Replies

You are now attempting to substitute reality with idealistic rhetoric.

...and you claim you're a libertarian? I've known libertarians, and they sure as heck don't talk like that.

When did I ever proclaim myself to be a Libertarian?

I only stated a fact that much of modern Libertarianism is based on neo-liberal(classical liberal) philosophy. I also stated that neo-conservative philosophy is based on neo-liberalism. You should know that Libertarians certainly disagree with much of the neocon agenda. anti-Reagan Man is the one who called me a "libertarian". "Libertarian heathen" I believe was his exact words. But then again he also called me a "liberal" and a "leftist".

Do you also make the unsupported jump in logic that I support open borders, and oppose NAFTA and all foreign entanglements?

Unlike you, I am not defined by others, and I have never claimed to be a purist of any ideology.

So is this your best argument? Setting up a strawman and attacking that, rather than the factual points of my statements?
You cannot argue with the facts I present, so instead you attack ideologically.

Rights either exist or they don't; government cannot remove a legitimate right no matter whether the Supreme Court, President, Congress...whoever...says so.

The Supreme Court disagrees with you. They are the ultimate arbiters on what rights are legitimate, and how they are defined. They also reserve the right to change their minds at any point.
You don't have a legal leg to stand on here, so instead you exclaim some feel-good ideology.

With regard to the Second Amendment, it either guarantees citizens the right to bear arms or not

The Supreme Court has routinely found that there are limits to constitutional rights. You wanna argue that, take it up with them.
The second amendment is extremely vague, and is quite an open question, legally speaking. Does the right to bear arms apply only to a well regulated militia? Does it only apply only to types of arms available at the time of its adoption? Does a limit on certain arms infringe upon the general right to bear arms? Does "the right to keep and bear arms" include nuclear arms?

You'll need to aswer these questions first and cite established case law to back it up.

- but that basic right doesn't change based on the whim of the majority.

It most certainly does change based on the whim of the majority in the Supreme Court.

It most certainly does change based on the whim of the majority in the Supreme Court.

Rights don't change based on time or circumstance. Even if governments forbid the exercise of a right, that doesn't mean it isn't a right even so.

Your argument would have us believe the invasion of Iraq was not a humanitarian gesture, because the government had decided for its people what rights they had (virtually none). Therefore, they were not entitled to any other rights.

It's absurd, but sadly very representative of your confused thinking.

When did I ever proclaim myself to be a Libertarian?

When you said:

Neo-liberalism is primarily an economic school of thought, though it is also the basis of the foreign policy agenda commonly known as "neo-conservativism", and a great deal of modern Libertarianism. These are the philosophies I subscribe to

Can't keep your "philosophy" straight? I'm not surprised, as jumbled and confused as it is.