilization. Were the Sith truly evil, or just misunderstood victims of a dogmatic religious mystical power cult?

I've devil's advocated this argument. It does work, but only with a far stronger appeal to authority than I'm willing to consider.

No offense of course, sonny, but when you patch up the holes in your education you may learn to think more clearly. I suggest some remedial night school classes, preferably state provided.

Of course the state will teach you to love the state
I liked your Darth Vader avatar, it suited you.

Adheres to a fundamentalist branch of an outdated religion? Check.

True.

Considers death an adequate punishment for almost everything? Check.

Only for murder or in self-defense (The latter not being a punishment).

Follows a philosophy of individualism but in fact supports an authoritarian status quo? Check.

How?

Worships an evil senator blindly and wishes to give him absolute power? Check.

RP is a house rep (Since I know that's who you would refer to.) And I wouldn't actually want to give him absolute power.

Being ultimately on the wrong side of the conflict? Check.

No.

 

[Ailedhoo]

Of course the state will teach you to love the state

Because the state controls the mind of each and every individual teacher.

Have you checked the praticallity of issues? Of how the education system works?

Of course freedom can only come from company run schools that teach you to love their companies. And yes I counter this view with the first comment but it does show a circle.

Note however that I wish to see the limit of powers of both goverment and companies for the general will. Such as a liberal (which despite what Ronny teachers you are actually skepitcal of goverment) and socialist. I also do no want thinks to be lawless, hence will I see the need of a structure instead of attempting to throw the baby out of the bath water.

I liked your Darth Vader avatar, it suited you.

"Reflect" is a move that is has a chance of success. It failed in this case: especilly as the figure gave reasons as he did.

RP is a house rep (Since I know that's who you would refer to.) And I wouldn't actually want to give him absolute power.

I presumed you were joking in the "America needs a king" thread but the way you treat him to the point where I am starting to think he might be reguarded as your messiah. I admit that a great many of peoples conduct in hero (hero by each of their own definitions of course) worship but blind hero worship.

Anyway here is a peice on why people might reguard Paul as... "questionable."

Corporate power, like state power, can be abused. Democracy as a structure is one which attempts to limite the power that can bs abused.

No.

Subject failed to give reason. Subject respond to failed to define sides too (there are many sides to certain shapes) I have to admit but the joke was the main focus I have to admit too...

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

most nerds seem to be wimpy individuals who need someone (big government) to be their mommy and daddy. Us real men are libertarians.

I bet that Adam Lanza kid was a democrat. He couldn't live without his mommy.

No offense to present company of course. I'm sure some day you will all grow up, and when you are older, you will see the error of your ways. Young people tend to be liberal and socialist. I was a socialist in high school. I think it's pretty common.

All the libertarians I've ever met were emasculated men with social issues or women into light bondage.

And I'm sure we've all seen this image before:

 

[Borachio]

Hmm. I seem to fit in somewhere between naive and stoned.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Why do the majority of people here seem to consist of moderate to extreme leftists? Is it affected by the nationality or region from where they come?

If bleeding heart is synonymous for empathic, then the answer is because we're a really lovely bunch of coconuts.

If being empathic is an indication one is left-wing, well then you've just attributed the high ground to us, thanks for that

It does have the downside that you're implying that being right-wing one needs to be ego-centric. Which is a trait which ruins the fantasy of a government-light or -free society.

So, my counter question is, why do you deride the quality most necessary for your utopian world view?

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

"Schwartz created a slight breach of etiquette by skipping the triple dare and going right for the throat!"

 

[Lord of Elves]

most nerds seem to be wimpy individuals who need someone (big government) to be their mommy and daddy. Us real men are libertarians.

I bet that Adam Lanza kid was a democrat. He couldn't live without his mommy.

No offense to present company of course. I'm sure some day you will all grow up, and when you are older, you will see the error of your ways. Young people tend to be liberal and socialist. I was a socialist in high school. I think it's pretty common.

Yes, I know it's hard that being popular in high school isn't a vocation.

 

[Mouthwash]

If bleeding heart is synonymous for empathic, then the answer is because we're a really lovely bunch of coconuts.

If being empathic is an indication one is left-wing, well then you've just attributed the high ground to us, thanks for that

It does have the downside that you're implying that being right-wing one needs to be ego-centric. Which is a trait which ruins the fantasy of a government-light or -free society.

So, my counter question is, why do you deride the quality most necessary for your utopian world view?

What utopian worldview? What do you think I am?

And why is this thread so popular?

 

[Antilogic]

We like jackin' the ripper.

 

[GhostWriter16]

All the libertarians I've ever met were emasculated men with social issues or women into light bondage.

And I'm sure we've all seen this image before:

I don't really consider "Left-wing" libertarians to actually be libertarians. I usually subscribe to the "Big-tent" but what is commonly called "Left-libertarian" is a completely different ideology from right-libertarianism. I admit we probably stole the word first, but still. I wouldn't object even to calling you guys libertarians and calling us minimalists if you really want to (especially since its the left-wingers and Objectivists that care much more about "Philosophy" and what not, whereas most right-wing Rothbard types [Or Paul-type minarchists] generally consider libertarianism primarily or exclusively a theory on politics.)

I think its even worse, for the record, when people who are pro-premptive war claim to be libertarian. That's just offensive, probably to left AND right libertarians.

Regarding the "Bizarrely hypocritical" one, I think abortion is a pathetic example to use for it. Abortion actually has an arguable victim, and whether you agree with them or not, it is at least able to be argued that there's a victim (Within the context of libertarianism, which does not allow for "Society" or "The law" as a victim.)

