Why is Rice so underrated?

[nspeds]

<p>

It is laughable how you start a paragraph with “Primarily because the purpose of this forum is to discuss Rice University, and not engage in political debates” and then follow with nothing at all related to Rice University.

</p>

<p>So much for keeping this mature and cerebral;)</p>

<p>

Its also a biting rhetorical stategy when you enumberate your accomplishments, like anyone cares what you have done in the past.

</p>

<p>It is not an accomplishment, really.</p>

<p>

I can really put faith into your “paper on Kantian metaphysics” and your “accurate depicition of libertarian ideology.” For all anyone knows, these could be made up, and even if they are not, they have no place here.

</p>

<p>The former does have a place here, since last I recall, you are arguing about the Libertarian ideology. The latter is also relavent in that I have work to do, and it is work that requires ** concentration**.</p>

<p>

Besides this thread is dead

</p>

<p>How does that justify perpetuating a political debate?</p>

<p>

so don’t scurry away under some guise of serving the public good.

</p>

<p>Public Good? Look at the title of this forum; this is not a place for political discussions. The customary act, if this thread really is dead, is to let it go to the archives instead of perpetuating an irrelavent discussion.</p>

<p>

Now for argument’s sake, there is nothing central to libertarian ideology that endorses anarchy.

</p>

<p>Yes there is: rights preservation. Though Robert Nozick succesfully proved that any notion of anarchy is absurd, since an invisible hand would automatically establish a minimal state.</p>

<p>

f you believe free-market economics and limited government control is anarchy, then your statement would be reasonable.

</p>

<p>There are multiple ideologies within the Libertarian philosophy. As adumbrated, it would be foolish to conflate the entire system into two lines, as you have just done.</p>

<p>

I mean to say that I believe your are oversimplifying libertarianism by calling some aspects liberal and some conservative.

</p>

<p>Hardly an oversimplification. It is merely a tacit refusal to conflate the Libertarian ideology under words such as “liberal” or “conservative,” when it really does not fit either of them.</p>

<p>

It is true that LIBERALS tend to coincide WITH LIBERTARIANS on social issues and conservatives tend to coincide WITH LIBERTARIANS on economics issues, but this does not mark libertarianism as some mixture of liberal and conservative beliefs.

</p>

<p>That is not my justification for refusing to align libertarianism under “liberal” or “conservative;” it is merely your assertion.</p>

<p>

Libertarianism can best be understood not in abstract moral descriptions, but by example. To say a libertarian favors a minimalist government, is sadly a meek description

</p>

<p>Once again, your habitual lack of evidence in this regard only harms you. There is an enormous ethical predicate within the Libertarian ideology, and to argue otherwise is sheer ignorance. I might as well append some evidence to this post, if you will not.</p>

<p>“[T]he moral side constraints upon what we may do, I claim, reflect the fact of our separate existences. They reflect the fact that no moral balancing act can take place among us; there is no moral outweighing of one of our lives by others so as to lead to a greater overall social good. There is no justified sacrifice of some of us for others. This root idea, namely, that there are different individuals with separate lives and so no be sacrificed for others, underlies the existence of moral side constraints, but it also, I believe, leads to a libertarian side constraint that prohibits aggression against another.”</p>

<p>This is a statement from Robert Nozick’s “Anarchy, State, and Utopia.” I strongly suggest that you heed his statement instead of arguing against it; former Harvard Philosophy Professors tend to easily defeat petty students.</p>

<p>

but is reasonable based on your nature to argue as little as possible and use as much filler to accomplish well, nothing really.

</p>

<p>I do apologize for the fact that I have work to do. On Monday, I will tell my professor that the task of engaging in a meaningless debate over the internet is significantly more important than finishing his paper:)</p>

<p>

By the phrase to “corroborate [my] claim,” it appears you are looking for some statistic. I am sorry, but this statement really does not lend itself to that. Libertarians are practical

</p>

<p>On the contrary, deontological ethics are hardly practical.</p>

<p>

and recognize that we are a nation of laws that our society depends on, even if those laws are verbose and unnecessary. Libertarians wish to attack the agencies which defend the laws that violate individual freedom, not to attack the entire frame or concept of government.

</p>

<p>We only advocate a system that seeks the consent of the individual. I disagree with taxation not because it is reappropriating my money, but because I am coerced into doing so.</p>

<p>

Sure it would be nice in the libertarian eye if we could eventually do away with laws as our society becomes used to running itself, rather than have the government make decisions (financial such as Social Security, social such as personal drug use) for you, but that is not the clear goal in mind, nor is it the defining element to libertarian philosophy.

</p>

<p>You are somewhat correct, for once.</p>

<p>

It seems that you learn philosophy just for the sake of learning the lingo, as in logical fallacies, which are important, but spare me the advice to learn them.

</p>

<p>I recommend that you heed the advice I provided, as you will not be able to advance in any academic field when your writings are drenched in them.</p>

<p>

I believe you have more books on philosophy than ideas.

</p>

<p>That summation would be correct, but not to the detriment of my argumentation. Philosophy undergrads rarely construct novel ideas, since it requires a historical and intricate understanding of what has already been propounded. Usually, the most novel ideas are expounded in graduate dissertations and so forth. However, I am actually about four years ahead of myself in that I have already constructed a novel idea in the paper I submitted for publishing.</p>

<p>

If you care to disprove me, then please respond (and don’t give some weak answer that you have like 3 books, keep this mature and cerebral).

</p>

<p>No, if you wish to have a mature and cerebral discussion, dispose of the insults and send me a private message.</p>