What are libertarians?

[kaz]

At it's essence, the Tea Party was a group of average Americans advocating limited government. For this, they have been heavily demonized, marginalized, and silenced. These anti-American actions were promoted by both parties and the statist press.

The power elite is not about to let the people have a say in their government. In a nation founded on limited government, this is amazing and frightening.

In addition, many average Joe's on the left, HATE the TP. Further proof they can be counted on to be duped and hoaxed by the media and Ds, over and over again.

Actually I'd say the TP was hoaxed and hawked by that same corporate media. You can't astroturf without that avenue.

LOL. Government spends too much money and taxes too much! Obviously a corporate hoax! LOL, you're all over that one. Too funny.

 

[kaz]

It's already established, TK. Kaz got busted moving his/her own strawman to different movable goalposts, not to mention flouting the laws of linear time. And frankly with "your side of the aisle" you're adding a blanket statement overcoat to that strawman without even addressing the topic.

You two spent more time pointing out his fallacies than making your own argument. Known as the fallacy fallacy. Just because he commits an argumentative fallacy does not in fact invalidate his argument.

My "fallacy" was that what I said was not literal and he took it as literal. Foxfyre explained it to him, I explained it to him, he didn't get it. Obviously Marx lived after the founding fathers. He hasn't shown me the source of his cosmic belief that it's wrong, just wrong, to use terms to describe people in the past that hadn't been coined yet. And actually, I was just pointing out there are a bunch of liberals arguing they were Marxists. Ravi never made any argument at all, she just walked up and stuck her hand down his pants.

-- which is a strawman.

No, it's a fact, that is exactly what they are arguing. Dad2three, RW, notfooledbyW, bfjorn, they are clearly arguing the founding fathers were marxists.

 

[kaz]

You are so full of shit. Show that post, liar. I never take anyone to task for what gender they call me, and I always answer when asked. I never correct people unless it's relevant to the discussion.

You are a butt hurt, idiotic liar and I am calling ... you ... out. Back up your crap for once in your history on this board and show me where I took you to task or didn't answer if you asked me.

And also liar, we have discussed my gender many times. You're an acne faced teenager struggling with your gender identity. When you figure out your orientation, life will get a lot simpler for you. You're obsessed with the gender thing. I don't care, and gay boy you're assigning your own obsession with gender identity to me. I'm comfortable with who I am and it's a message board, I don't need to correct people in discussions where it's irrelevant.

BTW, Foxfyre is great, but she knows my name, which is very gender clear. I've told her several times. I know her name too. But she doesn't have the best memory now. That's OK with me. She's a dear.

Ad Hom gone wild doesn't impress me any more than the subtle variety..

My explanation was for TK explaining my conclusion process. I don't need to "document" it, and why in the blue fuck would I have saved something that trivial? Do you actually think I saved wherever it was that, say, Foxfyre revealed her gender? What kind of OCD meltdown does that?

Suffice to say you're STILL playing the same word game, so you've affirmed my entire reasoning, QED. Even if it hadn't existed in the past, you're repeating it right here.

It's too trivial to look up, but it's worth bringing up.

Look you lair of a limp dicked little teen age faggot. Our conversations on the subject have been the same. You are obsessed with gender identification, I say I don't care what people think I am unless it's pertinent to the discussion.

Your claim I ever "chastised" you is just a butt hurt lie over your impotent inability to persuade me, so you make up a strawman that is just a hand down your own pants. And the second lie was you ever asked me and I didn't answer, bull, I always answer. And your third lie is you don't know, you do.

Grow up, liar.

 

[Pogo]

You are so full of shit. Show that post, liar. I never take anyone to task for what gender they call me, and I always answer when asked. I never correct people unless it's relevant to the discussion.

You are a butt hurt, idiotic liar and I am calling ... you ... out. Back up your crap for once in your history on this board and show me where I took you to task or didn't answer if you asked me.

And also liar, we have discussed my gender many times. You're an acne faced teenager struggling with your gender identity. When you figure out your orientation, life will get a lot simpler for you. You're obsessed with the gender thing. I don't care, and gay boy you're assigning your own obsession with gender identity to me. I'm comfortable with who I am and it's a message board, I don't need to correct people in discussions where it's irrelevant.

BTW, Foxfyre is great, but she knows my name, which is very gender clear. I've told her several times. I know her name too. But she doesn't have the best memory now. That's OK with me. She's a dear.

Ad Hom gone wild doesn't impress me any more than the subtle variety..

My explanation was for TK explaining my conclusion process. I don't need to "document" it, and why in the blue fuck would I have saved something that trivial? Do you actually think I saved wherever it was that, say, Foxfyre revealed her gender? What kind of OCD meltdown does that?

