Say Anything Blog

"Calculated outrageousness” hardly seems limited to libertarians. I’ve seen far more examples of outrageous claims from self-described liberals (e.g Daily Kos) and conservatives (e.g. free republic) than I’ve seen from self-described libertarians.

None of these groups are doing their cause any favors by their actions. IMO, the best response to such childishness is to ignore it.

Steve Dasbach (a 50+ Libertarian)

And that’s another thing I don’t like about libertarians.  Acting above it all, as though the fact that they subscribe to a “third party” ideology puts them above partisan debate.

Libertarians are every bit as capable of being partisan twits as Democrats or Republicans.

---

The war against illegal plunder has been fought since the beginning of the world. But how is… legal plunder to be identified? Quite simply. See if the law takes from some persons what belongs to them, and gives it to other persons to whom it does not belong. See if the law benefits one citizen at the expense of another by doing what the citizen himself cannot do without committing a crime. Then abolish this law without delay … If such a law is not abolished immediately it will spread, multiply and develop into a system.

Frédéric Bastiat, The Law

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

Libertarians Are Stupid cause they fine me when I return my books late.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MwrQdQSXDbg

I agree wholeheartedly, Rob. It’s almost as if they are avant-garde conservatives. They want to have their cake (relishing in a conservative philosophy) and eat it too (not have to have that political philosophy tied to any political leader of any prominence that might subsequently embarass them.)

Hence, they have a political persuation that they are absolutely positive will work, but because of reality constraints, will never see it in practice. So they can strike the pose, but not have put their money where their mouth is.

I’ve always lived by the credo that, if there is no possibility of failure, how does one quantify success?

We liberals see it with Greens. Yeah, if Nader were elected every car would be powered by farts, and the monorails will glisten in the sun, but in the mean time we’re stuck with a bunch of Trusta-farians who are too wedded to ideological purity to vote for the viable candidate that is closer to their interests.

I used to know a woman whose father was the Libertarian candidate for governer in a southern state (she was on the ballot for the Libertarian Treasurer or Sec of State or some other state level cabinet post.) Her father was the DA of their county for a while.

Talk about interesting personalities, the man was so frightened by the prospect of nuclear war, he actually built a mansion in the side of a mountain to avoid fall-out. It was actually under the mountain. Of the 8-10,000 square feet of the house’s footprint, only about 100 square feet was above the surface. Huge cylindrical supports and about 5-10 years worth of MREs in one of the stock-rooms. Think NORAD with a rompus-room.

Since then, I’ve always had a couple chuckles when someone introduces me as ‘libertarian.’

My other beef with libertarians (and they get incalculably FURIOUS when I point this out): ask them what, precisely, the state should support.

They’ll generally answer the law (and sometimes a libertarian will add national defense.)

What do you call a state that only provides police services?

A police state.

Mention to a libertarian that they advocate a police state, and invariably they bust out a beautiful impression of South Park’s Mrs. Broflafski.

What What WHAT?!?!?!

A lot of the libertarians I’ve met lately seem to be pretty long on the conspiracy theories too.  Stuff about tri-lateral commissions and international banking conspiracies (which, given the Jewish financial heritage, seems to often be thinly-veiled antisemitism) and North American Unions.

All the Ron Paul stuff.  Which is probably because Ron Paul is bringing them out of the woodwork.

Personally, I understand how hard it is to apply political labels.  As a conservative who is an atheist, has no beef with gay marriage and is rarely that impressed with cursing on television I know all about square pegs and round holes.

Ultimately, people should just believe what they want to believe.  But with libertarians it’s exactly as you describe.  A whole lot of posturing from the perspective of those who don’t have to face the risk of putting their ideas in place to lead.

---

The war against illegal plunder has been fought since the beginning of the world. But how is… legal plunder to be identified? Quite simply. See if the law takes from some persons what belongs to them, and gives it to other persons to whom it does not belong. See if the law benefits one citizen at the expense of another by doing what the citizen himself cannot do without committing a crime. Then abolish this law without delay … If such a law is not abolished immediately it will spread, multiply and develop into a system.

