What are libertarians?

[hipeter924]

Wouldn't call myself a libertarian because of some of those that call themselves libertarian. Have no interest in sharing a label, when neo-liberals* are allowed a seat at the table.

*Meaning those that believe in shock therapy, violence, intimidation or coercion to put in place economic or social policy; which is kind of the anti-thesis of individual freedom.

 

[kaz]

If you believe the FDA should not exist, you might have (or be) a Thalidomide baby.

If you believe the FAA should not exist, you enjoy sitting near airports watching 747s crash into each other.

OK, moron, you chastise bripat over not reading your links and and you don't read the OP's post where I said I am referring to ... all together now ... small government libertarians ... not anarchists. I specifically said I am NOT talking about anarchists, simpleton. It's not that hard. You just have to read and comprehend, that's it. Which one is it that you can't do? Are you not able to read? Or do you read and not comprehend?

If you believe human beings will be on their best behavior if there are no rules and regulations and that insider trading and financial fraud regulations should be abrogated, you might be clinically insane.

And if you believe human beings given the absolute power of government guns to decree their rules and regulations are going to be on their best behavior, there is no "might be" about your clinical insanity.

Etc etc etc - by the way you spelled "anarchist" wrong.

The FFs were Liberals, like it or lump it.

I like it! Sadly liberals of today have nothing to do with them. They were actually liberal, today authoritarian leftists call themselves liberal. There is no overlap between you and an actual liberal like me. None.

Ah, so you're following the Fingerboy pattern -- fling poo, get challenged to prove it, and run away.

Predictable.

Yes, logic dictates it's my job to disprove your assertion that you are like the Founding Fathers, it's not yours to prove you are like them. Of course I know that and I am running away from my rhetorical responsibility.

You're sure not getting any smarter, are you pee wee?

 

[kaz]

Well that's odd because that's what Fingerboy said about me, and I challenged him to document it two days ago. He ran away then, and just ran away again now.

Since you can't read my OP post in discussing the topic in my thread, you're not in a position to talk, are you?

You pulled this same kind of juvenile shit in the "what is your plan about guns" thread ---- pretend to throw an openended question and then any answer you don't already agree with you just pretend it never showed up and go

Debating Pee Wee Herman. Pointless.

DOCUMENT the point above, or admit you're a coward and can't do it.

Yes, the guns one was a hoot. You kept saying we don't know who is the criminal and honest citizens having guns is just escalation and then denied it even when I showed you the quotes over and over while you kept repeating that honest citizens having guns is dangerous. You are not a bright guy.

As for here, document what point? That you keep arguing with anarchists and then think you're debating small government libertarians? Do you even know the difference? We have yet to reach the bottom of your cavernous stupidity, maybe we just need to keep going down.

 

[Bfgrn]

.

Pure Libertarian ideas just aren't workable or reasonable at a macro level, and the influx of libertarianism into the GOP has caused the party quite a bit of damage.

That said, I used to like having them around as a reminder that we can't stray too far from the power and benefits of individualism. Right now, though, the reminder is a little too loud.

.

There are different strains of libertarian. As a liberal, there are many civil libertarians I closely align with on social issues like privacy and abuse of authority. The late Harry Browne, John Dean, Jonathan Turley and Barry Goldwater are a few.

Civil libertarianism is a strain of political thought that supports civil liberties, or which emphasizes the supremacy of individual rights and personal freedoms over and against any kind of authority (such as a state, a corporation, social norms imposed through peer pressure, etc.). wiki

BUT, when it comes to their economic ideas (laissez-faire), there is almost nothing I agree with libertarians on. The recent financial collapse is a shining example of the failure of laissez-faire.

 

[kaz]

Have we not yet established just how much bullshit libertarianism is to you nutters?

While the men go hunting, you put on a dress and wait in the village with the women and children...

Yeah that's so me.

Doing your own work sure isn't. That's what government is for to you, to make us share our meat with you after the hunt so you don't have to go.

