Mark said, Now, even if I accept your assumption (implicit in your claims that right=freedom) that economic freedom is the only form of freedom there is (it isn’t)…

Economic freedom is only one part of freedom. Nowhere have I suggested that it is the only form of freedom.

…a clear example is a group of dissatisfied left-leaning citizens who live in a capitalist, ‘rightist’ state wishing to disassociate themselves from that country in order to form their own (anarchist) ‘state’ (I put state in inverted commas because naturally there would be no rule of law or leader in the area they create).

Well then they are changing their stance from one that has a lot of government in all levels of life to one that is absence of government totally. They would be no longer “left leaning”.

By no means should these people be forced to define themselves as ‘right’, as your claims suggest they should do.

Nobody is forcing anything Mark.

2Hotel9 said, Mark? What does any of that have to do with antis targeting wounded soldiers in their “Protests”. For that matter carl B and Lik, what does either of your comments at the end of this thread have to do with the subject at hand?

Nothing. Does it matter?

It makes a lot more sense if we assume that all the individuals concerned surrender control of property voluntarily.

If that happens, then a left-wing libertarian utopia makes precisely as much sense as a right-wing one in which people (voluntarily) retain control of property, but still submit themselves to a ‘state’ to settle disputes.

The state is just as large in both the right-wing and left-wing anarchist ‘states’. In the former, the state ensures that property is maintained (the voluntary choice of the vast majority of citizens) – in the latter, it ensures it is not (the voluntary choice of the vast majority of citizens).

Simple.

Yep! That is me. Just a big ole commie warmonger.

Incorrect. One can be left-wing, or left-leaning, and still stand for absence of government. A good example, of the top of my head, is Murray Bookchin.

That just makes no sense. It is like the term “libertarian socialist” of which Murray Bookchin is often referred to as. It is a contradiction in terms. The “libertarian” part professes to be about individualism, so long as that individualism doesn’t own anything. You can’t be both against the government and then be advocating for the collectivization of control and property and then turn around and say that the collectivism isn’t a de facto government. It is all one big illogical circle that makes no sense.

I’ve seen you post a number of times on this issue, Likwid, and after repeatedly trying to stop myself from entering a debate with you on it, I just couldn’t resist anymore.

In suggesting that “Left” and “Right” correspond to “presence of government” and “absence of government” you are equivocating between two meanings.

In the former meaning, “right”, as far as I am aware, stands for conservatism. Stasis. Now that is obviously a good place to be if the status quo is good; bad if the status quo is bad. Conversely, “left” stands for reforming, radical views (reverse the above).

In the latter meaning, “right” can mean a government run on capitalist principles; and “left”, a government run on socialist-leaning principles.

Now, even if I accept your assumption (implicit in your claims that right=freedom) that economic freedom is the only form of freedom there is (it isn’t) you are ignoring the fact that being ‘left’ can also mean advocating the absence of government – a clear example is a group of dissatisfied left-leaning citizens who live in a capitalist, ‘rightist’ state wishing to disassociate themselves from that country in order to form their own (anarchist) ‘state’ (I put state in inverted commas because naturally there would be no rule of law or leader in the area they create).

By no means should these people be forced to define themselves as ‘right’, as your claims suggest they should do.

Mark? What does any of that have to do with antis targeting wounded soldiers in their “Protests”. For that matter carl B and Lik, what does either of your comments at the end of this thread have to do with the subject at hand?

Likwid, are we talking the same thing?

No Seth, it’s the same side. The left.

The people in MI’s link appear to be espousing a far, far right value.

That was a good set up to the analogy, MI. But you leave out an important part. Jefferson is dead. Any rhetoric or negative depictions will not slow his recovery.

Now, apply that template to these protestors: the subject of their protest is the war and its real-world impact. The object, or the audience, is the general populace. The target is the American public; the hospitals and soldiers are, if you will, visual aids.

Now imagine that you’re inside the hospital being used as a prop in the rhetoric driven swill that our “tour guides” are spewing.

Let them do this stuff at a grave yard. Your analogy would be more apt then.

What’s really pathetic is that so many people have accepted their idiotic rambling as a valid viewpoint that they are now confident enough to spew it at wounded soldiers and during the funeral processions of soldiers killed in action.

Yeah, these people pestering soldier funerals are disgusting.

And you still won’t give up on this “they’re targeting the soldiers” meme, huh? Faulty characterizations like this, and partisans’ continous repeating of them, does as much to foster dissent as anything else might.

No, 2H9, no problem with my memory. Even if I did, the words are right there in front of me.

Rather I think the problem lies with your inability to distinguish between someone ‘talking about’ X from someone ‘advocating’ X.

Let me test you on this.

Johnny says – “In a police state, citizens are under constant surveillance.”

Is Johnny

A) advocating a police state?
B) not advocating a police state?
C) licking his testicles?

Incidentally, I couldn’t help but notice that the words ‘Marxism’ and ‘Socialism’ appear in your post.

You Commie!

“Well then they are changing their stance from one that has a lot of government in all levels of life to one that is absence of government totally. They would be no longer “left leaning”.”

Incorrect. One can be left-wing, or left-leaning, and still stand for absence of government. A good example, of the top of my head, is Murray Bookchin.

Naw, just trying to bring us back to battery. The curse of being an arty FO. Target, no matter what happens behind, target. I am as guilty of wondering of subject as any.

Hey I was born there, and had my final physical there before they put in boot camp across the damn street.

MI, they’re protesting outside of hospitals where wounded soldiers are being cared for. If that’s not targeting (regardless of the number of protesters), I don’t know what is.

And you don’t think its disrespectful to use wounded soldiers as “visual aids?”

And the target is very much the soldiers. Part, if not all, of their intent is to demoralize the soldiers. Otherwise the signs wouldn’t read “Maimed For A Lie” and “Sign Up Here To Die For Halliburton.”

You’re splitting hairs, but I don’t I’ll convince of that. We’ll have to agree to disagree.