tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post112164475392589150..comments2024-03-29T10:51:27.752+13:00Comments on Not PC: Liberal slavery and the 'substantive freedom' fallacyPeter Cresswellhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10699845031503699181noreply@blogger.comBlogger10125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post-1122610209388695022005-07-29T16:10:00.000+12:002005-07-29T16:10:00.000+12:00Richard, arguments both coherent and rational have...Richard, arguments both coherent and rational have been tendered, but as they apparently haven't fit your pre-conceived pigeonholes you've chosen to disregard them rather than adress them. Your loss.Peter Cresswellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10699845031503699181noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post-1122600485320759092005-07-29T13:28:00.000+12:002005-07-29T13:28:00.000+12:00"As I've said before, Richard's criticisms of libe..."<I>As I've said before, Richard's criticisms of libertarianism are more in the nature of caricature than they are analysis, so it surprises me that KP calls them "excellent." But there you go.</I>"<BR/><BR/>The problem is precisely that "saying" it was all you did. You've never managed anything approaching a coherent rational <I>argument</I>. So it's no surprise that others aren't convinced by your ungrounded assertions.<BR/><BR/>This is demonstrated again by your response to my previous comment. You haven't argued that substantive freedom actually commits one to anything like what the example claims. But nor have you retracted your misleading and downright ignorant remarks. You don't seem interested in getting at the truth at all. All you do is make snide dismissive remarks, as if that actually contributed something to the debate.Richard Y Chappellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16725218276285291235noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post-1122588570866635332005-07-29T10:09:00.000+12:002005-07-29T10:09:00.000+12:00Richard said, "Neither of you appear to understand...Richard said, "Neither of you appear to understand what you are trying to criticize."<BR/><BR/>Now there's irony for you.Peter Cresswellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10699845031503699181noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post-1122549282792770302005-07-28T23:14:00.000+12:002005-07-28T23:14:00.000+12:00That "example" you repeat is precisely not an exam...That "example" you repeat is precisely <I>not</I> an example of substantive freedom, as I explained in my <A HREF="http://pixnaps.blogspot.com/2005/07/freedom-and-fallacies.html" REL="nofollow">response</A> to Nigel. Neither of you appear to understand what you are trying to criticize.Richard Y Chappellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16725218276285291235noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post-1121786312120462462005-07-20T03:18:00.000+12:002005-07-20T03:18:00.000+12:00Ruth, I'm sorry I mischaracterised this statist. W...Ruth, I'm sorry I mischaracterised this statist. Would "arsehole" be more appropriate?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post-1121749496878736852005-07-19T17:04:00.000+12:002005-07-19T17:04:00.000+12:00Winefield said he was a socialist. And I'm still w...Winefield said he was a socialist. And I'm still waiting to hear about disclosure of risk, and how you deal with it - or maybe that is in the too hard basket. Not all regulation is bad you know.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post-1121745385880169732005-07-19T15:56:00.000+12:002005-07-19T15:56:00.000+12:00"Kearney is not a socialist." Erm, I quoted him sa..."Kearney is not a socialist." Erm, I quoted him saying he's a liberal. Confusion?<BR/><BR/>"If illuminati like Kearney don't 'get' it what hope do you have for the rest?"<BR/><BR/>No one ever said it was easy. :-/ <BR/><BR/>"I get more value from a new Chanel lipstick." <BR/><BR/>I'd better hold off on the Rottweiler jokes. :-PPeter Cresswellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10699845031503699181noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post-1121743041507016812005-07-19T15:17:00.000+12:002005-07-19T15:17:00.000+12:00Kearney is not a socialist. Libertarianism will fa...Kearney is not a socialist. Libertarianism will fail because no one understands it and they don't want freedom, they want to be safe. If illuminati like Kearney don't 'get' it what hope do you have for the rest? This is why I stopped donating to the party. I get more value from a new Chanel lipstick.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post-1121732465256424902005-07-19T12:21:00.000+12:002005-07-19T12:21:00.000+12:00Rather dead than slave.Rather dead than slave.Berend de Boerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11433622686361556089noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post-1121722712363180362005-07-19T09:38:00.000+12:002005-07-19T09:38:00.000+12:00And of course socialists like Kiwi Pundit wax lyri...And of course socialists like Kiwi Pundit wax lyrical about "a little slavery being good for you" because they want to be the ones with the whip and not the chains.<BR/><BR/>If Kiwi Pundit wants to be a slave he can surrender his own bloody freedom. If he comes to my house and tries to enslave me he's going to go down in a malestrom of bullets.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com