There is only so much one can say about Wall street journal being republican. Especially considering how nebulous the concept of government parties is and how every publication serves only its own agenda and will hence always contain a bias. No matter how well the spin is hidden.

The discussion between trzy, Eelco and oluseyi has been balanced, even handed, intellectual and well argued. Very nice reads. To close such an interesting discussion because the original topic already ran its course upon its creation is just silly.

Quote: Original post by trzy
If you are intending to argue that the Islamic Golden Age was the result of Islam, you are mistaken. The Golden Age is overblown. The very term implies a flowering of intellectualism inspired by Islam, which is false.

I do not think the golden age happened because of Islam or in spite of it but rather because of the respect for knowledge and the particular intepretation of islam by the caliphs and main power heads of that time.

I also think its Golden Age is underblown1. At least as a consumer of mathematical history I am aware of much of the original works created by Arabic Culture which centred near Iran and Iraq. It was not just translation of Greek or stealing from the Indians (another 'non western' culture that at some point valued intellectualism).

They did original and presaged many works in Algebra both Symobolic as well as written, mathematical astronomy, Combinatorics, Calculus, Number Theory and more. Their contribution of Algebra was a definite break from the Greek's Geometry focused method and arguably one of the most important developments of mankind.

Quote: 1. Recent research paints a new picture of the debt that we owe to Arabic/Islamic mathematics. Certainly many of the ideas which were previously thought to have been brilliant new conceptions due to European mathematicians of the sixteenth, seventeenth and eighteenth centuries are now known to have been developed by Arabic/Islamic mathematicians around four centuries earlier. In many respects the mathematics studied today is far closer in style to that of the Arabic/Islamic contribution than to that of the Greeks.

.

Quote: Original post by LessBread
She may have been a war monger, but in my experience, scratch a Libertarian, find a fan of Ayn Rand. "Rand's fiction has had such an energizing effect on millions, including almost every significant figure in the American libertarian movement." Ayn Rand at 100: "Yours Is the Glory". "My very first exposure to libertarianism was provided by Ayn Rand, whose 100th birthday is being celebrated today." Ayn Rand Introduced Me to Libertarianism. "I don't know how many objectivists voted for Ron Paul, but all I knew was that him running was almost like being able to witness Ayn Rand running for President" Ayn Rand: The missing Libertarian Ingredient, the secret Ron Paul ingredient. "Without Ayn Rand, the libertarian movement would not exist." David Nolan, founder of the Libertarian Party Praise for Ayn Rand [Note: This quote is backed up with a book citation, but the web site is clearly a fan page, so ...] "Ayn Rand was a wonderful philosopher." Michael Badnarik

Completely incompatible? I'm sorry, but either you don't know what "completely" means or you don't know what "incompatible" means. Ayn Rand does not equal Libertarian, but she's a major influence on Libertarianism and there's no point in denying it.

Now don't conflate the Libertarian Party with Libertarianism [lol] (yes I know you aren't...); political labels cause more confusion than not. Of course no one can deny that Ayn Rand was a very influential figure in the modern Libertarian movement; but there IS a lot of difference between Objectivism and other 'schools' of Libertarianism--violation of NAP, for example, as Dredd pointed out. I can't believe anyone would call her a 'wonderful philosopher', that's just crazy. Her entire system breaks down with her wrongheaded epistemology, IMO.

Oddly enough, Canadian politics seem to put (non-special-interest) parties on a single left-right axis, and noone seems to think it's a problem, simply because we have more than two of them (that are viable, anyway). :/

Quote: Original post by LessBread
It will support some of his policies, those that line up with theirs.

I think that's what pretty much the same thing Maelstrom said with:

Quote: Original post by Dreddnafious Maelstrom
It will support his policies, so long as it lines up with their own.

Quote: Original post by Dreddnafious Maelstrom
You seem to equate Rand with libertarianism. Keep in mind that Rand was a war monger. Libertarianism is based on the non-aggression axiom. The two ideologies are completely incompatible.