 

[kaz]

No, its is your problem. Like it or not, the left today is what embodies the modern definition of ;liberal.; You are the one that insists that we use the recognized meaning of the word that is 200 years old rather than what it means today.

The 17th-century philosopher John Locke is often credited with founding liberalism as a distinct philosophical tradition. Locke argued that each man has a natural right to life, liberty and property[7]

Right, which is today pure libertarian and nothing to do with liberalism. That is classic liberalism. You are an authoritarian leftists because you don't believe this. You actively oppose it. You want government to loot and plunder it's citizens. That you would compare yourself to John Locke is just a gut laugh.

Which is FA_Q2 and my point, that Locke was a "liberal" hundreds of years ago has nothing to do with you using the term today to justify oppressive government, something he deeply opposed.

So what classes are you taking in high school this year?[/QUOTE]

 

[kaz]

As a liberal, there are many civil libertarians I closely align with on social issues like privacy and abuse of authority.

Actually, civil libertarians have views that are not dependent on the party of the person who commits the act. You don't care what Democrats do, and you only view anything related to those issues as a potential weapon against Republicans no matter how badly you have to twist it. At no point do you actually just believe in civil liberties.

 

[kaz]

I am a small government libertarian. Here is how I defined it already.

What is a small government libertarian US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Yet, I'm still regularly called a liberal, a conservative, an anarchist. So what am I? What say you? What are small government libertarians really?

In my experience, most libertarians are young, selfish, sociopathic ingrates who can't seem to see that they were born into a system complete with a functional infrastructure that was provided by the SOCIETY that came before them.

That's because you have no experience, you spend too much time listening to the liberal media.

When I was young, I was a conservative, though I was generally against morality laws. As I have gotten older, I have realized so many things I used to support such as our continually trying to fix the world with our military, the war drug laws and government marriage really don't need to be done by government. I actually know a lot of libertarians, and that is the general trend. Kids tend not to question government so much. Then I don't get my talking points from Rachel Maddow, so you probably know better than I do.

 

[Bfgrn]

As a liberal, there are many civil libertarians I closely align with on social issues like privacy and abuse of authority.

Actually, civil libertarians have views that are not dependent on the party of the person who commits the act. You don't care what Democrats do, and you only view anything related to those issues as a potential weapon against Republicans no matter how badly you have to twist it. At no point do you actually just believe in civil liberties.

OH, now I understand. YOU are allowed to define my beliefs. BUT, no one is allowed to define yours, except you. Even when you SAY what they are and I highlight them.

If you read and comprehend what I said, the main reason I vehemently oppose Republicans and conservatives and many 'libertarians' is because of economic beliefs.

I believe capitalism is the best economic model, but there is no "magic", "invisible hand", "religion of laissez-faire" that makes ANY sense, UNLESS you totally ignore some key parts of civil libertarian beliefs. I will highlight them for you.

Civil libertarianism is a strain of political thought that supports civil liberties, or which emphasizes the supremacy of individual rights and personal freedoms over and against any kind of authority (such as a state, a corporation, social norms imposed through peer pressure, etc.).

 

[kaz]

As a liberal, there are many civil libertarians I closely align with on social issues like privacy and abuse of authority.

Actually, civil libertarians have views that are not dependent on the party of the person who commits the act. You don't care what Democrats do, and you only view anything related to those issues as a potential weapon against Republicans no matter how badly you have to twist it. At no point do you actually just believe in civil liberties.

OH, now I understand. YOU are allowed to define my beliefs. BUT, no one is allowed to define yours, except you. Even when you SAY what they are and I highlight them.

Oh, the myriad of ways this statement is overt hypocrisy. I always used to wonder at liberal's inability to recognize when you are creating flagrant double standards for you and those you oppose. Somehow in your mind if the collective thinks it then it's not hypocrisy. It is.

If you read and comprehend what I said, the main reason I vehemently oppose Republicans and conservatives and many 'libertarians' is because of economic beliefs.

