Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
I must first acknowledge and appreciate your extensive knowledge of these fields which continue to enlighten me, and I'm sure others too, however it is this extensive knowledge that makes your repeated intellectual dishonesty more troubling than the relative ignorance espoused by others.
I think that you must not be clear on what the phrase "intellectual dishonesty" really means. And you find me very rarely touting my background. I did so in this case to show how ridiculous it is in a forum setting to tell somebody (merely because you don't agree with his perspective) that he has no business talking on the subject because he clearly doesn't know what he's talking about. Agree with me or not; I do know what I'm talking about. So, the potentially fruitful way to discuss is to talk about actual principles and what grounds them.
You continually fail (or pretend to fail) to recognize the difference between a philosophical or moral point, and a legal one.
No, I have repeatedly distinguished between moral principles and legal ones. For example, I despise supposedly "fellow Christians" who have themselves conflated their own narrow notion of morality with what "should" be law in this country.
On the other hand, there is a huge difference between meta-ethics and applied ethics. Our laws had BETTER cohere with meta-ethical principles, or they are entirely wrong-headed and/or arbitrary. So, there cannot be a complete and utter disconnect between "ethics" (really meta-ethics) and legislation in a legitimate government. Are you suggesting (as you call me to task for this) that our laws do not need ANY principled grounding? And if they do need SOME sort of principled grounding, exactly what would be the nature of the principles?
You assert tenets of a narrow political philosophy as fact, despite the reality that they are neither provable nor refutable.
I have NO idea what you are saying here. I cite tenets of the foremost political philosophy that grounded the founding of this nation, and I can prove that it was the grounding philosophy. If you are saying that I can't "prove" the principles themselves, I have NO idea what the "prove" bar you are talking about even is. YOU can't "prove" that you have hands!
You know how to compose sentences well enough that you can appear to make a claim that is in fact bereft of meaning. "Neither provable nor refutable?" Are you trying to say that Libertarian principles are in fact vacuous? Are you saying that philosophical argumentation is itself worthless? (If so, then you are yourself engaged in a self-refuting enterprise in your own post.)
I honestly have NO idea what you even think you are trying to say here.
You fail to acknowledge any variations in political philosophy which do not precisely match either your intended point or actual beliefs.
Obviously false. I not only acknowledge them, but I take arguing against them very seriously! And "precisely match" is (again) an entirely hyperbolic account of my perspectives.
You have previously said that you have taught students on these topics, but if your lectures follow the pattern of your assertions here I fear that those students have been only selectively enlightened, which is possibly worse than not enlightened at all.
There is a HUGE difference between teaching and arguing on a forum for a particular perspective. You should know that and not even bother with an obviously ridiculous comment like the above. In fact, that comment reveals the true nature of your "argumentation."
Oh, on that other point....
The cited post in NO way says that I "support selling to criminals." I talk about "if the gun is LATER used in a murder...." That does not suggest or state that the gun was sold to a known murderer.
What I've said is that the burden of argumentation is on the part of anti-gun-people to explain exactly HOW (the principled basis of) their legislative proposals are internally consistent. And the problem for them continues to be that they are QUICK to suggest sweeping laws that criminalize GUNS, when instead they should be seeking solutions that take seriously the problem of human responsibility in the USE of guns.
As I said in the passage you cited, the issue is not GUNS but is instead the problem of human responsibility and accountability. You do not legitimately get from that passage that I support the sale of guns to known criminals, and I do not. I merely point out how unprincipled these various knee-jerk and reactive proposed "solutions" really are.
Libertarian philosophy is an admirable moral position, but thankfully only one of many philosophies incorporated into the US Constitution.
That statement is ludicrous on many levels. I don't know where to begin. You literally do not understand the distinctions that would underlie a proper refutation of that statement.
You act as though this nation was originally a Libertarian Utopia and that all subsequent governments have strayed illegally from that.
False. The word "utopia" is hyperbolic. I believe that the United States was far, far more Libertarian-principled at its founding and that is has indeed drifted far from such philosophical principles. We have swung from Libertarian to Communitarian in our thinking, voting, and legislating; and that cannot be denied. But "utopia" makes a straw man of my perspective.
