gonefishin
Contributing Member
Troke, who said that?Troke said:
[USA] Part 2: Activists calling for revolution, if Bush 'steals ' election
- Thread starter skyko
- Start date
Kimber
Membership Revoked
Bearded W., and some of the latter part of this post is just a general rant not directed to you (for which I apologize in advance),
A conservative is someone wanting to "conserve" something, e.g., the current laws we have in place. I have never said I am a conservative (if I did, I was mistaken or it was when I was Reagan Republican). Similarly, I am neither on the right or the left. These terms are used by people who can't define the terms. Before you answer, do you know the origins of these two word? Hint - think Europe and a parliament seating arrangement.
I am also not a member of the Libertarian or Constitution Party. I do consider myself a libertarian in the sense that I believe in Liberty for the individual, including the right to screw up one's life. An individual's right to Liberty, IMHO, ceases when it infringes on another person's rights. It's really a quite simple philosophy.
From what I can tell, the "right" and "conservatives" on this forum dislike libertarians because they respect an individual's rights. (Don't drag abortion into this, an unborn baby can also be a person with rights.) No, the "right", the "left", "conservatives" and "liberals", dislike "libertarians" because they want to tell others what to do or limit their rights. Libertarians recognize people may do stupid things, but it's their life to screw up.
Drugs are the best example with respect to the "right" - I've never used pot but I have no problem with a college student smoking pot in a dorm room. The "right" feels it is their right to say, "you shouldn't do this."
Guns are the best example with respect to the "left" - I do own a few. I have no problem if someone wants to own a fully automatic weapon. The left, in contrast, hates cap guns because it could lead to violence. I have a problem with misusing guns, but not the right to own them.
Take privacy rights and property rights as something where I differ from the right and the left, respectively. I probably don't even need to say anything about the "left" and property rights. However, the "right" loves to state that there is no Constitutional right to privacy. The short version of my response is that there isn't an enumerated right because there didn't need to be when the Constitution was drafted - it was assumed and was a retained right. The Constitution is a document granting enumerated powers to the federal Government. The "right" uses the privacy argument to pay lip service to the abortion cause. (Again, abortion is not a privacy argument, it is liberty right of unborn babies.) Privacy in the Constitution was, in fact, recognized to a certain extent in the Fourth Amendment - search and seizure. Now, how does the "right" view the Fourth Amendment? As an impediment to the enforcement of law. The Rehnquist Court has taken away all true Constitutional enumerated privacy rights. Ditto with respect to the Patriot Act.
Do you want an example? If I have $10,001 in cash and want to buy a car, bring the cash into the country, or open a checking account - guess what? A report to the federal government because I could be a money launderer. Yep, the drug argument [and maybe corporate corruption] was orginally used to justify this. Now, it's the terrorist angle. The fact that I may have a lot of cash because I don't trust the banking system isn't considered.
So, for those of you wanting an example, even if you love the tax system: I don't wan't a car dealer or bank filing a federal report on me because I pay in cash. There is no probable cause. Would you like federal reports on all firearm transactions? Why is cash any different? Notice that I'm not even raising the banking system as an issue, with which I also have a problem.
How about required reports by your family physician to a state or federal government? - for your own good, of course. This is already going on and could get a lot worse.
So, to all you members of the "right" or the "left" - tell me why do not want people to have freedom and give me an example. Any example you can give supports the libertarian point of view. Or, you will be forced to say why I shouldn't be given certain rights. Name calling or slander is quite easy. Supporting your argument is quite difficult if you spend the time to think about your point of view.
David
[Edited for my habitual typos and some additional minor non-substantive edits.]
A conservative is someone wanting to "conserve" something, e.g., the current laws we have in place. I have never said I am a conservative (if I did, I was mistaken or it was when I was Reagan Republican). Similarly, I am neither on the right or the left. These terms are used by people who can't define the terms. Before you answer, do you know the origins of these two word? Hint - think Europe and a parliament seating arrangement.
