Libertarians: Still In Search Of Their Perfect World. Practically Irrelevant.

Liberty Pundits ^ | 17 October 2010 | Melissa Clouthier

[Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus]

I have come to believe that Libertarians are worthless. Before them, a crop of wonderful, small government candidates sit and will likely win–scores of points of optimism in a political sky that has been bleak and black. To coin a word from the opposition, there’s Hope.

Now, most of us watching this election realize that the exhausting work over the last two years has hardly begun. Once this new crop become part of the system, they’ll have to be watched and held accountable.

The most optimistic change, then, hasn’t really been these candidates. It’s been the heart of the American people. Citizens have decided that they’ve sat on their duffs long enough. It’s time to get involved. It’s time to stay involved.

The candidates aren’t perfect. No politicians are perfect. Hells bells. They’re human and mere vessels for the expression of the voters’ will.

So, I read Doug Mataconis’ piece about why Libertarians are still disenchanted even with the best electoral hope in a generation presents itself. I feel absolute disgust.

Kvetching about the social issues of a Christine O’Donnell while ignoring the economic liberties that Mike Castle would have assuredly stripped had he had his way makes no sense. How on earth can a true Libertarian even worry about such irrelevance?

[Hemingway's Ghost]

Um, the question you posed was:

I would like to have some libertarian explain to me any aspect of social conservatism that is anti-liberty.

I'll quote Wikipedia:

Liberty is the concept of ideological and political philosophy that identifies the condition to which an individual has the right to behave according to one's own personal responsibility and free will.

"Anti-liberty," therefore, would be the antithesis of the above.

Many social conservatives would dance in the streets on the day when homosexuality was re-criminalized, thereby denying, by law, homosexuals the right to behave according to their own personal responsibility and free will. Ergo, you have your one aspect of social conservatism that is anti-liberty.

You tossed up the softball, Einstein. Don't blame me because you didn't quite think that brilliant line of argument through.

[TheBigIf]

So now you are claiming to be the spokesperson for social conservatives? You obviously are not even a conservative. There has been no conservative movement to lock up homosexuals at all and it proves you to either be a moron or someone here wanting to smear conservatives to claim otherwise. Liberty does not give you the right to force others to accept your behavior. It is your position and the rest of the progressive gay activists that is anti-liberty. There is nothing at all anti-liberty about the conservative position.

[TheBigIf]

It is also very telling that you equate liberty to homosexual behavior. Keep pushing your pro-homosexual agenda here though and you will not last long.

[Hemingway's Ghost]

So now you are claiming to be the spokesperson for social conservatives? You obviously are not even a conservative. There has been no conservative movement to lock up homosexuals at all and it proves you to either be a moron or someone here wanting to smear conservatives to claim otherwise. Liberty does not give you the right to force others to accept your behavior. It is your position and the rest of the progressive gay activists that is anti-liberty. There is nothing at all anti-liberty about the conservative position.

You threw up a dopey softball, got miffed because someone smacked it out of the park, and now you throw a hissy fit about the whole thing. Don't you have any pride at all? Take your lumps, hone your argument, and try not to be such a chucklehead. You're not going to win any converts to whatever ideology you're spouting if you continue to make poor arguments and throw temper tantrums.

As far as me being a conservative . . . I've been posting to this site for a decade longer than you have. I've seen people like you come and go ad nauseum. So I'm fairly sure I not only know what conservatism is, but how people like you bastardize it to fit a narrow agenda. You don't have enough substance to stuff a throw pillow.

And by the way, one post to me will suffice. You don't have to break up your drivel into multiple posts.

[TheBigIf]

Are you really so idiotic as to think that just because you claim that you answered anything well that it is true? Your only answer was to claim that you know what all conservatives think and that they want homosexuality to be criminalized and for anyone who gets caught practicing homosexual behavior to get locked up. This is all you have? You are a joke. It is amazing that you have been posting here that long with your obvious pro-homosexual agenda. I doubt you will be much longer though if you continue your stupid defense of homosexuality as being an aspect of liberty and that anyone who opposes that has a ‘creepy fixation’ (in your own words).

