Topic: Libertarians(Re: Bitcoin in Honduras' new charter cities) - page 2. (Read 3961 times)

Or there might be a correlation between those who have the analytic aptitude to understand brain science and those who have a liberal bias.  That would match the general observations I have made in some of the environments I have been privileged enough to have been a part of.

You have my reverence, cbeast.

Cbeast is a good man. Don't resent him.

That's my point exactly.

Well, the biology of the human mind is not static: It is constantly changing and adapting in the face of new information and environments; the amount is up to the individual will.

The information regarding brain differences is likely true. It's relevance is a matter of another question and answer.

Some would call this "shades of grey". I call it objective reality.

I don't see anything there, sir!
In case you're wondering, I'm not a rightie at all.  I just hate it when people think that they're superior to others based on brain differences or shit like that.  Most conservatives happen to be born into bible-thumping, conservative families that indoctrinate them, but that doesn't give you the right to call yourself superior.

Anyways, this thread has now devolved into an ad-hominem flame war.  I'm outta here.

 

There are little to no conservatives on this forum. Non-sequitur.

I am willing to agree most people with typical conservative views are very primal, territorial and xenophobic people.

Those idiotic studies are the height of arrogance... I'm surprised you are bringing those up.

Its not about superiority, its about priorities. I said nothing about a causal relationship. Willful ignorance is inexcusable. The science speaks for itself.

Corporations can only function under the legal protection that is the state. Anyways, move this thread to politics.

Sure, by liberals who desire to prove their own superiority.

So Rand and Newt would be right wing Republicans.  But when I think of right wing I think of imperialist big military blow up the world neo-conservitave types, and when I think of libertarian it's non-intervention leave and let be - much more suitable to a charter city, and to bitcoins. 

Actually there is conclusive physical evidence of brain differences between self-described Liberals and Conservatives. There have been dozens of studies of such brain scans.

There's a leading theory that vaccines are a major cause of libertarianism in the U.S., although I think this may be a bit of a stretch based on the fact that Ron and Rand Paul both are affected by Asperger's syndrome.

Thanks goodness for a state like Kentucky, backward enough that even a mildly retarded con man can still become a U.S. Senator there. Rand also distinguished by having himself certified as a laser eye surgeon by a state professional organization that he founded solely for this purpose. His inability to see any problem with this strategem is a striking example of the quirky thinking often seen in Asperger's.

In the USA, the largest group of Libertarians are led by Ron Paul who is a Republican Presidential Candidate. They may not be as right wing as Newt Gingrich, but his son Rand Paul is a complete wing nut on the far right.

I think that's a record for me, I am now a delusional right wing libertarian idiot, all from one post - I think I'll put that as my sig.  Can someone be a right wing libertarian?  Isn't that like a socialist capitalist? What do I know anyway, I'm a delusional idiot who uses bitcoins and thinks war has a lot to do with governments.

You must be delusional if you think governments are the cause of war and destruction. In fact, the greatest fallacy of right wing libertarian thinking is the tendency to blame governments for everything. War has nothing, absolutely nothing, to do with governments and everything to do with scarcity and profit. Historically scarcity has been the main cause of war, even otherwise peaceful tribes had to go to war occasionally when their territory conflicted with another tribe. In other words, resources and their scarcity is the main cause of war.

In the modern world we have less scarcity but more greed. This has led to wars being started, funded and continued for profit. Someone always profits from war, the weapons industry, construction industry, banks etc. This creates a strong incentive for certain corporations to support war. It's obvious that wars officially happen between governments but it's the forces behind governments that support the war. So yes, governments are to blame, but not alone. The corporations supporting the war effort are just as much to blame. To summarize, it's not fruitful to blame the governments or the corporations alone, the whole system is flawed.

I admit there are other causes for war as well, such as religion and race. But I claim that most wars are actually about resource scarcity or profit, issues such as religion and race are mostly used as a tool to get the masses behind the war effort. There are of course exceptions to this, crusades where it's actually about religion, nothing else. The whole issue is very complex but one thing is for sure, putting the blame on the governments alone is just idiotic. And this applies to many other issues as well.