Replies

First off, nothing I do in this life nor the next is never and will never be "silly." This is why I have such a hard time talking with self-professed libertarians: respect or the lack thereof.

I'm sorry, but it manifestly is silly. Demanding respect for silliness is itself silly. Deal with it.

Conservatism is well defined. Libertarianism does not appear to be as readily defined. So, if non-initation of force is the core principle, then, a democratic socialist who believes in this principle could be a libertarian, right? If not, why not? You said this is the core belief. Is that all there is?

Now really, if you insist on a punctilious demand for respect for your comments, you shouldn't say things like that. It's like asking if an athiest who accepts Jesus Christ as his personal Lord and Savior can both be a Christian and remain an athiest. The answer in both cases is, not if he cares about the principle of non-contradiction.

It's conservatism that lacks definition, by definition. It's reluctance to accept radical change. It must, then, radically depend on what already exists.

You, too.

Thanx.

Any others while we are at it? May as well go ahead and get it out of the way with now.