Suffice to say you're STILL playing the same word game, so you've affirmed my entire reasoning, QED. Even if it hadn't existed in the past, you're repeating it right here.

It's too trivial to look up, but it's worth bringing up.

Look you lair of a limp dicked little teen age faggot. Our conversations on the subject have been the same. You are obsessed with gender identification, I say I don't care what people think I am unless it's pertinent to the discussion.

Your claim I ever "chastised" you is just a butt hurt lie over your impotent inability to persuade me, so you make up a strawman that is just a hand down your own pants. And the second lie was you ever asked me and I didn't answer, bull, I always answer. And your third lie is you don't know, you do.

Grow up, liar.

​

Please understand, "Captain" there is meant to be gender nonspecific -- as you like it, to quote the Bard.

The question was asked of me why I can't settle on a pronoun, so I answered. What would you have me do -- advise TK that I'm not allowed to comment?

Word fascists....

 

[Pogo]

It's already established, TK. Kaz got busted moving his/her own strawman to different movable goalposts, not to mention flouting the laws of linear time. And frankly with "your side of the aisle" you're adding a blanket statement overcoat to that strawman without even addressing the topic.

You two spent more time pointing out his fallacies than making your own argument. Known as the fallacy fallacy. Just because he commits an argumentative fallacy does not in fact invalidate his argument.

My "fallacy" was that what I said was not literal and he took it as literal. Foxfyre explained it to him, I explained it to him, he didn't get it. Obviously Marx lived after the founding fathers. He hasn't shown me the source of his cosmic belief that it's wrong, just wrong, to use terms to describe people in the past that hadn't been coined yet. And actually, I was just pointing out there are a bunch of liberals arguing they were Marxists. Ravi never made any argument at all, she just walked up and stuck her hand down his pants.

-- which is a strawman.

No, it's a fact, that is exactly what they are arguing. Dad2three, RW, notfooledbyW, bfjorn, they are clearly arguing the founding fathers were marxists.

None of whom are present in the argument, which is why you have the special deluxe blanket statement model of strawman. And half of which I've never even heard of.

Once again, bottom line is that if you have to put up your points as purported claims by nonexistent parties, then you're making up a strawman. And that's a fallacy, like it or lump it.

 

[jillian]

It's already established, TK. Kaz got busted moving his/her own strawman to different movable goalposts, not to mention flouting the laws of linear time. And frankly with "your side of the aisle" you're adding a blanket statement overcoat to that strawman without even addressing the topic.

You two spent more time pointing out his fallacies than making your own argument. Known as the fallacy fallacy. Just because he commits an argumentative fallacy does not in fact invalidate his argument.

My "fallacy" was that what I said was not literal and he took it as literal. Foxfyre explained it to him, I explained it to him, he didn't get it. Obviously Marx lived after the founding fathers. He hasn't shown me the source of his cosmic belief that it's wrong, just wrong, to use terms to describe people in the past that hadn't been coined yet. And actually, I was just pointing out there are a bunch of liberals arguing they were Marxists. Ravi never made any argument at all, she just walked up and stuck her hand down his pants.

-- which is a strawman.

No, it's a fact, that is exactly what they are arguing. Dad2three, RW, notfooledbyW, bfjorn, they are clearly arguing the founding fathers were marxists.

no one has ever implied that. and if that is what you're reading, you aren't reading what's on the page. you should discuss that with the voices in your head.

 

[Pogo]

At it's essence, the Tea Party was a group of average Americans advocating limited government. For this, they have been heavily demonized, marginalized, and silenced. These anti-American actions were promoted by both parties and the statist press.

The power elite is not about to let the people have a say in their government. In a nation founded on limited government, this is amazing and frightening.

In addition, many average Joe's on the left, HATE the TP. Further proof they can be counted on to be duped and hoaxed by the media and Ds, over and over again.

Actually I'd say the TP was hoaxed and hawked by that same corporate media. You can't astroturf without that avenue.

LOL. Government spends too much money and taxes too much! Obviously a corporate hoax! LOL, you're all over that one. Too funny.

Obviously if you understood how fallacies work -- rather than just how to make them -- you'd get why that's a non sequitur.

 

[kaz]

​

Please understand, "Captain" there is meant to be gender nonspecific -- as you like it, to quote the Bard.

The question was asked of me why I can't settle on a pronoun, so I answered. What would you have me do -- advise TK that I'm not allowed to comment?

Word fascists....

I can't answer your question, who said you are not allowed to comment? You need to ask them. As for the butt hurt, your status as a liar shows where the butt hurt is since the truth doesn't work for you.

