Ant has lost every debate I've ever seen him attempt miserably so yea I guess that would be fun to watch, sure. He's much better yelling into a camera with no one questioning his wet brain take on things.
Also, this libertarian guy sounds like can't keep a straight thought throughout this whole debate.
Gavin Mcinnes isn't much better. He comits every logical fallacy in the book. I mean he's a funny dude but I'm getting fucking tired of his endless appeal to authority.
I think Gavins's a formidable debater if you're a 20 year old college girl. As for his humor he just comes across as another yuppie who blew his pleasure centers out doing coke ten years ago who now feels that everyone must suffer under the yoke of his grouchy bullshit. He clearly hates being old and I'm glad. Oh he does make some goofy faces though huh.
and he's constantly banging on about how other people use anecdotal evidence when almost all of his arguments are based around what he's seen in his own new york hipster - and btw mostly liberal - circle of friends
I still like Gavin but you are right. He's a born-again Catholic - that says everything about where he's at intellectually. He also seems to be unable to understand the concept of individual taste. "You like vanilla ice cream? But strawberry is so much better! Millenials are so fucking stupid!"
Libertarianism is a pretty naive philosophy. Theres a lot that can be taken out of it and used socially... but its completely idiotic economically, especially in modern day america...unless of course you're a millionaire or billionaire.
It's all built on an idealistic belief in a free market that doesnt exist. It especially makes no sense for the masses in the context of 2015. Workers can't possibly have a value in a marketplace when theyre directly competing against third world slaves and automation. The rich already have near totalitarian control of america with the current level taxes and regulations in place. Lower the amount considerably more and you inevitably end with a third world country.
Libertarians are basically the idealistic dreamers of the right wing...every bit as naive as the dumb fucks on the opposite side of the spectrum that want to tax 60-90% of income and still have a productive and competitive society.
Libertarianism is only popular amongst people who run corporations, republicans who have done mushrooms, and college kids from the upper middle class.
To be fair, it is without a doubt only so popular because it is 'Americas 3rd political party' and once someone figures out that republicans and democrats are two sides of the same shitty coin, they default into libertarianism
As an ideology, it makes incredibly dangerous assumptions.
As the basis for a political attitude, Libertarianism is pretty sound: "governmental coercion should not be applied to anyone without a pressing need."
The question is what constitutes such a need. I agree that too many libertarians will staunchly follow their principles over a cliff ("the Confederacy should have been allowed to secede!" "people should be able to work for under minimum wage if they want to!") but I think it makes for a healthier society for government intervention to be the exception rather than the rule.
This is a theoretically appealing slogan. However it implies less taxation and regulation gives more individual liberty...when in fact it does the opposite for the overwhelming majority of people.
Individuals are mere serfs in a deunionized, low taxed country run by monolithic multinational corporations.
Serflike conditions could qualify as a "pressing need" for government intervention, at least in my estimation. I'm just saying that there's value in defaulting towards liberty and putting a relatively high "burden of proof" on the state to justify an intervention.
I suppose I'm arguing more for a generally libertarian attitude rather than capital-L Libertarianism.
There are much more difficult and arcane issues than Civil War and minimum wage, which are easy targets for skepticism.
Is it really that radical to believe the amount of lives lost in the Civil War was not worth it, given that slavery ended in every other Western country without the need of a massive internal war? If not, is there any amount of lives lost that would cause you to question the prudence of war?
A country can function without minimum wage laws (Switzerland) so that's not some outlandish proposition either.
Is it really that radical to believe the amount of lives lost in the Civil War was not worth it, given that slavery ended in every other Western country without the need of a massive internal war?
America's practice of slavery wasn't like other Western countries. If anything, it was more like the neo-serfdom in Eastern Europe and Russia, the latter of which required the authority of an absolute monarch to abolish.
There is zero indication that slavery was passing into obsolescence in the American South. On the contrary, the southern states rallied around secession precisely because they feared their prerogative of slave ownership was being threatened.
