jpahmad Posted February 25, 2016 Share Posted February 25, 2016 Sam Harris thinks we're all children. Just listen at the 5 minute mark. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1wr3Ti8Hboc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shirgall Posted February 25, 2016 Share Posted February 25, 2016 Distrust of the state is not paranoia. They are using force to enforce their will, and we should always question that practice. Is it truly necessary? Must we always tolerate it? Must we tolerate being called children just because we distrust any group with control over our lives or well-being? That Sam resorts to name-calling at five minutes into this piece is indicative that he intends to be an apologist for the abuses of others who are doing things for our own good. The founding fathers had a thesis that there's a possible intermediate position between pure anarchocapitalism and the overweaning state. It consisted of recognizing evil. As an example,"It is evil to have a standing army, but since there are existential threats that only an army can combat we will tolerate the lesser evil of the standing army in times of crisis but be ever vigilant that it's mission is clear, its scope limited, and its ability to lobby curtailed." It is clear that they never intended to follow this principle once the cash flow started, however, as the Whiskey Rebellion swiftly ended the idea. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Gee Posted February 26, 2016 Share Posted February 26, 2016 Sam Harris not making an argument. I think we need a not an argument meme. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shirgall Posted February 26, 2016 Share Posted February 26, 2016 I think we need a not an argument meme. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Gee Posted February 26, 2016 Share Posted February 26, 2016 Thanks Shirgall. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthew Ed Moran Posted July 23, 2016 Share Posted July 23, 2016 Sam Harris is a complete blow-hard. It's tempting to like him (maybe) because has some slightly libertarian positions, but when you're judging someone it's really important to judge their character and courage so you know they aren't just spouting propaganda and are only correct by chance when they are. With Sam, the latter is the case. Sam Harris has said it is "not far from true" that Hillary is the most qualified presidential candidate ever and that Donald Trump "basically knows nothing about the world" and is possibly the least qualified candidate ever. Sam Harris says incredibly arrogant and condescending things without facts and evidence fairly regularly. The guy is a hack. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rosencrantz Posted July 23, 2016 Share Posted July 23, 2016 Rothbard once opined that people say the most about things they know the least about. Harris is excellent when it comes to his subject, neurology and philosophy. The rest is a hit and miss. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chad Mitchell Posted July 24, 2016 Share Posted July 24, 2016 The more Harris talks about philosophy and the clash of civilizations the better he sounds. His discussions on secular morality are fun to listen to. When he tries to talk about pure politics is when he begins to look foolish. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aviet Posted July 24, 2016 Share Posted July 24, 2016 Sam Harris has said it is "not far from true" that Hillary is the most qualified presidential candidate ever and that Donald Trump "basically knows nothing about the world" and is possibly the least qualified candidate ever. That's all subjective. I don't give any credence to opinions that touch on economics from people, like Harris, who have essentially never had to respond to market forces in order to survive. I regularly scan the headlines of The Guardian and have yet to find a single one of their economic commentators who has done anything other than gone to university and then straight into career journalism. It is not surprising that their orthodoxy is something along the lines of "Let's get rid of [regulated] capitalism and replace it with something like sharing. Not sure what it will look like, but let's do this!" They seem to be under the impression that in the future they will just be able to ring up China and have them send over some steel for nothing. Yet my experience is that no one is more adverse to charity and sharing than the people who propose these ideas. As for Hillary Clinton being qualified on knowing how the world works, she certainly knows how to sell out a country to earn 100s of millions of dollars between her and Bill, without having to step a foot into the market; as opposed to Trump who has had to earn it by providing value in voluntary transactions with his own resources. Listening to the video of Harris above I'd also question his philosophical prowess. Suggesting that if you do not agree with my subjective positions you are mentally ill. Using loose terms. Making numerous assertions with no evidence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts