LIBERTARIANS; THE SOCIALIST'S BEST FRIEND

THE LOGICAL VIEW ^ | 11/06/02 | MARK A SITY

[Kevin Curry]

The definition of "entitle" includes "to furnish with grounds for . . . claiming success." A candidate is thus entitled to any vote that he has reasonable grounds for successfully claiming. Honest, rational, clear-thinking, mature conservative voters--whether they call themselves Republicans or libertarians--can reasonably be expected to act honestly, rationally, objectively, and maturely to prevent the more liberal of any two candidates from ascending to power. Thus, the more conservative candidate is entitled to those votes--and will get them as a matter of course.

Now, with that definition and criteria in mind, please deduce how many of the votes for the libertarian candidate in the SD Senate race were cast by honest, rational, clear-thinking and mature libertarian voters?

This isn't rocket science. It shouldn't take more than a split second to come up with the answer.

Answer the question, please.

[Kevin Curry]

From the beginning believing Christians have been accused of being mentally ill, or of being enemies of mankind. Nero first popularized these accusations, but Marx, Lenin, Stalin, Hitler extended and perfected them. Hearing you parrot their arguments, however plaintive your squeaks, is neither novel nor interesting.

[Roscoe]

War, famine, drought, flood, pestilence, disease, all are caused by sin." CJ You have supported such insanity. Can you honestly critique CJ's ideology and identify very real and serious flaws within it? Or are you simply another shallow-thinking zealot, kevin, -- an idiot wheezing platitudes from a soapbox? As a Christian I believe the world is fundamentally broken and all these travails you list are a consequence of sin. A strange sort of vengeful Christ you fellas believe in. But so be it. I also believe I must function as best as I can within a broken world, and that our Constitutional Republic is best suited of all flawed political inventions to allowing the greatest amount of meaningful freedom in a broken world. I can easily and comfortably defend both beliefs honestly, consistently, and simultaneously. No, kevin, you do not. - You urge that we pass unconstitutional laws to deal with all the 'sin' you imagine is being brought upon us. I also believe as a Christian that a libertarian society is only truly well suited to conservative Christians such as myself. Conversely, I do not believe it is presently suited to America as a whole or to atheists in particular. As long as atheists champion libertarianism in existing circumstances, I want no part of it. Delusional. You see yourself as above others solely because of your faith. This in itself is an unchristian hubris. I am discerning and savvy enough to see that the flowering of atheist libertarianism has coincided with the rise of sexual promiscuity, abortion, pornography, AIDS and other STDs, the disintegration of the traditional family, and the rise of the nanny state. All the 'sins' that CJ listed above, plus your list here, you blame upon "atheist libertarianism"? Good grief, -- I didn't realise we libertarians were this millennial old evil force! - Obviousy, kevin, we are not. Your rants do not make it so. The nanny state is the ultimate consequence of these evils--indeed, it is the necessary consequence of the self-worshipping hedonistic "man is measure of all things" atheist libertarian ethic. No such "ethic", kevin. You do rave on tho, kiddo. The alternative is anarchy, which the nation as a whole will likely never accept. There is a mid-point between total nanny statism and anarchy on that spectrum of political action, and it is where we are now: passing more and more laws in a vain and desperate attempt to impose discipline on hedonist adult-children externally to compensate for their total lack of self-discipline internally. We cannot stay at that point. It is fundamentally unstable. We must and will fall toward total nanny statism or anarchy. The trend is already established. It is toward total nanny statism. Yes kevin, and this insanity is being goaded on by fools like you, and your faction here at FR. Catch 22, you are too insane to see it is your own mania to "impose disipline" that is creating the fall of our free republic. Now, I don't savor the destination one bit. But it is where feckless libertines and the liberal democrats are jointly taking us. Libertarians rage and rave against the nanny state, but they themselves are directly responsible for its ascendance. They want the untrammeled freedom to engage in destructive personal childish self-indulgent behaviors that impose enormous external costs on others, but they they become angry when they are treated like children by fellow citizens or the state. Their feeble protestations to the contrary, they want freedom without consequence. In short, they want license. Bizzare. You blame us for the "sin" you feel must be punished by creating a socialist state. In sum, I place about the same amount of trust in atheists to implement workable libertarianism as I do in Democrats to manage my personal property. In sum, you wish to destroy our constitutional repubic to save it from 'sin'.