So there was no softball and you hit nothing out of the park. There is nothing anti-liberty at all in opposing the fascist homosexual agenda. Keep trying to defend that agenda though and demean other posters here for that purpose and I will bet you will be gone.

[TheBigIf]

And by the way, you could just stick to the point instead of using insults to protect your version of homosexual liberty.

[GSWarrior]

I consider myself a Libertarian. I work at a Libertarian public policy institute. I've defended Libertarians here in the past.

IMO there are kernals of truth in this article, but I hardly think libertarians are worthless.

From my window, Libertarians just don't have the infra-structure to foist a serious candidate onto the national scene. The generalization that LIbertarians would rather sit around and think/theorize--rather than roll up their sleeves, get their hands dirty and get to work--is true. The best they can do at this point is to occasionally get a candidate in a local election.

Plus, who is the standard bearer for the Libertarian party? Who is stepping up, now that Ron Paul is in the twilight of his career? There is a void at the top of the party.

[Hemingway's Ghost]

I'm not defending the "homosexual agenda." I don't know what it is, nor do I care to learn what it is. What I'm defending is liberty, and the fact that you can't realize this, coupled with your initial proposition, leads me to this conclusion:

You're not very bright.

A conclusion further supported by the notion that you still couldn't refrain from double-posting to me.

And if you think that there aren't social conservatives who'd love to return to the days when homosexual behavior was criminalized, you're not only not very bright, you're not very observant as well.

Now, since you're not very bright and you're not very observant, there's really no reason for this back-and-forth between us to continue. But I suspect you'll be unable to refrain from posting something back to me. Prove me wrong.

[TheBigIf]

You yourself are including homosexuality as an aspect of your definition of liberty and are claiming that someone who is against homosexuality is anti-liberty. You then go on to smear any conservative who opposes this agenda of yours as having a ‘creepy fixation’. So either you are extremely stupid for not knowing that the only conclusion one could take from your arguments is that you feel that liberty includes a right to homosexuality or you are just trying to cause trouble using dimwitted insults and attempts to pat yourself on the back as if you won something.

[TheBigIf]

You already have been proved wrong. You obviously feel the need to bash conservatives who oppose the left-wing gya rights agenda.

And it hurts you that I double post to you? Ha! Enjoy this post.

[TheBigIf]

You already have been proved wrong. You obviously feel the need to bash conservatives who oppose the left-wing gay rights agenda.

And it hurts you that I double post to you? Ha! Enjoy this post.

[GSWarrior]

There’s got to be SOMETHING about the queer agenda that you don’t like.

This was not directed at me, but I'll jump in, if I may.

Just off the top of my head I am opposed to:
hate crime legislation;

anything taught in K-12 about homosexuality, other than a simple definition of the term;

the creation of Harvey Milk Day in California;

my not being able to fire a gay person if I so choose;

exposing children to the gay subculture;

demonization of those who oppose homosexuals (except Fred Phelps, et al)

I could come up with more, I'm sure.

[Hemingway's Ghost]

You yourself are including homosexuality as an aspect of your definition of liberty and are claiming that someone who is against homosexuality is anti-liberty.

I'm doing absolutely nothing remotely close to what you claim I'm doing. And the fact that you derive the above from my stance here on this thread leads me to adjust my original assessment of you: you're not just not very bright. You may be borderline retarded.

Get that checked out.

Because every time you post something, you're hurting the conservative cause.

[TheBigIf]

Yet you think that you are helping the conservative cause by claiming that a respect for liberty means that you shouldn’t oppose homosexual behavior. That is absolutely ridiculous and even goes as far as to accuse this nation of being anti-liberty considering that laws against homosexuality have existed since this nation’s founding. It is you who appears to be retarded in your quest to bash conservatives in favor of the fascist homosexual agenda.

[TheBigIf]

You would have been run out of town with your attempts to defend homosexuality at any time of this nation’s history. If may be that you are not retarded but are instead just a typical brain dead fascist left-winger.

[Hemingway's Ghost]

You would have been run out of town with your attempts to defend homosexuality at any time of this nation’s history.

Other things I would have been run out of town for "at any time of this nation's history":

Being Catholic
Being French
Being Jewish
Being Black
Being a debtor
Being an indian

Among others.

So?

