[Exnihilo]

*yawn* Is this the best you people can come up with? "You're a commie!" Get real. I found his points about Libertarians illuminating. You and your friends have yet to refute ANY of his points about Libertarians. You point to his political ideology and then mention other things he says unrelated to Libertarianism. What are you afraid of??

[Ben Ficklin]

Maria Cantwell and Harry Reid love those libertarians. The Democratic Senate loves those libertarians.

[Benson_Carter]

let me tell ya something, friend. It's intellectually small to post some obviously left-leaning garbage writings and then expect everyone to "prove it wrong".

YOU posted this crap, YOU prove to US why we should believe it. There have been plenty of people discredit this.

or do you just like the look of your own words? Either way you have no real arguement; it's just masterbatory drivel.

see, mommy! I can use big words too!

[OrthodoxPresbyterian]

*yawn* Is this the best you people can come up with? "You're a commie!" Get real. I found his points about Libertarians illuminating.

Don't flatter yourself. You "found his points" illumninating only because he attacked libertarianism, not because He had anything worthwhile to say.

You are perfectly happy to throw in with a Commmunist, because you are more concerned with being "anti-libertarian" than with the criminal ideological mental sickness of anyone who would excuse the crimes of the Christian-killing Communists... which now includes you.

You and your friends have yet to refute ANY of his points about Libertarians. You point to his political ideology and then mention other things he says unrelated to Libertarianism. What are you afraid of??

Nothing.

At this point, you might expect a definition of libertarianism. However, most definitions of libertarianism are written by libertarians themselves, and they are extremely propagandistic. "Libertarianism is freedom!' is a slogan, not a definition. Most other definitions of libertarianism borrow from those self-definitions, so I have avoided them. Instead, the values, claims, and effects listed below describe the reality of libertarianism.

By not defining Libertarianism by its self-professed creeds, the author herein arrogates to himself the privilege of defining Libertarianism however he sees fit.

But while he has a First Amendment Right to engage in this kind of deceitful sophistry, no CHRISTIAN can endorse this slanderous tactic. "Thou Shalt Not Bear False Witness Against Thy Neighbor".

This does not occur to Exnihilo, for he is far more Anti-Libertarian, then he is Christian in any possible sense of the term.

values ~~ The values of libertarianism can not be rationally grounded. It is a system of belief, a 'worldview'. If you are a libertarian, then there is no point in reading any further. There is no attempt here to convert you: your belief is simply rejected. The rejection is comprehensive, meaning that all the starting points of libertarian argument (premises) are also rejected. There is no shared ground from which to conduct an argument.

Smear tactic. The fact of the matter is, I would submit that the author simply rejects libertarianism out-of-hand because he is afraid of having his logic savaged... I personally suspect that he has debated libertarians before, and knows he can't win.

So, if you can't win an argument... smear. But while he has a First Amendment Right to engage in this kind of deceitful sophistry, no CHRISTIAN can endorse this slanderous tactic. "Thou Shalt Not Bear False Witness Against Thy Neighbor".

This does not occur to Exnihilo, for he is far more Anti-Libertarian, then he is Christian in any possible sense of the term.

The libertarian belief system includes the values listed in this section, which are affirmed by most libertarians. Certainly, no libertarian rejects them all...

HILARIOUSLY stupid statement of deceptive illogic (though I'm not surprised that you "found it illuminating"). Why, by including "Conservatives practice Sodomy" and "Conservatives breathe Air" in the same group of points, the author could likewise say, the sodomizing Conservative belief system includes the values listed in this section, which are affirmed by most Conservatives. "Certainly, no Conservative rejects them all..."

But while he has a First Amendment Right to engage in this kind of deceitful sophistry, no CHRISTIAN can endorse this slanderous tactic. "Thou Shalt Not Bear False Witness Against Thy Neighbor".

This does not occur to Exnihilo, for he is far more Anti-Libertarian, then he is Christian in any possible sense of the term.

"process legitimises outcome" -- ALL TRUE CHRISTIANS must likewise believe that "Process legitimizes Outcome"; Christian Ethics are as rigidly deontological (that is, anti-Consequentialist) as any Libertarian's.

The apostles said to the Lord, "Increase our faith!" He replied, "If you have faith as small as a mustard seed, you can say to this mulberry tree, `Be uprooted and planted in the sea,' and it will obey you. "Suppose one of you had a servant plowing or looking after the sheep. Would he say to the servant when he comes in from the field, `Come along now and sit down to eat'? Would he not rather say, `Prepare my supper, get yourself ready and wait on me while I eat and drink; after that you may eat and drink'? Would he thank the servant because he did what he was told to do? So you also, when you have done everything you were told to do, should say, `We are unworthy servants; we have only done our duty.'" (Luke 17: 5-10)

Non-Consequentialist Deontological Ethics (the above Communistic attack on which you find so illuminating) are fundamental to the Christian Faith. This Communist opposes Deontological Ethics.

This does not occur to Exnihilo, for he is far more Anti-Libertarian, then he is Christian in any possible sense of the term.

revealing of order / perfection -- Also fundamental to Christian Ethics. Believing as we do that perfection is literally contained in Scripture, we believe that Presbyters and Magistrates who adhere to God's Law will thereby reveal the perfect purity of God's Law unto an imperfect world. "So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it".

This does not occur to Exnihilo, for he is far more Anti-Libertarian, then he is Christian in any possible sense of the term.

world of emergence -- The value attached to the outcome of process, is so central to libertarianism, that it defines the ideal libertarian world.... Inherently, it must then defend this world's existence. And if the absolute free-market had totally unexpected effects (such as a Bolshevik world government), then most libertarians would interfere with its workings, to reinstate their intended ideal world.

False. Libertarians would have no objection to the emergence of a Communal society, provided that it was a purely-voluntary Community... No Force, No Fruad.

Again, this mirrors Christian Ethics. In those areas where Christians have seen fit to establish certain holdings and economic activities in common, it has been a voluntary communalism: No Force, No Fraud.

Ergo, the Communist author of the above is just spitting lies.

This does not occur to Exnihilo, for he is far more Anti-Libertarian, then he is Christian in any possible sense of the term.

I could go on... and on... and on...

This entire piece is a pig-swill of vomitous illogic, which is ""illuminating" only to fools.

But when I am done, if you are STILL going to just stand there and drool, "but libertarianism is bad", and defend the Christianity-killing Lies of the blasphemous Social Gospel... why should I bother?