I am also not a member of the Libertarian or Constitution Party. I do consider myself a libertarian in the sense that I believe in Liberty for the individual, including the right to screw up one's life. An individual's right to Liberty, IMHO, ceases when it infringes on another person's rights. It's really a quite simple philosophy.
From what I can tell, the "right" and "conservatives" on this forum dislike libertarians because they respect an individual's rights. (Don't drag abortion into this, an unborn baby can also be a person with rights.) No, the "right", the "left", "conservatives" and "liberals", dislike "libertarians" because they want to tell others what to do or limit their rights. Libertarians recognize people may do stupid things, but it's their life to screw up.
Drugs are the best example with respect to the "right" - I've never used pot but I have no problem with a college student smoking pot in a dorm room. The "right" feels it is their right to say, "you shouldn't do this."
Guns are the best example with respect to the "left" - I do own a few. I have no problem if someone wants to own a fully automatic weapon. The left, in contrast, hates cap guns because it could lead to violence. I have a problem with misusing guns, but not the right to own them.
Take privacy rights and property rights as something where I differ from the right and the left, respectively. I probably don't even need to say anything about the "left" and property rights. However, the "right" loves to state that there is no Constitutional right to privacy. The short version of my response is that there isn't an enumerated right because there didn't need to be when the Constitution was drafted - it was assumed and was a retained right. The Constitution is a document granting enumerated powers to the federal Government. The "right" uses the privacy argument to pay lip service to the abortion cause. (Again, abortion is not a privacy argument, it is liberty right of unborn babies.) Privacy in the Constitution was, in fact, recognized to a certain extent in the Fourth Amendment - search and seizure. Now, how does the "right" view the Fourth Amendment? As an impediment to the enforcement of law. The Rehnquist Court has taken away all true Constitutional enumerated privacy rights. Ditto with respect to the Patriot Act.
Do you want an example? If I have $10,001 in cash and want to buy a car, bring the cash into the country, or open a checking account - guess what? A report to the federal government because I could be a money launderer. Yep, the drug argument [and maybe corporate corruption] was orginally used to justify this. Now, it's the terrorist angle. The fact that I may have a lot of cash because I don't trust the banking system isn't considered.
So, for those of you wanting an example, even if you love the tax system: I don't wan't a car dealer or bank filing a federal report on me because I pay in cash. There is no probable cause. Would you like federal reports on all firearm transactions? Why is cash any different? Notice that I'm not even raising the banking system as an issue, with which I also have a problem.
How about required reports by your family physician to a state or federal government? - for your own good, of course. This is already going on and could get a lot worse.
So, to all you members of the "right" or the "left" - tell me why do not want people to have freedom and give me an example. Any example you can give supports the libertarian point of view. Or, you will be forced to say why I shouldn't be given certain rights. Name calling or slander is quite easy. Supporting your argument is quite difficult if you spend the time to think about your point of view.
David
[Edited for my habitual typos and some additional minor non-substantive edits.]
Last edited:
The short version of my response is that there isn't an enumerated right because there didn't need to be when the Constitution was drafted - it was assumed and was a retained right.
Assumed? Privacy in the 18th century? If it was so obvious, why did it take SCOTUS until 1965 to find it? Overturning a law, if I remember correctly dated back to the Civil War era.
Odd that a intuitively obvious assumption should have disappeared so quickly from the American scene.
Unless of course, it never was obvious.
Assumed? Privacy in the 18th century? If it was so obvious, why did it take SCOTUS until 1965 to find it? Overturning a law, if I remember correctly dated back to the Civil War era.
Odd that a intuitively obvious assumption should have disappeared so quickly from the American scene.
Unless of course, it never was obvious.
Kimber
Membership Revoked
Troke,
In the 18th Century, the federal government only had those powers granted to it by the states. The right to take away privacy was not granted - hence, retained. (And states weren't subject to the Bill of Rights until the 14th Amendment was interpreted. States could have imposed privacy restrictions - depending on their state constitutions.)