 

[Pogo]

​

Please understand, "Captain" there is meant to be gender nonspecific -- as you like it, to quote the Bard.

The question was asked of me why I can't settle on a pronoun, so I answered. What would you have me do -- advise TK that I'm not allowed to comment?

Word fascists....

I can't answer your question, who said you are not allowed to comment? You need to ask them.

I just did. You gave the same answer as the gender mystery.

As for the butt hurt, your status as a liar shows where the butt hurt is since the truth doesn't work for you.

Danthian ipse dixit.

 

[kaz]

no one has ever implied that

How do you know that?

 

[kaz]

​

Please understand, "Captain" there is meant to be gender nonspecific -- as you like it, to quote the Bard.

The question was asked of me why I can't settle on a pronoun, so I answered. What would you have me do -- advise TK that I'm not allowed to comment?

Word fascists....

I can't answer your question, who said you are not allowed to comment? You need to ask them.

I just did. You gave the same answer as the gender mystery.

As for the butt hurt, your status as a liar shows where the butt hurt is since the truth doesn't work for you.

Danthian ipse dixit.

Idiot

 

[Pogo]

Annnd right back to ad hom.
But same question-- How do you know that?

 

[Foxfyre]

That people "call" you anything, speaks volumes about them, not you.

That people don't have a clue about the definitions of words and philosophies is a testament to our utterly failed public school system. Civics isn't even taught anymore (on purpose), so what most people believe (not think) is what they get from popular television shows. Doomed!

If you advocate small government, then at your core you are conservative. That you desire a bit more personal freedom, a less heavy-hand of government, you are still leaning to the political right.....perhaps "social conservatism" largely and mostly promoted by the religious right, isn't your cup of tea. Agreed! At the end of the day, however, you are largely a conservative person. Don't let the maleducated and ideologues confuse you.

No. I would like what you say to be true but it simply is not. The right no longer represents smaller government. When they rerun to the concept of freedom I would love to support the right but things like the PA are the hallmark of the right. While the left demands that they control my fiscal life and any public interaction that I take, the right wants to control my moral life. One is not better than the other. They are both authoritarian in nature and I reject both philosophies.

I once thought libertarians were on the right. I now realize that they are on both sides and line up with neither. There is a reason that libertarian candidates DO NOT split the Republican vote but rather pull from both parties.

You are speaking of Libertarians with a capitol "L" though. I am about as libertarian (little "L") as it gets and there is nothing 'left' about me as we understand 'left' in modern vernacular. The problem is that we get tripped up in definitions and start using them as slurs and insults instead of descriptive terms to identify an ideology without having to type out what we mean every time we use a term. And obviously we don't all agree on the definitions.

For me 'libertarian' - lower case "L" - is the Founders' philosophy. A central government strictly restricted via the Constitution to specific assigned tasks. And those tasks are essentially meant to secure our unalienable rights, to enable the various states to function as one nation, and otherwise to leave us strictly alone to live our lives and form whatever sorts of societies we wish to have.

That is also the basic emphasis of the original grass roots Tea Party movement. It was/is a pure libertarian (little "L") movement. The TP doesn't give a flying fig whether a person has an "R" or "D" after his/her name so long as his/her track record, intent, motives, and vision fit the libertarian mold. (The TP probably doesn't use the term 'libertarian' to describe themselves but that is what they are describing just the same.)

You are quite right that Republicans in Washington are more left than right and they are taking us to hell in a hand basket just as the Democrats are. The only difference is that the GOP represents a constituency made up of a lot of us libertarians and they depend on our votes. So they have to throw us enough bones to keep themselves in office and as a result are taking us to hell more slowly than are the Democrats and maybe are doing a bit less damage in the process.

 

[FA_Q2]

Here I think we're much more eye-to-eye.
Except I'm not sure what you mean by "PA".

Patriot act.

 

[dblack]

The heart of the libertarian ethos is a disgust for bullies. And a recognition that bullying in the name of the majority, is still bullying.

 

[FA_Q2]

You are speaking of Libertarians with a capitol "L" though. I am about as libertarian (little "L") as it gets and there is nothing 'left' about me as we understand 'left' in modern vernacular. The problem is that we get tripped up in definitions and start using them as slurs and insults instead of descriptive terms to identify an ideology without having to type out what we mean every time we use a term. And obviously we don't all agree on the definitions.

For me 'libertarian' - lower case "L" - is the Founders' philosophy. A central government strictly restricted via the Constitution to specific assigned tasks. And those tasks are essentially meant to secure our unalienable rights, to enable the various states to function as one nation, and otherwise to leave us strictly alone to live our lives and form whatever sorts of societies we wish to have.