Your idea that a constitution ratified by the undemocratically appointed delegates of less than four million people has more moral authority than subsequent democratic votes by an exponentially increasing population is absurd.
Actually, the perspective you have just stated is philosophically unsustainable.
But I see that you prefer to make sweepingly dismissive (and incorrect) statements of my positions, so I will respond in kind. The fact is that that document DOES have far more "moral authority" than the bare majority vote among hundreds of millions today. And the fundamental problem YOU keep ignoring is the problem of "majority faction" (Federalist 10). If you ever come to understand the nature of that problem, you will START to see why your statement is just ridiculous.
If the Gun Lobby itself felt that the US Constitution protects an inherent right to unrestricted gun ownership as broad as you claim it does, then they would be actively seeking passage of restrictive laws to challenge in court.
And you know ANY of this how? You are privy to the "Gun Lobby" secret-handshake strategy? You know in and out how "they" (whatever that means) prioritize what they can get to fly and what they know can never fly in this present climate?
Compare the actions of the Gun Lobby with gay-rights activists, who are happy to go to court because they are confident they will win. The Gun Lobby fights passage of laws because it cannot afford a case to go to the Supreme Court, they know that uncompromising positions like yours will not survive legal scrutiny even in the current court.
Thank you for making my just previous point. YOU cannot have it both ways. Either "the strategy" (as if it were as monolithic as you suggest) is a function of what is really believed by the "Gun Lobby" but that cannot possibly fly in THIS CLIMATE, or it reveals that the Gun Lobby itself doesn't believe in "unrestricted gun rights" (again, whatever that means, and however it is relevant to a discussion with ME, since I do not believe in "unrestricted" anything!). In one paragraph, you have argued for both positions. How does "the strategy" provide for both?
The two problems I think you have in arguing with me on this subject are:
1) You have me believing what I don't believe and asserting positions that I have not asserted. So, you repeatedly argue past me.
2) You suggest that "philosophical" or "moral" points can be entirely separated from "legal" ones. I state that they cannot (and still have laws remain principled and legitimate). I continually press anti-gun-people to explain what philosophical/moral principles ground their proposed legislation. You seem to think that I'm being disingenuous and even "intellectually dishonest" for so doing. Sorry. I don't budge on this one.
|
|
bigbird
climber
WA
|
|
^ madbolter1 I have a clarifying question regarding the argument above...
Do you consider "classical liberalism" and "libertarianism" to be interchangeable philosophy within the context of the founding of are nation?
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
Do you consider "classical liberalism" and "libertarianism" to be interchangeable philosophy within the context of the founding of are nation?
There are definite and significant similarities, although I would not call them "interchangeable" for several reasons:
1) "Classical liberalism" emerged as a distinguishable philosophical position later than the founding of our nation. So, whatever you might call the "liberalism" of the founders, it doesn't perfectly map onto "classical liberalism." Here is just one example of a disconnect. Most of the founders (to the extent that they talked about it) did not believe in laissez faire economics, yet this is a defining characteristic of "classical liberalism." So, the founders were not "classical liberals" in that sense.
2) "Libertarianism" is a fairly recent term, so would not have been known to the founders, even though I think that "philosophical libertarianism" most closely maps onto the majority perspective among the founders (federalists and anti-federalists alike).
3) The term "libertarianism" today suffers from a significant ambiguity. What most philosophers think of by that term is not what most non-philosophers think of, thanks to the "libertarian party." So, a distinction really must be made between "philosophical libertarianism" and "political libertarianism." Thus, the "interchangeability" you mention would have to be very clear about even which "version" of "libertarianism" you were talking about.
Perhaps such distinctions seem merely "academic," but diving into them and becoming even more clear has real value. For example, "classical libertarianism" has a very significant economic-theory element, which is to say that it presumes a certain economic "meta-theory," if you will. And that economic meta-theory was not (at least not apparently) shared by the founders.
What the founders, philosophical libertarians, and classical liberals all share are some core principles about the primacy of the individual over the collective. And from a few of those core "axioms," you can derive the reason this nation was founded as it was, including the particular verbiage you see in the founding documents.