Frédéric Bastiat, The Law

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

I think most younger libertarians are college doofuses looking for a unique position to take that’s neither conservative or liberal, Republican or Democrat,—Rob

One party may spend slightly more on killing people, the other might spend slightly more on poor people, but apart from that, they are nearly identical. Not really much of a choice. Maybe that is why people look for alternatives…

---

“All the war-propaganda, all the screaming and lies and hatred, comes invariably from people who are not fighting.”
“Every war when it comes, or before it comes, is represented not as a war but as an act of self-defense against a homicidal maniac.” —George Orwell

One party may spend slightly more on killing people,

That would be the Democrats, with their support of abortion and euthanasia?

the other might spend slightly more on poor people,

That would be prosperous, hard-working Republicans who pay more in taxes?

---

Those who think the party or the country, will be “taught a lesson” by handing the levers of power over to the liberals will learn a lesson, but it will be at the expense of our country and her liberties. And there are no guarantees that the party or the country will come out stronger, more conservative or better positioned to win elections against the incumbent liberals.

Rob,

You’re taking an ideology (libertarianism) and confusing it with disposition (academic). Not all libertarians are so academic that they spend all day theorizing “above partisan debate.” I would just as gladly debate a liberal about his misplaced need to force me to support my lazy, talentless, undereducated neighbor as I would debate you for your sanctimonious attack on abortion.

Idealists need not remain above partisanship either. I vote Republican because I believe that economic policy is stronger than social policy, and that the free markets (which cater to money and merit over dogmatic morality) will wipe out Conservatives’ paradoxical social policies.

As for Ron Paul, I didn’t know that he considered himself a libertarian – kind of makes sense now that Ron Paul supporters seem to be registering on my site (they probably Google “libertarian” and get us). But he’s all about government controls of every sort… so not sure what you mean there – doesn’t seem very libertarian to me.

And…

…don’t have to face the risk of putting their ideas in place to lead.

Do you mean “compromising their ideals so they COULD lead?” You’re right. Humanists make better writers than politicians. No arguing with you there.

---

“Behind Communism, Fascism, behind all occupations and invasions lurks a more basic, pervasive evil… a parade of people marching by with raised fists and shouting identical syllables in unision.” - Milan Kundera

Fair enough, Tim.  I didn’t mean to paint with so broad a brush, but typically the “libertarians” you meet on the internet are wackadoos hardly worth ones time.

As for my “attack” on abortion, it was hardly sanctimonious.  Murder is murder.  That so many attempt to define it otherwise because that is what is expedient to rationalize the shirking of responsibilities abortion represents (at the expense of the life of an unborn child) is neither here nor there.

---

The war against illegal plunder has been fought since the beginning of the world. But how is… legal plunder to be identified? Quite simply. See if the law takes from some persons what belongs to them, and gives it to other persons to whom it does not belong. See if the law benefits one citizen at the expense of another by doing what the citizen himself cannot do without committing a crime. Then abolish this law without delay … If such a law is not abolished immediately it will spread, multiply and develop into a system.

Frédéric Bastiat, The Law

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

The major part of libertarian policy that has always bothered me is (many of) their support for abortion. Like liberals, they throw around rhetoric..."sanctimonious attacks on abortion”...because their position doesn’t stand up in debate. Even though most libertarians believe in gov’t intervention only in cases to protect one person from another, babies, apparently, need not apply.

That, and the ridiculous claim that there’s no difference between Republicans and Democrats.

The Libertarian party is history having accomplished almost nothing in 30+ years.  Every presidential election they have run a candidate that doesn’t pull 1% of the total vote.  When Ron Paul ran as the Libertarian candidate in 1988 he pulled 0.3 percent.  From my perspective the Libertarians are not worth getting a sweat about them.

---

Being liberal is never having to admit you’re wrong

docdave
libertarians keep republicans from being more douchey than dems.

Rob,

I think that throwing truisms around like “murder is murder” is sanctimonious because truisms require faith to validate them. Defining a word with itself catapults the word right out of any meaning. If “murder” is defined as “murder,” then how do I know when I’m committing it unless a higher being/force/truth tells me so? One need not believe in God to be sanctimonious. Plato was sanctimonious because he believed in Universal Truths. Your take on abortion is sanctimonious because “murder is murder.”

On the other hand, if we defined murder as “the immoral destruction of a living being,” then we must debate the source of morality. If you can do so without resorting to God or a Universal Truth (in either one of which I would have to put faith), then you are not sanctimonious. Otherwise, you are “making a show of piety,” which is the definition of sanctimony.

