oioioi wrote:
Perhaps the word "hierarchy" is confusing people. Lets use inequality instead.

If you see someone mugging someone, and you stop them, you are showing that you believe in inequality (where you, enacting your principle, are considering superior to the mugger, and their principle of "its ok to mug this person). That superior/inferior distinction is inequality in action.

Liberalism is opposed to that because it is opposed to inequality. It says that no one is or should be considered superior to anyone else. In order to act to stop crime you have to throw away the concept of equality (and thus of Liberalism, which is based on egalitarianism).

I think you are confused tbh -

a mugger is removing someone elses freedom to not be mugged - a freedom which everybody is equally entitled to - therefore upholding the principle of equality - there is no such freedom to 'mug'.

Mr Shiny wrote:
Again complete disregard for the freedoms of others = liberalism bollocks.
Again abuse of the very word as mentioned in the OP.
Its amazing to watch the madness tbh

Mr Shiny wrote:
Allowing someone to treat someone as not equal ie. mugging them = equality?

Jog on.

Shit WUM.

Telling someone that what they are doing is wrong, is hierarchy/inequality - it is placing you and your values above them and theirs.

Liberalism is anti-inequality/hierarchy.

If you want to stop a criminal from acting, you have to abandon the bullshit ideology of liberalism.

It really is not rocket science.

Mr Shiny wrote:
Nature tells us it is wrong to fuck kids, see above.

oioioi wrote:
Nature doesnt say anything of the sort. You'll find rape regularly in nature. If you are saying that it is wrong to fuck kids, I'm agreeing with you. If you are saying that that stance is compatible with liberalism I'm not. Notice the difference between those two points, they are NOT the same.

Liberalism is for equality and freedom.

Mugging, raping, murdering is a violation of peoples freedoms - therefore against liberal principles

Everyone should be equally free from such a violation - Not equally free to violate which is what your interpretation of liberalism is attempting to say.

You appear to be twisting the concept of liberty.

Mr Shiny wrote:
Nature says kids aren't ready for sex, the means of reproduction, and therefore are not equal to adults.

But it's an aberration of a natural code of ethics, isn't it? Incest occurs, but that doesn't mean that it's 'natural'. People walk into McDonald's in the States with an AK-47 and shoot the place up, but that doesn't make this conduct 'natural'.

Libertarianism, as I prefer to call it, is predicated on the principle that people have the freedom to do whatever they want as long as they don't infringe upon the freedoms of others. Or as Wikipedia puts it:
Rape and paedophilia obviously do not "minimise coercion" because they are coercive acts by their very nature, hence libertarianism is opposed to them by definition.

thoreau wrote:
I'm not twisting the concept of liberty, I'm illustrating how Liberalism (based as it is on egalitarianism) is bullshit because if you truly believed in egalitarianism you would not tell a mugger/rapist/whatever that they are wrong (as that would mean you are treating them and their values as inferior rather than equal).

wake_up_bomb wrote:
Of course its an aberation. No one is saying that shagging children is right! Whether it is natural or not is neither here nor there. We say that it is wrong and we rightly punish those who engage in it. THAT is hierarchical behaviour. It is UNEQUAL behaviour. We recognise that the values of the child abuser are inferior to our own.

Liberalism, being based on egalitarianism, is opposed to us taking that stance because it is opposed to inequality. That is how Savile got away with what he did - we have been fed this bullshit ideology for so long that it paralysed people into not knowing whether what they saw was right or wrong.

Look at liberalism impassionately, instead of as an insider adherent, and you will realise what I am saying.

Mr Shiny wrote:
You're just taking a word 'egalitarianism' and applying it to an extreme strawman and then having a stupid 'argument' about it on a forum.
Something you did well on DIF btw
Its still as amusing to watch now as it was then

Mr Shiny wrote:
Mugging/rape/paedophilia=inequality.

So, in your own words...

Muggers and rapists are by their definition restricting and violating anothers freedoms - liberals are for freedoms for all - therefore in the interest of equality would not condone rape or mugging.

Mr Shiny wrote:
^This doesn't include your precious benevolent dictators who just so happen to be the ones imposing their oh so superior 'morals' on the rest of us without including themselves, which is the whole reason why Savile got away with what he did to begin with.
They don't want to see their twisted authoritarian nightmare world come tumbling down around them and for the proles to come for them and sling ropes over lamposts. This is why the guy was never arrested.
You can blame it on liberalism from now til doomsday it doesn't make you accurate.
Its ridiculously obvious to anyone with a brain who looks at it that savile was not prosectued because certain people in high positions were fearful of the consequences, some of them even partook in the same behaviour too.
Yet these people at the British Bullshit Corporation have such superior morals and we should bend over and take it up the ass.

Mr Shiny wrote: You just said "you'll find rape regularly in nature", thereby implying that rape is 'natural'. If you weren't implying that, what were you implying?

As for everything else, if you look at any definition of libertarianism, like for example the one that I just provided, you will see that it is AGAINST coercive acts such as rape, paedophilia, murder, etc. It does not facilitate these acts, it opposes them. That's why libertarians are against the state, and in favour of a small state, because the state is almost without exception a coercive institution.

I will repeat...libertarianism is founded on the principle that anyone can doing anything they want, as long as they do not infringe upon the freedoms and rights of others. That is categorically not the same thing as saying that everyone is equal whatever they do. Everyone, instead, has equal rights and freedom within a clearly defined code of ethics which emphasises personal responsibility and individual freedom and liberty.

It's anti-hierarchical by its very nature; to suggest otherwise is just daft. People that oppose it usually argue that it's in some way impractical or unworkable, so perhaps you'd prefer to go down that avenue instead.

oioioi wrote:
Yes, liberalism is opposed to inequality and as mugging rape and paedophilia are all examples of inequality then liberalism is opposed to them.

Liberalism is also opposed to taking action against them because taking action against them is also inequality; it's saying that the values of the mugger/rapist/paedophile are inferior to those the values of those who oppose them.

This is what I mean. Liberalism is self-contradicting bullshit that belongs in the bin.

wake_up_bomb wrote:


Like he says, the vast majority, especially KOTG (lol) don't understand.

Mr Shiny wrote:
Oh wow, progress.

Then...
Brainfart.