The right of the people was NOT granted by the Constitution. The rights of the federal government was granted, however, by the states. The Bill of Rights was just a back up - as a precaution. (Yes, I know - it didn't work.)
The Supreme Court, IMHO, are a bunch of bozos. I'll not defend their position on rights at least since the New Deal era.
There is no consitutional right to wear shoes or brush your teeth. Can the federal government tell you that you cannot do either?
[Edited to add - Today, they probably can. It would have shocked the hell out of our Founding Fathers, however.]
David
In the 18th Century, the federal government only had those powers granted to it by the states. The right to take away privacy was not granted - hence, retained. (And states weren't subject to the Bill of Rights until the 14th Amendment was interpreted. States could have imposed privacy restrictions - depending on their state constitutions.)
The right of the people was NOT granted by the Constitution. The rights of the federal government was granted, however, by the states. The Bill of Rights was just a back up - as a precaution. (Yes, I know - it didn't work.)
The Supreme Court, IMHO, are a bunch of bozos. I'll not defend their position on rights at least since the New Deal era.
There is no consitutional right to wear shoes or brush your teeth. Can the federal government tell you that you cannot do either?
[Edited to add - Today, they probably can. It would have shocked the hell out of our Founding Fathers, however.]
David
Last edited:
Kimber
Membership Revoked
Troke,
Another point on your "why isn't it obvious" comment. It was, at one time, to thinking people:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are LIFE, LIBERTY and the PURSUIT of HAPPINESS. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."
Funny how the governed now need consent from the governing.
David
[Edited to add: Just to be crystal clear, I believe our right to privacy is an inalienable right. Since we didn't grant the federal government the power to take it away (at least without probable cause), we still have it. Now, please explain why you believe we do not have a right to privacy.]
Another point on your "why isn't it obvious" comment. It was, at one time, to thinking people:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are LIFE, LIBERTY and the PURSUIT of HAPPINESS. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."
Funny how the governed now need consent from the governing.
David
[Edited to add: Just to be crystal clear, I believe our right to privacy is an inalienable right. Since we didn't grant the federal government the power to take it away (at least without probable cause), we still have it. Now, please explain why you believe we do not have a right to privacy.]
Last edited:
Safecastle
Emergency Essentials Store
"I do consider myself a libertarian in the sense that I believe in Liberty for the individual, including the right to screw up one's life. An individual's right to Liberty, IMHO, ceases when it infringes on another person's rights. It's really a quite simple philosophy.
"From what I can tell, the "right" and "conservatives" on this forum dislike libertarians because they respect an individual's rights." - Kimber
Kimber, I have never once criticized a professed libertarian on this forum or any other ... that is until you and milkydoo came forth on this thread endorsing the need for another American revolution ... a revolution being fomented by an avowed group of marxists. I must say, you two have permanently tainted my view of anyone who professes an affiliation with libertarianism.
Your rationale for the need to revolt ... supposedly some minor liberties lost ... so "someone else" can smoke a joint (certainly not you, since your employer as linked to on your profile might not like that), or own an automatic weapon (again, someone else), and that you don't like paying income taxes.
Guess what ... you do live in a country where you can affect those laws by getting active within the system. Perhaps to do so would be time-consuming and tedious. But within the bounds of the "majority rules" system, there is always hope for success.
On the other hand, it certainly would not deliver the adrenaline that taking a gun into a federal building to take down the system would. Moreover, it would not deliver us into your dream state of hundreds of millions of law-abiding, tax-free, gun-slinging potheads beholding to no authority but their very own.
Bottom line here ... the author of and organization hosting the "Peaceful Revolution" article that begins this thread are the very same folks who wrote the "Rise Up to Wage Violent Revolution Against Bush and America in the Name of Communism" article in post #39 here. Yes, they are died-in-the-wool, unashamed communists fomenting leftist revolution in America. And you have endorsed it here while absolutely sidestepping the fact that this whole thing, if it was to come about, would result in a communist/leftist government over America. And you seem to think that's quite OK, since "Russia is now better off than we are" (paraphrased).