That is also the basic emphasis of the original grass roots Tea Party movement. It was/is a pure libertarian (little "L") movement. The TP doesn't give a flying fig whether a person has an "R" or "D" after his/her name so long as his/her track record, intent, motives, and vision fit the libertarian mold. (The TP probably doesn't use the term 'libertarian' to describe themselves but that is what they are describing just the same.)

You are quite right that Republicans in Washington are more left than right and they are taking us to hell in a hand basket just as the Democrats are. The only difference is that the GOP represents a constituency made up of a lot of us libertarians and they depend on our votes. So they have to throw us enough bones to keep themselves in office and as a result are taking us to hell more slowly than are the Democrats and maybe are doing a bit less damage in the process.

No, I am not talking about the libertarian party. I am talking about "little" l libertarians. They DO NOT vote to the right as a generality because they are not right on several issues. You will find that on moral issues they can and do sometimes align with the left. Things like abortion where libertarians are pretty well split, gay marriage where they are more likely left (or like Kat who has said the government should not even be involved with marriage at all) or drugs or a whole host of other issues.

You claim to be a libertarian but to be honest I have always seen you as on the right because you seem to support the entire notion that the government should enforce morality, a concept that is complaints counter to libertarian thought. I might be incorrect on that assertion but I thought you responded as much on the thread I created on that very subject. The defining difference I see with many libertarians is that they almost universally reject the idea that government should enforce morality when the left AND the right think it should (just their version of morality).

 

[Pogo]

Here I think we're much more eye-to-eye.
Except I'm not sure what you mean by "PA".

Patriot act.

Thanks. All I could think of was "plate appearances" so I went and listened to the ball game.

Given the full post then for context --

No. I would like what you say to be true but it simply is not. The right no longer represents smaller government. When they rerun to the concept of freedom I would love to support the right but things like the PA are the hallmark of the right. While the left demands that they control my fiscal life and any public interaction that I take, the right wants to control my moral life. One is not better than the other. They are both authoritarian in nature and I reject both philosophies.

I once thought libertarians were on the right. I now realize that they are on both sides and line up with neither. There is a reason that libertarian candidates DO NOT split the Republican vote but rather pull from both parties.

Do you not find the PATRIOT Act (it's an acronym) "authoritarian"? I do. Assuming the affirmative I agree with everything here.

 

[dblack]

Here I think we're much more eye-to-eye.
Except I'm not sure what you mean by "PA".

Patriot act.

Thanks. All I could think of was "plate appearances" so I went and listened to the ball game.

Given the full post then for context --

No. I would like what you say to be true but it simply is not. The right no longer represents smaller government. When they rerun to the concept of freedom I would love to support the right but things like the PA are the hallmark of the right. While the left demands that they control my fiscal life and any public interaction that I take, the right wants to control my moral life. One is not better than the other. They are both authoritarian in nature and I reject both philosophies.

I once thought libertarians were on the right. I now realize that they are on both sides and line up with neither. There is a reason that libertarian candidates DO NOT split the Republican vote but rather pull from both parties.

Do you not find the PATRIOT Act (it's an acronym) "authoritarian"? I do. Assuming the affirmative I agree with everything here.

I'm pretty sure FA was citing the PA as evidence that Republians are primarily authoritarian.

 

[Pogo]

Here I think we're much more eye-to-eye.
Except I'm not sure what you mean by "PA".

Patriot act.

Thanks. All I could think of was "plate appearances" so I went and listened to the ball game.

Given the full post then for context --

No. I would like what you say to be true but it simply is not. The right no longer represents smaller government. When they rerun to the concept of freedom I would love to support the right but things like the PA are the hallmark of the right. While the left demands that they control my fiscal life and any public interaction that I take, the right wants to control my moral life. One is not better than the other. They are both authoritarian in nature and I reject both philosophies.

I once thought libertarians were on the right. I now realize that they are on both sides and line up with neither. There is a reason that libertarian candidates DO NOT split the Republican vote but rather pull from both parties.

Do you not find the PATRIOT Act (it's an acronym) "authoritarian"? I do. Assuming the affirmative I agree with everything here.

I'm pretty sure FA was citing the PA as evidence that Republians are primarily authoritarian.

That's what I'm leaning to infer. It just wasn't quite clear.

My underlying basis in all this is that authoritarian and liberal are separate entities from left and right, and either of the first two can be combined with either of the second. And I think it's grossly unproductive to dumb-down our discussions with oversimplistic dichotomies, and even further disingenuous to morph labels --which are a rhetorical crutch anyway-- to suit demagoguic needs of the moment.

 

[FA_Q2]

I'm pretty sure FA was citing the PA as evidence that Republians are primarily authoritarian.

Yes. Just in a different sense than the left.