I wonder if anybody will ever read that?

[tpaine]

You should try, my boyo.
It would be good, -- not only for your soul, but for what little remains of your sanity.
Please roscoe, give rationality a shot, -- I care.

[Kevin Curry]

Now, with that definition and criteria in mind, please deduce how many of the votes for the libertarian candidate in the SD Senate race were cast by honest, rational, clear-thinking and mature libertarian voters?

Answer the question, please.

Take this opportunity to answer while your diminuitive partner in slime, tpaine, is busy blowing bubbles in his saliva.

[Roscoe]

You should try

Why should I be only one?

[tpaine]

As I said curry, -- you, -- and your cohort here have a real catch 22 problem. Ignore it at your own peril.

[Copernicus]

How did your super Libertarian brain know about my secret desire to live in iraq?

You have not mentioned joining the Reform Party even though Ross Perot received some 17/18 percent of the vote in 1992; you seem to believe a third party voter must join you in the voting booth rather than refuse to vote at all; ipso, ergo and therefore you would surely feel more comfortable in a society where voting is compulsory and the outcome is predetermined. The definition of Iraq by any other name.

Best regards,

[Copernicus]

Your words are paraphrasing Stalin's. He also thought that dialectical materialism would resolve such conflicts of engaging in oppression in order to free people. We conservatives really feel sorry for leftists who pine so after fascism in the vain hope of justifying their penchant for paranoia

Thank you for your comment. I find your train of thought to be almost as incomprehensible as the orginal article posted by Mr. Sity.

I will cheerfully vote for Republicans who communicate a clear coherent Constitutional message by both word and deed.

Failing that I will vote Libertarian to demonstrate my good faith by my presence in the voting booth.

Failing that I will join the public debate by using one of the other four "boxes" available to a sovereign Citizen of a Constitutional Republic.

Best regards,

[PhiKapMom]

And that is why the ACU gives Paul a 70 voting record for 2001! Very conservative voting record -- right?

[dcwusmc]

You know, you have a colossal set of stones. On the one hand you and your sycophants do everything but a nautch dance on the heads of libertarians, Buchananites, Keyesters, Constitutionalists and so forth, calling us (collectively) one-percenters and worse, yet blaming us when your half of the statist party loses. I got two words for you... BITE ME. When you nimrods can hold a civil conversation with us and address ISSUES and when your party can run candidates WORTH voting for, then I for one would LOVE to have that option! Until then, take your pasty-faced self and all your whining over to DU or somewhere that they'll APPRECIATE you and your bs tactics.

[missileboy]

Agreed on all points. Everyone must always be willing to question what it is they believe. In fact, the reason I bother posting on these "Libertarian vs. Conservative" threads is so that I might encounter some other viewpoint that I have not before considered. I can already think of a few issues that libertarianism doesn't address.

I don't know of any "pure" libertarians; for example many don't fully believe in the party's concepts of "open borders". In any arena where people are serious about analyzing what it is that they believe, and why they believe it, there is bound to be individual thought and slight deviation from "the group, even if that group is the LP. This is a good thing.

The funny thing about many conservatives is that they often criticize libertarians for not willing to go along with Republicans for their "gestalt" philosophy of smaller government, thereby screwing the conservative movement. Why won't you just compromise and be realistic? Yet you ask them why they won't accept libertarianism, I notice the exact same "no compromise" mindset - they may agree with 75% of the philosophy but won't go along with the position on the WOD or borders or foreign policy.

I'm here posting always willing to look myself in the mirror. It is true that many here are only stuck on transmit, but that applies at least as much to the conservative posters as it does to libertarians. Much of the libertarian bashing I've seen blatantly puts up strawmen that even the basher knows are gross mischaracterizations of the philosophy. I truly often wonder why anyone would bother wasting the time to go online to get into the childish one-liner debates with other posters - debates that are nothing but clever insults and have nothing to do with politics at all. I can only guess that the "team mentality" is so strong that it gives satisfaction to the participants to merely bash the "other team".

