Posted on 10/23/2014 6:11:58 AM PDT by C19fan
Reason‘s Nick Gillespie recently posted a list of the five most anti-libertarian television shows ever, and there’s a serious error. Actually, there are two serious errors. The first, larger error is that Reason put together a list of the five best libertarian TV shows, and they left off “Firefly,” which simply boggles the mind.
The smaller error is that Gillespie names “Star Trek” among the anti-libertarian shows. Even worse is the reason he gives: “The Starship Enterprise’s adventures throughout the galaxy are supposedly guided by the Federation’s ‘prime directive,’ which forbids humans from intervening in the domestic affairs of the planets they visit. And yet…Captain James T. Kirk is mucking around with every civilization from here to the Romulan Neutral Zone like LBJ on Viagra.”
(Excerpt) Read more at thefederalist.com ...
You’re in Texas, too. Should be an easy deal to meet up. Say that I defend child-molestation to my face.
“what exactly is the inherent value of latinum?”
Latinum cannot be replicated.
They are just “not guilty”. Predators are still predators when they are teachers. That quit being just a joke a long time ago.
And then there was the thread you and silverleaf got all upset because I indicated that addicts who rape kids are better off dead. I notice that private messages I got from you two are now deleted. Y’all ask the moderators to remove everything pertaining to that thread?.
As for your threats of violence, well it is part for the course with you when opposition to pedophilia comes up.
Thinking is hard and can be painful if the logic components are rusty. As our leftist cousins repeatedly illustrate, it is much easier to paint those who confuse us as cartoonishly evil.
Therefore; libertarians molest children.
The dissonance of your ideas is that this legal status of children is based on Law, not morality. Libertarians are vehemently against using morality as the basis of laws, and I will point out that Homosexuality was also against the law at one time, but now Libertarians have no objections to it.
When the laws are changed to reduce the age of consent, what will be the Libertarian argument against it? I can't think of one that doesn't contradict their own stated positions.
You aren't grasping the salient point here. "Legal" means nothing when you change the law. Homosexuality was once illegal. Homosexuality put you in the category of "non compos mentis" and therefore you could not legally give consent. Homosexuals could not legally give consent.
They changed the law. So where is your argument now? By what basis can you assert that something is wrong because a law says so instead of saying that the law should reflect what is morally right instead of whatever happens to be the current whim of the majority?
Their ideas will eventually create that unintended consequence.
Not sure how this went from discussing whether the Federation in Star Trek was a Fascist authoritarian state or utopia of individual liberty, to is or is not the Libertarian Party a squalid den of pedophiles. I am embarrassed that I seem to have helped it happen.
What I often found interesting were the various forms and relative values of the Latinum currency denominations (Slips, Bars, Bricks, etc.).
Let’s meet. We can settle this.
It’s not the only medium of exchange, it’s just one that’s preferred because it can’t be replicated. But it’s still Star Trek world so there’s still credits, and there’s still replicators that provide for all basic needs and make it so you don’t really need any money.
It was post #4, which I do not believe you had any part in.
That is a very brave thing to say.
Are you brave MrEdd?
Texas Cowboy Memorial Shoot. It’s loads of fun, and we can go for a private chat somewhere.
The big value was that it could not be replicated, and wasn’t really useful for much so you didn’t have to worry about people “accidentally” using their money for something other than money (an often overlooked part of what make a good form of currency).
that is true
b. The repeal of all laws regarding consensual sexual relations, including prostitution and solicitation, and the cessation of state oppression and harassment of homosexual men and women, that they, at least, be accorded their full rights as individuals;
'The repeal of all laws regarding consensual sexual relations' is followed by 'including' to name some specifics.
I would presume that 'The repeal of all laws regarding consensual sexual relations' would include any laws regarding relations with minors...or would those be specifically qualified as 'non-consensual'? The phrase is not specific enough. For which I fault the author of the platform document. Just my 2¢.
What did he THINK was going to happen???
And you know what? I may win, I may lose. That's not the point. I will defend my honor with physical force if required.
The REAL reason latinum is valuable is because it is made of plot device.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.