---

“Behind Communism, Fascism, behind all occupations and invasions lurks a more basic, pervasive evil… a parade of people marching by with raised fists and shouting identical syllables in unision.” - Milan Kundera

anyway motherfuckers, what’s all this dissing on libertarians and academics? i just can’t have that. this SNIDE little thread is like a fucking barney the dinosaur soap opera compared to well researched, original posts I have done, in the libertarian vein, that NONE, that’s right, NONE of you take issue with in a non-question-begging manner. the butthole proffers:

What do you call a state that only provides police services?

A police state.

Mention to a libertarian that they advocate a police state, and invariably they bust out a beautiful impression of South Park’s Mrs. Broflafski.

An argument? NO, a TV reference. That’s the level all you c-words are on. FYI, my posts are here, here, here, and here. Enough of this, “I don’t like their hairdos!” and “Have you seen them react like South Park characters!” bullshit… read my pieces and bring the fire wussies. This is no legitimate complaint. You want to take issue, do it. THis shit is gossip. republicans are supposed to be por minimal state. you guys know what’s fucking best for everyone! its like the goddamn morality PTA in here. cookies and PUNCH.

Wow, harsh post by Ace. Libertarians may be outside the “norm” but they are the political party closest to conservatives in application, I thought.

Tim, you seem admirably intelligent. But I disagree with your charge of sanctimony. I’m sure Rob will answer this himself, but here’s my attempt at defining murder without mention of God: taking the life of another without provocation or cause. Killing is ending life in self-defense and to protect genocides, etc. Examples of murder are abortion, revenge and euthanasia that the patient doesn’t ask for themselves.

Cheers.

James,

Define “cause” please. I imagine you mean “justifiable cause.” So now please define “just cause.” How does killing another to preserve your life justify the “killing?” Is your life worth more than the would be killer’s? Who decided this, you? Okay, then I guess you are just as free to decide that killing your unborn child is not murder. Honestly, this debate is moot because we’re simply arguing values.

I wasn’t arguing values with Rob, I merely called his values sanctimonious (which I stand by). Some may think that sanctimonious values are okay, some may not. Obviously I do not agree with them, but I wasn’t picking a fight over the values, simply labeling them as something distasteful to me in my original post to illustrate how libertarians are not necessarily floopy and devoid of partisan beliefs.

I think that this is all I will say on the topic, because we’re beginning to get into an abortion debate. If Rob wants to do that, I guess I can shift over and comment on his other post. Same goes for you, blog a topic, pm me a link to it, and I will gladly debate there as well. As for here, I feel like we’re going pretty far off-topic (and I don’t know how Rob feels about that, but that’s a pet peeve of mine for on own blog).

---

“Behind Communism, Fascism, behind all occupations and invasions lurks a more basic, pervasive evil… a parade of people marching by with raised fists and shouting identical syllables in unision.” - Milan Kundera

Tim,

How does killing another to preserve your life justify the “killing?” Is your life worth more than the would be killer’s? Who decided this, you? Okay, then I guess you are just as free to decide that killing your unborn child is not murder.

“Killing your unborn child” To “preserve your life”?  That isn’t why 99% of abortions are performed.  They are performed because (in the vast majority of cases) a female has chosen to engage in irresponsible sexual behavior that put her at risk of becoming pregnant.  She abstained from using conception control.  She’s using the murder of the unborn in place of responsible sexual behaviors in order to avoid the responsibility that goes along with being a parent and is unwilling even to give birth to her unborn child and give him or her up for adoption. 

Now, some questions for you:

Is it your position that all “attacks” on the practice of abortion are “sanctimonious” regardless of how logically and factually based they may be?

Did I invoke God almighty while stating my case?

Is it your position that all “attacks” on the practice of abortion are “sanctimonious” regardless of how logically and factually based they may be?

Something that may be hard to prove given where we are today.  But it is generally accepted that religion, not necessarily Judism or Christianity, has been widely instrumental for establishing ethical and moral guidelines for human behavior.  However it was Judism and Christianity that followed that first codified the conditions for human morality.