Apart from the supposed grievous loss of liberties (always someone else in these stories that is the victim) which I consider lame as a modern revolutionary cause, THAT's what I have a major problem with. The logic of how you can square communism and constitutionalism into your libertarian thinking is beyond me.
And I have to say again ... I now realize that libertarianism is far more dangerous and deceptive than I had previously known
"From what I can tell, the "right" and "conservatives" on this forum dislike libertarians because they respect an individual's rights." - Kimber
Kimber, I have never once criticized a professed libertarian on this forum or any other ... that is until you and milkydoo came forth on this thread endorsing the need for another American revolution ... a revolution being fomented by an avowed group of marxists. I must say, you two have permanently tainted my view of anyone who professes an affiliation with libertarianism.
Your rationale for the need to revolt ... supposedly some minor liberties lost ... so "someone else" can smoke a joint (certainly not you, since your employer as linked to on your profile might not like that), or own an automatic weapon (again, someone else), and that you don't like paying income taxes.
Guess what ... you do live in a country where you can affect those laws by getting active within the system. Perhaps to do so would be time-consuming and tedious. But within the bounds of the "majority rules" system, there is always hope for success.
On the other hand, it certainly would not deliver the adrenaline that taking a gun into a federal building to take down the system would. Moreover, it would not deliver us into your dream state of hundreds of millions of law-abiding, tax-free, gun-slinging potheads beholding to no authority but their very own.
Bottom line here ... the author of and organization hosting the "Peaceful Revolution" article that begins this thread are the very same folks who wrote the "Rise Up to Wage Violent Revolution Against Bush and America in the Name of Communism" article in post #39 here. Yes, they are died-in-the-wool, unashamed communists fomenting leftist revolution in America. And you have endorsed it here while absolutely sidestepping the fact that this whole thing, if it was to come about, would result in a communist/leftist government over America. And you seem to think that's quite OK, since "Russia is now better off than we are" (paraphrased).
Apart from the supposed grievous loss of liberties (always someone else in these stories that is the victim) which I consider lame as a modern revolutionary cause, THAT's what I have a major problem with. The logic of how you can square communism and constitutionalism into your libertarian thinking is beyond me.
And I have to say again ... I now realize that libertarianism is far more dangerous and deceptive than I had previously known
Kimber
Membership Revoked
JC,
My "employer" is, in part, myself, as a partner in the firm. As for my partners, the vast majority are Maryland Democrats, with few staunch Republicans. All are aware of my gun-loving, libertarian, survivalist leaning. But then again, we can agree to disagree without name calling.
Think what you will, but unless you will actually listen to what I am saying, why do wish to engage in a dialog? I understand your view to be, "I should sit down, be quiet and give thanks to the GOP for what I am given by the grace of government." Sorry, but it ain't me babe.
David
My "employer" is, in part, myself, as a partner in the firm. As for my partners, the vast majority are Maryland Democrats, with few staunch Republicans. All are aware of my gun-loving, libertarian, survivalist leaning. But then again, we can agree to disagree without name calling.
Think what you will, but unless you will actually listen to what I am saying, why do wish to engage in a dialog? I understand your view to be, "I should sit down, be quiet and give thanks to the GOP for what I am given by the grace of government." Sorry, but it ain't me babe.
David
Safecastle
Emergency Essentials Store
Kimber, if I wanted you to shut up, I would simply stop enduring this exchange.Kimber said:
I fully understand that you are not appreciative of what we have in the U.S. And you are certainly free to adhere to any political philosophy you'd like. But for me, after learning more about "libertariansim" than I cared to, this thread all boils down to a question I'll ask for the umpteenth and final time, this time in simpler terms:
Are you a marxist?
Additionally: If not, do you recognize the threat to the U.S. that marxism poses?
