...final word (for now) on libertarians vs. conservatives

reasononline ^ | December 20, 2001 | Nick Gilespie

[Roscoe]

Absurdity:

http://www.lp.org/issues/platform/platform_print.html

[Roscoe]

Link.

[The Green Goblin]

"Which advocated replacing our existing institutions with a borderless utopia in which the state would wither away. Libertarian doctrine is built upon the same false promise."

The quote you provided is not from the Libertarian Party platform. Again I ask: where does the party platform advocate anarchy? If you answer with anything other than a quote from the party platform, it will be obvious to all in this forum that you are nothing more than a dishonest mudslinger.

[Roscoe]

The quote you provided is not from the Libertarian Party platform.

No, it's my original statement.

Already forgotten what you were arguing about?

[The Green Goblin]

No, it's my original statement. Already forgotten what you were arguing about?

No, I'm saying that your statement is dishonest dreck, and asking you to back it up by providing references from the party platform. Since you're always running around mindlessly chiding everyone to "read the platform", it should be easy for you to back up your statement, if it were the truth. The fact that you cannot do so reveals you to be a charlatan.

[tortoise]

Terrorists just hafta love Libertarianism.

I see that you weren't actually capable of addressing my post in context. Surely you could use that dizzying intellect of yours to come up with an intelligent response to what I wrote. I am not sure there is much chance of this, but I can always hope.

[Roscoe]

Promoting the "right" to carry C4 explosives around in the soles of your shoes would seem to the product of a dizzy intellect.

[Roscoe]

Many self-proclaimed followers of Libertarianism are ignorant of its origins and its doctrines.

[The Green Goblin]

Many self-proclaimed followers of Libertarianism are ignorant of its origins and its doctrines.

many self-proclaimed followers of any philosophy/religion are ignorant of its origins and doctrines. That doesn't give you the right to blatantly misrepresent the Libertarian party platform. it's bad enought that so many people are ignorant---we certainly don't want them taken in by lies and misrepresentations.

[tortoise]

Promoting the "right" to carry C4 explosives around in the soles of your shoes would seem to the product of a dizzy intellect.

If I wanted to carry C4 in my shoes while walking around on my property, why should anyone have the right to prevent me?

[Roscoe]

...we certainly don't want them taken in by lies and misrepresentations.

In that case, DON'T read the platform.

[Roscoe]

If I wanted to carry C4 in my shoes while walking around on my property, why should anyone have the right to prevent me?

Your own property? Sounding the retreat?

[tacticalogic]

Assume:

1. You are in legal posession of a quantity of C4.
2. You drill a hole in the sole of your shoe.
3. You roll up a piece of C4 and place it in that hole.
4. You put the shoe on, and walk around your house.

At what point did you violate the law or exceed your rights, and why?

[Roscoe]

Your house is a commercial airliner?

[tacticalogic]

Your house is a commercial airliner?

No, it isn't. The question is "Do you have the right to carry C4 in the soles of your shoes?", not "Do you have the right to carry C4 onto a commercial airliner in the soles of your shoes?". You obviously do not have the right to do that. This was pointed out to you in post 232, but you chose to ignore it. I would also say you don't have the right to walk around in public with a bomb in your shoe, but C4 by itself does not constitute a bomb.

[Roscoe]

"Will the Libertarians decry the loss of his right to carry C4 plastic explosives in his own private shoes? And what's with the stewardess FORCING him to not light his own sneakers, thereby depriving him of his own God-given free will? Shouldn't we just punish people over what harm they actually do rather than the harm they MIGHT cause? After all, maybe the C4 was a dud, maybe it would have sputtered out. Maybe it would have gone off and caused an elderly woman to cough, and then she could have sued him in a civil court. Maybe it would have damaged the plane and maimed others, in which case the statists might be well within their Constitutional powers to arrest and punish the malcreant within the next 2 minutes. And why should anyone be allowed to force their own majoritarian morality onto Mr. Reid? Who says we are allowed to judge actions as right or wrong?" --Cultural Jihad

[tacticalogic]

Do we have a right to carry C-4 in the soles of our shoes?

210 posted on 12/27/01 10:07 AM Pacific by Roscoe

[Roscoe]

Terrorists hafta love Libertarianism.