Sarah Palin is now officially a libertarian!

[Kludge]

Fixed that for you.

You know opinions are like hemohrroids, don't you?

Sure, everything's subjective. I didn't expect that out of you, TBH.

 

[Kludge]

Hmmm..... I wonder how the Republican party represents republicanism today.... I imagine I don't need to quote the GOP platform at you and say that's what republicanism is.

 

[acptulsa]

Sure, everything's subjective. I didn't expect that out of you, TBH.

And I didn't expect you to start redefining words in order to smear me, either. Every action has an equal and opposite reaction.

 

[Kludge]

And I didn't expect you to start redefining words in order to smear me, either. Every action has an equal and opposite reaction.

In order to smear you? This isn't personal.

This is my argument as it relates to the most recent dispute:

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/libertarian
One who advocates maximizing individual rights and minimizing the role of the state.

Minimizing the role of "the state" necessarily equates to eliminating "the state", as that's the obvious minimum. I imagine most here identify the primary individual right as the right to self-ownership, from which all rights derive, but if the government is coercive and does not truly have consent of the governed (100% in agreement), then it is necessarily depriving people of rights, no matter what other freedoms it's attempting to secure in the process.

In regards to the second part of the dispute, wherein you claimed protecting freedoms is liberty, I disagreed and said protecting liberty is security, which necessarily requires that liberty be lessened. If you protect the right to property by violating the right to property, then you are are not protecting neither liberty nor property.

 

[Bossobass]

Sarah Palin? Isn't she that chick from South Carolina who was in the Miss America Pageant who Katie Courick interviewed during the '08 elections?

Bosso

 

[moostraks]

In order to smear you? This isn't personal.

This is my argument as it relates to the most recent dispute:

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/libertarian
One who advocates maximizing individual rights and minimizing the role of the state.

Minimizing the role of "the state" necessarily equates to eliminating "the state", as that's the obvious minimum. I imagine most here identify the primary individual right as the right to self-ownership, from which all rights derive, but if the government is coercive and does not truly have consent of the governed (100% in agreement), then it is necessarily depriving people of rights, no matter what other freedoms it's attempting to secure in the process.

In regards to the second part of the dispute, wherein you claimed protecting freedoms is liberty, I disagreed and said protecting liberty is security, which necessarily requires that liberty be lessened. If you protect the right to property by violating the right to property, then you are are not protecting neither liberty nor property.

elimi·nate (ē lim′ə nāt′, i-)

transitive verb eliminated -·nat′ed, eliminating -·nat′·ing

1.to take out; remove; get rid of
2.to leave out of consideration; reject; omit


minimize:

make small or insignificant; "Let's minimize the risk"
understate: represent as less significant or important
cause to seem less serious; play down; "Don't belittle his influence"
wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

??? Your argument is illogical...

 

[acptulsa]

Minimizing the role of "the state" necessarily equates to eliminating "the state", as that's the obvious minimum.

So, instead of riding my bicycle to work today in order to minimize my waistline I should have just asked some psycho to cut me in half below the ribcage and do it again at my hips?

I've explained why my position is both principled and not unreasonable. And I do take it personally when someone tries to deny that I'm principled through semantics.

In regards to the second part of the dispute, wherein you claimed protecting freedoms is liberty, I disagreed and said protecting liberty is security, which necessarily requires that liberty be lessened. If you protect the right to property by violating the right to property, then you are are not protecting neither liberty nor property.

And then you argued that you should have the right to deprive me of my life, and if you don't have that right you aren't truly free. Yet many here consider my life to be my property. So how the %$#@ are you going to convince me that depriving you of the 'right' to deprive me of my right to my property is unduly burdensome on you? You have no 'right' to deprive me of my property, and even if you did that 'right' wouldn't be your 'property' so my right to my property would trump it. Get over it.

 

[Kludge]

elimi·nate (ē lim′ə nāt′, i-)

transitive verb eliminated -·nat′ed, eliminating -·nat′·ing

1.to take out; remove; get rid of
2.to leave out of consideration; reject; omit


minimize:

make small or insignificant; "Let's minimize the risk"
understate: represent as less significant or important
cause to seem less serious; play down; "Don't belittle his influence"
wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

??? Your argument is illogical...