---

Being liberal is never having to admit you’re wrong

They want to have their cake (relishing in a conservative philosophy) and eat it too (not have to have that political philosophy tied to any political leader of any prominence that might subsequently embarass them.)

OMG. They, like, aren’t even popular! So uncool. Oh my god… let’s go to the mall with all our friends.

Perhaps you guys are just lashing out because all of the Republican candidates for President SUCK (<---capital letters because they SUCK).

Osama,

“Killing your unborn child” To “preserve your life”?

It’s bad manners to quote people out of context, and downright silly when you do it where everyone can see my original sentence. When did I say that abortions are justified by preservation of life? I said that if killing another is justified by something so arbitrary as preserving your life over theirs (since there is no way to prove that you are more valuable than they are), then discriminating between abortion and self-defense is just as arbitrary, and thus can only be achieved via sanctimony.

Did I invoke God almighty while stating my case?

You will have to if you intend to defend any of your following assertions:

1. “irresponsible sexual behavior” - who decides what is and is not responsible?

2. “responsibility of being a parent” - once again, who decides what is the right way to be a parent?

3. “murder of the unborn” - once again, I want to see you define murder without resorting to God or some Universal Truth

I am not arguing that your position is wrong, merely that you cannot argue it without faith. That being the case, let’s keep our sanctimonious positions on abortion to ourselves, and stick with debating less ethics-based societal questions. Like, for example, are Libertarians stupid?

---

“Behind Communism, Fascism, behind all occupations and invasions lurks a more basic, pervasive evil… a parade of people marching by with raised fists and shouting identical syllables in unision.” - Milan Kundera

this SNIDE little thread is like a f*cking barney the dinosaur soap opera compared to well researched, original posts I have done,

Wow! Gives a whole new meaning to “a legend in his own mind”!
Now accepting the Nobel Peace Prize for modesty is…

---

Those who think the party or the country, will be “taught a lesson” by handing the levers of power over to the liberals will learn a lesson, but it will be at the expense of our country and her liberties. And there are no guarantees that the party or the country will come out stronger, more conservative or better positioned to win elections against the incumbent liberals.

And to leave this on an upnote, here’s a good one:

grosslack: Hell is a place of everlasting damnation and fire.
locokamil: Your belief system is thermodynamically unsound.

---

“Behind Communism, Fascism, behind all occupations and invasions lurks a more basic, pervasive evil… a parade of people marching by with raised fists and shouting identical syllables in unision.” - Milan Kundera

For illustrative points supporting my accusation that most libertarians are emotionally charged, conflate the issues, and desperately want their political hands clean, I cordially invite anyone to review any of Sparkie’s posts on this thread.

Sparkie, dear dear Sparkie, I’m not a Republican, have never voted for a Republican above a statewide ballot, and am unwaveringly liberal.

And yes, I don’t believe in a bi-polar, two dimensional description of one’s personal political views. Much like Rob has atheistic tendencies which seperate him from the average Republican voter, there are a variety of political caveats (mainly on the local level) that might distinguish my political philosophies with Democrats.

Unfortunately, our national political system is guided by the electoral college, which makes third parties unrealistic and unattractive. As much as we might want a parliamentary system that can cater to niche philosophies, this is the system that Madison et al laid out for us 200+ years ago. For all it’s problems, the constitutional framework as planned (and implemented) is the best mankind has come up with to date.

So in the mean time, have a seat, some floride-free water, and a smile, man.

Probably best to define what kind of libertarian Rob’s talking about.  I’m aware of paleoconservative traditionalists (generally religious), Randians, the party libertarians, civil libertarians (ACLU), anarcho-capitalists, and “conservatives who want to smoke dope and patronize hookers.”

All can be a little bit smug (or a lot), just like any political persuasion.  I personally tend towards Paul’s wing (paleoconservative traditionalist, more or less), but disagree with him about the war in Iraq, which I feel more or less ignores the fact that our infant republic also confronted an Islamist terrorist threat of the Barbary Pirates. 

And no, a state that merely punishes the wicked is NOT a police state.  A police state is a state that uses the police power to regulate the minutiae of peoples’ lives, and this doesn’t qualify.

Seems I struck a nerve.

It’s bad manners to quote people out of context, and downright silly when you do it where everyone can see my original sentence.

I did nothing of the sort.  You equated self defense and abortion (a ludicrous conflation).