I believe capitalism is the best economic model, but there is no "magic", "invisible hand", "religion of laissez-faire" that makes ANY sense, UNLESS you totally ignore some key parts of civil libertarian beliefs. I will highlight them for you.

Civil libertarianism is a strain of political thought that supports civil liberties, or which emphasizes the supremacy of individual rights and personal freedoms over and against any kind of authority (such as a state, a corporation, social norms imposed through peer pressure, etc.).

And your silence on Obama and the Democrats is deafening.

 

[Bfgrn]

As a liberal, there are many civil libertarians I closely align with on social issues like privacy and abuse of authority.

Actually, civil libertarians have views that are not dependent on the party of the person who commits the act. You don't care what Democrats do, and you only view anything related to those issues as a potential weapon against Republicans no matter how badly you have to twist it. At no point do you actually just believe in civil liberties.

OH, now I understand. YOU are allowed to define my beliefs. BUT, no one is allowed to define yours, except you. Even when you SAY what they are and I highlight them.

Oh, the myriad of ways this statement is overt hypocrisy. I always used to wonder at liberal's inability to recognize when you are creating flagrant double standards for you and those you oppose. Somehow in your mind if the collective thinks it then it's not hypocrisy. It is.

If you read and comprehend what I said, the main reason I vehemently oppose Republicans and conservatives and many 'libertarians' is because of economic beliefs.

I believe capitalism is the best economic model, but there is no "magic", "invisible hand", "religion of laissez-faire" that makes ANY sense, UNLESS you totally ignore some key parts of civil libertarian beliefs. I will highlight them for you.

Civil libertarianism is a strain of political thought that supports civil liberties, or which emphasizes the supremacy of individual rights and personal freedoms over and against any kind of authority (such as a state, a corporation, social norms imposed through peer pressure, etc.).

And your silence on Obama and the Democrats is deafening.

I am a Democrat. I am a Kennedy Democrat. I AGREE with most of what Obama and Democrats are trying to do. I am also very disappointed with what Obama and Democrats are not trying to do. Like ending the war on drugs, making Medicare a program any American can BUY before they reach the age of 65.

Maybe if you had an understanding of what a President has control over and what he doesn't have control over it would be easier for you to sound intelligent.

Many federal agencies like the CIA, Pentagon and much of law enforcement are rogue organizations that conservatives and Republicans will NEVER oppose or try to reign in.

 

[bripat9643]

Have we not yet established just how much bullshit libertarianism is to you nutters?

Not a libertarian, but what is your beef with them? You no like freedom?

I love freedom but there is such a thing as too much of a good thing. Government serves a vital purpose. The idea of private industry taking over government services is dangerous and ineffective.

You are right, having private industry take over government services would be dangerous. Having a corporation take over Social Security, which is nothing more than organized plunder, would be a catastrophe. You see, private firms can't use guns to provide their services. That's why they are preferable to government. Under libertarian government, there wouldn't be any "services" that involved shaking people down at gun point. Getting rid of such "services" is the primary aim of libertarian government, not replacing them versions run by private corporations.

Which is why you are the lowest form of life. You and your ilk are a cancer that must never be allowed to metastasize in our country. You don't deserve to live in a civilized nation.

You mean we are scum because we don't believe government should be used to rob people?

The ultimate irony is you love to attach liberals to sinister figures like Hitler, Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot. Yet those dictators' belief in social Darwinism, survival of the fittest, was the very foundation of their evil.

The term "social Darwinism" was invented by a progressive [liberal] to describe the policies she favored (Margaret Sanger). Progressives also favored eugenics and all the panoply of beliefs the Nazis used to enslave Europe. There's nothing "ironic" at all about government policies I attach liberals too. I simply note the truth. Liberals hate it, of course. You just admitted that you believe government should be used to rob people, yet you accuse me of being a Nazi.

 

[kaz]

Many federal agencies like the CIA, Pentagon and much of law enforcement are rogue organizations that conservatives and Republicans will NEVER oppose or try to reign in.

