-- The concept of rights to life, liberty & property for all is very libertarian.
____________________________________
jackbob, you wrote:
"We libertarians"?
"-- are not particularly constitutionalists, --" ?
You don't write like any libertarian I know.
82 P_A_I
Since the libertarian philosophy does not address particular political doctrines, limiting itself instead to matters relating to individual free will,
That's a specious claim, one you just made up. All the American libertarian philosophy I've ever read definitely embraces the principles of the US Constitutional system. Feel free to link me to any that does not.
any claim that an individual is honor bound to any historic doctrine or to any principles derived there from, is an assertion of an authoritarian position that runs counter to the philosophy of free will.
As I said, your imagination has made that a 'libertarian' position. -- And, your 'authoritarian/free will' bit is sheer gibberish. -- Sure, - everyone has free will, - but all residents of the USA are bound to obey the Law of the Land, our US Constitution. -- See Article VI.
-- No rational libertarian can ever deny that fact.
Being a Libertarian who still feels bound, with out any show or claim to honor, by my three prior oaths to the Constitution of the United States of America, does not cause me to expect from others, who may or may not also have taken the same oath, the same commitment that I have.
You do not expect your peers living in this country to support the US Constitution? Why do you claim that as libertarian position? Isn't everyone subject to the rule of law?
BTW, -- the oath I took included defending the Constitution, and I honor that. You don't? - Bold statement.
I wonder, from what strange philosopher, you derive your authoritarian views, on which you claim to be a libertarian. I'm defending the point that our rule of Constitutional law in America is not 'authoritarian'.
-- I think you're the first person I've ever seen on FR that has made the claim that such a defense IS authoritarian. -- And you call me strange? How odd.
Its quite possible that you didn't bother to read the dialog on the thread first so as to be able to recognize context.
Not true. My post above establishes context.
The topic discussed was the Libertarian Party and what its members can and should be doing. Starting with reply #26 and moving through replies 28, 35, and on to #39, a clear continuity was maintained. Then in reply #39 "libertarianben" wrote "I'd like to see Libertarians teach "Conservative" Republicans the constitution and what small government is." Replying back in #40, "secretagent" did not agree stating that "The real conservatives can teach us about the Constitution and how government could have stayed small." He then went on to say that "Libertarians can push the proper boundaries of freedom into new areas with a new vision, independent of the Constitution." This last sentence "liberbaden" repeated word for word in #41 and asked "how so? In reply #44, "secretagent" answered by putting the Libertarian Party main principle, proviso, and enabling rule into his own words, then explained that it "stands independent of, and expands the zone of freedom beyond, the federal constitution." At this point you came into it in reply #81 with:
Independent & beyond? - Not at all. Rational libertarians are honor bound to our Constitutions principles, as we all are..
The context of your statement "not at all," was a denial that Libertarianism, as presented by the Libertarian Party, "stands independent of, and expands the zone of freedom beyond, the federal constitution."
Wrong. I made no specification as to the party.
Your commentary to support this denial, that "rational libertarians are honor bound to our Constitutions principles, as we all are.." was a clear attempt by you to limit Libertarian philosophy, as presented by the Libertarian Party, to only the "Constitutions principles."
That's your imaginary take on what I wrote. The context is evident in my post, just above.
Libertarianism is much larger than that. It was to this limitation on Libertarianism, that I then I responded that your position is an "an authoritarian position that runs counter to the philosophy of free will." In other words, Libertarians are not "honor bound" to limit their philosophy to only those principles that are already in our Constitution, as you proposed when you asked: "Independent & beyond? And then answered: Not at all.
How daft. My position is not 'authoritarian' at all. Anyone can read my post above to verify that fact. As you well know, but ignore. Thats whats really weird about this post of yours. Do you have a point to all this? Or are you just playing wordgames?
Now I started off this reply stating its possible that you missed the context in which statements were made. But on re-reading your reply, I don't think so. It really looks like you purposefully twisted the context, so as to promote your authoritarian agenda, and once called on it, you attempt to squirm your way out.
Whatever. I see now you're intent on flamebaiting..
Your now twisting the "honor bound" limitations you put on political philosophy, into "all residents of the USA are bound to obey the Law of the Land," is a prime example of squirming, as nothing was said that implied they were not.
Context is all, my boy. My words stand as written.
Your claim that "defending the point that our rule of Constitutional law in America is not 'authoritarian'" is another example. Such was not said to be authoritarian. So on and so forth through out your entire reply, you twist and squirm around with quotes, much the same as you did with the context of the dialog.
Yep, "so on and so forth", masterfully put.
As far as my not feeling honor about my oaths to the Constitution, which I voluntarily remain loyal to, I only have honor for that which goes beyond what I have done. Now don't twist humility into dishonor. There is a difference.
How telling that you can't really reply to what I actually wrote.
You had one item right in your entire reply. Yes, I do not expect peers living in this country to support the U.S. Constitution. I distinguish a difference between what I want and what I expect. I am not an authoritarian. Of course I shouldn't be surprised by your attachment to authoritarianism. Looking at your reply #80, and your apparent support for an anti-Libertarian Party, authoritarian organization, says it all.
Now you want to 'tar baby' my post at #80? And you call the RLC an "anti-Libertarian Party, authoritarian organization?"
Are you aware that Jim Rob invited the RLC here to FR, and established a separate forum for them?
You did however manage to say something new in this last reply. You said:
Wrong. I made no specification as to the party.
Hey! Wake up. The party was the context.
If maybe you weren't so busy cutting and pasting, just maybe, you might be able to write an explanation or argument supporting of your position, instead of devolving into unsupported statements. For example:
That's your imaginary take on what I wrote. The context is evident in my post, just above.
and
How daft. My position is not 'authoritarian' at all. Anyone can read my post above to verify that fact. As you well know, but ignore. Thats whats really weird about this post of yours. Do you have a point to all this? Or are you just playing wordgames?
and
Context is all, my boy. My words stand as written.
Such statements of conclusion as a reply to explanations are vague at best, and do not qualify as argument. Since they are made without specificity and lacking in any supportive explanation, you reduce discourse to nothing more than insults.
Whatever. I see now you're intent on flamebaiting..
But that is what you have doing in every reply since you first entered the discussion back in reply #81. And now you whimper about one small word describing your conduct. This is most telling.
I notice that you did not disagree with my statement that the RLC is an anti-Libertarian Party authoritarian organization. You only complained that I brought it up. Hmmmm.