>natural rights are a myth
Here's something we agree on. You err, however, in implying that what is an essential foundation of liberalism is also one of libertarianism. It's true that natural rights is the historical foundation of the latter, but is now at best optional thanks to modern utilitarian and emotivist foundations. The concept of rights as an inviolate scope of action isn't meaningless, but determination of what criteria define inviolate comes down to a subjective value judgement. The only essential foundation is this value judgement: That minimizing violent conflict over scarce resources is desirable for a given society. Which of course can be a nation. The burden is on you, therefore, to show that such conflict strengthens a nation.
>A direct rejection of Liberalism's core moral premise is hardly a compromise.
Rejection of a philosophy's core element in no way precludes the possibility of compromise in other respects. Even in this regard, however, Third positionism merely substitutes the collective myth of a positive (in contradistinction to a negative i.e. purely defensive) national interest for the individual myth of natural rights. From this false premise it concludes the necessity of government criminality in the name of furthering this positive national interest. This is Rousseau's General Will and Legislator by different names.
>Absolutely we must control degeneracy with the state.
We agree that degeneracy should be mitigated. You need to show, however, that the fascist model of mitigation (which foments the incentives that have given us the Deep State's cash cow in the Drug War) is the optimal one. Almost the entirety of the West is saturated in promotion of degeneracy today, yet most of the population is not especially degenerate. This suggests that degenerates are largely born rather than made. Given this alone, interventionism of the kind you favor is futile at best and in practice dysgenic. It favors expropriation of the healthy to fund a quack remedies for the congenitally and terminally sick. I favor a system that allows the healthy to dissociate completely from the degenerate. I don't compromise on eugenics on an intranational level in the way that fascism does.
>Lose? Hardly. They have never won. They have lost control of every US institution yet you still bring this arrogant attitude as if you had something to teach me.
This the bluster of an impotent schoolyard bully, not a serious argument. The liberals trounced the third positionists in WW2, therefore liberalism is better?
>Why don't you reclaim a university or corporation from the left before you start preaching how great your beliefs are.
Why don't you? Conservatives are the ones who lost the institutions due to their blinkered view of fairness and meritocracy. Libertarians, by contrast, believe that everyone should entirely free to be as intolerant as they like, including intolerant of those opposed to meritocracy and liberty. (con't)
Here's something we agree on. You err, however, in implying that what is an essential foundation of liberalism is also one of libertarianism. It's true that natural rights is the historical foundation of the latter, but is now at best optional thanks to modern utilitarian and emotivist foundations. The concept of rights as an inviolate scope of action isn't meaningless, but determination of what criteria define inviolate comes down to a subjective value judgement. The only essential foundation is this value judgement: That minimizing violent conflict over scarce resources is desirable for a given society. Which of course can be a nation. The burden is on you, therefore, to show that such conflict strengthens a nation.
>A direct rejection of Liberalism's core moral premise is hardly a compromise.
Rejection of a philosophy's core element in no way precludes the possibility of compromise in other respects. Even in this regard, however, Third positionism merely substitutes the collective myth of a positive (in contradistinction to a negative i.e. purely defensive) national interest for the individual myth of natural rights. From this false premise it concludes the necessity of government criminality in the name of furthering this positive national interest. This is Rousseau's General Will and Legislator by different names.
>Absolutely we must control degeneracy with the state.
We agree that degeneracy should be mitigated. You need to show, however, that the fascist model of mitigation (which foments the incentives that have given us the Deep State's cash cow in the Drug War) is the optimal one. Almost the entirety of the West is saturated in promotion of degeneracy today, yet most of the population is not especially degenerate. This suggests that degenerates are largely born rather than made. Given this alone, interventionism of the kind you favor is futile at best and in practice dysgenic. It favors expropriation of the healthy to fund a quack remedies for the congenitally and terminally sick. I favor a system that allows the healthy to dissociate completely from the degenerate. I don't compromise on eugenics on an intranational level in the way that fascism does.
>Lose? Hardly. They have never won. They have lost control of every US institution yet you still bring this arrogant attitude as if you had something to teach me.
This the bluster of an impotent schoolyard bully, not a serious argument. The liberals trounced the third positionists in WW2, therefore liberalism is better?
>Why don't you reclaim a university or corporation from the left before you start preaching how great your beliefs are.
Why don't you? Conservatives are the ones who lost the institutions due to their blinkered view of fairness and meritocracy. Libertarians, by contrast, believe that everyone should entirely free to be as intolerant as they like, including intolerant of those opposed to meritocracy and liberty. (con't)
@nof1 Oh this is the post you were talking about. I am just seeing this now.
The short answer is natural rights are a myth and limited government is bad geo political strategy.
A direct rejection of Liberalism's core moral premise is hardly a compromise.
Absolutely we must control degeneracy with the state.
You can have the label reactionary it does not interest me since I consider it false framing.
Lose? Hardly. They have never won. They have lost control of every US institution yet you still bring this arrogant attitude as if you had something to teach me.
What are you going to teach me how to keep losing like lolberts are doing? Why don't you reclaim a university or corporation from the left before you start preaching how great your beliefs are.
You people are getting your asses kicked and you still ramble on with these delusions.
The short answer is natural rights are a myth and limited government is bad geo political strategy.
A direct rejection of Liberalism's core moral premise is hardly a compromise.
Absolutely we must control degeneracy with the state.
You can have the label reactionary it does not interest me since I consider it false framing.
Lose? Hardly. They have never won. They have lost control of every US institution yet you still bring this arrogant attitude as if you had something to teach me.
What are you going to teach me how to keep losing like lolberts are doing? Why don't you reclaim a university or corporation from the left before you start preaching how great your beliefs are.
You people are getting your asses kicked and you still ramble on with these delusions.
Write a comment...
Sort by