OFFICIAL: "How Libertarian Are You?" Thread

[wizardwatson]

Nothing like a libertarian vanity thread to get the old bile ducts chuggin'.

 

[low preference guy]

whu whu whuhhhh?

What forum are you living in?

who? see my signature you removed.

 

[wizardwatson]

who? see my signature you removed.

Don't worry. I have it on good authority that there is going to be a purging of many of the anti-Paulians that have infected this board.

There will be blood.

It isn't imminent, but when it happens there will be no mercy.

 

[Kludge]

Don't worry. I have it on good authority that there is going to be a purging of many of the anti-Paulians that have infected this board.

There will be blood.

It isn't imminent, but when it happens there will be no mercy.

Unban Trotsky!

 

[wizardwatson]

Unban Trotsky!

Huh?

Don't know Trotsky. I am drawing up battle plans related to this problem. That's no lie. I was just trying to be dramatic.

I mean, seriously, if we can't get one board under control and back to common sense and civility, I don't see how we can organize a movement, much less "change America".

 

[CCTelander]

Don't worry. I have it on good authority that there is going to be a purging of many of the anti-Paulians that have infected this board.

There will be blood.

It isn't imminent, but when it happens there will be no mercy.

Yes, everybody loves a good idealogical purge. Just ask Stalin.

 

[Sola_Fide]

I think that some opposition will continue to illuminate the superiority of Liberty. I say keep the Statists around.

 

[wizardwatson]

Yes, everybody loves a good idealogical purge. Just ask Stalin.

Well, of course it will be voluntary. I am an absolutist when it comes to the almighty NAP.

I mean, I like a good analogy as much as the next guy, but comparing what Stalin did to making a BB friendlier and more on topic is a leap only an internet dreamer could come up with.

Cheers!

 

[CCTelander]

I think that some opposition will continue to illuminate the superiority of Liberty. I say keep the Statists around.

The solution to "bad" speech is always more, and hopefully higher quality, speech. Bans do nothing but prove your own insecurity, and very often lend weight to whatever the banned person was saying.

 

[wizardwatson]

I think that some opposition will continue to illuminate the superiority of Liberty. I say keep the Statists around.

There are no statists. Its a mental condition. They don't know they are statists. That is the problem. And that infects the hive.

Just like washing the dishes.

 

[Sentient Void]

I think that some opposition will continue to illuminate the superiority of Liberty. I say keep the Statists around.

+1. Agreed. Great thread btw.

Oh, and yes - IP is theft

 

[CCTelander]

Huh?

Don't know Trotsky. I am drawing up battle plans related to this problem. That's no lie. I was just trying to be dramatic.

I mean, seriously, if we can't get one board under control and back to common sense and civility, I don't see how we can organize a movement, much less "change America".

"Common sense" according to whom? "Civility" based upon whose standards? Yours?

Clearly your idea of "organization" is based in the typical top down, vertically organized hierarchial models that have been used, and have failed miserably, for thousands of years.

When you're dealing with highly complex "systems," such as a "community" made up of thousands of people with vastly divergant ideas and belief systems, "one size fits all" styles of organization simply don't work. All they do is strangle the "system" you're trying to "organize."

I'd suggest you try reading some of Butler Shaffer's books, and perhaps do some serious research into the concept of spontaneous order.

You're never going to be able to shoehorn this lot into your predetermined mold, and any attempt will result in your own frustration, at best.

 

[CCTelander]

Huh?

Don't know Trotsky. I am drawing up battle plans related to this problem. That's no lie. I was just trying to be dramatic.

I mean, seriously, if we can't get one board under control and back to common sense and civility, I don't see how we can organize a movement, much less "change America".

The phrases "there will be blood," and "no mercy" leap immediately to mind.

Wonder where I've read those recently?

 

[osan]

Labels, Categories, Boxes ?

I never fit.
I am an Angry American.
I cannot be programmed, categorized or easily referenced.
I am unique. An Individual.

I will not briefed, debriefed, stamped, or numbered.

 

[RedStripe]

I will not briefed, debriefed, stamped, or numbered.