LOL, after all the discussions we've had, I'm still a Republican. LOL at you, you're a tool. You're fooling no one but yourself. You don't even mention what the NSA is doing because you're a tool of your party. No one who doesn't list the IRS in their short list is an actual civil libertarian. At least you did mention the war on drugs. Those are the two that the government just shreds the Constitution for on a continual basis with no probable cause or warrants required. You don't even really know what civil liberties are, they are just talking points to you.

 

[Bfgrn]

Have we not yet established just how much bullshit libertarianism is to you nutters?

Not a libertarian, but what is your beef with them? You no like freedom?

I love freedom but there is such a thing as too much of a good thing. Government serves a vital purpose. The idea of private industry taking over government services is dangerous and ineffective.

You are right, having private industry take over government services would be dangerous. Having a corporation take over Social Security, which is nothing more than organized plunder, would be a catastrophe. You see, private firms can't use guns to provide their services. That's why they are preferable to government. Under libertarian government, there wouldn't be any "services" that involved shaking people down at gun point. Getting rid of such "services" is the primary aim of libertarian government, not replacing them versions run by private corporations.

Which is why you are the lowest form of life. You and your ilk are a cancer that must never be allowed to metastasize in our country. You don't deserve to live in a civilized nation.

You mean we are scum because we don't believe government should be used to rob people?

The ultimate irony is you love to attach liberals to sinister figures like Hitler, Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot. Yet those dictators' belief in social Darwinism, survival of the fittest, was the very foundation of their evil.

The term "social Darwinism" was invented by a progressive [liberal] to describe the policies she favored (Margaret Sanger). Progressives also favored eugenics and all the panoply of beliefs the Nazis used to enslave Europe. There's nothing "ironic" at all about government policies I attach liberals too. I simply note the truth. Liberals hate it, of course. You just admitted that you believe government should be used to rob people, yet you accuse me of being a Nazi.

Social Security and Medicare do not rob We, the People. They are highly beneficial social insurance programs that protect senior citizens from financial ruin, and even premature DEATH.

And YOU would let them fend for themselves. THAT IS social Darwinism you MORON.

 

[bripat9643]

The ultimate irony is you love to attach liberals to sinister figures like Hitler, Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot. Yet those dictators' belief in social Darwinism, survival of the fittest, was the very foundation of their evil.

You should study some history. These leaders weren't social darwinists, and they certainly weren't libertarians. They were, to a man, committed to the idea that strong centralized government was necessary to control people, to make people 'better', to drive them to social perfection. You know, kinda like you do.

YOU are the scum bag who wants to end Social Security, Medicare and social programs. What liberals have that scum bag social Darwinists like YOU don't have is compassion and empathy for other human beings. It is survival of the fittest and richest for scum like you. You right wing scum ALWAYS try to point to government vs. no government as the important factor. But we have SEEN and FELT how you right wing scum govern. Conservatives have NEVER, EVER given us less government. They have only used government to inflict MUCH MORE government intrusion into the lives of the poor and weaker members of our society and helped the rich and opulent who you WORSHIP swindle those same poor and weaker members of society.


The Social Weapon: Darwinism

The twentieth century was one of the darkest and most deadly in all of human history. Vast amounts of blood were spilled and people subjected to the most terrible fear and oppression. Such dictators as Hitler, Stalin and Pol Pot inflicted genocide on millions. Hitler had those whom he regarded as “useless” exterminated in the gas chambers. Hundreds of thousands of people in many Western countries—from Great Britain to Germany, from the USA to Sweden—were compulsorily sterilized or left to die just for being sick, crippled or old. All over the world, people were oppressed and exploited because of ruthless competition. Racism became the ideology of certain states, and some races were not even regarded as human at all. Because of the conflicts and hot and cold wars between East and West, the peoples of communist and capitalist countries, and even brothers, became one another's enemies.