By continuing to evade the issue that this revolution you endorse here is marxist-driven and that you commented Russia is better off than us, we have to forever gather that you are a communist (call it libertarianism or whatever else you want ... the proof is in the footsteps you leave behind).
Kimber
Membership Revoked
Marxist?
I didn't think you were serious about the question, and that's why I made the slander references. HECK NO! I'm not a Marxist, Trotskyite, modern-day liberal or leftist, or a believer in the socialist or communist forms of government. In fact, I think they are far worse than the current socialist society we now live in.
In my opinion, however, the above is the direction we are heading. That's why I've jumped off the train. The train may speed up because Kerry wins, but I can't vote for Bush.
Item: Bush thought the Campaign Finance Reform Act was an unconstitutional restriction on free speech. He signed it for political reasons hoping the S. Ct. would bail him out. (Surprise - they didn't.) IMHO - Bush has failed the test - to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution.
Not to open myself up to further misinterpretation - I have this problem because I type quickly jumping in and out of here while still trying to work - The Russia quip was because, after the fall of the USSR, the Russians do have more freedom than we do in some respects - namely, taxation and less of a welfare state. (More chaos, yes, but Russia is not communist at the present time. It's problem is that it is ruled by a bunch of oligarchs. But then again, I also think Chicago had more freedom under Capone than it does today.)
David
I didn't think you were serious about the question, and that's why I made the slander references. HECK NO! I'm not a Marxist, Trotskyite, modern-day liberal or leftist, or a believer in the socialist or communist forms of government. In fact, I think they are far worse than the current socialist society we now live in.
In my opinion, however, the above is the direction we are heading. That's why I've jumped off the train. The train may speed up because Kerry wins, but I can't vote for Bush.
Item: Bush thought the Campaign Finance Reform Act was an unconstitutional restriction on free speech. He signed it for political reasons hoping the S. Ct. would bail him out. (Surprise - they didn't.) IMHO - Bush has failed the test - to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution.
Not to open myself up to further misinterpretation - I have this problem because I type quickly jumping in and out of here while still trying to work - The Russia quip was because, after the fall of the USSR, the Russians do have more freedom than we do in some respects - namely, taxation and less of a welfare state. (More chaos, yes, but Russia is not communist at the present time. It's problem is that it is ruled by a bunch of oligarchs. But then again, I also think Chicago had more freedom under Capone than it does today.)
David
I don't believe the Libertarian party is currently trying to drum up another revolution or encouraging states to seceed (correction requested). I'm sure they are like most politicians who believe they can work within the system, and have dedicated their lives to doing just that. Having said that, must every voter who chooses a party with which to affiliate, agree with every single aspect of the party's philosophy?JC Refuge said:
JC, if you really have no idea what Libertarians are all about, then perhaps a bit of reading is in order, rather than jumping from one assumption to another and broad brushing everyone. At this point in time, I consider myself 90+% Libertarian. I doubt there is any remotely viable party that could get me close to 100%. www.lp.org Enlighten yourself, and spare the rest of us your wild assumptions.
This is all you have gleaned from constitutionalists over the years? You have no idea. Try some more reading.
Hope for success? And how many centuries do we hold onto that hope as we slide down the gutter? There's hope, and then there's reality.
Is that the best rebuttal you can offer? Whatever your point is, you didn't make it with that.
This is like a Shishkabob of BS. We already have a leftist government, you just need to open your eyes. It doesn't matter how many right wingers you stick in there, we always slide in that direction. How do you know who's on the right when everyone is either supporting the *left*-overs from the previous admin. or actively moving us left on their own?
You need to reread the entire thread, verbatim this time (no skipping entire posts) and then bone up over at www.lp.org. Your last two paragraphs only demonstrate that you know nothing about Libertarian ideology, have not understood a single thing that either Kimber or myself has said in this thread, and cannot come to grips with the reality that YES, there IS a point of no return where the snowball is rolling downhill so fast that simply jumping in front of it won't stop it. You may not agree with where some draw the line in the sand, but if you think that as long as people are still allowed to vote that we can "turn it around", then you are sorely naive.