Reminds me of a great Proudhon quote.

"To be governed is to be watched, inspected, spied upon, directed, law-driven, numbered, regulated, enrolled, indoctrinated, preached at, controlled, checked, estimated, valued, censured, commanded, by creatures who have neither the right nor the wisdom nor the virtue to do so. To be governed is to be at every operation, at every transaction noted, registered, counted, taxed, stamped, measured, numbered, assessed, licensed, authorized, admonished, prevented, forbidden, reformed, corrected, punished. It is, under pretext of public utility, and in the name of the general interest, to be placed under contribution, drilled, fleeced, exploited, monopolized, extorted from, squeezed, hoaxed, robbed; then, at the slightest resistance, the first word of complaint, to be repressed, fined, vilified, harassed, hunted down, abused, clubbed, disarmed, bound, choked, imprisoned, judged, condemned, shot, deported, sacrificed, sold, betrayed; and to crown all, mocked, ridiculed, derided, outraged, dishonoured. That is government; that is it's justice; that is it's morality." ​

 

[CCTelander]

Reminds me of a great Proudhon quote.

"To be governed is to be watched, inspected, spied upon, directed, law-driven, numbered, regulated, enrolled, indoctrinated, preached at, controlled, checked, estimated, valued, censured, commanded, by creatures who have neither the right nor the wisdom nor the virtue to do so. To be governed is to be at every operation, at every transaction noted, registered, counted, taxed, stamped, measured, numbered, assessed, licensed, authorized, admonished, prevented, forbidden, reformed, corrected, punished. It is, under pretext of public utility, and in the name of the general interest, to be placed under contribution, drilled, fleeced, exploited, monopolized, extorted from, squeezed, hoaxed, robbed; then, at the slightest resistance, the first word of complaint, to be repressed, fined, vilified, harassed, hunted down, abused, clubbed, disarmed, bound, choked, imprisoned, judged, condemned, shot, deported, sacrificed, sold, betrayed; and to crown all, mocked, ridiculed, derided, outraged, dishonoured. That is government; that is it's justice; that is it's morality." ​

Excellent quote.

 

[osan]

We all like to talk about our libertarian bona fides.


But I'm curious about the members of this forum: How "libertarian" are you?


Do we have more right-libertarian "Constitutional Conservatives" here or do we have more Rothbard/Rand anarcho-capitalist types here?



Just curious....

I believe in governance vis-a-vis government. The difference may seem subtle for some, but I believe it is fundamental. One exists and the other does not, which is a radical difference between them. Governance is the responsibility of ALL the people in the nation and I may even believe (not sure yet) that it may be the one "extra" obligation that we hold to each other (extra of our obligation to live and let live). Because "government" has no material existence of its own of which to speak, it does not govern. People govern and as many people as possible should be involved in the process of governing. But that requires proper training, education, moral fiber, and the desire to be involved.Today virtually none of that exists in sufficient quantities. That means we are in some trouble.

That said, I believe that the single morally legitimate purpose of governing is to guarantee the rights of each individual. When that purpose and obligation is properly discharged, people and their property are protected against violation. When the injustices of violation are met with strong non-equivocation, I believe a nation prospers.

 

[Sola_Fide]

I believe in governance vis-a-vis government. The difference may seem subtle for some, but I believe it is fundamental. One exists and the other does not, which is a radical difference between them. Governance is the responsibility of ALL the people in the nation and I may even believe (not sure yet) that it may be the one "extra" obligation that we hold to each other (extra of our obligation to live and let live). Because "government" has no material existence of its own of which to speak, it does not govern. People govern and as many people as possible should be involved in the process of governing. But that requires proper training, education, moral fiber, and the desire to be involved.Today virtually none of that exists in sufficient quantities. That means we are in some trouble.

This sounds more like pure democracy to me...

