Posted on 09/23/2002 8:56:33 AM PDT by Commie Basher
Wow the Libertarian tendency of playing fast and loose with the truth and facts, didn't escape your notice.
I congratulate you. :^)
Uh the facts and pertinence is that the modern pro-drug movement is being pushed and financed by avowed leftists.
Yeah, yeah you will cite a couple of articles by Bill Buckley, but the fact is that the modern pro-drug movement is being finaced by avowed socialists such as Hillary friend George Soros, and that cannot be denied, no matter how much you try, IMO.
You still are unable to respond in a topical matter to the subject at hand, and still insist on misrepresenting positions of others.
Your response has zero to do with what we were discussing, hence we have ceased the actual discussion and devolved into a Dane-sponsored sophistry-fest.
Thanks, I'll pass.
What misrepresentation of others? The fact is that major money backer of pro-drug issues is socialist and Hillary friend George Soros.
The facts speak, while such specious arguements such as "ignore the man(Soros) behind the pro-drug curtain", don't, IMO.
And that quote comes from #1 loony tune himself, IMO.
BTW, got other things to do, you(tpaine) no doubt will post as "cleanup" numerous iananites to this thread "defending" your precious drugs.
Keep on posting tpaine, you do the job for me.
>>>I didn't even say it was relevant.
184 posted on 9/23/02 3:42 PM Mountain by SteamshipTime
Thank you. Case closed.
I hope this ends your adnauseam and outrageous defense of libertarianism.
"...in a social democracy such as the USA, libertarian philosophy can only be a marginal movement given that net tax consumers outnumber and outvote net tax payors--a trend which will continue until the treasury is exhausted. What is popular is not necessarily right, and what is right is not necessarily popular. (Ad populum, RM. Remember?)
But I digress. Let us return to my original question: What is the basis for your statement that the golden rule and the core libertarian philosophy of no initiation of force or fraud are 'at the opposite ends of the spectrum?'"
And this:
"...libertarian principles state that everyone has the right to their own person and property, which carries with it the right to defend one's person and property, by force of arms if necessary. Furthermore, the inviobality of personal and property rights includes the right to exact restitution from those who trespass against another's person or property. Thus, your opinion that libertarian principles stand "for unlimited and uncontrolled behavior" is a non sequitur. In a libertarian community, deviants would not be allowed to exist. Frauds would have their possessions seized. Vagrants would be escorted out of town. Would life be perfect? Would we no longer have deviants, frauds or vagrants? Of course not. But we would not be taxed to death to protect us from the deviants, frauds and vagrants which government policies themselves bring about."
Deconstruct them if you are able. Otherwise, I suggest you find a Bush lovefest thread where your fragile ego will be untroubled by the need for intellectual rigor.
>>>Kindly support your statement with more than personal anecdotes. I have not noticed this tendancy either in personal dealings with libertarians or the LP.
Well I have noticed this tendancy, repeatedly. The fact is, I only have my experiences with libertarians to go by. However, if we took a poll, right here on this conservative website, I'd bet you, a significant majority of FReepers would agree with me. There's also the basic dictionary definition, of the word libertarian and it isn't ambiguous in any way, shape or form. Libertarians on FreeRepublic have accentuated the fact of their absolutism, time and again. This my way or the highway mentality of libertarianism, isn't taken seriously in the real world of American politics.
You're so emersed in the libertarian philosophy, you're incapable of a rational thought process, outside the libertarian box.
You just proved me right, once again.
You can't keep your BIG mouth shut, little boy!
It would indeed be interesting, but with the caveat that conservatives here seem to be rather a highly distilled sample.
There's also the basic dictionary definition, of the word libertarian and it isn't ambiguous in any way, shape or form.
Quite correct, and you seem to be unfamiliar with it. Here, allow me to help:
lib·er·tar·i·an Pronunciation Key (lbr-târ-n) n.
1. One who advocates maximizing individual rights and minimizing the role of the state.
2.One who believes in free will.
You will notice the distinct lack of wishing to dismantle the state alltogether. That would be under the 'anarchist' entry.
Libertarians on FreeRepublic have accentuated the fact of their absolutism, time and again. This my way or the highway mentality of libertarianism, isn't taken seriously in the real world of American politics.
Really? You mean the same political ballpark that has the rabidly pro-lifers? How about the 'drug-free, zero-tolerance' crowd. You know, the 'my way or the highway' folks.
You're so emersed in the libertarian philosophy, you're incapable of a rational thought process, outside the libertarian box.
On the contrary, I do not attribute positions to parties, philosophies or individuals that they do not espouse, such as the blatantly non-factual bit about libertarians wanting to completely dismantle our criminal justice system or gut our military such that we would be unable to defend ourselves.
I am unable to say, alas, that your record reflects the same.
There is nothing for me to deconstruct. The libertarian philosophy deconstructs itself, without any imput from anyone. Your defense of the libertarian philosophy has been exceptionally weak and one sided, as usual. According to you, the libertarian philosophy is infallible. You continue to offer no proof to support such an ludicrous contention. Another failure, by another libertarian.
I'm not the one who has explaining to do. I have yet to meet a true champion of the libertarian philosophy here on FreeRepublic. Just a bunch of washed up political malcontents, social misfits and wild eyed militants. Look, if you can't take the heat, stay off of FreeRepublic. If you can't offer a better defense of libertarianism then you have so far, I suggest you quit and attend to your wounds.
Btw, I'm proud of my support for President Bush and his administration. Just because no libertarian candidate will ever hold the elected position of president of the United States of America, is no reason to attack good folks who stand by and support their president. You're a typical cheap shot artist.
It's unfortunate that those who have impaired their mental functions through whatever form of abuse cannot appreciate your lucidity.
Ah well, you did your part when you held the banner of reason and morality aloft; you can't expect mudbrained thugs to salute, nor can you be judged at fault for their failure to comprehend!
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.