Atlas Shrugged

KahBoom · 02-07-2014 01:25PM

Yep, the old "go read a 200+ page book on Libertarianism, then get back to me" line of argument (and note: this other book, was not the book in the topic).

It's a very transparent way to try and claim a monopoly on authority, for discussing certain topics - pretty obvious sophistry, where to try and silence critics, you just throw multi-hundred-page tomes at them, instead of actually putting forward arguments in your own words.

Permabear · 02-07-2014 01:31PM

This post has been deleted.

02-07-2014 01:33PM

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

You can't expect people to read a book before coming into a thread about that book and posting about it!

Permabear · 02-07-2014 01:35PM

This post has been deleted.

Turtwig · 02-07-2014 01:38PM

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

[Mod]

Dragging up a posters past history is incredibly dickish behavior. Not only is it poisoning the well, but it not any way conducive to a discussion. Which is was this is, not political monologues and standpoints.

Wibbs · 02-07-2014 01:39PM

Interesting debate at times and all that, but WT actual F has this got to do with Atheism and Agnosticism? Genuine question, or am I missing something here?

Naz_st · 02-07-2014 01:40PM

robindch wrote: »

Uh, I don't quite follow you. Are you saying that nobody has to do anything at all in order to implement libertarianism?

I think the basic issue is that "implement libertarianism" is a little paradoxical. As I understand it, a more libertarian society would have far less government, and very little "implementing" of policies as its power and influence would be greatly reduced, perhaps only maintaining control of the courts system and police (to protect property and contractual obligations for example). The State would essentially get out of the way and leave people to get on with their lives.

That said, I think it's still a fair question, assuming we're talking about the real-world rather than some ideal, because to move from the current "top down", large state model to a more libertarian model requires the current state "implementing" policies to reduce it's power. [How likely that is is a separate question...]

Turtwig · 02-07-2014 01:48PM

bluewolf wrote: »

You can't expect people to read a book before coming into a thread about that book and posting about it!

Have you read the bible in it's entirety? Have you read origin of the species and the other three books? Maxwell's treatise on electromagnetism.

Some books have ideas that transcend their pages and people can discuss those ideas.
As long as the ideas of the book and those related to it are being discussed then we can't force anyone's post to be contingent on having the book. That's academic sophistry. So please stop dragging this up.

Inform people of what there got it wrong. Quote the contradiction, explain the context, make it clear that you are vividly attempting to explain the point without appealing to "invisible" knowledge.

We accept posts in the creationist threads saying read a book on evolution, but we, and every reader I'm sure agrees, prefer the posts of substance that explicitly address and attempt to refute the points being made.

KahBoom · 02-07-2014 01:50PM

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

I've never posted an article or video, without also explaining the argument in my own words - because that wouldn't be a discussion, right? (unless you think linking people to a book and saying "here, read this", is a discussion?)

That you think people would get through the 272 page book you posted, in 'a couple of hours', just shows how disingenuous you're being.

Turtwig · 02-07-2014 01:51PM

Wibbs wrote: »

Interesting debate at times and all that, but WT actual F has this got to do with Atheism and Agnosticism? Genuine question, or am I missing something here?

Biscuits.

Genuine answer, some libertarians will argue libertarian is relevant to atheism. Regardless of this being true, this forum incorporates "indirectly relevant" every now and again. Mainly biscuits.

KahBoom · 02-07-2014 01:52PM

bluewolf wrote: »

You can't expect people to read a book before coming into a thread about that book and posting about it!

You haven't even read the post you're replying to:

KyussBishop wrote:

...(and note: this other book, was not the book in the topic)

Cabaal · 02-07-2014 01:53PM

Turtwig wrote: »

Biscuits.

Genuine answer, some libertarians will argue libertarian is relevant to atheism. Regardless of this being true, this forum incorporates "indirectly relevant" every now and again. Mainly biscuits.

But don't many American's claim Americaaaaa is a christian country, yet look at the control it has.

Seems the "argue libertarian is relevant to atheism" is pretty weak.

Also, Jaffa Cakes!