This is the first serious post I've ever seen from you, so I'm willing to believe you're interested in a free exchange of ideas. FYI for the future, I'm here to discuss ideas, not to engage in a pissing match. I just ask that you keep that in mind.

[Roscoe]

And that is why the ACU gives Paul a 70 voting record for 2001!

He's starting to show his true colors.

[Alan Chapman]

The definition of "entitle" includes "to furnish with grounds for . . . claiming success." A candidate is thus entitled to any vote that he has reasonable grounds for successfully claiming.

Non Sequitur.

People are free to vote for whomever they wish.

Honest, rational, clear-thinking, mature conservative voters--whether they call themselves Republicans or libertarians--can reasonably be expected to act honestly, rationally, objectively, and maturely to prevent the more liberal of any two candidates from ascending to power.

There were more than two candidates on the ballot. Those who wanted smaller government voted Libertarian. Those who wanted bigger government voted for other candidates. Those who wanted to repeal taxes and gun-control voted Libertarian. Those who wanted more spending and stricter enforcement of gun-control voted for other candidates.

Thus, the more conservative candidate is entitled to those votes--and will get them as a matter of course.

Non Sequitur.

[dcwusmc]

You can say it as loudly as you please. You can blame all you please. Lies do not become truth if yelled loudly enough; they just wear out your voice and your listener's ears (IF you have someone dumb enough to listen to you, that is.)... And casting blame for your own shortcomings is equally stupid... but then the pubbie half of the stupid party is known for shooting itself in the foot. And YOU are one of the reasons why. When you want MY vote or that of the libertarians, you know how to get it/them. Knock off your lies, quit whining and put up some SMALL GOVERNMENT, LOW TAX CANDIDATES who will HONOR the Constitution and Bill of Rights. Until then, you can choke on your whines and lies as far as I am concerned. The libertarians here probably agree.

[Roscoe]

Those who wanted smaller government voted Libertarian.

Non sequitur. The NRA F rated Democrat was elected thanks to their votes.

[logic101.net]

Somewhat testy today? How far does your agenda advance under the Democrat/Socialist party? In fact, doesn't your goal of smaller, less intrusive government retreat?

Let's look at the 3 parties.

DEMOCRAT/SOCIALIST:
1) Government can do no wrong.
2) All money belongs to the Fed Govt which is so wonderful
that it allows the "little people" to keep some of the crumbs.
3) Since all government is good, more government is better.
4) The Constitution is a worthless document.

REPUBLICAN:
1) Government can be either good or bad, and must be controlled to keep it from going bad.
2) Tax money is earned by tax payers.
3) The Constitution is still viable, but also malable.

LIBERTARIAN:
1) Government is a necessary evil. Being evil, it must be limited as much as possible.
2) The Constitution is still a viable document.

Libertarians have much more in common with Republicans than Democrat/Socialists. With the defeat of the Dems nationally, just look how silly they are looking, and how they are begining to unravel. They are even begining to talk about who they really are, which will alienate them from the voters. The only thing that is keeping them from totally unraveling is the fact that they made some gains on the state level.

Had they been handed a complete defeat, we might be looking at them marginalizing themselves to the point of becoming a 3rd party. If Republicans and Libertarians get together the next couple of election cycles we might be able to get rid of them.

Yet, so many Libertarians want to stand on principal, and damn the results.

MARK A SITY
http://www.logic101.net/

[logic101.net]

Gov McCallum was a low tax governor. He also was trying very hard (with a liberal Senate) to cut spending (and had some sucesses). He managed to prevent a tax hike even with a marginal economy and a deficit. He is pro-gun, and pro-Constitution. Yet, Ed Thompson got 11% of the vote - and you know what his big issue was? Allowing slot machines in bars!

MARK A SITY
http://www.logic101.net/

[BigWaveBetty]

ping

[logic101.net]

"Lied do not become truth if..."

Tell that to Clinton! He based his whole career on Hitler's "Big Lie" theory. Come to think of it, so did Hitler.


MARK A SITY
http://www.logic101.net/