Meh .... Rand claimed to believe in non-aggression as well (even though she clearly contradicted herself). As far as I can tell, the unforgiving extremism of free market libertarianism itself seems doomed to contradiction somewhere, so the minor variations between the Randian double-talkers and the Rothbardian ones is fairly inconsequential IMO.

Quote: Original post by HostileExpanse

Quote: Original post by Dreddnafious Maelstrom
You seem to equate Rand with libertarianism. Keep in mind that Rand was a war monger. Libertarianism is based on the non-aggression axiom. The two ideologies are completely incompatible.

Meh .... Rand claimed to believe in non-aggression as well (even though she clearly contradicted herself). As far as I can tell, the unforgiving extremism of free market libertarianism itself seems doomed to contradiction somewhere, so the minor variations between the Randian double-talkers and the Rothbardian ones is fairly inconsequential IMO.

There are a lot more than 'minor' variations between Randians and Rothbardians. Can you be more specific about your take on 'free market libertarianism'?

Quote: Original post by mhamlin
There are a lot more than 'minor' variations between Randians and Rothbardians.

Ignoring that Randians seem to dislike the "libertarian" label, I've only seen one notable difference between the two flavors. One of the philosophies designates a single law-enforcing body, while the other hypothesizes that allowing the groups with the strongest guns to emerge and eventually legitimize their enforcement of the law would be best. The latter is pretty dumb [see Russian mafia after the government collapsed], while the former is contradictory with it's own philosophical underpinnings. Other than that, they use same rhetoric and seem to clamor for the same "solutions."

Quote: Can you be more specific about your take on 'free market libertarianism'?

Dunno ... what exactly do you want to know?

From what I've seen, the free market extremists constantly rant on and on about how "the market" (AKA society) encourages the best strategies to emerge through competition, yet they ignore the glaringly obvious fact that the economic strategy that society has evolved is NOT any sort of extremist free-market design -- in fact, societies across the world have pretty soundly rejected the adoption of extreme market anarchism. The libertarian crowd seems to variously chalk up this plain fact to some sort of grand conspiracy, but I find it somewhat amusing that free market libertarianism can't even produce an attractive alternative when tried with virtual societies. When I've thought about it, this seems inevitable when you cater to the lowest common denominator for so many facets of life... but perhaps all those who protest how "the mob is taking their freedumz" will put down their teabags and actually put together a superior society (that lasts more than a few years) and prove me wrong.


edit: Please don't get me wrong. Utilizing market forces is fine and all, but like any other tool, people should use it wisely, not dogmatically.

[Edited by - HostileExpanse on July 18, 2009 1:29:33 PM]

Quote: Original post by HostileExpanse
Ignoring that Randians seem to dislike the "libertarian" label, I've only seen one notable difference between the two flavors. One of the philosophies designates a single law-enforcing body, while the other hypothesizes that allowing the groups with the strongest guns to emerge and eventually legitimize their enforcement of the law would be best. The latter is pretty dumb [see Russian mafia after the government collapsed], while the former is contradictory with it's own philosophical underpinnings. Other than that, they use same rhetoric and seem to clamor for the same "solutions."

Respectfully, you couldn't be more wrong. Were Rand alive today she would be Ann Coulter. Killing Muslims and converting the remainder of Jews and Muslims to Christianity would be her likely prescription. If you've studied Objectivism, which turned out to be really nothing more than an iron clad adherence to Rand's personal views, you would know that she limited her belief in the non-agression principle to the state versus its constituence.


You further seem to conflate libertarianism with anarchism, the two concepts are distinct.

Finally, you are either portraying a potential justice system in anarchy as intentionally simplistic in order to prop up your point of view, or else you have a very elementary understanding of it.

Arbitration and Common Law were far more advanced in the Dark Ages than what you seem to attribute to the potential of an anarchic justice system.