The main point not generally realized, however, is the nature of the ideological foundation that propelled the 20th century towards such disruption, chaos, war and conflict, and gave rise to such hatred and enmity. The groundwork of this ideological foundation was laid by the British economist Thomas Malthus. This twisted concept, widely accepted by people far removed from religious moral values, was further strengthened by another Briton, the sociologist Herbert Spencer, and disseminated by the theory of evolution put forward by yet another Englishman, Charles Darwin.

As dictated by the ideology they advocate, these three figures entirely ignored such religious moral virtues as cooperation, altruism, protecting the poor and weak, and regarding all human beings as equal. In contrast, they proposed the falsehood that life is a battlefield, that the oppression and even extermination of the poor and those races whom they regarded as “inferior” was justified; that as a result of that pitiless struggle, the “fittest” would survive and the rest would be eliminated—and that all this would lead to human “progress.”

With his theory of evolution, Darwin sought to apply this philosophy of selfishness to the natural sciences. Ignoring the examples of solidarity and cooperation created by God in nature, he maintained that all living things were engaged in a ruthless struggle for survival. On the basis of no scientific evidence whatsoever, he even claimed that this same ruthlessness applied to human societies. When his theory of evolution was applied to human society, social Darwinism appeared on the scene.

more

Are you actually claiming you oppose the theory of natural selection? It's not an ideology, nimrod. It's science. Malthus was also not an ideologue. He was a scientist who simply noted a natural phenomena. It's hardly surprising that liberals find the facts of biology distressing. Liberalism is just one never-ending assault on reality.

 

[bripat9643]

Have we not yet established just how much bullshit libertarianism is to you nutters?

Not a libertarian, but what is your beef with them? You no like freedom?

I love freedom but there is such a thing as too much of a good thing. Government serves a vital purpose. The idea of private industry taking over government services is dangerous and ineffective.

You are right, having private industry take over government services would be dangerous. Having a corporation take over Social Security, which is nothing more than organized plunder, would be a catastrophe. You see, private firms can't use guns to provide their services. That's why they are preferable to government. Under libertarian government, there wouldn't be any "services" that involved shaking people down at gun point. Getting rid of such "services" is the primary aim of libertarian government, not replacing them versions run by private corporations.

Which is why you are the lowest form of life. You and your ilk are a cancer that must never be allowed to metastasize in our country. You don't deserve to live in a civilized nation.

You mean we are scum because we don't believe government should be used to rob people?

The ultimate irony is you love to attach liberals to sinister figures like Hitler, Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot. Yet those dictators' belief in social Darwinism, survival of the fittest, was the very foundation of their evil.

The term "social Darwinism" was invented by a progressive [liberal] to describe the policies she favored (Margaret Sanger). Progressives also favored eugenics and all the panoply of beliefs the Nazis used to enslave Europe. There's nothing "ironic" at all about government policies I attach liberals too. I simply note the truth. Liberals hate it, of course. You just admitted that you believe government should be used to rob people, yet you accuse me of being a Nazi.

Social Security and Medicare do not rob We, the People. They are highly beneficial social insurance programs that protect senior citizens from financial ruin, and even premature DEATH

Yes, they do rob we the people. They fit the definition of robbery to a 'T.' They are not an "insurance" programs. They don't fit the definition of insurance by any stretch of the imagination. There is nothing beneficial about Social Security. It siphons off an enormous amount of wealth for current consumption. It thereby greatly reduces the future standard of living for every American. If people saved that money for their retirements, the country would be immensely more wealthy. we are 100 times worse off because of these programs.

And YOU would let them fend for themselves. THAT IS social Darwinism you MORON.

We know one thing for certain: if a liberal was asked to help his grandmother pay her bills, he wouldn't voluntarily contribute a single dime.

 

[Bfgrn]

Many federal agencies like the CIA, Pentagon and much of law enforcement are rogue organizations that conservatives and Republicans will NEVER oppose or try to reign in.

