597
598

CMV: Libertarians are primarily concerned with feeling correct, not about real world results. (self.changemyview)

Kirkaine5∆ が 投稿

ごめんなさい。これは既にアーカイブしてあり、もう投票はできません。
並べ替え:
ベスト
ベスト
トップ
新着
注目
論争中
古い順
あなたは単独のコメントのスレッドを見ています。

残りのコメントをみる →

[–][deleted] 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (5子コメント)

ごめんなさい。これは既にアーカイブしてあり、もう投票はできません。

You basically have it backwards. We're only concerned with real world results. How I feel as a libertarian talking about economics with a modern democrat or republican is like an oncologist telling a patient he has cancer.

The facts are the facts and no matter how much the patient wishes things would be different, we can't have full employment at living wages and we can't waste trillions on military spending, nepotistic bailouts, and social security.

As a libertarian, I argue by historical example, not from principle or hypothetically.

Just to let you know, you're arguing from ad hom and strawmen arguments.

I want to go further. I believe that most libertarians simply do not care about the real world of the effects their intended policies would have.

It wasn't libertarians who passed the Humphrey–Hawkins Full Employment Act. It wasn't libertarians who believed giving trillions of dollars to some of the same firms that the US gov't bailed out in the 1970s. It wasn't libertarians who work from precatory premises to try to guarantee anything for everyone (healthcare, jobs, homes, etc).

Thousands of illusory goals are perpetrated by non-libertarians in power. As a libertarian, I respond with real world examples of how those programs have failed in the past and real world solutions as how to move forward.

Your view is 100% backwards or your sample size is tiny.

[–]LRonPaul2012 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (4子コメント)

ごめんなさい。これは既にアーカイブしてあり、もう投票はできません。

The facts are the facts and no matter how much the patient wishes things would be different, we can't have full employment at living wages and we can't waste trillions on military spending, nepotistic bailouts, and social security.

I don't think you understand what the word "fact" means. None of these are "facts."

Saying, "Fact, we can't do these things that we are currently doing" isn't a fact. That's just flat out wrong, and demonstrates that you don't understand the definition of what the word "can't" means.

You can say we shouldn't do these things, but that's opinion at worse, circular reasoning at best (Because no one is going to disagree that we shouldn't "waste" money, but determining what amounts to "waste" is a matter of opinion).

As a libertarian, I respond with real world examples of how those programs have failed in the past and real world solutions as how to move forward.

And yet you haven't presented a single one. All you did was complain about the government.

[–][deleted] 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (3子コメント)

ごめんなさい。これは既にアーカイブしてあり、もう投票はできません。

I don't think you understand what the word "fact" means. None of these are "facts."

If you have a 1 gallon tank of water and drain it at a rate of 1 gallon per minute, in one minute the tank will be empty. If you wish that it wasn't empty, that doesn't change anything.

It is a fact that at the end of 1 minute, it will be empty no matter what your wishes are. That is exactly what is happening with all of those things I listed.

Saying, "Fact, we can't do these things that we are currently doing" isn't a fact. That's just flat out wrong, and demonstrates that you don't understand the definition of what the word "can't" means.

You don't understand what I said. We don't have full employment or living wages; people are trying the impossible. Things that are impossible cannot be.

Fact: it is impossible to achieve the precatory and illusory desire that we have full employment and living wages.

It is untenable to waste the amounts of money that I listed. It is a fact that we cannot keep doing it AND continue to stay solven. That is a rather simple and obvious implication of my statements.

Your inability to understand the obvious in my posts means you're intentionally being obtuse for purposes of sophistry or you're just really that stupid.

[–]LRonPaul2012 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (2子コメント)

ごめんなさい。これは既にアーカイブしてあり、もう投票はできません。

That is exactly what is happening with all of those things I listed.

And that's where you get into "opinion" phase.

It's a fact that you need to hit nails in the head with a hammer in order to get them to work as designed. Therefore, this is also the same thing happening with libertarians. In order to get libertarians to work as designed, you must hit libertarians in the head with a hammer. It's a fact. Jack.

We don't have full employment or living wages; people are trying the impossible. Things that are impossible cannot be.

Fact: No one seems to be able to find a libertarian who actually understands what the word "fact" means. It's impossible. Things that are impossible cannot be.

That is a rather simple and obvious implication of my statements.

Fact: Libertarians can't substantiate their points, and instead rely entirely on arguing from blanket assertions. This is a rather simple and obvious implication from my statements.

Your inability to understand the obvious in my posts means you're intentionally being obtuse for purposes of sophistry or you're just really that stupid.

Fact: You enjoy blaming other people for your own intellectual shortcomings. Instead of actually substantiating your point, you prefer to insult people who don't accept it at face value.

[–][deleted] 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (1子コメント)

ごめんなさい。これは既にアーカイブしてあり、もう投票はできません。

And that's where you get into "opinion" phase.

It is not an opinion that at the end of the 1 minute the tank is empty... If we continue spending money at the rate we are, we will be insolvent (technically, many programs already are insolvent, that's why the government illegally shifts money around - but that is another story full of facts you don't know).

Fact: No one seems to be able to find a libertarian who actually understands what the word "fact" means. It's impossible. Things that are impossible cannot be.

Correct, it is a fact that they cannot be. When democrats tried to have full employment with the Humphrey Hawkins full employment act, we were telling them, "It is factually impossible for this act to succeed." But democrats didn't understand it.

When something is necessarily true, it is a fact... You really need to look the word up before you start trying to correct others.

[–]LRonPaul2012 -1 ポイント0 ポイント  (0子コメント)

ごめんなさい。これは既にアーカイブしてあり、もう投票はできません。

Fact: No one seems to be able to find a libertarian who actually understands what the word "fact" means. It's impossible. Things that are impossible cannot be.

Correct, it is a fact that they cannot be.

So you're conceding that you don't actually understand what the word "fact" means.

Thanks.

we were telling them, "It is factually impossible for this act to succeed.

You already admitted that libertarians don't know what that word means.

When something is necessarily true

You mean like the necessary truthfulness of libertarians not knowing the meaning of the word "fact"?