And regarding "Whitey" I am always careful to say "Or if black people only want to serve black people" to ensure that, even if you hate my viewpoint, you realize that it is in fact motivated by property rights and not racism.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

I don't care what your opinion is. Left libertarians were the original libertarians, because we oppose authoritarianism. Your lot stole the title so you could masquerade as freedom-fighters against BIG GUBMIT, but the reality is that you defend the right of arbitrary and minority authority. Change your name to walletarians, because that's what your ideology is really about.

 

[Borachio]

And regarding "Whitey" I am always careful to say "Or if black people only want to serve black people" to ensure that, even if you hate my viewpoint, you realize that it is in fact motivated by property rights and not racism.

Actually, I strangely find myself agreeing with you on this. In a way.

As far as I know, in the UK anyone can refuse to serve anyone for any reason or none, on premises which belong to them.

I can't see how any successful prosecution could be brought against someone refusing to serve anyone - as long as they don't specify a reason, of course.

But I'm no expert on the law. As on every other subject too. And the situation may (nay, certainly is) different in the US.

 

[GhostWriter16]

I don't care what your opinion is. Left libertarians were the original libertarians, because we oppose authoritarianism. Your lot stole the title so you could masquerade as freedom-fighters against BIG GUBMIT, but the reality is that you defend the right of arbitrary and minority authority. Change your name to walletarians, because that's what your ideology is really about.

I wish I still had that clip where Walter Block made fun of Chomsky for complaing that we stole his word

How can you steal intellectual property?

In all seriousness though, I admit you guys did come up with the word first. For whatever reason, in the United States its mainly us who use it.

"Walletarian" would be a horrible name though. It might be a good name for the Republicans but its not a very good name for pure free-market libertarians. There are numerous situations where the current status quo sides with big business AGAINST what would be naturally part of the free market (Limited liability in tort, right to work laws, foreign wars for oil, even private prison labor seems to be coming, exc.). Maybe you could make the argument that our ideology would inadvertetly lead to "Wallatarian" type conclusions, but nobody who believes in it believes in it for that reason.

If I could get everyone else to do it, I could seriously go for "Minimalist" since for the most part right-libertarians are concerned with government authority (Or other forms of compulsory authority against adults) but are not really against voluntary binding contracts the way that left-wingers are.

Actually, I strangely find myself agreeing with you on this.

As far as I know, in the UK anyone can refuse to serve anyone for any reason or none, on premises which belong to them.

I can't see how any successful prosecution could be brought against someone refusing to serve anyone - as long as they don't specify a reason, of course.

But I'm no expert on the law. As on every other subject too.

I think its because the UK doesn't have the same history as we do. I admit, I can't say I don't UNDERSTAND it, the black population had been ripped off by our culture for a very long time. But that ended when Jim Crow ended. Discrimination on public property is absolutely unacceptable. But to ban it on private property is both an affront to private property rights (I'm aware that people who disagree with private property rights couldn't give a crap) and almost a borderline thought crime since, as you say, they can't REALLY know why you did it. I would contend, however, that someone making a sign on their shop saying "No white guys allowed" (Yes, I used my own race to make the point) should not be illegal. Boycotted, absolutely. I would never give someone who did that to some other race or arbitrary group of people business. And other than religious type, I'd say the same about people who discriminate against gay people. But it simply should not be illegal. Freedom of association and all that.

 

[dutchfire]

And regarding "Whitey" I am always careful to say "Or if black people only want to serve black people" to ensure that, even if you hate my viewpoint, you realize that it is in fact motivated by property rights and not racism.

I don't see how this makes you any less of a racist, it just covers it up a bit.

 

[Antilogic]

"No shirt, no shoes, no service."

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

What utopian worldview? What do you think I am?:

With an op like yours, does it matter?

 

[Peck of Arabia]

As far as I know, in the UK anyone can refuse to serve anyone for any reason or none, on premises which belong to them.

I think we do have have legislation against that kind of discrimination

After all, there was that high-profile case a couple of years back where a religious couple were fined for refusing to allow a gay couple to stay at their B & B.

 

[Borachio]

I know. But that must be because they said, at some stage, "we don't serve gays". Or they accepted the booking then failed to supply because of reasons.

But as far as I know, if they just don't like the look of someone, there's no law to make them provide a service.

A great many people I know have been barred from various pubs on, very occasionally, the flimsiest of excuses. One of them for falling asleep.

 

[GhostWriter16]

I don't see how this makes you any less of a racist, it just covers it up a bit.

Because I'm not a racist. As I have said thousands of times: I would personally refuse to do business with anyone who discriminated based on race. But if you stop and think about it for a few seconds, forcing people to allow certain people on their property simply becasue they let other people on their property is pretty ridiculous.

I think we do have have legislation against that kind of discrimination

After all, there was that high-profile case a couple of years back where a religious couple were fined for refusing to allow a gay couple to stay at their B & B.

I don't agree with that refusal but its absurd that they could be fined for doing it. Fredom of association. Same with the example above.

 

[History_Buff]

Because I'm not a racist. As I have said thousands of times: I would personally refuse to do business with anyone who discriminated based on race. But if you stop and think about it for a few seconds, forcing people to allow certain people on their property simply becasue they let other people on their property is pretty ridiculous.

Bolding mine.

Preventing people from discriminating against others because of their race/sex/religion is ridiculous to you?