Quote:
From what I've seen, the free market extremists constantly rant on and on about how "the market" (AKA society) encourages the best strategies to emerge through competition, yet they ignore the glaringly obvious fact that the economic strategy that society has evolved is NOT any sort of extremist free-market design -- in fact, societies across the world have pretty soundly rejected the adoption of extreme market anarchism. The libertarian crowd seems to variously chalk up this plain fact to some sort of grand conspiracy, but I find it somewhat amusing that free market libertarianism can't even produce an attractive alternative when tried with virtual societies.

The problem with your analysis is that you assume competition is allowed to take place. All bets are off when force comes in to play. That is the root of my problem with anarchism. Once a group of people claim a monopoly on sanctioned force in a geographic area then they are a government. That is, in fact, the definition of government. Further, this group of people are invariably the sanctioning body as well as the executive body.

Attempts at splitting the power into a variety of branches, ala, the legislative, executive, and judicial, invariably collate into a blob agency with the distinction being in name only.

You seem to suffer from a common issue in that you function from a "Divine Right" point of you view as it regards government. Earlier you stated that

Quote: while the other hypothesizes that allowing the groups with the strongest guns to emerge and eventually legitimize their enforcement of the law would be best. The latter is pretty dumb (see Russian mafia after the government collapsed)

not realizing that you are describing all government in existence today. Mentally you've created a "super-citizen" that the government embodies, and excuse from it all that you scoff at in theory. So to quote you again.

Quote:
while the former is contradictory with it's own philosophical underpinnings.

Your own critique contradicts itself, and makes clear the shortcoming of your premise.


I also take issue with your use of the term "free market extremists."

The ability to enter voluntarily into a consensual agreement with anyone else, under agreed upon terms doesn't strike me as extreme. Perhaps a less nebulous term that has some degree of accuracy would prompt better responses from the people reading you.

Quote:
When I've thought about it, this seems inevitable when you cater to the lowest common denominator for so many facets of life... but perhaps all those who protest how "the mob is taking their freedumz" will put down their teabags and actually put together a superior society (that lasts more than a few years) and prove me wrong.

If you were arguing against democracy then this would be a valid criticism. Democracy does in fact cater to the lowest common denominator. For right or wrong the founders were as afraid of mob rule as we should be today.

Quote:
edit: Please don't get me wrong. Utilizing market forces is fine and all, but like any other tool, people should use it wisely, not dogmatically.

I agree with this. Both that market forces are a tool that should be used and that it is not wise to make ones political philosophy into a dogma.

Quote: Original post by LessBread
It will support some of his policies, those that line up with theirs. Your lack of nuance makes it sound like they support all of his policies, which is far from the case. Did they support the GI Bill, the extension of SCHIP, or the stimulus? No. Do they support cap and trade or the public option on health care? No.

thus the "so long as it lines up with their own" in my statement.

Quote:
She may have been a war monger, but in my experience, scratch a Libertarian, find a fan of Ayn Rand. "Rand's fiction has had such an energizing effect on millions, including almost every significant figure in the American libertarian movement." Ayn Rand at 100: "Yours Is the Glory". "My very first exposure to libertarianism was provided by Ayn Rand, whose 100th birthday is being celebrated today." Ayn Rand Introduced Me to Libertarianism. "I don't know how many objectivists voted for Ron Paul, but all I knew was that him running was almost like being able to witness Ayn Rand running for President" Ayn Rand: The missing Libertarian Ingredient, the secret Ron Paul ingredient. "Without Ayn Rand, the libertarian movement would not exist." David Nolan, founder of the Libertarian Party Praise for Ayn Rand [Note: This quote is backed up with a book citation, but the web site is clearly a fan page, so ...] "Ayn Rand was a wonderful philosopher." Michael Badnarik

Completely incompatible? I'm sorry, but either you don't know what "completely" means or you don't know what "incompatible" means. Ayn Rand does not equal Libertarian, but she's a major influence on Libertarianism and there's no point in denying it.

Have you ever read Justin Raimondo's account of meeting Rand? If not you should check it out. I think it's at Taki's site.

