Display:
I write that the current polarization is linked to the immigration/integration debate (but again, it is not that simplistic). However, I do not write that the current assault on (what I will continue to call) pragmatic policies are linked to that one issue. You however interpreted as the reason of "ideological reversals" and this is simply not true.

Anyway, we're talking past each other. I don't think there is any way forward in this debate if you persist in conflating "libertarian" with "pragmatic" when it suits you at the drop of a hat to frame policies as "ideological". I think it's intentionally shifting the goalposts.

At this point you will have to make abundantly clear to me what your vision is of pragmatic solutions for issues such as soft drugs policy, prostitution, euthanasia, abortion, gay marriage, immigration, integration, etc. Perhaps you could additionally make clear: can't libertarian rational sometimes not be pragmatic?

Better use another dairy for that; this thread is full...

by Nomad on Fri Nov 21st, 2008 at 08:11:40 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Are we talking past each other? It is not my feeling, with all due respect.

The idea that the Dutch Approach would be pragmatic and modern is fundamental in your argumentation.
IMO, it is a compromise  - as in:  we seek common ground rather than the truth and the best solution.  This may still be pragmatic, but it is no longer automatically so.

My second thought: those compromises were made in a libertarianism-impregnated society, hence heavily influenced by ideology, starting with the postulate that it is wrong to forbid, to limit, to punish; that effort, constraint, traditional principles, are basically wrong (broadly speaking). That was not an independent thinking framework.
For a long time now intellectual elites progagate libertarian positions, the civil rights idea always there (who can oppose a right, right), the modern thing to be, bashing when a majority dares to go against the current, framing as bigot, or dictatorial anyone daring to think differently.
This is just political correctness. Democratical vote should be accepted, even if it doesn't arrange one side. That's the essence of democracy, not insulting the others as bigots, deluded, well, idiotic buttheads, really. We'll show'em, they can't stop the wave!
This is not ok. Libertarianism is an ideology, as you can easily find, and like any other, it sometimes denies free speech (in this case, as obsolete, against-freedom, narrowminded, or simply stupid).

This doesn't mean we should return to a rigid society, but to more rational, mutually respectful attitudes. Wild exaggerations in order to win a point by fist-in-the-mouth postures always provoke a counter-reaction. It shouldn't necessarily be taken as lack of pragmatism.

Free at last! Free at last! Thank God Almighty, we are free at last! (Martin Luther King)

by ValentinD (walentijn arobase free spot frança) on Fri Nov 21st, 2008 at 05:29:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:
Login
. Make a new account
. Reset password
Occasional Series