Do you labor under an illusion that conservatism means that human society was somehow perfected years and years ago and is no longer capable of evolving into something better?

You attribute an argument to me that I never made . . . your attempt to pin political labels on me is just pathetic. I'm fairly sure you don't even know the meanings of the words you've thrown out here on this thread.

Honestly, man, based on the reasoning skills you've displayed on this thread, I'm guessing you're about twelve years old. Am I correct?

[TheBigIf]

Spoken from someone that has not exhibited one single substantive argument yet. Of course now your rant features an entire new list of accusations as well now against this nation based upon your anti-American left-wing bent.

And now you are also suggesting that your version of liberty that includes some special rights to homosexual behavior are a means to perfect our nation as you compare homosexuality to race and religion.

[TheBigIf]

Of course in every post you have to prove your insecurities by resorting to insulting my intelligence multiple times and yet it is you who continue to prove yourself to be mentally and morally deficient.

[TheBigIf]

All of the points that you make in this thread are no different then points that Barack Hussein Obama makes.

You make the point that human society was not perfect at the time of the Founders and that you are of the belief that this quest for perfection is a progressive process. You state your believe that homosexuality is to be respected as a matter of individual liberty. That is though actually a perversion of the meaning of individual liberty.

Then you raise a list of grievances against the United States that it has oppressed all of these following groups:

(Your words)

“Being Catholic
Being French
Being Jewish
Being Black
Being a debtor
Being an indian
Among others. “

Typical liberal anti-Americanism to accuse the majority of Americans and our culture of being oppressive. You also follow the typical left-wing rhetoric of equating homosexual behavior to a person’s race or religion.

Then of course you resort to the typical sickening tactic of accusing me of being 12 years old and patting yourself on the back for being so intellectual to find such an insult against me. You are a pathetic joke so far in this discussion with me.

It amazes me that you claim to be a member here at FR for over a decade. You are a flaming left-wing pervert though. If you keep on taking up this dispute with me in defending bashing conservatives who do not view homosexuality as right, I doubt you will be here very much longer. Your defense of perversion as a right is transparent and makes me sick.

[Hemingway's Ghost]

Of course in every post you have to prove your insecurities by resorting to insulting my intelligence multiple times

My insecurities have nothing to do with our discussion here. I'm insulting your intelligence because you've brought none to this thread. I'm merely making an observation.

Let's go through your inanities one by one:

Typical liberal anti-Americanism to accuse the majority of Americans and our culture of being oppressive.

No, I was responding to the point you made in which I would've been "run out of town" for "defending homosexuality" at "any time of this nation's history" by illustrating to you the notion that just because something was done in the past does not necessarily make it right. Because at various points in our nation's history, I or anyone else could have been run out of town for any of the reasons I noted; reasons that today, seem ludicrous.

So you can't rely on history to prove your stance correct unless your stance happens to be about a historical statement of fact. It's the hallmark of someone making a dumb argument.

As if that weren't enough, "running me out of town for defending homosexuality" would be in direct violation of my First Amendment rights. Or does your support of "liberty" not extend to freedom of speech?

To continue, my "version of liberty" does not include some "special rights to homosexual behavior." Homosexuals have the same rights as the rest of us; no more, no less. Why you assumed I was arguing otherwise I'll never know; you certainly couldn't have picked it up on this thread. So I'll apply Occam's Razor and figure it's just you being dumb.

Let's go on:

You also follow the typical left-wing rhetoric of equating homosexual behavior to a person’s race or religion.

Nope. I was simply describing to you the other conditions under which, during our nation's history, an individual could have been run out of town. Any inference you draw from that is yours and yours alone. I'm betting it'll be a stupid inference, though.

In sum, basically, all you've done is throw stupid labels at me: leftist, fascist, Obama-lover, whatever. These are the argumentative tactics of someone who doesn't have a substantive argument to make. You challenged someone to provide you with an example of any social conservative stance that was anti-liberty, and I did. Afterwards, you've demonstrated a limited understanding of the word liberty, an inability to make a coherent, intelligent argument, and a childish resort to label-applying when someone gets the best of you.

So in my estimation, you're any combination of the following: immature, inarticulate, un-intelligent, and ignorant.