LOL, after all the discussions we've had, I'm still a Republican. LOL at you, you're a tool. You're fooling no one but yourself. You don't even mention what the NSA is doing because you're a tool of your party. No one who doesn't list the IRS in their short list is an actual civil libertarian. At least you did mention the war on drugs. Those are the two that the government just shreds the Constitution for on a continual basis with no probable cause or warrants required. You don't even really know what civil liberties are, they are just talking points to you.

HELLO? Is there anyone home?? NSA is WHAT? (a law enforcement rogue organization). The IRS has problems, but the recent attack of Obama over tax exempt status is bogus. In my opinion NONE of those teabagger organizations are NON-political, which is required to qualify for tax exempt status.

But you are not REALLY interested in civil liberties, you are only interested in anything that support your right wing agenda.

Hey Mr libertarian...do you support the ACLU???

 

[Bfgrn]

Have we not yet established just how much bullshit libertarianism is to you nutters?

Not a libertarian, but what is your beef with them? You no like freedom?

I love freedom but there is such a thing as too much of a good thing. Government serves a vital purpose. The idea of private industry taking over government services is dangerous and ineffective.

You are right, having private industry take over government services would be dangerous. Having a corporation take over Social Security, which is nothing more than organized plunder, would be a catastrophe. You see, private firms can't use guns to provide their services. That's why they are preferable to government. Under libertarian government, there wouldn't be any "services" that involved shaking people down at gun point. Getting rid of such "services" is the primary aim of libertarian government, not replacing them versions run by private corporations.

Which is why you are the lowest form of life. You and your ilk are a cancer that must never be allowed to metastasize in our country. You don't deserve to live in a civilized nation.

You mean we are scum because we don't believe government should be used to rob people?

The ultimate irony is you love to attach liberals to sinister figures like Hitler, Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot. Yet those dictators' belief in social Darwinism, survival of the fittest, was the very foundation of their evil.

The term "social Darwinism" was invented by a progressive [liberal] to describe the policies she favored (Margaret Sanger). Progressives also favored eugenics and all the panoply of beliefs the Nazis used to enslave Europe. There's nothing "ironic" at all about government policies I attach liberals too. I simply note the truth. Liberals hate it, of course. You just admitted that you believe government should be used to rob people, yet you accuse me of being a Nazi.

Social Security and Medicare do not rob We, the People. They are highly beneficial social insurance programs that protect senior citizens from financial ruin, and even premature DEATH

Yes, they do rob we the people. They fit the definition of robbery to a 'T.' They are not an "insurance" programs. They don't fit the definition of insurance by any stretch of the imagination. There is nothing beneficial about Social Security. It siphons off an enormous amount of wealth for current consumption. It thereby greatly reduces the future standard of living for every American. If people saved that money for their retirements, the country would be immensely more wealthy. we are 100 times worse off because of these programs.

And YOU would let them fend for themselves. THAT IS social Darwinism you MORON.

We know one thing for certain: if a liberal was asked to help his grandmother pay her bills, he wouldn't voluntarily contribute a single dime.

Social Security and Medicare have not added one dime to our massive debt. Debt was not an issue until welfare queen Reagan switched government from a PAY as you go for what we spend with tax revenue to BORROW what we spend putting everything on the Beijing credit card.

Then, Reagan and Greenspan ROBBED Social Security and Medicare to pay for his massive tax cuts for the opulent and transferred least $3 trillion of wealth from the middle class to the wealthy.

 

[Bfgrn]

The ultimate irony is you love to attach liberals to sinister figures like Hitler, Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot. Yet those dictators' belief in social Darwinism, survival of the fittest, was the very foundation of their evil.

You should study some history. These leaders weren't social darwinists, and they certainly weren't libertarians. They were, to a man, committed to the idea that strong centralized government was necessary to control people, to make people 'better', to drive them to social perfection. You know, kinda like you do.

