He can argue a point to death though.
Not really. When you battle him down to it, his support of Libertarianism comes down to 3 basic things, all of them see-through dumb:
1) The market will correct itself. He does a good job of avoiding saying it, but the concept is behind many of his arguments. As a matter of fact, this concept is similar to number 2, which I have given its own number because he
does mention this one, and I think the power construct behind it is a little different.
2) Things were better in the 19th century. This is a sort of bizarre appeal to ignorance, where he tells all listeners that things were better in the 19th century, pre-Upton Sinclair, and expecting them to believe that. Since he appears to be effective at arguing, I guess the gambit works, but there is really no substance at all to this argument. Even the most basic research will tell you that life blew in the 19th century. This isn't even worth citing examples. There is a valid related argument within this, though, with a citable example, but since I believe all of his arguments come from things he has read, and that he fails at independent thought, he has never pieced it together. And since he probably won't ever come to Evilbore to pick it up, read it, and use it, I may as well just mention it in one sentence: Prohibition in the 20s is a better supporter of his claim than the DURRR THINGS WERE BETTER IN THE 19TH CENTURY GEORGE, HUHYUK!
3) Government regulations treat people like they are stupid. Various regulations like the FDA and what not by their very existence tell man that he is stupid. Do *you* think man is stupid? If you support these institutions, you *MUST* think man is stupid! Guess what, JayBubya and FoC? Man
is stupid. Especially Americans. Do you need evidence of this? I can't see how he gets away with arguing this point. Has he ever been to the midwest? The south? Even 10 minutes in the nations biggest cities will tell you how dumb mankind is in general. Do we need to be protected from ourselves? Absolutely. Are the current bodies that do so particularly good at doing it? No, and I doubt they ever will be, but that is not the point here--JayDubya s arguing a blatantly incorrect reason on why they should not exist.
Mainly thanks to FoC and JayDubya. I mean, there may be parts of the ideology I agree with, but I refuse to be affiliated, even if in name only, to something that attracts such mental dregs. Maybe I should align myself with a front that doesn't attract people so dumb and blinded by simple idealism, like, say, the Nazi party. Or maybe I should just become totally politically agnostic, a political pro cynic, no doubt the true position for someone as coldly logical as myself.
Coldly logical. Werent you the one making me the whole charade about art being infinitely complex a positive thing?
Never figured you as a Kant cum sipper. 
Deconstruction ftw fool.
I fail to see why a belief in logic prevents me from appreciating art. On the contrary, I'd put good money on me being one of the best interpreters there is on this forum, fairly easily. It's one of the things, the very few things, that I think I am superlative at. I have never put meta-thought into precisely why I am great at it, asides from dumping a significant portion of my life into it, but if I had put the time into such thought, I bet I would come out again, proud of my logical capacities.
But to put it in short, warcock, I think you would have to be a fool to think that logic and deep appreciation of art are mutually exclusive things. Of course, when has your foolishness ever been something not on the table for all to see, my CS-loving compadre?
And I haven't read Kant in almost a decade. I would have to go to wiki i I even wanted the basics, so I won't put a show on of pretending here.
