tldr, but I'm guessing it's typical internet nerd libertarian masturbation viewed through a lens of arbitrary values.
tldr, but I'm guessing it's typical internet nerd libertarian masturbation viewed through a lens of arbitrary values.
"I didn't read this, but here's my opinion on it anyways."
This reflects the mind state of a lot of people on this planet. Running around rejecting things they know nothing about in order to validate the beliefs they already hold.
How can we ask people to think critically when they won't think at all?
Disclaimer: I read about half of this a couple years ago and never finished because it was too much for one sitting. I have no opinion on it. I might finish it tonight if I get bored of fapping.
Meh. I've been on forums since '98 (I'm almost 40) and am all too familiar with the libertarian bent many on the internet have. So when after seeing a couple of frames from the OP's link, I knew where it was going. I'm not necessarily anti-libertarianism but I do find it tiresome how libertarians are often completely unaware of the arbitrariness of their values and are unaware of the philosophy's contradictions.
Point out the contradictions that exist within the belief of the non-aggression principle (the recognition that it's immoral to initiate or threaten the initiation of force against a person or their property). The NAP is the backbone of libertarian philosophy.
Meh. I've been on forums since '98 (I'm almost 40) and am all too familiar with the libertarian bent many on the internet have. So when after seeing a couple of frames from the OP's link, I knew where it was going. I'm not necessarily anti-libertarianism but I do find it tiresome how libertarians are often completely unaware of the arbitrariness of their values and are unaware of the philosophy's contradictions.
You can't expect that sort of intellectual honesty from a man who so freely uses the word "meh."
As pointed out by Gilbert (1938:206) it was traditional in the genre of Mirrors of Princes to mention fortune, but "Fortune pervades The Prince as she does no other similar work". Machiavelli argues that fortune is only the judge of half of our actions and that we have control over the other half with "sweat", prudence and virtue. Even more unusual, rather than simply suggesting caution as a prudent way to try to avoid the worst of bad luck, Machiavelli holds that the greatest princes in history tend to be ones who take more risks, and rise to power through their own labour, virtue, prudence, and particularly by their ability to adapt to changing circumstances.
Machiavelli even encourages risk taking as a reaction to risk. In a well-known metaphor, Machiavelli writes that "it is better to be impetuous than cautious, because fortune is a woman; and it is necessary, if one wants to hold her down, to beat her and strike her down." Gilbert (p. 217) points out that Machiavelli's friend the historian and diplomat Francesco Guicciardini expressed similar ideas about fortune.
Machiavelli compares fortune to a torrential river that cannot be easily controlled during flooding season. In periods of calm, however, people can erect dams and levees in order to minimize its impact. Fortune, Machiavelli argues, seems to strike at the places where no resistance is offered, as had recently been the case in Italy. As de Alvarez (1999:125–130) points out that what Machiavelli actually says is that Italians in his time leave things not just to fortune, but to "fortune and God". Machiavelli is indicating in this passage, as in some others in his works, that Christianity itself was making Italians helpless and lazy concerning their own politics, as if they would leave dangerous rivers uncontrolled.