Political Correlation?

quote:

---

These discussion boards are for entertainment, for those of us who are entertained by vigorous debate. Contracycle is taking them much too seriously. Perhaps a brief break is in order if the enjoyment factor is presently absent.

---

I would enjoy them but for the insistence that my opinion can be discarded out of hand. All I ask for - have ever asked for - is that you engage in debate in the spirit of entertainment instead of derailing it.

quote:

---

There is little to no evidence of structual dependence on theistic assumptions in the arguments of John Stuart Mill, Ayn Rand, John Locke, Milton Friedman, or Ludwig von Mises. Please provide evidence (not mere assertions) that conservative arguments are necessarily dependent on theism (and which brand of theism?) .

---

Right, so first Paisano says that he enjoys engaging in this in the spirit of entertainment, and that I am taking it to seriously. Then he spectacularly fails to provide any support for his slurs, and yet goes on to demand that I provide a substantively higher degree of input than he himself is willing to invest. I have already published my rates, Paisano, if you wish to learn at my knee, you may. However, if you are, as you say, someone who enjoys engaging in debate for the sake of entertainment, and you feel this level of discussion is appropriate for entertainment, then I must insist you pony up your argument first. I responded to your claims of the lefts irrationality with no more detail than you provided - if you want further detail from me, first give me yours.

quote:

---

US foreign policy includes a willingness to resort to military force when it is warranted by US interests. No evidence has been presented that this is in any way "delusional". Personal dislike of a position does not constitute refutation of it.

---

Thats a substantial rowing back. US interests are, of course, for the minimum amount of freedom and democracy possible, and the maximum subordination of the worlds populace to the American Empire. This is not, of course, unusual for a Capitalist state but does show that capitalism - despite the rhetoric of freedom - is highly coercive.This retreat does not mollify, but in fact validates, my initial argument: capitalism depends on moralistic rhetoric rather than factual analysis, as Paisano demonstrated earlier. Now he is compelled to retreat to "US interests", in the face of facts.I await your demonstration of the irrationality of the left, and of the "failure" of leftist political systems, et al. Go right ahead, I'm waiting.

You are concluding about capitalism based on "US interests"???
That's irrational! US interests are not all related to subordination, as you claim. For example, safety of our populace is a US interest, and can take the form of diplomacy. We have even tried to pay-off dictators. I suppose you interpret accepting a deal as coercive.

quote:

---

You are concluding about capitalism based on "US interests"???

---

Of course. Capitalism has always been armed, and has always worked through state militaries to open up new markets, defend existing markets, and fundamentally to guarantee property rights. Thats why capitalism vcan never do without the state, and can never escape war. Its endemic to the system.

quote:

---

US interests are not all related to subordination, as you claim. For example, safety of our populace is a US interest, and can take the form of diplomacy. We have even tried to pay-off dictators. I suppose you interpret accepting a deal as coercive.

---

When the US supports a dictator for some political or economic objective, then the people under that dictator most certaiunly get coerced, and as in the case of Latin America, the US often provides men and materiel to assist in that coercion.However, the inconsistency of capitalism is an artifact of its balkanised and illogical state. Capitalist competition necessarily means that a capitalist entity cannot formulate a coherent or intelligent response to a problem without extreme difficulty. Thus, you are correct to say that protecting US citizens is one of the US's goals - but due to Idealist conceptions and concerns, it also maintains that you should not negotiate with terrorists. That is, the only demonstrably succesful technique for dealing with terrorism is deliberately not employed becuase of the dependance on moralism.Equally, the two world wars incontrovertibly wrought wholesale destruction on Europe at the cost of many lives. Nominally, the purpose of a state and army is to protect the citizens and preserve the property of the state - and yet, multiple states battered each other into mutual horror, property and lives were wasted in huge scale on all sides, and in every respect the nominal purpose and legitimacy of the social system were demonstrated as defunct. This is a system that eats itself.

It seems that this same disscussion is happening in both the "Political Correlation?" and the "What is Your Worldview?" topics.I'm not disapproving your content (the non-admin mode is inclined to share your views), but the theme might well be marginal at best to the original intents of both topics.I suggest that your theme might be better served by you starting a new "Coffee House" topic on what you are covering.This message is being posted at both topics.Adminnemooseus

---

Comments on moderation procedures (or wish to respond to admin messages)? - Go to
Change in Moderation?
or
Thread Reopen Requests

Quite frankly, contracycle engages in self-flattery here, and labors under the considerable burden of the (erroneous) assumption that contracycle's opinions are of economic value to a conservative. "The Guardian" is available in North America and online, after all.As to the rest of the material,
paisano's original argument was that leftist economics and libertarianism were mutually contradictory, therefore to assert that such systems can exist is to assert that the law of non-contradiction does not hold, hence is irrational.IOW, paisano stated that a specific position held by (some) leftists is irrational, not that leftists in general are irrational.If this argument is so easily rebutted, it would seem a simple matter to demonstrate its flaws with evidence. A Radio Pyongyang like screed won't do, much as an appeal to ICR, Ken Ham, and Kent Hovind won't do as a rebuttal to a specific evolutionary argument.paisano still awaits with interest counterarguments and counterexamples of working leftist systems (on a societal level if possible) that are non-coercive.

Paisano isn;t fooling anybody by referring to himself in the third person and failing to explain his argument. Paisano has offered no explanation as to why leftist economics and libertarianism are mutually contradictory - a pertinent point given Contracycles very libertarian score in the political compass test and advocacy of leftis economics. Contracycle advises Paisano that he is racking up quite a cost at Contracycles hourly fee.

Take the current theme to a new topic.Adminnemooseus

---

Comments on moderation procedures (or wish to respond to admin messages)? - Go to
Change in Moderation?
or
Thread Reopen Requests