When did I say that abortions are justified by preservation of life?

You equated the abortion and self preservation when you said:

How does killing another to preserve your life justify the “killing?” Is your life worth more than the would be killer’s? Who decided this, you? Okay, then I guess you are just as free to decide that killing your unborn child is not murder.

And now you reiterate:

I said that if killing another is justified by something so arbitrary as preserving your life over theirs (since there is no way to prove that you are more valuable than they are), then discriminating between abortion and self-defense is just as arbitrary, and thus can only be achieved via sanctimony.

You’ve hedged your equation in the language of “if this then that”, but that does not change the fact that logic and reason are absent there in.  It is exactly as I have characterized it.  You have drawn a comparison between abortion and self defense - two issues which share ONLY the death of a human being in common.  The circumstances are entirely different. 

You will have to if you intend to defend any of your following assertions:

Bullshit.

1. “irresponsible sexual behavior” - who decides what is and is not responsible?

One need not be appointed to decide this as the merits of situations themselves and the mere definition of words determine what is and is not responsible.  I pointed out exactly what was irresponsible previously and I did not inoke God almighty.  You’ve failed to show why I would need to.  Simply stating that I need to doesn’t cut it.  I stated that if one’s disposition is to avoid pregnancy, then one should not engage in sexual behavior that could result in that outcome or at minimum take appropriate precautions.  No God almighty.  Only logic and reason.  See how that works?

2. “responsibility of being a parent” - once again, who decides what is the right way to be a parent?

This is just laughable.  You’ve shifted the focus away from why I even brought up parental responsibility. I didn’t do it to investigate the minutia of what is and is not good parenting. The law as written contains a meriad of expectations for parents in regard to their children that I left unchallenged. Beyond that, the definition of the word ”parent” contains an outline for the title’s responsibility (raising and nurturing). For the sake of the subject actually being debated, how about we agree upon the standard definitions or at minimum the requirement that the child survives the parenting?  That ok?  Or must we continue to debate the meaning of words in order evaluate whether your charge of sanctimony holds true of my rational for opposing abortion?

3. “murder of the unborn” - once again, I want to see you define murder without resorting to God or some Universal Truth

How about we just accept a dictionary definition:

to kill or slaughter inhumanly or barbarously

Ever researched how abortions are performed?  Do you find my characterization without merit?

I am not arguing that your position is wrong,
merely that you cannot argue it without faith.

And I’m proving you wrong on that count.  I haven’t invoked faith to substantiate my position.

That being the case, let’s keep our sanctimonious positions on abortion to ourselves, and stick with debating less ethics-based societal questions.

I took exception to your characterization for all “attacks” against abortion as sanctimonious, so speak for yourself.

Being quoted out of context always strikes a nerve. I did not equate abortion and self preservation in the sense that you implied when you argued that “99% of abortions are not about self preservation.” I didn’t say that they were. That is how you quoted me out of context. I never said that abortions are justified by self preservation. I meant to say, if it wasn’t clear, that the standard that we use to justify killing our would-be killers (that our life is more important than theirs because they are the aggressor) is just as arbitrary as the standard that says an unborn life is as important as a born life (not the mother, just any person in general), and extinguishing either one is murder.

The fact that murder is against the law in our society does not make it any less arbitrary. We, as a people, make arbitrary rules in order to ensure our survival. The reason that some states (before Roe v. Wade) began to allow abortion is that they realized that many of our arbitrary rules are not there to ensure survival, but are merely there because some legislators felt like forcing their values on other people. Abortion (unless we start dying out as a species) does not hurt our society, and therefore does not belong in the law books.

Defining murder does not discharge you from explaining how it applies to abortion. Last I checked, murder required the inhuman killing of a living being. Do I commit murder when I “spill my seed” (that’s alive, and arguably, has potential for even more complicated life)? Let’s pretend that we took this argument to though all of the predictable stages and settled on the conclusion that you and I differ as to whether or not a fetus is a living being (more than a plant or a sperm). Well, you and I have just settled on arbitrary thresholds. How can you convince me that I am wrong and you are right without resorting to some higher truth that knows better than me? It’s an arbitrary value. Peddling your arbitrary values to others is proselytizing (which is sanctimonious).