YOU are the scum bag who wants to end Social Security, Medicare and social programs. What liberals have that scum bag social Darwinists like YOU don't have is compassion and empathy for other human beings. It is survival of the fittest and richest for scum like you. You right wing scum ALWAYS try to point to government vs. no government as the important factor. But we have SEEN and FELT how you right wing scum govern. Conservatives have NEVER, EVER given us less government. They have only used government to inflict MUCH MORE government intrusion into the lives of the poor and weaker members of our society and helped the rich and opulent who you WORSHIP swindle those same poor and weaker members of society.


The Social Weapon: Darwinism

The twentieth century was one of the darkest and most deadly in all of human history. Vast amounts of blood were spilled and people subjected to the most terrible fear and oppression. Such dictators as Hitler, Stalin and Pol Pot inflicted genocide on millions. Hitler had those whom he regarded as “useless” exterminated in the gas chambers. Hundreds of thousands of people in many Western countries—from Great Britain to Germany, from the USA to Sweden—were compulsorily sterilized or left to die just for being sick, crippled or old. All over the world, people were oppressed and exploited because of ruthless competition. Racism became the ideology of certain states, and some races were not even regarded as human at all. Because of the conflicts and hot and cold wars between East and West, the peoples of communist and capitalist countries, and even brothers, became one another's enemies.

The main point not generally realized, however, is the nature of the ideological foundation that propelled the 20th century towards such disruption, chaos, war and conflict, and gave rise to such hatred and enmity. The groundwork of this ideological foundation was laid by the British economist Thomas Malthus. This twisted concept, widely accepted by people far removed from religious moral values, was further strengthened by another Briton, the sociologist Herbert Spencer, and disseminated by the theory of evolution put forward by yet another Englishman, Charles Darwin.

As dictated by the ideology they advocate, these three figures entirely ignored such religious moral virtues as cooperation, altruism, protecting the poor and weak, and regarding all human beings as equal. In contrast, they proposed the falsehood that life is a battlefield, that the oppression and even extermination of the poor and those races whom they regarded as “inferior” was justified; that as a result of that pitiless struggle, the “fittest” would survive and the rest would be eliminated—and that all this would lead to human “progress.”

With his theory of evolution, Darwin sought to apply this philosophy of selfishness to the natural sciences. Ignoring the examples of solidarity and cooperation created by God in nature, he maintained that all living things were engaged in a ruthless struggle for survival. On the basis of no scientific evidence whatsoever, he even claimed that this same ruthlessness applied to human societies. When his theory of evolution was applied to human society, social Darwinism appeared on the scene.

more

Are you actually claiming you oppose the theory of natural selection? It's not an ideology, nimrod. It's science. Malthus was also not an ideologue. He was a scientist who simply noted a natural phenomena. It's hardly surprising that liberals find the facts of biology distressing. Liberalism is just one never-ending assault on reality.

Natural selection is NOT a civil society, it is the law of the jungle.

 

[kaz]

But you are not REALLY interested in civil liberties, you are only interested in anything that support your right wing agenda.

Sure, Skippy. I'm a "right winger" who's against the Iraq war (both of them), nation building in Afghanistan, I wanted to blast the crap out of the Taliban and Al Qaeda for attacking us then leave. I would have no permantent presence in the Middle East or any other sovereign nation. I think all morality laws should be repealed, including drugs, prostitution, gambling, gay sex. I'm against government marriage entirely.

But I'm a "right winger." I argue those with Republicans all the time. This was my point, you are interested only in civil liberties and anything else only so far as you can use it to elect Democrats. They are only talking points to you. Which is why when you hit someone who isn't you and isn't a Republican you have nothing. You can't reason or process, so you just have to label me a Republican so you can start churning out your talking points.

LOL, you're a tool as I said. Democrats use you like a socket wrench or a screwdriver. And you're almost as intelligent as a screw driver. This is why I don't answer you long posts point for point, you can't process. And you insist on reminding me of that.

Hey @Rabbi , @Thanos , did you guys know I'm a right winger? LOL. Bfgrn says so. I'm lock step with you guys.

Edit: no mentions? Or I don't know how they work now.