EDIT: Also, the point I was making required "easy targets". I was saying that Libertarianism is a sound political philosophy, but it can lead to unfortunate consequences if its principles are rigidly followed to their extremes. Those two examples are extremes (to my mind). I didn't criticize reasonable Libertarian points because I'm generally inclined to agree with them.
Okay, I guess. But you think slavery would still exist today if not for the war?
No, but there probably would have been another war somewhere down the line. I can't imagine a scenario in which the CSA and USA would coexist peacefully for very long.
Is there any body count (5-10 million?) where you'd view the war negatively?
Libertarians/Conservatives always lose debates because their views are backwards and retarded. It's like they're in this constant game of saying ridiculous shit and then demonizing those that call them out on it.
"Black People aren't savage subhuman beasts? You faggot liberal!"
You've been hanging around here/TACS too long. Your average conservative is pretty uncomfortable around that kind of "race realism". Fox News doesn't even go there.
35 comments
20 DrAttorney 2015-08-21
Ant has lost every debate I've ever seen him attempt miserably so yea I guess that would be fun to watch, sure. He's much better yelling into a camera with no one questioning his wet brain take on things.
Also, this libertarian guy sounds like can't keep a straight thought throughout this whole debate.
17 TijnTijn 2015-08-21
Gavin Mcinnes isn't much better. He comits every logical fallacy in the book. I mean he's a funny dude but I'm getting fucking tired of his endless appeal to authority.
16 DrAttorney 2015-08-21
I think Gavins's a formidable debater if you're a 20 year old college girl. As for his humor he just comes across as another yuppie who blew his pleasure centers out doing coke ten years ago who now feels that everyone must suffer under the yoke of his grouchy bullshit. He clearly hates being old and I'm glad. Oh he does make some goofy faces though huh.
6 6jesus6christ6 2015-08-21
and he's constantly banging on about how other people use anecdotal evidence when almost all of his arguments are based around what he's seen in his own new york hipster - and btw mostly liberal - circle of friends
3 jags85 2015-08-21
I still like Gavin but you are right. He's a born-again Catholic - that says everything about where he's at intellectually. He also seems to be unable to understand the concept of individual taste. "You like vanilla ice cream? But strawberry is so much better! Millenials are so fucking stupid!"
1 panjshirlion 2015-08-21
glances up from the Patrologia Graeca
Pardon?
1 jags85 2015-08-21
Is that the one where snape kills dumbledore?
6 zt945 2015-08-21
Dave sounded like he'd been doing coke.
14 DrAttorney 2015-08-21
Free market baby. Ride the lightning.
9 CharlieDango 2015-08-21
When he's not doing Luis impressions, he's doing coke.
3 kevin121312 2015-08-21
he probably stopped for the debate
12 Eternalforms 2015-08-21
Libertarianism is a pretty naive philosophy. Theres a lot that can be taken out of it and used socially... but its completely idiotic economically, especially in modern day america...unless of course you're a millionaire or billionaire.
It's all built on an idealistic belief in a free market that doesnt exist. It especially makes no sense for the masses in the context of 2015. Workers can't possibly have a value in a marketplace when theyre directly competing against third world slaves and automation. The rich already have near totalitarian control of america with the current level taxes and regulations in place. Lower the amount considerably more and you inevitably end with a third world country.
Libertarians are basically the idealistic dreamers of the right wing...every bit as naive as the dumb fucks on the opposite side of the spectrum that want to tax 60-90% of income and still have a productive and competitive society.
9 GaB91 2015-08-21
Libertarianism is only popular amongst people who run corporations, republicans who have done mushrooms, and college kids from the upper middle class.
To be fair, it is without a doubt only so popular because it is 'Americas 3rd political party' and once someone figures out that republicans and democrats are two sides of the same shitty coin, they default into libertarianism
As an ideology, it makes incredibly dangerous assumptions.
2 panjshirlion 2015-08-21
As the basis for a political attitude, Libertarianism is pretty sound: "governmental coercion should not be applied to anyone without a pressing need."
The question is what constitutes such a need. I agree that too many libertarians will staunchly follow their principles over a cliff ("the Confederacy should have been allowed to secede!" "people should be able to work for under minimum wage if they want to!") but I think it makes for a healthier society for government intervention to be the exception rather than the rule.
