Posted on 12/22/2001 8:53:08 AM PST by rob777
Some unnamed, self-proclaimed Libertarian told you. And, even though you can't find any supporting evidence in the plethora of Libertarian Party materials, you assert it as fact? Heck, I once had a christian tell me that you couldn't go to heaven unless you handled deadly snakes and spoke in tongues. Would that qualify as enough evidence to smear the entire breadth of the christian church? I think not. Furthermore, I call into question your ability to accurately represent what you claim to have been told.
As regards child support enforcement by government; It certainly would be appropriate in many circumstances, and I doubt that you'll ever find a blanket rejection of it by the Libertarian Party. That being said, today's form of government involvement in that enterprise is a corrupted mess that violates the rights of all involved in too many cases.
Are you a woman, or do you just act like one on the internet?
The 0.4 percenters are full of hot air.
Up on cinderblocks stripped?
Might you be the one to review what you concider a Christian to be and also what you concider a libertarian to be? Perhaps you have an incorrect view of what one or both are?
The penguin is a noble. . .creature
You two can praise penguins all you want but there is a darker side to our fine feathered frauds. BBC article:
Penguins are turning to prostitution. But instead of doing it for money, Antarctic dolly-birds are turning tricks to get rocks off their menfolk.Stones are essential for penguins to build their nests. A shortage has led to the unorthodox tactics. . .
"Stones are the valuable currency in penguin terms," said Dr Fiona Hunter, a researcher in the Zoology Department at Cambridge University, who has spent five years observing the birds' mating patterns. . .
On some occasions the prostitute penguins trick the males. They carry out the elaborate courtship ritual, which usually leads to mating.
Having bagged their stone, they would then run off. . . The most stones Dr Hunter saw a single female taking was 62, although she said she suspects her final total was higher. . .
Full sordid story here
No evidence of Penguins smoking dope. Yet.
And while you clearly lack a Y-chromosome, it would be best not to project your own deficiencies on your betters.
Of which, on every conceivable level, I am clearly one.
Peddle your pedantic, womanly twaddle as your mentality dictates you must, wishy-washy-wussy little one.
I'm off to find people with more than two I.Q. points to rub together, so I won't see any reply you post.
I trust that it will be your characteristic girly-girl lameness! You can produce nothing else. How sad for you!
Hence, IMHO, a tremendous weakness in libertarian thought.
What is it? If it comprised of such a wide spectrum of thought, it is likened to the story of the two blind men examining an elephant from the opposite ends.
I am a cultural conservative. Yet, I am not one to tell others how to live their lives. Many take the pro-life position as trying to enforce women what to do with their bodies. My position is not so. I want Roe v. Wade overturned, knowing full well that this will not be the end of abortions being performed. It does belong on the state, not federal level.
To Leftists and many libertarians alike, my mentioning of my pro-life stance is taken as if I want to force my views on others. That's not the case, and any intellectual honesty can attest to it.
Now, again, just what is libertarianism? I have "Libertarianism" by David Boaz, and "What it Means to Be a Libertarian" by Charles Murray. Boaz does a nice job in defining it, yet Murray's interpretation is different.
How do you sell a point which can be defined in so many different ways? The non-initiation of force and laissez-faire economic stance of libertarianism is highly attractive. But is that all there is to it?
Christian_Egalitarian wrote: I asserted based upon conversations with self-identifying Libertarians. If you contend that the view they expressed is not representative of Libertarianism, so be it.
Some unnamed, self-proclaimed Libertarian told you. And, even though you can't find any supporting evidence in the plethora of Libertarian Party materials, you assert it as fact? Heck, I once had a christian tell me that you couldn't go to heaven unless you handled deadly snakes and spoke in tongues. Would that qualify as enough evidence to smear the entire breadth of the christian church? I think not. Furthermore, I call into question your ability to accurately represent what you claim to have been told.
Aside from your keen insights the other thing I most enjoy about reading your discussions is your bulldog tenacity to not let a person deceive the reader with false arguments. As is the case in your discussion with Christian_Egalitarian I find it particularly disgusting when a person identifies the other person's error yet the one who made the error uses tail-chasing rationalizations in defense of their error. Then to top it off, when they realize they can't win, the brush it of saying "whatever". Shows their true character is one of deceit rather than honesty.
The thing that strikes me is that a person always benefits by identifying and correcting their own errors. Conversely, to not acknowledge an error and correct it is self-abuse. Not to mention it causes a loss of trust, respect and credibility. Once again proving that often a person is their own worst enemy.
You just used a lot of words to effectively say that you lack the ability to communicate. In other words, you just gave me the verbose version of the typical cop-out you used before -- whatever. The funny thing is that after you confessed that your assertion was based on nothing more than hearsay, I opened the door to converse about the issue you brought up and you immediately defaulted into the pedantic ranting mode. Why did you bring it up if you didn't want to discuss it? Did you think it would be an effective cheap shot and then decided to retreat when you realized you missed the mark?
Chant that often enough and you may convince yourself.
And not everyone who believes in morality is in that category.
And how do you suppose those "traditions" came to be traditional? Via the imposition of force by government authorities and by ecclesiastical authorities who had obtained government-like authority in theocratic societies. Nope, can't support that. If the social practices they advocate don't remain predominant without government coercion, then they weren't "traditional" in the first place, just vestiges of tyranny.
Nope. They've existed apart from coercion, and as the article makes clear, their decline is the result of government interference in society, which is to say, coercion.
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.