For example, the notion of an "inalienable right" grounds rights in individuals, apart from all governments and societies, and therefore immune to the vagaries of governments, majorities, community interests, and so forth. This was (obviously) a founding principle, and it is shared by philosophical libertarians and classical liberals. It is rejected by communitarians; indeed it is one of the "axioms" of communitarianism to reject this principle.
Another example is the primacy of values. Philosophical libertarians believe that individual values are logically prior to community values, while communitarians believe that the logical priority is reversed. Again, quite obviously this country was founded on a libertarian notion of the primacy of values. And it's of note that what you believe on just this one principle alone will "inform" a whole host of implications for how you think legislation should be done and what "legitimate" legislation should look like.
On that point, the reason Federalist 10 is so important is that it clearly explicates the threat to the libertarian notion of the primacy of individual rights and values, namely "majority faction;" and it provides the only possible remedy for majority faction in a democratic republic. So, that article by itself clarifies the extent to which the founders were libertarian as opposed to communitarian in their thinking, as well as the extent to which they feared ANY "community" (even if composed of a "majority") making laws that would violate individual rights and impose a set of "community values."
We can get into the definitions in as fine or coarse-grained detail as proves useful in this sort of discussion. In a forum setting, I try to not get too "heavy," because most people won't tolerate the clarifying and clarifying that is the bread and butter of fine-grained distinctions.
Suffice to say that the founders were very fine-grained in their thinking, and they understood exactly what they were setting up. We can apply this or that label now, long after the fact, and those labels (meaning what we take them to mean now) will more or less map onto the founders' thinking.
For the purposes of discussions here, I have preferred to, in quite coarse-grained fashion, simply contrast philosophical libertarianism and philosophical communitarianism. I think that in coarse-grained fashion, those two schools of thought best capture what the founders intended to set up (the former) as opposed to the sort of principles they most feared and that are now becoming more and more the majority perspective (the latter).
"Interchangeable?" No. Close enough for rock and roll. Sure.
;-)
|
|
bigbird
climber
WA
|
|
"Classical liberalism" emerged as a distinguishable philosophical position later than the founding of our nation. So, whatever you might call the "liberalism" of the founders, it doesn't perfectly map onto "classical liberalism."
^Hurray we agree on something...
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
Well, that's something. Who knows where it could go from there?
|
|
Reilly
Mountain climber
The Other Monrovia- CA
|
|
Madbolter, Pelut didn't jack yer thread about his weak sauce with a namby
pamby euro take on libertarian bashy smashing so why don't you start an
anti-gun thread of its own. On this thread you gots no choir to preach
to anyway and we and the SCOTUS have heard all that high falutin' talk before. ;-)
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
namby pamby euro take on libertarian bashy smashing
Almost caused me to spew Pepsi out my nose.
Touche'!
|
|
Toker Villain
Big Wall climber
Toquerville, Utah
|
|
Jonnyrig,
damn right you should have grabbed the .380
Almost as rare as rimfire. I picked up 300 rds at Walmart a month ago scoring big time (and now that I have a Sigg 938 the only time I'll pick up my LCP is low light but not dark, for the laser).
Bob,
I'm way ahead of you with about 50,000 once fired cases, thousands of primers of different sizes, a variety of popular powders, over 10,000 bullets in aforementioned calibers (plus some to load black powder .45LC and .45-70), a Dillon 650 NIB, and a bunch of accessories stacked in the garage.
Now I need a loading room (I can see getting other presses too. A guy I know of in Arizona has a loading room with 7 presses.).
I can take my time though. Not gonna run out of cartridges for a few decades.
|
|
TomCochrane
Trad climber
Santa Cruz Mountains and Monterey Bay
|
|
|
Mar 10, 2014 - 11:15pm PT
|
72 People Killed Resisting Gun Confiscation in Massachusetts!
Posted by Staff on March 09, 2014
Boston – National Guard units seeking to confiscate a cache of recently banned assault weapons were ambushed by elements of a Para-military extremist faction. Military and law enforcement sources estimate that 72 were killed and more than 200 injured before government forces were compelled to withdraw.
Speaking after the clash, Massachusetts Governor Thomas Gage declared that the extremist faction, which was made up of local citizens, has links to the radical right-wing tax protest movement.
