The only libertarians Ive met were mentally... unstable, so I've never been inspired to look closer.
How does it work? How is it different from a desire for anarchy? — frank
I meant people I've actually met.
How is it different from anarchism? — frank
What in this statement implies that a Libertarian would be for NO, as opposed to LIMITED, centralized power?Libertarianism would be the way to go - to limit centralized power. — Harry Hindu
No, the idea of civil rights is that citizens are in conflict with the government.You mean if the system is racist, why give more power to the system?
The idea of civil rights is that the government is in conflict with itself. — frank
What is an extra-governmental system? You keep throwing around these vague terms that don't have any substance, and are then unwilling to put more meat on the bones for the rest of us to chew on.The systemic racism that's been spoken of in this thread is extra-governmental, though. — frank
I concur with those that take the view that anyone who uses racial language and refers to people using archaic and ultimately non-sensical categories of black white brown etc, is part of the problem and so in that sense racist.
If we all truly did embrace the view that there is no division of races within humans, and modified our own language use accordingly, then racism could not possibly exist since there would be no means to prefer any one human based on race. If you want to be part of the solution just simply stop using racial language.
I've done it and it works.
I suspect that those who aren't open to such a shift believe that there are actually such things as races, and possibly also that the world is flat.
No, the idea of civil rights is that citizens are in conflict with the government. — Harry Hindu
Because of citizens who revolted against an unfair and authoritarian government.Then why are your civil rights in the freaking constitution? — frank
Libertarianism would be the way to go - to limit centralized power. — Harry Hindu
What in this statement implies that a Libertarian would be for NO, as opposed to LIMITED, centralized power? — Harry Hindu
Libertarianism is bullshit because the only unifying aim is something everyone wants - the least imposition on freedom that still produces an acceptable society.
sounds like you believe that there are such things as races — dazed
But its guiding principle—liberty ... That principle is largely absent from other schools of thought. — NOS4A2
In these respects, libertarian theory is closely related to (indeed, at times practically indistinguishable from) the classical liberal tradition, as embodied by John Locke, David Hume, Adam Smith, and Immanuel Kant.
In these respects, libertarian theory is closely related to (indeed, at times practically indistinguishable from) the classical liberal tradition, as embodied by John Locke, David Hume, Adam Smith, and Immanuel Kant.
The term libertarianism was first used in the United States as a synonym for classical liberalism in May 1955 by writer Dean Russell, a colleague of Leonard Read and a classical liberal himself. Russell justified the choice of the word as follows: "Many of us call ourselves 'liberals.' And it is true that the word 'liberal' once described persons who respected the individual and feared the use of mass compulsions. But the leftists have now corrupted that once-proud term to identify themselves and their program of more government ownership of property and more controls over persons. As a result, those of us who believe in freedom must explain that when we call ourselves liberals, we mean liberals in the uncorrupted classical sense. At best, this is awkward and subject to misunderstanding. Here is a suggestion: Let those of us who love liberty trade-mark and reserve for our own use the good and honorable word 'libertarian'".
modern liberals excised that very principle. — NOS4A2
But the leftists have now corrupted that once-proud term to identify themselves and their program of more government ownership of property and more controls over persons.
The point of the issue was that the core principles of liberty is largely absent from other schools of thought. It is central to classical liberalism,sure, but then again classical liberals renamed themselves libertarian because modern liberals excised that very principle.
A critique of liberalism: CRT scholars favor a more aggressive approach to social transformation as opposed to liberalism's more cautious approach, favor a race-conscious approach to transformation rather than liberalism's embrace of color blindness, and favor an approach that relies more on political organizing, in contrast to liberalism's reliance on rights-based remedies.
Biological race doesn't exist, but race as a social construct does. The distinction makes a difference. — Baden
All thought, judgment, perception, considered as comparison, has as its precondition a "positing of equality," and earlier still a "making equal." The process of making equal is the same as the process of incorporation of appropriated material in the amoeba. "Memory" late, in so far as here the drive to make equal seems already to have been subdued: differentiation is preserved. Remembering as a process of classification and pigeonholing: who is active?
know that the concept exists, as do you. Similar potentially divisive concepts like age, weight, height, attractiveness, sexual orientation, etc etc, exist. Are you color blind but perhaps an ageists? If so, would refusing to see age help resolve your ageism? — praxis
This is another straw-man. I didn't make the argument that others "want to give central government all the power it is possible for a government to have... the power to tell you when to get up, what breakfast to have, what car to drive, who to marry, what clothes to wear..."Everyone wants to limit centralised power. Who in the world wants to give central government all the power it is possible for a government to have... the power to tell you when to get up, what breakfast to have, what car to drive, who to marry, what clothes to wear...?
Libertarianism is bullshit because the only unifying aim is something everyone wants - the least imposition on freedom that still produces an acceptable society.
So the only thing that distinguishes so-called libertarians from any other more interventionist political persuasion is that they just care less about the stuff the government imposes on our freedom in order to get done. — Isaac
This would be like saying "ban all treatment for sickle cell anemia because it takes into account race". That isn't what I'm saying. I'm saying that race exists and is biological, not social. What is social is the category errors that we make when we put people into boxes labeled "black" and "white" that have nothing to do with their color of skin - like when hiring someone, as opposed to determining what diseases they might be more susceptible to.Medicare must be ageist because it takes account of age. Ban medicare! — Baden
Then your previous argument makes no sense. If age doesn't exist, then why do we have medicare? If race doesn't exist as a biological characteristic, then what does "race as a social construction" entail?Biological race doesn't exist, but race as a social construct does. The distinction makes a difference. — Baden
Another category error. Libertarianism/anarchism has to do with the ideas that you hold, not your wealth or how violent you are.The libertarian is more rich and the anarchist more violent. — ssu
There's too many meanings, too many interpretations, too many 'translations' and 'dog whistles' or 'subverted or masked intensions' to make any sense of this. When somebody 'interprets' you meaning something else, it's a rabbit whole. And hence the race issue is so difficult.A strictly academic use of “race”, the way a biologist would use it for their work, is not what is meant. — DingoJones
I agree with this because asking for race when applying for college is a category error.What there is, is this fanatic obsession with race, which does contribute of especially Americans and British to structural racism. It starts with when you participate in a course in the university or open a bank account and in the questionnaire you fill in beside your name and adress has a question of race and ethnicity. Why? I really ask why. Because that is then used to categorize you. If you think that is totally normal, how about religion? Do you have to fill in a questionnaire that what is your religion or state that you are an atheist when opening a bank account? How about participating in a history course in the university? That would be the case if the society would be divided by religion. Then we would all be talking about multiconfessionality. — ssu
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.