---

“Behind Communism, Fascism, behind all occupations and invasions lurks a more basic, pervasive evil… a parade of people marching by with raised fists and shouting identical syllables in unision.” - Milan Kundera

Tim, you said,

Let’s pretend that we took this argument to though all of the predictable stages and settled on the conclusion that you and I differ as to whether or not a fetus is a living being (more than a plant or a sperm). Well, you and I have just settled on arbitrary thresholds. How can you convince me that I am wrong and you are right without resorting to some higher truth that knows better than me? It’s an arbitrary value.

Not really. A sperm spilled on the ground and not interfered with will not become a human life. A fetus left in the womb and not interfered with will become a human life (that is, if you don’t already consider it a human life at that point).

Peddling your arbitrary values to others is proselytizing (which is sanctimonious).

Isn’t every opinion doing that in some small fashion? After all, why voice an opinion at all if not to change others? This is not a rhetorical question. Why? To hear the sound of one’s own voice?

Thus giving an opinion may indeed by “proselytizing” (a loaded word, connoting another disdain you might harbor), but I hope you are aware that you are doing the same, sir.

James,

I’m not proselytizing – though I admit that you had me thinking I was for a second there. But then I remembered that at no point in this debate did I argue that Rob or anyone else should stop voicing their opinions. I simply voiced my disdain for those particular opinions. I did not try to convince anyone to share my disdain – you’ll notice that I simply defended myself from attacks on this disdain that I feel.

If we go back to the beginning, I was merely asserting that truisms like “murder is murder” come off as sanctimonious because they circumvent a reasonable debate on the subject. My initial comment had nothing to do with whether or not such opinions should be voiced.

---

“Behind Communism, Fascism, behind all occupations and invasions lurks a more basic, pervasive evil… a parade of people marching by with raised fists and shouting identical syllables in unision.” - Milan Kundera

Hey Tim, you said (with my bold and underline)

I’m not proselytizing – though I admit that you had me thinking I was for a second there. But then I remembered that at no point in this debate did I argue that Rob or anyone else should stop voicing their opinions.

Proselytizing ≠ preventing others from voicing their opinions. Now, as I opined before, you seem to be quite a smart fellow, so I know that you know this. Perhaps you typed your response too fast. You were talking about proselytizing and sanctimony. [I believe you were also flirting with moral relativism when challenging everyone’s basis for morality in a way reminiscent of deconstructionism. (e.g. “who decides what is the right way to be a parent?” “who decides what is and is not responsible?")] But that aside, you made an assertion.

You claimed someone else was sanctimonious. This is your opinion. The fact that you posted it on a public forum would then (mentally) segue into an inference of whether it was true or not. Ergo, you were trying to change someone’s opinion (if subconsciously), or else you would have just said it to your ceiling, and not posted it. “Proselytizing”. As it seemed to be defined by you earlier.

Does this make sense?

You claimed someone else was sanctimonious. This is your opinion. The fact that you posted it on a public forum would then (mentally) segue into an inference of whether it was true or not.

I stand corrected.

---

“Behind Communism, Fascism, behind all occupations and invasions lurks a more basic, pervasive evil… a parade of people marching by with raised fists and shouting identical syllables in unision.” - Milan Kundera

I forgot to mention that I was really getting into semantics about a side issue, when I think we all agree (Rob even apologized for painting with a broad brush) that libertarians shouldn’t be stereotyped.

Libertarian thought is in most cases respectable, in my opinion, and conservatives should reach out to that gray area that some intentionally put themselves in and try to cooperate with them on their rightward political issues to advance conservative primacy.

butthole

Sparkie, dear dear Sparkie, I’m not a Republican, have never voted for a Republican above a statewide ballot, and am unwaveringly liberal.

you seem to be responding to me yet i never said you were a republican. if you are a lib, you must have some BIG problems with my pieces i linked. like i said, bring the fire and stop gossiping with rob. rob wishes libertarians were stupid. 9 out of 10 could probably mentally crush him in 2.2

he can’t argue about abortion without being circular and vague, as this newbie tim guy cleverly gleans.

Proof
go site someone else some more. its ok to like your original pieces and laud them in this cut and paste yawn fest.

James,

This topic seems to be popping up all over the place. I just posted an update about Ron Paul’s latest doings on my site today, which degenerated into an argument over whether or not a Libertarian would make a good president. You can check it out here if you’re interested.