Gage blamed the extremists for recent incidents of vandalism directed against internal revenue offices. The governor, who described the group’s organizers as “criminals,” issued an executive order authorizing the summary arrest of any individual who has interfered with the government’s efforts to secure law and order.
The military raid on the extremist arsenal followed wide-spread refusal by the local citizenry to turn over recently outlawed assault weapons.
Gage issued a ban on military-style assault weapons and ammunition earlier in the week. This decision followed a meeting in early this month between government and military leaders at which the governor authorized the forcible confiscation of illegal arms.
One government official, speaking on condition of anonymity, pointed out that “none of these people would have been killed had the extremists obeyed the law and turned over their weapons voluntarily.”
Government troops initially succeeded in confiscating a large supply of outlawed weapons and ammunition. However, troops attempting to seize arms and ammunition in Lexington met with resistance from heavily-armed extremists who had been tipped off regarding the government’s plans.
During a tense standoff in the Lexington town park, National Guard Colonel Francis Smith, commander of the government operation, ordered the armed group to surrender and return to their homes. The impasse was broken by a single shot, which was reportedly fired by one of the right-wing extremists.
Eight civilians were killed in the ensuing exchange.
Ironically, the local citizenry blamed government forces rather than the extremists for the civilian deaths. Before order could be restored, armed citizens from surrounding areas had descended upon the guard units. Colonel Smith, finding his forces over matched by the armed mob, ordered a retreat.
Governor Gage has called upon citizens to support the state/national joint task force in its effort to restore law and order. The governor also demanded the surrender of those responsible for planning and leading the attack against the government troops.
Samuel Adams, Paul Revere, and John Hancock, who have been identified as “ringleaders” of the extremist faction, remain at large.
And this fellow Americans, is how the American Revolution began, April 20, 1775.
On July 4th, 1776 these same "right wing anti-tax extremists" signed the Declaration of Independence, pledging to each other and their countrymen their lives, fortunes, and sacred honor. Many of them lost everything, including their families and their lives over the course of the next few years.
Lest we forget…
|
|
Shack
Big Wall climber
Reno NV
|
|
|
Mar 11, 2014 - 02:11am PT
|
|
|
Dal Maxvill
Social climber
Illinois
|
|
|
Mar 11, 2014 - 09:06am PT
|
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the Founding Fathers were not right wingers. Nor were they liberals, but real radicals.
|
|
mechrist
Gym climber
South of Heaven
|
|
|
Mar 11, 2014 - 11:00am PT
|
The founding fathers were musket shooting pussies.
Merka... fuk yeah!
|
|
mechrist
Gym climber
South of Heaven
|
|
|
Mar 11, 2014 - 12:16pm PT
|
Ruby Ridge, white supremacist religious nuts... I mean Merkin heroes. Question is, would they still be heroes if they were La Raza in Arizona?
30 years ago NO ONE talked about this sort of thing that is now commonly discussed.
Bullshit! My right-wing religious gun nut relatives have been talking about this sort of thing since as long as I can remember. Many of them bought remote land way up in the hills, armed themselves to the hilt, and have been waiting for the revolution for well over 40 years. Generations before that did similar things. The anti-American miscreant mentality has existed since the country was formed... usually in the right-wing racists conservative faction.
|
|
mechrist
Gym climber
South of Heaven
|
|
|
Mar 11, 2014 - 12:20pm PT
|
I didn't say anything about foreign invaders dipsh#t. You simply assume they are foreign because they are brown and proud of their heritage? That's pretty racist. You think white folks aren't foreign invaders?
|
|
mechrist
Gym climber
South of Heaven
|
|
|
Mar 11, 2014 - 12:26pm PT
|
So if they are born and raised here, but take pride in their Hispanic heritage, they are foreign invaders? But a white supremacist in Montana is somehow different? Racist.
|
|
mechrist
Gym climber
South of Heaven
|
|
|
Mar 11, 2014 - 12:31pm PT
|
How so?
|
|
mechrist
Gym climber
South of Heaven
|
|
|
Mar 11, 2014 - 12:40pm PT
|
I hate it when you lose so easily. Like reeling in a big, fat carppie....
|
|
mechrist
Gym climber
South of Heaven
|
|
|
Mar 11, 2014 - 01:17pm PT
|
foreign invaders!
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!