/lit/ - Literature

>>9367275
That's like saying,
>"In America orange is blue"
Libertarianism is part of the Liberal spectrum; the entire Liberal spectrum is Left Wing.

>>9363561
>>It's the same as quoting
>No it isn't
then
>>9363676
>I'm talking about quoting multiple instances of individual lines in the post you're responding to
So you're either a liar or a terrible writer.
well, maybe both
>the post you're responding to
I didn't write
>>9363540
I just pointed out you're an ignoramus

>I don't care what the FAQ says
>The rules are irrelevant here
Let me translate that
>"I WAS wrong but I am going to deflect because my ego is so fragile I can't accept error"
>To reiterate because I'm sure you're going to have trouble comprehending me, I'm not complaining about people quoting others.
You really need to learn the rules of comma usage, kid.
Oh.
That's right
>The rules are irrelevant here

>>9305015
>Bessessenmensch is not a name
I know besessenmensch isn't a name. That is because I can spell it properly.
>governments do not universally apply the categorical imperative
Why would they? A surprising amount of them are based upon Thomistic concepts, after all!
>You're literally relying on a defunct platonic metaphor
That isn't how you use the word 'literally'.
You say
>concrete ethical constraints
and follow it immediately with
>the deck should be kept as clear as possible
which is a practical consideration, not an ethical constraint, demonstrating you have no grasp of ethics
>No such physical conditions can be applied to the "State," which is a notion in the head.
And a defined territory, and semiotics, and a collection of laws, and a conglomeration of habits and culture, etc.
There is, indeed, quite a bit involved in the state that is not 'a notion in the head'. Try visiting your local prison for confirmation.
>stop regurgitating dead philosophy
Let me remind you - this is the topic at hand. The discussion is *about* philosophy.
>All of which has nothing at all to do with the main point, which is "there is no general ethics."
At best this is moving the goalposts. But it is more likely simply a lie. The original contention made was this
>arguing over ethics and free will don't produce anything of value except self wankery
Remember when you wrote that?
I have demonstrated that ethics *does* lead to concrete things of value (laws, governments, etc.) and now you want to pretend *I* brought up something no one mentioned until now?
FFS, kid - this is all written down in this thread! Anyone can see how you're refusing to admit that you were wrong!

>>9265159
>Hitler would be a prime example of The True Right.
>They are the remnants of classical liberals.
Remember, folks - the average product of modern education firmly believes that Liberals are Conservatives and Left Wingers are Right Wingers and will be confused when people mock them for this

>>9210796
>be the only female 'philosopher' of note
>Ayn Rand
Pick one

>>8926237
>Yes, and?
Not a logical tautology, a rhetorical tautology.
>Which part of the core premise begs the question?
'Everyone should always do whatever promotes what is valuable for himself.'
Objectivism is claimed to be an argument FOR ethical egoism, yet its justification merely *is* ethical egoism.
...
None of the Objectivist boilerplate you spout has much meaning
>a series of unsupported premises and question begging
and you fail to address the is/ought gap.
>The guard didn't startle
Did I mention the guard? Read what I wrote.
>She told him that he can either open the door, or she will kill him.
She initiated violence against a man guilty of no crime.
>Doing so will break the chain of command and his duty to his job
This does not follow
>Rather than decide for himself, he tried to plead that he needed to ask his superiors to make the decision for him.
>the guard is essentially an automatron [sic]
See this bit you, yourself, wrote?
> life is the only phenomenon that is an end in itself
You put that down because Rand taught you that.
Did she say 'consciousness'? Did she say 'decision making'?
Nope.
Life.
In the Objectivist Ethics you can read,
>"life and nothing else is valuable for its own sake."
That is a direct quote from Rand.
It mentions *nothing* about consciousness, decision making, etc.
But Rand loathed the actual *implications* if this and equivocated by adding
>"Everyone should always do whatever promotes what is valuable for himself"
which is *unsupported by Objectivism*. I tis just inserted to avoid the implications of her statements.
Back to the scene
Life, says Rand, is the ONLY THING with value in and of itself.
But killing the guard is morally justified because he equivocated?
Bullshit! She is tacitly admitting that Objectivism is too deeply flawed to address Real Life.

>>8526811
>>8526816
Marx's three main predictions
>the proletariat would grow and grow poorer and become more agitated and violent
>The middle class would shrink aas they became either proles or capitalists
>capitalists class would shrink and become more insular
All failed
>proletariat has become richer
>middle-class has grown
>class mobility has allowed 'churn' as people move in and out of top wealth class
China alone proves Marx was a fool and got it all wrong.
Historical determinism? What a buffoon!