---

“Behind Communism, Fascism, behind all occupations and invasions lurks a more basic, pervasive evil… a parade of people marching by with raised fists and shouting identical syllables in unision.” - Milan Kundera

libertarians aren’t for electing or being president. they are for spouting ideas and being smarter than the majority. they contirbute to democracy - that is undeniable. the idea that the only political parties that should exist are the electable ones is horseshit. libertarians are in the dialogue. it benefits us all. you should be thanking them instead of calling them stupid.

the stupid people are the ones who would prefer that the entire population share two opinions on all issues and be forced to vote that way. diversity of thought and ideas will always allow us more choices and more potential paths/futures/options.

this thread, like i said before, IS FUCKING DRIVEL.

go site (sic) someone else some more. its ok to like your original pieces (not loooooove them!)and laud them in this cut and paste yawn fest.

yawn fest...this from the master!

this thread, like i said before, IS FUCKING DRIVEL.

And yet, you keep coming back, to contribute LESS than the rest and complain about the content!
Perhaps the title applies to more than just libertarians?

---

Those who think the party or the country, will be “taught a lesson” by handing the levers of power over to the liberals will learn a lesson, but it will be at the expense of our country and her liberties. And there are no guarantees that the party or the country will come out stronger, more conservative or better positioned to win elections against the incumbent liberals.

this thread, like i said before, IS FUCKING DRIVEL.

Yeah, you should know about drivel as that’s mostly what you post.

libertarians aren’t for electing or being president

Then they shouldn’t call themselves a political party because the purpose of political parties is to see that their candidates are elected.

---

Being liberal is never having to admit you’re wrong

So that’s the kind of drivel that is Sparkie.  The effing kind.

---

The Debate is over!  Global Whining has been confirmed.

---

Tim,

Your arguments are little different than debating the meaning of “is”. I’m sorry, but for all the sanctimony you accuse Rob of, you have quite a bit yours. And there are 4 ridiculous points you made that I’d like to rebut.

1. “Define “cause” please. I imagine you mean “justifiable cause.” So now please define “just cause.” How does killing another to preserve your life justify the “killing?” Is your life worth more than the would be killer’s? Who decided this, you? Okay, then I guess you are just as free to decide that killing your unborn child is not murder. Honestly, this debate is moot because we’re simply arguing values. “

No one argues worth of the victim or defender. If a brain surgeon rapes and murders a 6 year old homeless orphan, he can’t use the lack of worth of the 6 year old as a defense.
Similarily, the idea behind self defense (apart from the biological will to survive) is not that someone has to prove that they are more worthy than the person attacking them, but that they were simply defending themselves.
You’re intentionally changing the subject, and trying to pull a “look over there”.

2. ““irresponsible sexual behavior” - who decides what is and is not responsible? “

From simply a selfish perspective, one that only focuses on the individual and ignores the impact to others-an irresponsible act is one that harms the person doing it. Having unprotected sex opens women up to pregnancy and STDs. Since the consequences of this act are potentially fatal (AIDS and Cervical Cancer from the Human Papaloma virus), it simply isn’t possible to paint this as anything other than irresponsible.

3. ““responsibility of being a parent” - once again, who decides what is the right way to be a parent? “

There are areas open to debate- is spanking good? Should you reward/punish or just give consequences? Etc. However, no one regards Andrea Yates as a fit parent, because being ‘irresponsible’ is a very kind way to put what she did to her children.

4. “murder of the unborn” - once again, I want to see you define murder without resorting to God or some Universal Truth

The killing of another person, without threat to your person. Look, you know as well as anyone else that a fetus is a seperate human being with a unique genetic code. Define it down any way you want. Sperm does not have the distinction of human, because it isn’t even a complete cell. It has half the amount of chromosomes needed for a human cell. As it is simply a part of the body, of the same genetic makeup, it has, and should have no protection. A fetus and a sperm are biologically different.
Further, that life begins at conception is simply a scientific (not a biblical) fact. Sperm and egg combine to create a genetically unique human being that will grow and multiply. That it is inside the mother doesn’t amount to it being a part of her. And if one denies the humanity of the fetus on pretty much any grounds, if humanity is qualified on a set of criteria, this sets of tiers of life.

