Did You Know....?

[Kludge]

This is one of the many reasons why I left the party. Their advocacy of soft borders is unnacceptable.

However, images of two consensual adults engaging in intercourse being banned is acceptable?


However, the banning of gambling is acceptable? Implying that those who engage in the completely legitimate exchange of resources are on par with criminals is acceptable?


However, the unlawful and repulsive recognition of marriage, a religious ceremony, continue to be subsidized and promoted even though theft is required for it is acceptable?


However, on the state and local level, the legitimate exchange of resources (drugs in this instance) - it is ACCEPTABLE that it be criminalized?


However, the unjust restriction of travel to be applied to those not born into the United States (NOT a choice, unless the federal government is benevolent enough to grant them the ability) is acceptable?


However, the unjust restriction of the markets in the form of aggression-committing tariffs are acceptable, merely because Constitutional rights do not apply to those outside the jurisdiction of the mystical rights-granting document?



Let's not confuse ourselves. The Constitution Party IS fairly libertarian, but the fact that you strike Bob Barr and the Libertarian Party out of consideration for your support merely on the issue of immigration is laughable. I'm familiar with your posts familydog, you most certainly do not support Bob Barr or the Libertarian Party and it's a shame for all of us.

 

[Kludge]

Not to appear overly serious, here's a picture to distract yourselves with :

 

[Agent Chameleon]

And now for something completely different.

 

[familydog]

However, images of two consensual adults engaging in intercourse being banned is acceptable?


However, the banning of gambling is acceptable? Implying that those who engage in the completely legitimate exchange of resources are on par with criminals is acceptable?


However, the unlawful and repulsive recognition of marriage, a religious ceremony, continue to be subsidized and promoted even though theft is required for it is acceptable?


However, on the state and local level, the legitimate exchange of resources (drugs in this instance) - it is ACCEPTABLE that it be criminalized?


However, the unjust restriction of travel to be applied to those not born into the United States (NOT a choice, unless the federal government is benevolent enough to grant them the ability) is acceptable?


However, the unjust restriction of the markets in the form of aggression-committing tariffs are acceptable, merely because Constitutional rights do not apply to those outside the jurisdiction of the mystical rights-granting document?



Let's not confuse ourselves. The Constitution Party IS fairly libertarian, but the fact that you strike Bob Barr and the Libertarian Party out of consideration for your support merely on the issue of immigration is laughable. I'm familiar with your posts familydog, you most certainly do not support Bob Barr or the Libertarian Party and it's a shame for all of us.

Who said anything about the Constitution Party?

 

[Kludge]

Who said anything about the Constitution Party?

Idunno, I felt like ranting at you for not supporting all libertarians and the advancement of libertarianism as a whole.

We bro's gots'ta sticks togetha', y'know?

 

[Agent Chameleon]

Idunno, I felt like ranting at you for not supporting all libertarians and the advancement of libertarianism as a whole.

We bro's gots'ta sticks togetha', y'know?

What's your view on people who don't call themselves libertarians, or can't reconcile some beliefs with core libertarian philosophy, and yet they sympathize with libertarianism and agree with many of its planks?

 

[Kludge]

What's your view on people who don't call themselves libertarians, or can't reconcile some beliefs with core libertarian philosophy, and yet they sympathize with libertarianism and agree with many of its planks?

Useful idiots?


Nono... I kid. If they sympathize with libertarianism, they should sympathize with all libertarians. Familydog has continually pinched my cheeks with his anti-Barr rhetoric and snide chime-ins. Supporting both Barr and Baldwin is the only choice for rational libertarians, unless they'd like to take the "BARR IS A NEOCON SHILL WHO EATS BABIES!" plea. But that in itself is an irrational conclusion, so...

 

[familydog]

Idunno, I felt like ranting at you for not supporting all libertarians and the advancement of libertarianism as a whole.

We bro's gots'ta sticks togetha', y'know?

Although I like a lot of libertarian ideas, I'm don't consider myself a libertarian.

I don't mind people moving to and from the country without restriction, but it just isn't feasible right now. On a deeper philosophical level, I don't agree with the libertarian thought that a state has no right to prevent the free flow of people and goods across national borders. Taking away a state's ability to do this destroys national sovereignty. National sovereingty is what makes up a nation-state. The nation-state system is the best system for the people of the world to use.