If the idea of a revolution makes you queazy, then at least educate yourself on Libertarian politics. It should only take you about 15 minutes to figure out that Libertarians make ol' G.W. look like a communist by comparison, not the other way around.
I believe our right to privacy is an inalienable right
Yes, and discovered in 1965 from an 'emenation from a penumbra'
I don't think privacy as a concept even existed before the Civil War.
It most certainly was unknown earlier than that. Nobody gave it any thought.
I grew up in a rural/small town atmosphere and I can gurantee you everybody knew everybody's business. There were no secrets.
Even more so in Colonial times.
When privacy was 'discovered ' in 1965, I stared at it and by 1970 was going around telling people that the ultimate result would be to be murdered on a public street with no one interfering because it was a private affair between you and your murderer.
Three years later, we got abortion, strictly a private affair between the victim and the perpetrator, with no one else having the right to interfere.
I have no problem with the concept of a constitutional basis for privacy provided you agree that SCOTUS can find other things coming from an 'emenation from a prenumbra'.
And with the correct formed SCOTUS, we will get them.
Yes, and discovered in 1965 from an 'emenation from a penumbra'
I don't think privacy as a concept even existed before the Civil War.
It most certainly was unknown earlier than that. Nobody gave it any thought.
I grew up in a rural/small town atmosphere and I can gurantee you everybody knew everybody's business. There were no secrets.
Even more so in Colonial times.
When privacy was 'discovered ' in 1965, I stared at it and by 1970 was going around telling people that the ultimate result would be to be murdered on a public street with no one interfering because it was a private affair between you and your murderer.
Three years later, we got abortion, strictly a private affair between the victim and the perpetrator, with no one else having the right to interfere.
I have no problem with the concept of a constitutional basis for privacy provided you agree that SCOTUS can find other things coming from an 'emenation from a prenumbra'.
And with the correct formed SCOTUS, we will get them.
Kimber
Membership Revoked
SCOTUS has screwed up the Constitution beyond belief.
Think of it as a burden of proof issue regarding the federal government. First, the government must show why it has the power to do something. This hasn't happened since the Interstate Commerce clause was re-interpreted during the New Deal. (Well, it did twice recently - but they were likely aberrations.)
So, we have SCOTUS saying the federal government is all powerful. Now, it's up to us to find a right, somewhere. This is exact opposite of the way the Constitution was intended.
Regarding the "privacy right", the Warren Court was faced with a problem because it was a state statute. It should have looked to the state constitution, but it should never even have been a federal case. It only became a federal case because SCOTUS had earlier applied the Bill of Rights to the states through the 14th Amendment. Something Congress never intended - or had even considered. Suddenly, states are limited by the Bill of Rights (yet the federal government never seems to be). Given this background, SCOTUS could easily invalidate state law - by finding a substantive due process right in the Constitution.
FWIW - Roe v. Wade was, in my opinion, solely a state law issue to be interpreted with resepct to state law and the state constitution. Instead, it's another example of the federal courts (ahem) "making a federal case out it." Sorry, but I couldn't help myself.
Also, FWIW - the federal government should be without any power to regulate abortion at the state level period. Unless you say the transportation of baby parts is interstate commerce, it is beyond the federal government's enumerated powers. (Yes, SCOTUS would likely disagree - so what? - 9 egomaniacs IMHO.)
David
Think of it as a burden of proof issue regarding the federal government. First, the government must show why it has the power to do something. This hasn't happened since the Interstate Commerce clause was re-interpreted during the New Deal. (Well, it did twice recently - but they were likely aberrations.)
So, we have SCOTUS saying the federal government is all powerful. Now, it's up to us to find a right, somewhere. This is exact opposite of the way the Constitution was intended.
