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.
OWK, I knew you wouldn't come clean. Don't let him fool ya BlackElk, he definitely likes cheese.
If you see that as being the ultimate goal of libertarianism, then you appear, to me, to be one very confused (or maybe just ignorant) individual.
Fortunately, neither state needs to be a permanent condition.
Confess? I don't confess it. I state it openly, and with pride and emphasis. I hold the inalienable rights of individuals human beings as the highest political ideal.
The mantra about non-initiation of force sounds very nice in college bull sessions.
Maybe you gave up the idea of inalienable rights when you left college, but I can assure you, I still hold it very tightly, at the core of my philosophy. (and for the record, I did not attend college)
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.
Tell me oh enlightened one, how precisely does this "become ever more obvious with each passing year"? You seem think that your tendency for making grand unsubstantiated pronouncements is somehow a substitute for rational discourse. Simply declaring absurdities in the absence of support may make you feel good, but it does nothing to advance your position.
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????
Absolutely. I myself make charitable contributions all the time. But I do so because I value the actions of the charity, greater than I value the money. There's not a thing wrong with that. What I oppose, is government seizing my property at gunpoint, for redistribution to individuals who have not earned it. Can you understand the difference?
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.
Of course it does. Why on earth would you think otherwise? (once again I fear you have fallen into the trap of believing your own mischaracterizations of my position, rather than simply asking me what I believe).
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.
Absolutely so. I have never even hinted otherwise.
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.
I agree completely (and have stated so emphatically many times already on this thread).
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.
You'll find no debate from me. I stand 100% and vehemently in the pro-life corner, and favor the protection of the lives of unborn children by law.
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.
The fact that you describe your early political explorations as "captivating" and "youthful fancies" is quite a window into your psyche.
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.
Hate crimes laws, are ridiculous on their face. In fact, anti-discrimination laws, affirmative action laws, laws seeking to force unwanted associations on men, are all ridiculous affronts to the concept of inalienable human rights. I have already said so a dozen times on this thread (which you would know had you bothered to read it, instead of creating fictional mischaracterizations of my position).
Libertarians are a fifth column who undermine conservatism.
Libertarians are advocates of inalienable rights, who oppose primarily the political left, but also the political right if they happen to be the ones subjugating rights on that particular issue.
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.
I have never pretended otherwise. That was a product of your fevered imagination (as are most of the things you have said).