Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Libertarian Discussion Forum -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Neocon who wrote (2552)	4/28/1999 9:25:00 AM
From: MeDroogies	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 13062

That's a joke. I would've thought about taking a stab, but 2 things prevented me: 1. I was late to it 2. I don't really see the point in having to "prove" myself to anybody. I don't believe that showing "how little" we on the thread "know" does anything but boost your own ego. Nobody had to answer your questions, and you assumed that because they didn't, they don't know anything. That is clearly BS. Probably most of them are like me and don't really give a damn for quizzes designed to make somebody feel superior. I think that we are pretty respectful of those who are not Libertarians. Just not you. Why? Because you ignore key points that many of us have made, you twist meanings and then, when a reply like mine "are you dense?" comes back at you, you claim you were attacked. I posted that because I made (what I thought) was a pretty clear point, and you obviously didn't get it (here comes another Neocon posting flurry to "prove" his point). I don't consider asking if somebody is dense necessarily rude. Usually, it's a wake up call. I've used it in business meetings to remarkable effect. People usually realize (after the fact) that they DID miss the main point and get back on track. You take offense, and begin an assault - not on the issue, but on the person. Street may have been out of line for calling you a liar, but he's right that you aren't a particularly likable person - at least online. You're probably a perfectly nice guy. But you use this forum as a battering ram for your supposedly "superior" knowledge (which, BTW, I'm not impressed with. You ARE intelligent - IQ over 150, likely - but you're like most of the other "geniuses" I know. You probably haven't found a proper outlet for that "knowledge"). Still, as I stated before, just because you know "stuff" doesn't make you knowledgeable. Street made it clear he didn't like Philosophy (neither do I) or Economics (I have a Master's in it, and I consider a higher form of Philosophy), so I'm not surprised he didn't tackle your quiz too aggressively. It wouldn't benefit him. Still, that DOESN'T make the basis of his opinions or beliefs null and void. Obviously, he has taken stock of his position and place in the world (as most of us have) and realized that Libertarianism is quite suitable on a grand scale. Why? Because it doesn't try to explain things on a GRAND SCALE. It explains things on a basic level and allows them to scale up - like all great ideas. You, on the other hand, feel that the grand scale somehow actually is something other than the sum of its parts. It is, in a sense. It is related to (I think it is Graham's Law) the comment that a "network is equal to the square of all its components". That is, a telephone is useless if there is only one. However, it is very useful if there are 10, and more useful if there are 100. That doesn't mean there is some kind of "explanation" necessary to describe how the 100 interact. All you need to know is that 1 can communicate with another 1 (or all 100 in our modern network). The framework that is developed to allow the 100 to communicate changes over time, so it is subject to temporal dislocation (in terms of explaining it). As long as the basic concept of the phone remains intact (one can communicate to the others with it), the phone retains its intrinsic value. The same basically goes for "society". "Society" is this network. You don't need to explain it on a grand scale, nor do you need to tell it how to work. Unlike the telephone, it doesn't need somebody to oversee its development. It develops spontaneously as a result of individual interactions. So, what remains important is that the individuals are free to interact without too many constraints. You will see more of this kind of thing if you've read into Chaos Theory or Complexity Theory. Simple rules scaling up into complex behavioral patterns spontaneously. BTW, I don't think you were so hard on me. My mother was much tougher. But she didn't usually come out on top.