cc_rider wrote: 
I like to sort ascending properly.

well that didn't last long...

 haresfur wrote: 
Largest-to-smallest, or smallest-to-largest. Anything else is madness.

I tend to use '23-JAN-2018' to eliminate confusion. Throws auto-readers for a loop though.

 Proclivities wrote: 
2018-01-23

It's the only way to fly

 ScottFromWyoming wrote: 
Do you think they'll change the date formatting as well?

 oldslabsides wrote: 

Well, if law and force are equivalent, and all law is bad (meaning all force is bad), that's a pretty harsh and absolute position to take. For myself, I consider gravity to be good.

Good luck in the vacuum of space, dude.

 aflanigan wrote: 
Law is force, nothing more, nothing less.  Ever has it been so.

Why does either of us bother?  Neither of us is ever going to move one iota from our philosophical position.

 miamizsun wrote: 

Let's assume, J, for the sake of argument, that your premise is correct; that public schools in the US are engaged in systematic indoctrination towards the end of promoting/supporting statism, or brainwashing people into believing that all government is good, and more governemnt is "mo betta", as you so eloquently put it.  Will this explain, then, why Libertarianism fails to appeal to most people?  I'm afraid the answer (fairly easily arrived at) is no.

Indoctrination, or impressing values on young people, happens from the earliest days of childhood.  And in the early years, it can work pretty well for the most part.  Children are taught by their parents to "be good", are encouraged by their teachers to "follow the rules", to "study hard", "do their best", etc.  Churches simiarly strive to indoctrinate young and old towards moral living; obeying the commandments, donating to charity, shun premarital sex, etc.  But as anyone can see who studies human behavior, such intellectual moralizing has limited long term effectiveness in obtaining compliant behavior.  Sooner or later, kids figure out that much of the moralizing is hogwash, and they figure out that parents and teachers and spiritual guides often don't practice what they preach.  Even the virtuous Chaplain Tappmann of Catch-22 told a lie, and discovered that breaking the moral rules he had been indoctrinated in would not necessarily bring him ruin.  "The chaplain had sinned, and it was good."

If I were a Libertarian, I would want schools (particularly high schools) to attempt teaching students that government is always good, and more government is better.  You might have a shot at actually recruiting substantial numbers of rebellious high schoolers into the LP!!

 oldslabsides wrote: 

As I've stated before, the "men with guns" argument of Libertarians is one I find utterly unconvincing.  I'm OK with the use of sanctions (such as penalties) and/or force to enforce laws.  You for example would presumably be OK with the use of force to enforce laws against my killing you or your spouse?

If you are unhappy with the social contract that you entered into by choosing to live in the US (that obligates you to obey laws and pay taxes), you are free to move.

And we should really be having this discussion elsewhere.

 oldslabsides wrote: 
I am never okay with violence.

 aflanigan wrote: 
So you're okay with the threat/use of force to fund what you consider good government?

 aflanigan wrote: 
I actually land in the lower left quadrant of the political grid, a libertarian leftie.

 hippiechick wrote: 
I didn't know you were a Libertarian/anarcho-capitalist!

 miamizsun wrote:

 

 
I'm merely reacting to the implied elitism of statements along the lines of "I'm not surprised you and most other people can't see the things I can".  If you want people to consider adopting  your belief system, you should concede the possibility that they might have as much, or perhaps more, insight than you imagine you have.

I would say that determining what is "universally moral and ethical" is a judgement that is often anything but easy or simple.

 miamizsun wrote:
We are certainly in agreement there.

 

 aflanigan wrote:
If you're implying that I'm elitist in any way shape form or fashion, that is wildly inaccurate. If two people happen to agree on any given subject, that does not mean they are in lock step on everything. Anybody forcing anything and I'm out. Period. Heck, you and I agree on some things and disagree on others do we not?

There's an easy (principled) way to tell how I would feel about any action/situation. For me to agree or endorse, it has to be universally moral and ethical, it has to be voluntary/consenting between all parties, and there is no initiation of force, violence, aggression, coercion, fraud, etc.

It's that simple.

Regards

 dmax wrote: 
I absolutely agree, that's why I'm more or less happy (compared to the alternatives) with the mix of authoritarianism and libertarianism we have over here. There has to be rules, to save us from ourselves, where the line gets drawn between the two is the only issue. I like to try and get a handle on other views though.

 dmax wrote: 

indeed