 

[RedStripe]

I believe in governance vis-a-vis government. The difference may seem subtle for some, but I believe it is fundamental. One exists and the other does not, which is a radical difference between them. Governance is the responsibility of ALL the people in the nation and I may even believe (not sure yet) that it may be the one "extra" obligation that we hold to each other (extra of our obligation to live and let live). Because "government" has no material existence of its own of which to speak, it does not govern. People govern and as many people as possible should be involved in the process of governing. But that requires proper training, education, moral fiber, and the desire to be involved.Today virtually none of that exists in sufficient quantities. That means we are in some trouble.

That said, I believe that the single morally legitimate purpose of governing is to guarantee the rights of each individual. When that purpose and obligation is properly discharged, people and their property are protected against violation. When the injustices of violation are met with strong non-equivocation, I believe a nation prospers.

I think you're right about governance. Unless you were/are raised by wolves or are shipwrecked on some island, governance is going to be a part of your life as a social animal. It's really unavoidable.. government, on the other hand, is a social institution whose explicit role is the administration of governance and which is a historical anomaly which (hopefully) will be transcended by a superior social system in which governance is restored to the people (truly - not through this bullshit half-way crap called "democracy" through the apparatus of the state).

 

[osan]

Not me. I don't trust the government and I have come to realize that all governments are evil and corrupt; the U.S. government being one of the worst. The federal government is going to collapse and we will fall into the arms of a world bank, just as Griffin predicted. Governments fail, and ours is no different.

Governments don't fail. Governors do. Keep the focus on where responsibility really lies.

What will not work in my opinion, is a total Free Market state where the rich can do whatever they wish in manipulating and controlling the wealth; thus making poor people poorer. People will still have the greedy bankers in a Free Market system. That is why I believe in a Fair Market system.

In a properly structured and administered system of governance, this is highly unlikely to occur.

Also, I am considered a leftest because I care about our environment and I do believe that man is polluting the environment and I believe there is some validity to global warming.

Validity based on what? If AGW is a fact, those imbeciles in England and Penn State managed to screw us all because of what they did. Add to that tossing out the RAW data - I would call that tantamount to treason against the human race itself.

There should be laws that are enforced that does not allow man to "do whatever he wishes" with his property if it ends up hurting other people.

I do not recall anyone asserting that there should be. Can you give an example?

I have seen both sides of the spectrum: beautiful pristine wilderness that man hasn't destroyed and pollution caused by man that the Earth cannot repair; at least not while man is on Earth.

How do you know the earth cannot repair? The assertion is higly charged with presumption.

I believe in a collective to survive, and it should be voluntary.

Have you any notion of just how unworkable this is? If the presumed purpose of such a collective is to "save" the environment, how will such an organization succeed without full membership and cooperation?

That is the real world. Small groups or individuals who think that they can go it alone are delusional;

What is your proof of this? I can think of several groups I know who could easily go it alone. My inner circle of friends is one such group. We are farmers, doctors, engineers, machinists, blacksmiths. We could so quite well on our own, except that other people would certainly fuck with us, especially if conditions were such that we needed to go it alone. Fortunately, we also have several very good marksmen.

they would have a very low chance of even surviving. The cells in our body realize the importance of being part of a collective in order to survive.

Wow. You need to stop drinking so much. That is patently delusional. You ARE joking, right?

A Free Market world can be likened to Mel Gibson's village at the beginning of the movie "Braveheart", where the landlord wants to have sex with his woman before Mel and her get married. That is what a Free Market, anything goes, world would be like; not Disney World, where everybody acts like Ozzie and Harriet, or Leave it to Beaver.

I don't think you know the first things about real free markets. Nary a person alive does because not one of us has ever experienced one. You're making all these almost imperative statements with nothing to back them up.

As a leftest, I cannot tolerate what the greedy rich bastards have done to our country. There are two enemies: the government the extreme rich.

You mean like provide most of the means by which the rest of us are able to feed, clothe, and house ourselves? You appear to have a badly skewed "knowledge" of reality in this context. There is, to be certain, some proportion of "greedy rich bastards" who bring harm to the rest of us. Those are few and far between. I used to be a rich bastard myself and I can assure you that most wealthy people do far more good than harm.

Your information is highly flawed. You might want to check into doing something about that.