PZ Myers fail: "Maybe this will finally drive the libertarians out of atheism"

[Skm1091]

Okay, last post, this time to the "So I invented a new law the other day" blog entry:

Stick a fork in me, I'm done. @.@

*grabs fork* You can include me

[BreadGod]

And fail like this: "The other thing these libertarians did, so predictably and at least a little more productively, is try to tout the virtues of their political philosophy. "Freedom, no initiation of force, no corporate welfare, no censorship, no drug war, peace...no initiation of force, individual liberty, live and let live, no corporate welfare, no drug war, etc." Yes? So? Those are things progressive liberals are all for, too, and we do it without the destructive baggage of unfettered capitalism, which they all neatly leave off their laundry list." Um, "unfettered capitalism" IS the non-initiation of force and live and let live! The only way to fetter capitalism is to USE force!

I would post that, if I weren't BLOCKED...

And then he says we "cheer it on." WHAT???

Lel. PZ Myers is either ignorant or flat out lying when he says that progressive liberals don't believe in the initiation of force. If anything, they love the initiation of force. Progressive liberals sure support individual liberty... except when it comes to things like fast food, cigarettes, light bulbs, etc. They support a larger welfare state, which involves forcibly taking money from people who produce and giving it to people who don't produce. They believe in gun control, which involves forcibly taking guns from law-abiding citizens. They also want to increase taxes on the rich, and just by looking at the very nature of taxes, any rational thinker can easily conclude that taxation is theft.

I could go on, but I feel like I've wasted enough time pointing out PZ's stupidity.

[BlameThe1st]

LOL! Looks like PZ Myers is still peeved at us: http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2014/01/01/wouldnt-everyone-love-to-have-a-conversation-with-jamie-dimon/

"While we've sucked in some libertarians nattering away in another thread, maybe they'd like to take a moment to explain the unrepentant evil of the American banking industry?"

Challenge accepted. I only need two words to answer that: Federal Reserve.

[MrBogosity]

LOL! Looks like PZ Myers is still peeved at us: http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2014/01/01/wouldnt-everyone-love-to-have-a-conversation-with-jamie-dimon/

"While we've sucked in some libertarians nattering away in another thread, maybe they'd like to take a moment to explain the unrepentant evil of the American banking industry?"

Challenge accepted. I only need two words to answer that: Federal Reserve.

Can you go post there? While you're at it, why not ask why the only examples they can come up with are heavily regulated industries like banking and health care?

[Travis Retriever]

LOL! Looks like PZ Myers is still peeved at us: http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2014/01/01/wouldnt-everyone-love-to-have-a-conversation-with-jamie-dimon/

"While we’ve sucked in some libertarians nattering away in another thread, maybe they’d like to take a moment to explain the unrepentant evil of the American banking industry?"

Challenge accepted. I only need two words to answer that: Federal Reserve.

(And to add to Shane's post) And why we don't see that issue with computers--the freest industry we have.
Honestly, this guy, along with others like him on, say, the badly misnamed League of Reason and even worse named Rational Wiki give atheists a bad name.

[BlameThe1st]

Oh look, PZ is scapegoating libertarians over the UCSB shootings!

http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2014/06/01/clearly-the-only-reasonable-diagnosis-is-that-libertarians-are-mentally-ill/

As long as we're diagnosing mental illness from angry manifestos on the internet, that is. This rant from Stefan Molyneux is NSFW, but apparently the Rodger mental state is widespread among the leaders of Libertarianism.

I'm too afraid to read the comment section.

[Travis Retriever]

Oh look, PZ is scapegoating libertarians over the UCSB shootings!

http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2014/06/01/clearly-the-only-reasonable-diagnosis-is-that-libertarians-are-mentally-ill/

I'm too afraid to read the comment section.

I kinda want to post Chris Cantwell's video to the comments section, but I'm afraid to even click the link. *Holds his nose and takes a deep breath* Well, here goes nothing...

[MrBogosity]

Wow. He talks about "This rant from Stefan Molyneux," but he doesn't actually POST Stefan's video; the video is Sam Seder TALKING ABOUT Stefan (and we all know how reliable Seder is, right?).

[Travis Retriever]

Wow. He talks about "This rant from Stefan Molyneux," but he doesn't actually POST Stefan's video; the video is Sam Seder TALKING ABOUT Stefan (and we all know how reliable Seder is, right?).

1) Happy 4600th post.

2) I figured I'd respond to that screed as follows:

"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tqfUmbLAOz4
Also, he killed 6 men, but only 2 women...sounds more like a feminist, which seems to define war as 'not giving us free bags of goodies.'  Feminism is first world problems in ideological form.

As for the mentally ill bit:  Libertarians support a social order in which free individuals make voluntary contracts with each other, and no one can rightly initiate physical force or duress against anyone else. Is that vision so obviously unattractive that we have to refer its supporters for psychological evaluation?

We might instead wonder at the psychological condition of those who would denounce such a system: might they be motivated, for all their noble talk, by nothing but base envy of those with more material wealth than they, or by a pathological desire to dominate other people?"