Wibbs · 02-07-2014 01:56PM

The thing about power is that if it's removed from one source another source will rush in to take it. I doubt it would be from the grass roots anyway. The market would have power and those that controlled the market would increase their existing power. Take the US where market lobbying of government is a national sport and billions are spent greasing the wheels. Remove government oversight and billions get saved and corner get cut, or worse.

Innovation could go either way. The "not invented here" type thinking might be as bad. Innovation that wasn't internal to a larger company would be seen as competition and if the innovation came from a small company or individuals it would either be bought in, or out marketed, or out litigated, or simply copied.

I noticed earlier talk/comparisons made between the centralised Soviet way of doing things and how it succeeded. Indeed it did. And there are many examples of pure market led stuff succeeding. When the two run together it really succeeds and is better IMH. The space race was mentioned. Well the US was really caught on the back foot at the start, but then came Apollo and between government and private enterprise they went from rarely successful converted ICBM's to putting a man on the moon in under 8 years. The US arming up after Pearl Harbor another example. They went from being really behind to truly massive industrialisation and mobilisation of materiel within a year. Again a marriage of state and market. It's getting the balance right is the trick.

Turtwig · 02-07-2014 01:56PM

bluewolf wrote: »

What bible posts have I made recently where I didn't make them on what I've read?

Where have I posted about any of those?

I WILL drag it up when a poster comes into a thread about a book complaining that people think you should read a book and that's why libs are all wrong and that it's a tired argument.
Seriously, this is ridiculous.

One is science, this isn't
Not to mention that reading some articles about evolution are ok because it's evolution, it's not about a specific book

Political theory is science in the same economics is. This thread pretty much borders those topics. However, that's not the point. The analogy was about the structure of argument and discussion and what's expected. Posts saying to "read X" are far less helpful than those that reference X, with quotes or other and explain why they're wrong/right.

Regarding the books, I never said you commented on any of those, but you have dismissed religion without reading their texts in their entirety. The point was that for any discussion any idea the vast majority of people involved haven't enough experienced with the subject matter. Being pedantic nobody has!

Permabear · 02-07-2014 02:00PM

This post has been deleted.

Turtwig · 02-07-2014 02:04PM

Bluey,

I'll try putting it another way. Even if people had read the books posts everyone would prefer would be those that explicitly attempt to address and illustrate the points made.

Posts saying you're wrong and don't understand without any further substance just would not help a discussion. These are same type as
"You haven't read X.

What everyone would like
"I don't think you understand X, wish you'd read it
If you had read it

Point a with relevant quote or references.

Point b with relevant quote or references

Etc.

Which serves to make the point and inform people a little more.

02-07-2014 02:14PM

Turtwig wrote: »

Bluey,

I'll try putting it another way. Even if people had read the books posts everyone would prefer would be those that explicitly attempt to address and illustrate the points made.

You'll forgive me for being a little jaded on that front after a thread on another forum was populated by people who hadn't read it, had no interest in reading it, and made repeated false claims about it demonstrating they hadn't read it.
If you're interested enough and have the time to argue and post about it, you're interested enough to read it and then debate it. It makes things easier and more interesting for everyone involved.

Otherwise you get
"I hate the book because this happens in it"
"No, it clearly doesn't. Here's an example to show how it doesn't"
"Whatever, it's a badly written book and I hate libertarianism"

robindch · 02-07-2014 02:15PM

Wibbs wrote: »

Interesting debate at times and all that, but WT actual F has this got to do with Atheism and Agnosticism? Genuine question, or am I missing something here?

Good question. It doesn't have much to do with A+A per se, but like a few other topics in the forum, it's an interesting topic to discuss.

From my perspective, I suspect that many libertarians, or at least people who self-describe as libertarian, are in fact socially far less liberal and far more authoritarian than they believe. And that this basic contradiction, or something like it, seems to produce the kind of non-discussion and non-engagement that's taking place - there's almost a quasi-religious air to the hedging, the poor terminology, the avoidance of certain topics, and what seems to be an unhappy element of hero-worship.

