>kelley snits more details of the Evil Libertarian Conspiracy:
there has been plenty of things said to suggestion that 1. libertarian thought is hardly dangerous or rebellious or marginalized; 2. that it is largely incoherent, indefeasible as a political philosophy and just plain empirically unsound regarding claims made about human nature and behavior and 3. as such it yields contradictions in american life. (apologies to cat, rob, john, elena, those who don't reside in the US.)
no one here would see libertarian thought as an evil conspiracy. friggin christ man! justin schwartz is schooled in libertarian political philosophy. take a cue from the guy man, he knows his stuff. you are better than this crap matt.
> > go right back to this point here. in the first place, i didn't make them
> > equivalent. i told chris he was espousing utilitarian individualism AND
> > social darwinism. you took me to be saying that they were
> > equivalent. they're not.
>
>I know. I was replying to Rob, not you.
i was calling you on something i'd failed to call you on earlier: *your* assumption that i equated UI with SD and, further, calling you out for being ignorant of the very political terrain in which you live and breath. you see the phrase "utilitarian individualism" and you see only "individualism"? you don't have a klew about the importance of utilitarianism in american political thought? you see the word "utilitarianism" and it doesn't register something? ANYTHING?
you then go on to claim (to me that social darwinism has nothing to do with libertarian thought? what the fuck matt? i just checked out the major libertarian sites on the 'net. every single one lists herbert spencer AND sumner, a disciple of social darwinism and behind its huge popularity in this country during the time the awful progressive were supposedly crafting social policy in order to bring this country to its knees.
you are an intelligent, politically involved man. what is up with this?
d^2 rang your number months ago then, huh?
> > robert nozick, THE contemporary libertarian theorist, draws on spencer,
> the
> > person who coined the concept "survival of the fittest". you go ahead and
> > read the above and then maybe you might catch an errant klew.
>
>You'll get your clue from following attributions. :-)
read what you wrote again. you told me the following:
>The equivocation of social darwinism with libertarian political philosophy
>is absurd. Libertarians believe in cooperation and charity, we just don't
>want to be forced to cooperate and support charities at the barrel of a
>gun. (matt cramer)
attribution issues? you wrote it in response to what i'd typed.
>OK. I took it for granted that it was recognized that Bore and Gush will
>deliver a presidency that jeapordizes the existence of the individual.
that's not the issue, as others have pointed out. people operate according to a dominant ethos, utlilitarian individualism. i've explained what that is.
pointing to the voting preferences of the average USer can tell you nothing because you don't know what he or she thinks and why they acted the way they did--if you stick with your political philosophy and the apistemology/social scientific approach it entails. that's why calling them robots is an odd response. you have no need to explain such events; they are none of your concern. tough noogies people don't vote as *YOU* wish. that's the world a utilitarian individualist/libertarian/individualist is stuck with.
>Can one subscribe to social darwinism without believing that it is "good"?
oiy. this question means that you still don't understand what it is!
>What purpose does a.a. serve? Why does someone with a particular colour
>of skin deserve extra "help"?
you still haven't answered the questions from cat and me: how is affirmative action an illustration of social darwinist thought or how it is underpinned by the logic of social darwinism.
i think the bravo channel has reruns of The Great Houdini playing all this week.
kelley