6 Eternalforms 2015-08-21
This is a theoretically appealing slogan. However it implies less taxation and regulation gives more individual liberty...when in fact it does the opposite for the overwhelming majority of people.
Individuals are mere serfs in a deunionized, low taxed country run by monolithic multinational corporations.
3 panjshirlion 2015-08-21
Serflike conditions could qualify as a "pressing need" for government intervention, at least in my estimation. I'm just saying that there's value in defaulting towards liberty and putting a relatively high "burden of proof" on the state to justify an intervention.
I suppose I'm arguing more for a generally libertarian attitude rather than capital-L Libertarianism.
1 NitratePrint 2015-08-21
There are much more difficult and arcane issues than Civil War and minimum wage, which are easy targets for skepticism.
Is it really that radical to believe the amount of lives lost in the Civil War was not worth it, given that slavery ended in every other Western country without the need of a massive internal war? If not, is there any amount of lives lost that would cause you to question the prudence of war?
A country can function without minimum wage laws (Switzerland) so that's not some outlandish proposition either.
1 panjshirlion 2015-08-21
America's practice of slavery wasn't like other Western countries. If anything, it was more like the neo-serfdom in Eastern Europe and Russia, the latter of which required the authority of an absolute monarch to abolish.
There is zero indication that slavery was passing into obsolescence in the American South. On the contrary, the southern states rallied around secession precisely because they feared their prerogative of slave ownership was being threatened.
EDIT: Also, the point I was making required "easy targets". I was saying that Libertarianism is a sound political philosophy, but it can lead to unfortunate consequences if its principles are rigidly followed to their extremes. Those two examples are extremes (to my mind). I didn't criticize reasonable Libertarian points because I'm generally inclined to agree with them.
1 NitratePrint 2015-08-21
Okay, I guess. But you think slavery would still exist today if not for the war?
Is there any body count (5-10 million?) where you'd view the war negatively?
1 panjshirlion 2015-08-21
No, but there probably would have been another war somewhere down the line. I can't imagine a scenario in which the CSA and USA would coexist peacefully for very long.
Sure, but that goes for anything.
9 [deleted] 2015-08-21
Check out the ass reaming Ant took on the gun debate.
-10 OpaqueOpie 2015-08-21
Not the ass reaming you were searching for I'm sure you queer
8 kevin121312 2015-08-21
Did you see him get his ass kicked when the douche debated him on guns? Bad idea. He should stay away from debates.m
1 youfuckmymother 2015-08-21
Link?
1 kevin121312 2015-08-21
it was on his show a few months ago. If you're not a subscriber, I don't think you can see it.
6 takyon_deathyon 2015-08-21
Libertarians/Conservatives always lose debates because their views are backwards and retarded. It's like they're in this constant game of saying ridiculous shit and then demonizing those that call them out on it.
"Black People aren't savage subhuman beasts? You faggot liberal!"
4 panjshirlion 2015-08-21
You've been hanging around here/TACS too long. Your average conservative is pretty uncomfortable around that kind of "race realism". Fox News doesn't even go there.
1 [deleted] 2015-08-21
[deleted]
1 BrooklynVariety 2015-08-21
"Black People aren't savage subhuman beasts? You faggot liberal!"
I don't know why I read that in a luis voice, but it made it better
0 [deleted] 2015-08-21
[deleted]
-1 FattiesArentPeople 2015-08-21
Holy fuck I refuse to believe someones such a sophist liberal shitdick. This has to be a troll.
5 somekindofsickjoke 2015-08-21
No it wouldn't.
2 zt945 2015-08-21
Yeah, I guess you're right. wtf am I thinking
1 [deleted] 2015-08-21
[deleted]
2 jsmill1 2015-08-21
Dave is, politically, a wiki-hack.
-1 FootThingOnHisFoot 2015-08-21
libertarians....lol
-1 TheMaddLib 2015-08-21
Ron Paul 08 guise
-10 OpaqueOpie 2015-08-21
Not the ass reaming you were searching for I'm sure you queer