5 ms·

Criticism of the current state of affairs did not uniquely come from libertarians. Plenty of conservatives and liberals were quite concerned about security thea

Criticism of the current state of affairs did not uniquely come from libertarians. Plenty of conservatives and liberals were quite concerned about security theater.

javert 13y ago
But they have no principled justification to refute it. So they're not helping the situation. They don't have any intellectual firepower. (The libertarian are also not perfect on these grounds, but perhaps somewhat better.)
- aqme28 13y ago
  What do you mean? Non-libertarians had no justification to refute those things?
  - WalterBright 13y ago
    Much of that revolves around the issue of whether rights are innate to being human, or are a construction of society.
    - aqme28 13y ago
      Hmmm. But how does either stance invalidate or even weaken my "intellectual firepower"?
      - javert 13y ago
        Well, neither of those stances can be traced back to reality, so neither is correct, so by definition, you have no "intellectual firepower" if you use either one. :)
- mikeash 13y ago
  "You guys should actually follow that Constitution you swore to uphold" is a perfectly valid justification coming from a non-libertarian.
  - javert 13y ago
    No, and that is exactly my point. You can't invoke the Constitution on your pet issues, but ignore it on other issues, which is what liberals and conservatives have been doing for a long time [1]. I mean, you can, but it's not intellectually convincing. And that's the very definition of a non-principled approach. ]1] At least, that's how I see it; I don't want to try to defend that claim in detail right now. Anyway, I'm not sure it's right to go only back to the Constitution and not further back, to more basic points about liberty. Liberals and conservatives do not support individual freedom, so they have no fundamental ideas to point to; it's just "I want this on this issue, but that on that issue."
    - mikeash 13y ago
      Libertarianism is not synonymous with "follows the Constitution", and neither liberalism nor conservatism necessarily implies going against the Constitution. Obviously, you seem to see things differently, but you are wrong, and having such a narrow view of other people will destroy your ability to understand them or have a productive conversation with them.
      - javert 13y ago
        > , and neither liberalism nor conservatism necessarily implies going against the Constitution. I'm not sure I agree with you, but I acknowledge that it's a complex issue and not one I'm interested in trying to hash out on HN. (Which I already stated in my prior comment.) > Obviously, you seem to see things differently, but you are wrong, and having such a narrow view of other people will destroy your ability to understand them or have a productive conversation with them. I think that's a really unjustified thing for you to say. Having different opinions about the Constitution does not "destroy my ability to understand [others] or have a productive conversation with them." No offense, but that's a really ridiculous thing to claim.
        mikeash 13y ago
        You were dismissive and insulting, saying that I and the vast majority of others have no principles. I think it was completely justified, because you demonstrated what I was claiming right in the message I was replying to.

Criticism of the current state of affairs did not uniquely come from libertarians. Plenty of conservatives and liberals were quite concerned about security theater.

javert 13y ago

But they have no principled justification to refute it. So they're not helping the situation. They don't have any intellectual firepower. (The libertarian are also not perfect on these grounds, but perhaps somewhat better.)

aqme28 13y ago
What do you mean? Non-libertarians had no justification to refute those things?
- WalterBright 13y ago
  Much of that revolves around the issue of whether rights are innate to being human, or are a construction of society.
  - aqme28 13y ago
    Hmmm. But how does either stance invalidate or even weaken my "intellectual firepower"?
    - javert 13y ago
      Well, neither of those stances can be traced back to reality, so neither is correct, so by definition, you have no "intellectual firepower" if you use either one. :)
mikeash 13y ago
"You guys should actually follow that Constitution you swore to uphold" is a perfectly valid justification coming from a non-libertarian.
- javert 13y ago
  No, and that is exactly my point. You can't invoke the Constitution on your pet issues, but ignore it on other issues, which is what liberals and conservatives have been doing for a long time [1]. I mean, you can, but it's not intellectually convincing. And that's the very definition of a non-principled approach. ]1] At least, that's how I see it; I don't want to try to defend that claim in detail right now. Anyway, I'm not sure it's right to go only back to the Constitution and not further back, to more basic points about liberty. Liberals and conservatives do not support individual freedom, so they have no fundamental ideas to point to; it's just "I want this on this issue, but that on that issue."
  - mikeash 13y ago
    Libertarianism is not synonymous with "follows the Constitution", and neither liberalism nor conservatism necessarily implies going against the Constitution. Obviously, you seem to see things differently, but you are wrong, and having such a narrow view of other people will destroy your ability to understand them or have a productive conversation with them.
    - javert 13y ago
      > , and neither liberalism nor conservatism necessarily implies going against the Constitution. I'm not sure I agree with you, but I acknowledge that it's a complex issue and not one I'm interested in trying to hash out on HN. (Which I already stated in my prior comment.) > Obviously, you seem to see things differently, but you are wrong, and having such a narrow view of other people will destroy your ability to understand them or have a productive conversation with them. I think that's a really unjustified thing for you to say. Having different opinions about the Constitution does not "destroy my ability to understand [others] or have a productive conversation with them." No offense, but that's a really ridiculous thing to claim.
      - mikeash 13y ago
        You were dismissive and insulting, saying that I and the vast majority of others have no principles. I think it was completely justified, because you demonstrated what I was claiming right in the message I was replying to.