[evensgrey]

1) Happy 4600th post.

2) I figured I'd respond to that screed as follows:

"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tqfUmbLAOz4
Also, he killed 6 men, but only 2 women...sounds more like a feminist, which seems to define war as 'not giving us free bags of goodies.'  Feminism is first world problems in ideological form.

As for the mentally ill bit:  Libertarians support a social order in which free individuals make voluntary contracts with each other, and no one can rightly initiate physical force or duress against anyone else. Is that vision so obviously unattractive that we have to refer its supporters for psychological evaluation?

We might instead wonder at the psychological condition of those who would denounce such a system: might they be motivated, for all their noble talk, by nothing but base envy of those with more material wealth than they, or by a pathological desire to dominate other people?"

He put himself outside of any form of rational debate when he included in his definition of rational 'agrees with me'.

[FeatheredTerror]

I'll be honest, I consider PZ Myers to be a joke. It really frustrates me that his blog is apparently the most widely read "science" blog on the internet.

[BlameThe1st]

1) Happy 4600th post.

2) I figured I'd respond to that screed as follows:

"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tqfUmbLAOz4
Also, he killed 6 men, but only 2 women...sounds more like a feminist, which seems to define war as 'not giving us free bags of goodies.'  Feminism is first world problems in ideological form.

As for the mentally ill bit:  Libertarians support a social order in which free individuals make voluntary contracts with each other, and no one can rightly initiate physical force or duress against anyone else. Is that vision so obviously unattractive that we have to refer its supporters for psychological evaluation?

We might instead wonder at the psychological condition of those who would denounce such a system: might they be motivated, for all their noble talk, by nothing but base envy of those with more material wealth than they, or by a pathological desire to dominate other people?"

Decided to check out the comment section after you left your comment. The aftermath is akin to full grown men soiling themselves. The replies are your typical anti-libertarian talking points. "Oh, you think the market is God!" "Oh, if you hate government, move to Somalia!" There's a reason why I've titled my video series "Anti-Libertarians Can't Think." If they truly applied critical thinking to their own criticisms of libertarianism, they wouldn't make such insipid points in the first place.

Here's one especially stupid comment I LOLed at: http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2014/06/01/clearly-the-only-reasonable-diagnosis-is-that-libertarians-are-mentally-ill/comment-page-1/#comment-805322

Libertarianism applied to urban planning: remove all the traffic lights and trust that the invisible hand of traffic flow and people's own better nature will ensure everyone gets where they want to go in a timely fashion.

Do these dimbulbs realize that such roads already exist? Yes, believe it or not, there are roads where there are not traffic lights or signs or surface markings. Not only that, but they're shared by cars and bikes and pedestrians alike--all at the same time! Yes, these roads do exist. They're called shared spaces.

And do these "libertarian roads" devolve into total anarchy without signs or rules? No! Actually, quite the opposite. They're rather safe to travel on. In West Palm Beach, Florida, the removal of traffic signals and road markings brought pedestrians into much closer contact with cars, removing any distinction between sidewalk and roadway. The result has been slower traffic, fewer accidents, and shorter trip times.

Let me repeat that again for the mindless statists who may be reading this: the removal of traffic signs in West Palm Beach has led to fewer traffic accidents. Fewer. Not more!

What's that? You mean to tell me that order can arise without rules and regulation controlling everything? Gee, it's almost as if order can arise spontaneously. What a concept!

[Travis Retriever]

And do these “libertarian roads” devolve into total anarchy without signs or rules? No! Actually, quite the opposite. They’re rather safe to travel on. In West Palm Beach, Florida, the removal of traffic signals and road markings brought pedestrians into much closer contact with cars, removing any distinction between sidewalk and roadway. The result has been slower traffic, fewer accidents, and shorter trip times.

I don't mean to pick nits, but a much better word would be "anomie" instead of anarchy.  Anarchy--without rulers, NOT without rules--would be like two people talking without a third party violently intervening.  I think I know what you meant, but it's a way I've seen the word misused a LOT.  Kind of like the way people misuse the word regulate, which, because it also means "to keep regular/consistent" and (more modern definition of) "to control" seems to have a lot of people--statists, natch--thinking the latter is the only way to achieve the former. Language can be a pain like that. >.<*

That bit aside, I thank you for your support/kind words.   And yeah, I really need to find that quote from Harry Browne (or someone else) where at the end he says, "You move! America is the place we go if we want to be free.  You want theocracy, take your pick, you want Socialized Healthcare, go to the UK, Canada, etc.  Why should I have to move? YOU move!"

[MrBogosity]

That bit aside, I thank you for your support/kind words.   And yeah, I really need to find that quote from Harry Browne (or someone else) where at the end he says, "You move! America is the place we go if we want to be free.  You want theocracy, take your pick, you want Socialized Healthcare, go to the UK, Canada, etc.  Why should I have to move? YOU move!"

I thought that was me?

[Travis Retriever]

I thought that was me?

IIRC, you were the one who posted it, but it might have been you, yeah. Awesome quote, either way.