02-07-2014 02:18PM

robindch wrote: »

From my perspective, I suspect that many libertarians, or at least people who self-describe as libertarian, are in fact socially far less liberal and far more authoritarian than they believe. And that this basic contradiction, or something like it, seems to produce the kind of non-discussion and non-engagement that's taking place

I think you secretly believe in god and that's why you keep posting here

- there's almost a quasi-religious air to the hedging, the poor terminology, the avoidance of certain topics, and what seems to be an unhappy element of hero-worship.

What hero?!

Turtwig · 02-07-2014 02:18PM

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

He didn't ask you explain libertarianism. He asked to explain your "flavor" of it.
To keep in the language of your analogy. It's like two people having an understanding of the core concept but also have disagreements where specific issues are concerned e.g who pays for public works?

robindch · 02-07-2014 02:29PM

bluewolf wrote: »

"I hate the book because this happens in it"
"No, it clearly doesn't. Here's an example to show how it doesn't"
"Whatever, it's a badly written book and I hate libertarianism"

I'm not sure if you're referring to my POV here, but if you are, let me say that this does not represent my position, or anything close to it

Permabear · 02-07-2014 02:31PM

This post has been deleted.

Turtwig · 02-07-2014 02:32PM

bluewolf wrote: »

You'll forgive me for being a little jaded on that front after a thread on another forum was populated by people who hadn't read it, had no interest in reading it, and made repeated false claims about it demonstrating they hadn't read it.
If you're interested enough and have the time to argue and post about it, you're interested enough to read it and then debate it. It makes things easier and more interesting for everyone involved.

Otherwise you get
"I hate the book because this happens in it"
"No, it clearly doesn't. Here's an example to show how it doesn't"
"Whatever, it's a badly written book and I hate libertarianism"

May move this to feedback.

This applies though even if people have read the book. Look at creationists, some have read origin of species and still quote mine to it extremes to preserve an ideology. Just because a poster is interested doesn't mean they're going to be helpful.

The impression I get is that anyone that doesn't share the "correct" understanding hasn't read it. If only things were that simple.

Permabear · 02-07-2014 02:40PM

This post has been deleted.

Turtwig · 02-07-2014 02:40PM

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

It is your role if he asked you explain it when you apparently added modifications to the description given by

"I just finished reading Matt Kibbe's Don't Hurt People and Don't Take Their Stuff: A Libertarian Manifesto -- maybe reading that, or a similar basic primer, would resolve many of these elementary confusions?"

He was asking you to provide a description of this libertarianism. As his understanding or misunderstanding was obviously based on Rand.

Turtwig · 02-07-2014 02:44PM

"From my perspective, I suspect that many libertarians, or at least people who self-describe as libertarian, are in fact socially far less liberal and far more authoritarian than they believe. And that this basic contradiction, or something like it, seems to produce the kind of non-discussion and non-engagement that's taking place - there's almost a quasi-religious air to the hedging, the poor terminology, the avoidance of certain topics, and what seems to be an unhappy element of hero-worship"

bluewolf wrote: »

I think you secretly believe in god and that's why you keep posting here

Mod:

Can we please avoid this slander of labels stuff?

Turtwig · 02-07-2014 02:49PM

bluewolf wrote: »

I think you secretly believe in god and that's why you keep posting here

We both know the reason he posts here is all the biscuits the generous folk around here keep sending us.

robindch · 02-07-2014 02:50PM

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

As you might have gleaned from the general thread, I feel I know enough about Rand, her views and libertarianism to be reasonably confident about my opinion of them. You clearly disagree, but instead of discussing the topic, you refuse. That refusal itself is interesting too and to a certain extent feeds back into the quasi-religious thing mentioned above.

In any case, irrespective of libertarianism and its worth, or lack of it, A+A is a forum where ideas are discussed - if you're not comfortable discussing ideas, then I suggest you might enjoy posting somewhere else a little more than you enjoy posting here.

Permabear · 02-07-2014 02:56PM

This post has been deleted.

Turtwig · 02-07-2014 03:01PM

Rand is a seminal figure to libertarians , as far as I'm aware Rob never said she was libertarian. Even so that is beside the point. You referenced something beyond the book, he asked you explain that. You quibbled about having to explain that. As if he was asking you explain something even though your central quibble was based on not having read rand. You can't have the cake and eat it

Atlas Shrugged

Comments