Replies

Because you and I have tangled elsewhere before and your feigned ignorance of the meaning of my bunch of words is as dishonest as your understandable shame, on a conservative website, to avoid being public as to your ideological background which is certainly not conservative, except accidentrally in the case of government school funding.

I have made no secret of the fact that I am not a "conservative" (whatever that happens to be this week). Do you think this is some kind of great revelation?

I have no obligation to sit idly by while objectivists try to hijack conservatism.

I don't know if I'd consider myself an objectivist, but I certainly value much of the philosophy. What this has to do with "hijacking conservatism" I don't know. I pretty much figured that everyone here were big boys and girls, and they could actually weigh the value of ideas for themselves. But I'm sure they appreciate your efforts to save them from nasty 'ole me. (do you get the impression I think you're being a bit melodramatic?)

Shall we also discuss the pretty thought held in common by Margaret Sanger and Ayn Rand that charity is cruelty?

I have no idea who Margaret Sanger is, but as for Rand, it was not actually charity in the traditional sense, but altruism (state institutionalization of charity) which she opposed. I share her distaste for altruism, and in fact all things collectivist.

You may start a thread.

Gee, that's mighty nice of you. When did you purchase FR?

What you may not do is control all sides of the discussion.

How does one go about "controlling all sides of a discussion" on a website which encourages the free exchange of ideas? Are you suggesting that I have some kind of inside advantage?

I would like you to make an honest revelation as to the totality of your belief structure so that your fellow posters may see it all. I cannot compel you. Mine is Roman Catholicism. Am I a witch doctor, therefore? And, what's your agenda?????

I am fundamentally libertarian from a philosophical standpoint. I recognize the initiation of force or fraud as immoral under all circumstances, and oppose such, whether perpetrated by individuals, or by state. My libertarian philosophical foundation is well known on FR.

I'm not sure what you think you're "exposing", but I think you look kinda silly in doing it.

If you think I look silly, considering the source, I'll take that as a complement. You used to frankly admit objectivism but not any more.

OK, let's take what you do confess. The mantra about non-initiation of force sounds very nice in college bull sessions. With each passing year, it becomes ever more obvious that libertarianism does not lead to a society where we all sit around smoking good weed and getting laid as often as we might like (with the help of a consenting other) but rather to a society where some people actually resent charity (not welfare, mind you, but charity) or altrusim.

If I choose to be charitable or altruistic for no better reason in the imagination of the libertarian than that I feel a religious compulsion to give to others though they have not earned that charity, I should be free to do so. No???? After all, it is my money or whatever. I have earned it. Ownership of what I earn gives me the right to dispose of it. If I don't compel you ar anyone else to join me in giving, that is my libertarian right. If you disapprove of what I choose to do with my property, that is your right so long as you do not initiate force against me. If I despise homosexuality, promiscuity, or whatever, that is also my business. I have no desire to jail homosexuals or fine them or legally sanction them in any way. Nor adulterers.

With abortion, the rubber meets the road because we are talking about a different human being's rights. I have no desire to debate abortion here nor the time since I have obligations to attend to off the internet.

When I was captivated by libertarian works as a student, I found interesting the concept of shunning or neighborhood disapproval to be an interesting alternative to government action. We have passed that point when homosexual activists seek the right not to be criticized or shunned and that has nothing to do with taxes or benefits. In Canada, there are laws threatening jail to those who engage in "homophobic" "hate speech." Some politicians have threatened to try and have JP II jailed if he speaks out against homosexuality while visiting Canada. Not terribly likely to happen but not because of a lack of law.

Libertarians are a fifth column who undermine conservatism. They have every right to try and conservatives have every right to resist their efforts. At least you are honest enough to admit that you are not conservative.