Regarding the "privacy right", the Warren Court was faced with a problem because it was a state statute. It should have looked to the state constitution, but it should never even have been a federal case. It only became a federal case because SCOTUS had earlier applied the Bill of Rights to the states through the 14th Amendment. Something Congress never intended - or had even considered. Suddenly, states are limited by the Bill of Rights (yet the federal government never seems to be). Given this background, SCOTUS could easily invalidate state law - by finding a substantive due process right in the Constitution.
FWIW - Roe v. Wade was, in my opinion, solely a state law issue to be interpreted with resepct to state law and the state constitution. Instead, it's another example of the federal courts (ahem) "making a federal case out it." Sorry, but I couldn't help myself.
Also, FWIW - the federal government should be without any power to regulate abortion at the state level period. Unless you say the transportation of baby parts is interstate commerce, it is beyond the federal government's enumerated powers. (Yes, SCOTUS would likely disagree - so what? - 9 egomaniacs IMHO.)
David
Safecastle
Emergency Essentials Store
Hey Mark, how 'bout delivering a large "libertarian" with the works? You know ... the really cheesy one with no meat.
I said I wasn't going to give you any more of my time, but I'll do you this one last favor ...
Layman's medical advice: It DOES make SOME sense now how you can proudly embrace conspiracies and leap to wildly radical conclusions as you do. And perhaps how you can relate to the foaming at the mouth marxists and pass it off as being better than what we have now. Symptomatic evidence would include that you take the time to pull out one or two-sentence soundbytes to reply to and base your arguments on them as if they are the be-all and end-all. My quotes as you have them are relevant in the greater context of what has been said and posted throughout the thread. A.D.D. or short-term memory would explain an inability to collate and retain larger constructs in reality. There just might be a pill out there for that.
As for me taking the time to learn and understand the wisdom and superiority of the libertarian view ... I did indeed spend a couple of hours looking into libertarianism. Briefly, there are a broad range of libertarian positions available for someone who wants to position themself as one if that is one's desire (to include radical anarchists). But all of them, indeed, the base premise of libertarianism ... that governmental authority is evil and that 250 million people in this country could conceivably live without complex, organized governance ... strike me as being incredibly naive and hopelessly buried in idealistic game theory.
I long ago gave up dreaming about dungeons, dragons, and heroic fairytale crusades. But to each his own. Until the shooting starts--then it becomes "to each his choice ... one side or the other."
I said I wasn't going to give you any more of my time, but I'll do you this one last favor ...
Layman's medical advice: It DOES make SOME sense now how you can proudly embrace conspiracies and leap to wildly radical conclusions as you do. And perhaps how you can relate to the foaming at the mouth marxists and pass it off as being better than what we have now. Symptomatic evidence would include that you take the time to pull out one or two-sentence soundbytes to reply to and base your arguments on them as if they are the be-all and end-all. My quotes as you have them are relevant in the greater context of what has been said and posted throughout the thread. A.D.D. or short-term memory would explain an inability to collate and retain larger constructs in reality. There just might be a pill out there for that.
As for me taking the time to learn and understand the wisdom and superiority of the libertarian view ... I did indeed spend a couple of hours looking into libertarianism. Briefly, there are a broad range of libertarian positions available for someone who wants to position themself as one if that is one's desire (to include radical anarchists). But all of them, indeed, the base premise of libertarianism ... that governmental authority is evil and that 250 million people in this country could conceivably live without complex, organized governance ... strike me as being incredibly naive and hopelessly buried in idealistic game theory.
I long ago gave up dreaming about dungeons, dragons, and heroic fairytale crusades. But to each his own. Until the shooting starts--then it becomes "to each his choice ... one side or the other."
Last edited:
JC, you have got to be one of the most arrogant people I've seen on this board, and a lousy debater. I hate to break this to you, but the broad brushing you do is a fine art, and requires no real intelligence.JC Refuge said:
So you disagree with my position, and have likened me to a delusional, belligerent child? Good to see the game of politics isn't lost on you. One large order of Status Quo Nuggets and Sleez Fries doused in thick Corruption sauce coming your way. You wanted it. You got it. Enjoy.