Again your google-fu has failed you. It just shows that a competent use of a search engine does not an education make. Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead deal locally between an ubermensch and "The State". At no point in either book is there a conflict between two states. Thus there is no exposition of the conflict between libertarianism, specifically of the Rothbardian persuasion, and Objectivism.

A more studious approach shows gaping differences in ideology. The modern personification of the two schools would be Coulter and Rockwell, or less apt but better known Coulter and Ron Paul.

You're conflating Chomsky and Coulter and saying they're the same philosophy.

Quote:
The key to my statement was "these days" which has nothing to do with pronouns. A large part of the difficulties the Republicans have these days is that they are unable to get past the neocon thinking that defined them during the Bush years. Pat Buchanan is a paleocon, but after his stint with the Reform Party can he truly be considered a Republican? And Ron Paul is not in the mainstream of the Republican party. He doesn't have the popularity with Republicans that Sarah Palin has or Rudy Giuliani has or that Mitt Romney has. The Republican party pretty much banned him from their national convention last year.

Your need to parse the Republicans affirms my statement that it depends on to whom your pronoun refers. It would have been simpler to just agree.

Quote:
Joe Lieberman. The neocons probably are pleased with Obama's approach to Afghanistan. They weren't pleased with his approach to Iran during their election crisis or with his approach to Israeli settlements. They probably weren't pleased with the bailout of GM and Chrysler, which could as easily be deemed Hamiltonian instead of fascistic.

To be clear I'm not calling Obama a facist, just as your generally strong approach to civil liberties doesn't make you a libertarian. I'm stating a simple fact. The solution used regarding GM is facism. This by definition:

Quote: In the economic sphere, many fascist leaders have claimed to support a "Third Way" in economic policy, which they believed superior to both the rampant individualism of unrestrained capitalism and the severe control of state communism. This was to be achieved by a form of government control over business and labour (called "the corporate state" by Mussolini).

Whereas profits are private and costs are public. Whereas in exchange for this arrangement government exerts additional control on said business.

Quote:
Obama and McCain may agree on a few things, like cutting the F-22, but they don't agree on everything. McCain would have taken us to war with Russia over Georgia. McCain would have praised the coup in Honduras rather than calling it illegal. McCain would have responded to the election crisis in Iran with a lot more bellicosity. McCain would never have said that it's up for Iranians to decide things for themselves.

The problem with lumping them all together is that it covers over the truth rather than expose it to the light.

The problem with your statement is that it is entirely speculative. Neither of us know what McCain may have done and God willing, we never will.

Quote: Original post by Dreddnafious Maelstrom

Quote: Original post by HostileExpanse
Ignoring that Randians seem to dislike the "libertarian" label, I've only seen one notable difference between the two flavors. One of the philosophies designates a single law-enforcing body, while the other hypothesizes that allowing the groups with the strongest guns to emerge and eventually legitimize their enforcement of the law would be best. The latter is pretty dumb [see Russian mafia after the government collapsed], while the former is contradictory with it's own philosophical underpinnings. Other than that, they use same rhetoric and seem to clamor for the same "solutions."

Respectfully, you couldn't be more wrong. Were Rand alive today she would be Ann Coulter. Killing Muslims and converting the remainder of Jews and Muslims to Christianity would be her likely prescription.

Perhaps she would. Mostly irrelevant since she would certainly do so under the guise of retaliatory force, which libertarian philosophy allows.

Quote: If you've studied Objectivism, which turned out to be really nothing more than an iron clad adherence to Rand's personal views, you would know that she limited her belief in the non-agression principle to the state versus its constituence.

There is little doubt that Rand attempts to apply the non-aggression principle upon individuals as well, so ..... not sure how you would try to argue differently. Whether she does so coherently or not is certainly questionable, but she does ostensibly attempt to.

Quote: You further seem to conflate libertarianism with anarchism, the two concepts are distinct.

No. Though you seem to have conflated my specific references to "free market" libertarians with all libertarians. Libertarianism is a fairly large umbrella, and I've made it clear that I'm referring to one of the extremist subsets.