truthofmasks

What were the sorts of things that taught you about this "broader reality"? I understand that it was a process, but what were some parts of that process?

I've actually never seen this argument before, but I get it. Everett is saying that, according to Chomsky, UG is innate and biological. Everett is saying that, if that's the case, there must be plenty of people out there who cannot learn all languages, by drawing a parallel between UG and just about anything else that's innate and biological, since there are all kinds of mutations.

If UG is on the genes, we know that genes mutate.

So different populations of people today have different colored hair and eyes, detached vs. attached earlobes, different lung capacities, different heights, etc. – but they all have the same language capacity. Everett takes the universality of language capacity to suggest that grammar is not, in fact, genetic, given that there's no variation in it among different populations of people.

Most libertarians that I know are white, but I don't think that the fundamentals of libertarian thought - i.e. the government is not here to regulate my personal life, too many laws leads to too many arrests, and the government should be in the hands of the people - are unique to white people.

I think that the key issue is that libertarians generally oppose Affirmative Action and many forms of governmental welfare (although there's plenty of variation person to person). These policies are often supported by disadvantaged minorities.

I think that most of the pseudo-Libertarians you're talking about are like the people aligned with the Tea Party. They're actually more generally in favor of state's rights than in individual's rights, so, by the litmus test of "liberty," are actually not libertarian, despite their claims to the contrary.

The anti-Roe v. Wade argument, for example, is basically that the only reason a place like Mississippi has legal abortion is because of federal overreach. If the fed left it up to the states, abortion would be legal in places like California and New York, and illegal in Mississippi and West Virginia. From a states' rights perspective, it makes sense to overturn Roe v. Wade: that way, the states can democratically decide if it's for them or not.

But the libertarianism that I personally subscribe to is concerned with individual's rights. And in the case of abortion, the federal government is protecting individual's rights above state's rights.

Did you ever see the libertarian party bumper stickers or pins that say "Pro-choice on everything"? That's the sort of libertarianism that I love. Supporting the widescale legality of abortion, drugs, guns, marriage (gay, straight, polygamous, who gives a shit), gambling, prostitution, whatever. And the role that the federal government can play in these issues is protecting those rights, in spite of popular sentiment or state-level decisions.

You should read this article from the New York Times about Navy pilots seeing UFOs.