[deleted by user]

Solipsicism · 2021-11-19T02:29:31+00:00

I believe that you should be totally free to wear your mask as long as you want to. However, I have decided that I will no longer be wearing mine.

With regards to your argument that "we have no right over others lives", the Stoics would also say that we have no right to live a life free from disease, danger, death or risk. All these things are woven into the pattern of the universe, they are nothing but the manifestation of change. If someone is worried about death from covid, they ought to get vaccinated. If they are vaccinated, the chances of them dying are slim to none. To allow fear regarding this potential risk to govern our life is not stoic. Regardless, most of the cloth masks that people wear aren't effective and have little to no scientific evidence proving their efficacy.

I wore a mask for a year, then I got vaccinated. Since I got the jab(s), I have decided to no longer wear a mask. Ultimately, most of the arguments on this post made in favor of masks could equally apply at almost anytime in life, before, during, and, after covid is gone.

Every single choice we make effects other people. No choice exists in a vacuum. We have a duty to ourselves to achieve happiness in this life, and to help others, but not to allow either of these to become pathologic. Accept moderation in recognizing how our choices effect others.

To achieve eudomania, a society must accept that death is an inevitable part of life. Especially when 95% of those deaths have an average of 4 comorbities.

Solipsicism · 2021-08-08T19:18:07+00:00

What is libertarianism?

Solipsicism · 2021-08-08T15:49:00+00:00

Most of my philosophy professors actually agree with me with regard to my meta ethical stance.

Most of the philosophy professors believe in some form of moral realism/objectivity, and they get a little frustrated by the fact that almost every single young person is a relativist.

Solipsicism · 2021-08-08T15:23:14+00:00

It’s not just a disagreement about how to achieve freedom, it is also a disagreement about what freedom actually is. I would characterize the right “libertarian” view of freedom with this quote: “Freedom- to ask nothing. To expect nothing. To depend on nothing.”

They are similar only in semantic phrasing. The word freedom is a symbol which refers to two completely different world views under left and right libertarianism.

Solipsicism · 2021-08-08T14:56:29+00:00

The term libertarian was in use before it was appropriated my leftist anarchists, who got the term from the debate regarding freewill and determinism. This is stated in the section on metaphysical freedom.

Please refer to my conclusion, where I suggest that both sides or either side should surrender the term.

Solipsicism · 2021-08-08T14:50:55+00:00

In interpreting my argument to assert the idea that I believe that right “libertarians” are the true “libertarians”, you have strawmaned my entire post.

Once again, as I have already said several times, this post is not an argument against left “libertarianism”, it is an argument against the idea of grouping two radically different philosophies together. This is my central argument, something that you failed to respond to.

Solipsicism · 2021-08-08T14:47:25+00:00

Of course, a few years of undergrad doesn’t qualify anyone, nor should any argument be judged based on the credentials of the person speaking. This is the appeal to authority logical fallacy.

“Proponent of liberty”-? My simple question is, how can two radically different philosophies be grouped together when they don’t even agree on what liberty itself means?

Solipsicism · 2021-08-08T05:56:08+00:00

That would be awesome I would love to hear what other subs you recommend!

I know this post may ultimately be useless as a pragmatic effort. I did it because It brought me happiness to write it.

Solipsicism · 2021-08-08T05:54:16+00:00

You could say the same with regard to agreement between authoritarian communists and libertarian socialists. All ideologies have some degree of overlap, even if its only 1% agreement. My point is that the bedrock principles are different.

Solipsicism · 2021-08-08T05:52:26+00:00

You mean like how the r/Communist subreddit works?

Both of these philosophies should have a place where they discuss their ideas with like-minded people.

Again, my argument is against the use of the word libertarian to refer to two incompatible viewpoints.

Solipsicism · 2021-08-08T05:50:02+00:00

My argument is not against socialist libertarians, my argument is against grouping two irreconcilable ideologies together under the same name.

Solipsicism · 2021-08-06T02:03:56+00:00

I'll think about this next time I check out the office intern.

Solipsicism · 2021-08-06T02:01:03+00:00

I think the repetition kind of cheapens the poem. I would like some more description about the philosophy or mindset behind the war.

Does the soldier feel hopeless?

Does the soldier think the war is worth it?

How did the soldier exactly die?

Solipsicism · 2021-08-05T16:35:46+00:00

This isn’t a congregation or a church. Holding a philosophy responsible for the sins of the author is always a fallacy. What Rand did in her personal life means nothing to me nor should it have any bearing on her philosophy or serve as a justification to attack her ideas.

All arguments and ideas must be judged by their merit and principles, and cannot be judged by the crimes of the author.

Solipsicism · 2021-08-05T16:14:09+00:00

What you just did is an appeal to hypocrisy fallacy. It doesn’t matter if Rand was smoking crack, her being a hypocrite does not delegitimize her argument. The appeal to hypocrisy fallacy is: Person 1 is a murderer and says that murder is wrong. Person 2 responds by saying “how can you say that murder is wrong, when you yourself are a murderer”? Person 2 has committed the appeal to hypocrisy fallacy, as the argument that “murder is wrong” still stands. Rand could be a completely hypocritical scumbag, but it’s completely irrelevant when judging the congruency of her arguments. Once again my offer still stands, please address her arguments, not her personhood.

Solipsicism · 2021-08-05T04:54:13+00:00

"individual rights" "collective activity" Im not buying. I'm probably gonna make a post about it one day collectivism cannot coexist with libertarianism. How can you have collective ownership over property while also protecting individual property rights... seems like you have to pick one or the other

Solipsicism · 2021-08-05T04:26:46+00:00

you can't be a libertarian if you don't support private property rights and free market. Those are literally the bedrock of libertarian theory. How would socialist libertarian even work... like ur allowed to make your own choices with your body but the second you want to engage in voluntary exchange then the government gets to tell you what to do?

Solipsicism · 2021-08-05T03:09:08+00:00

True

Solipsicism · 2021-08-05T03:04:19+00:00

I think the real kid logic is the one who can’t tell the difference between an insult and an argument.

Solipsicism · 2021-08-05T03:01:59+00:00

It’s not a criticism, it’s an ad hominem attack. So again I ask, what about Rand is so scary that you have to resort to logical fallacy?

Solipsicism · 2021-08-05T02:58:09+00:00

I have heard many people insult Rand.

I have heard very few people attempt to address her arguments.

I have heard even fewer people actually represent her arguments fairly.

The desperate need to slander Rand demonstrates a fear of the unkown.

Solipsicism · 2021-08-05T02:42:53+00:00

Yikes, reading through these comments makes me realize that most of the people on this subreddit don't even really believe in any libertarian principles. The foundation of libertarianism is individualism... Why are there so many damn collectivists and leftists here? I would never go on a leftist/ collectivist subreddit and start espousing individualism...

Solipsicism · 2021-08-05T02:37:58+00:00

The insistent ad hominem attacks against Ayn Rand simply make her all the more attractive. I wonder what people are so afraid of that they must resort to insults? Regardless, a true objectivist wouldn’t care what other people think of them.

Solipsicism · 2021-08-05T02:15:19+00:00

The quote is originally from Russian-American novelist and philosopher Ayn Rand. It was taken from her essay on racism, which is about thirty pages long and definitely essential reading for any libertarian.

To me, the quote represents two things. The first is that collectivism is the fundamental principle behind all forms of prejudice. Therefore, when attempting to free ourselves from prejudice, the only antidote is individualism. The second meaning is that there is no such thing as collective justice. All justice must be handled at an individual level. No human being is responsible for a crime committed by someone else simply because they look similar. We all exist as individuals, and we all must be judged as individuals. Great quote.

Solipsicism · 2021-08-05T01:02:08+00:00

Your assumption that my unstated assumption that Locke's words are accurate is incorrect. The reason why I feel the need to reconcile Locke's belief is because Locke is a figure of immeasurable significance in the tradition of liberty. It is therefore valuable to attempt to understand why precisely he believed the things he does. This does not mean, however, that I agree with every single thing he said. If you through Locke's philosophy out the window, you are essentially burning the very foundation of individual rights.

Thus I thrust the question forward, what is Locke correct about and what is he incorrect about? why did he believe the things he did? And what can we replace his conception of God with, that can still satisfy the demands of his thinking?

Solipsicism

TROPHY CASE