About
Content
Store
Forum

Rebirth of Reason
War
People
Archives
Objectivism

Post to this threadMark all messages in this thread as readMark all messages in this thread as unread


Post 0

Sunday, October 31, 2004 - 7:51pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

It’s too bad Ron Paul doesn’t have the rudiments of an understanding of Islam required to initiate a plausible debate on the threat we face, its causes, and the methods required for our defense. One tires of libertarian dogma adjusted with incidental facts cherry-picked to give the façade of empirical support. After reading Ivan Eland, Justin Raimondo, Lew Rockwell, Sheldon Richmon, and others, it all starts to sound like they are circulating the same sound bites. One longs for an original thought, a crumb of a contribution, a flicker of an active mind. It’s possible, you know. For example, I enjoy reading Sciabarra; his approach actually deals with the subject matter while drawing on the broadest of concepts. There’s no dichotomy between philosophy and empiricism. Now, whether I agree with him is another matter, but one at least feels the need to come to grips with his arguments.




Post 1

Sunday, October 31, 2004 - 8:25pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
True the "paleo-libertarians" are prone to "sound bite-ism" but most political groups are. The site updates everyday so some repetition is bound to happen.
 
I agree that Sciabarra has much better view then the Rockwellians. Scibarra admits that radical Islam is a  threat to Western society, but understands that Leonard Peikoff/ Curtis LeMay "bomb them back to the stone age" mentality is behavior that more fitting of Cuffy Meigs then John Galt.
 
This is my first post and I hope I am not kicked out of the forum



Post 2

Monday, November 1, 2004 - 2:13amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
It's okay Karl.  We allow people to say nice things about Sciabarra here.  Just try not to make a habit out of it!



Post 3

Monday, November 1, 2004 - 6:10amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I agree, Karl, Chris is aware that philosophy – religious or secular – is a driving force in people’s lives. The un-philosophical libertarians often see everything only in structural terms – economic, unintended consequences of government (but only our gov't, of course), etc. Sure, these institutions (which in fact are the result of implicit or explicit philosophy) motivate each one of us. The problem is getting the balance of this interplay. Ah, now that’s a debate that is always enjoyable … except, of course, with Cuffy Meigs (nice touch Karl).



Post to this thread
User ID Password reminder or create a free account.