For the record, a plant is also life. Again, not arguable. Though I’m assuming that you brought up the plant as a further way to deny the humanity of the unborn, not out of sheer confusion of whether it was a living entity. Though bringing plants into the debate over protection of human life is odd either way.

And finally:
“Well, you and I have just settled on arbitrary thresholds. How can you convince me that I am wrong and you are right without resorting to some higher truth that knows better than me? It’s an arbitrary value. Peddling your arbitrary values to others is proselytizing “

This is just stupid. Every argument, to one degree or other, believes in “arbitrary thresholds.” Without a higher or universal truth, libertarianism is completely unviable as a philosophy. Because it falls back on the idea that humans have natural rights to life, liberty, property, and to live their lives unbothered by gov’t. If we ignore arbitrary values, then there’s no reason to grant your “right to be left alone” as long as the people in power don’t like it.

docdave

Then they shouldn’t call themselves a political party because the purpose of political parties is to see that their candidates are elected.

Another gem. That’s the only purpose of a political party? Oh. Sounds like 3rd grade level to me. this is politics. right here. i’m not getting elected. you are just incorrect. the purpose of political parties is to engage in politics. this, right here, is politics.

proof/docdave/whistler
you guys are all soooo above me… apparently. oh, wait, i think y’all said LESS than i did. nevermind.

ultimately, you guys have a problem with libertarians. too bad, i don’t mind them myself. they pursue what they believe in and you guys call them stupid. freedom of conscience IS stupid, right? we should all just be fearful sheeple, no? more like they don’t vote for spending increasing, fed expanding, populists who call themselves ‘republicans’ and may or may not be truly be a republican. if i join the party, does that automatically make me a republican or is being a republican somehow tied to values, beliefs, actions, and the lot?

kenny simpson

Without a higher or universal truth, libertarianism is completely unviable as a philosophy.

I don’t agree with you. Its true, many libertarian and anarchist thinkers fall back on these natural rights as the fundamental foundation of their complaints, but i feel that if a theory provides the most positive autonomy possible while protecting one’s negative autonomy as much as possible… it can be deemed the best option based on that alone. i don’t think it needs any grounding, natural or metphysical rights, or whatnot. in fact, i think natural rights are the silliest thing i’ve ever heard of. in a state of nature i can kill you and you will just rot in the woods. yup, you’ll just rot. also, the idea that something like human rights are entailed in the metaphysical machinery of the universe is just downright silly. that requires much more arguing than does the skeptics side - and we will ultimately never know what is or isn’t entailed in the metaphysical machinery… that stuff is epistemically unavailable. i don’t feel any argument can be mounted that is not question begging, in that vein…

proof/docdave/whistler
you guys are all soooo above me… apparently. oh, wait, i think y’all said LESS than i did. nevermind.

Your SNIDE little comments are like a f*cking barney the dinosaur soap opera compared to well researched, original comments we have done!
(You see, Spark? That kind of claptrap sounds like pompous hot air no matter who says it!)

---

Those who think the party or the country, will be “taught a lesson” by handing the levers of power over to the liberals will learn a lesson, but it will be at the expense of our country and her liberties. And there are no guarantees that the party or the country will come out stronger, more conservative or better positioned to win elections against the incumbent liberals.

you guys are all soooo above me…

Don’t you think it’s time for you to try to get to our level?

i think y’all said LESS than i did

So verbosity is the measure of the quality of a bloggers comments according to you.  Well as one that has the tendancy for long rambling rants, I can see how you would think that way.

---

Being liberal is never having to admit you’re wrong

docdave
i have certain criteria… let me just say that you, daniel, and neiman are my favorites. such brilliance. i have to turn down the brightness on my monitor…

Sparkie: How did I get in this? We haven’t debated in a while and despite our disagreements on issues, I’ve always liked you and your sense of humor. Play nice!

---

No matter the age or state of health, for a military man it is always glorious to tilt at windmills, rescue a fair Dulcinea and be a gallant knight in armor in a glorious cause.

Neiman
IS that a Dali painting avatar?

You know, you’re right. We do need a good back and forth… its been way to long. It’ll have to wait until tomorrow afternoon or evening (EST) though… I have a long night of debauchery ahead of me tonight. Don’t tell Jesus and old you-know-who!