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/minimize
a. To reduce to the smallest possible amount, extent, size, or degree.

Smallest is elimination.

 

[Kludge]

So, instead of riding my bicycle to work today in order to minimize my waistline I should have just asked some psycho to cut me in half below the ribcage and do it again at my hips?

What?

I've explained why my position is both principled and not unreasonable. And I do take it personally when someone tries to deny that I'm principled through semantics.

I never said you weren't principled. I don't think you're a principled libertarian, but I still imagine you're principled. I even stated outright that I'm not a libertarian.

Edit: Away time. I'm sure Optatron will be willing to pick up on this "semantic" argument when he wakes.

 

[acptulsa]

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/minimize
a. To reduce to the smallest possible amount, extent, size, or degree.

Smallest is elimination.

Looks to me like the free dictionary is worth every penny. The definition moonstraks came up with is how I, for one, use the word--and I have never used the word in such a way as to cause the confusion you are causing.

What?

You heard me. I'm trying to minimize my waistline. But I will frown mightily on anyone who tries to 'help' me by trying to eliminate my waistline. This is not a difficult concept.

Or, to put it another way, what you're doing here is akin to what the Royal Navy did when it named a ship H.M.S. Invincible. Namely, failing.

 

[moostraks]

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/minimize
a. To reduce to the smallest possible amount, extent, size, or degree.

Smallest is elimination.

no smallest implies it still has some existence...eliminate means non-existent

 

[moostraks]

You heard me. I'm trying to minimize my waistline. But I will frown mightily on anyone who tries to 'help' me by trying to eliminate my waistline. This is not a difficult concept.

lol

 

[Kludge]

no smallest implies it still has some existence...

Self-governance.


(But that isn't why I came back into the room to post this. This is one of the very, very few times I'm going to admit to having emotions, but I don't debate you to smear you, acp. If you've noticed, I usually just sarcastically half-ass a snipe at someone and hope they'll look at what they said again. If you are under the impression that I don't think you're principled, it's the exact opposite. You're one of the most principled and thoughtful people I've met, and that's why I thought it was worth my self-over-valued focus to argue with you. I love you because you're principled. You aren't the Kipple I'm used to, and I admire you so much because of it.)

 

[The Dude]

Sarah Palin is about as libertarian as John McCain. I pity any RP supporters or libertarians that fall for her act.

 

[acptulsa]

Well, that means a lot Kludge. Honestly. Now edit it out of there before that post ruins your reputation!

 

[moostraks]

Self-governance.


(But that isn't why I came back into the room to post this. This is one of the very, very few times I'm going to admit to having emotions, but I don't debate you to smear you, acp. If you've noticed, I usually just sarcastically half-ass a snipe at someone and hope they'll look at what they said again. If you are under the impression that I don't think you're principled, it's the exact opposite. You're one of the most principled and thoughtful people I've met, and that's why I thought it was worth my self-over-valued focus to argue with you. I love you because you're principled. You aren't the Kipple I'm used to, and I admire you so much because of it.)

right, I understand where you are coming from but self-governance is from an anarchist pov where as libertarians concede to some governance in a minimalist way to keep the wolves from overtaking the pastures. I am curious why you don't want to associate with the anarchist pov, but instead try to imply libertarians view it as such. It just isn't the general stance of most libertarians to eliminate government completely, implying otherwise is blurring the lines of two distinct belief systems.

 

[Kraig]

Libertarians who have solidarity in their beliefs are anarchists.

 

[mediahasyou]

This forum get more and more like http://theobamaforum.com each day.

 

[Bucjason]

As long as government protects our individual rights and liberties , and stays out of our way, a libertarian doesn't care whether it's federal or local .

The reason most libertarians prefer "states rights" ,however , is because these protections of rights and diminished role of government is more LIKELY to stay intact if power remains at the local level. If not , we can easily move to another state that does.

 

[Kraig]

As long as government protects our individual rights and liberties , and stays out of our way, a libertarian doesn't care whether it's federal or local .

The reason most libertarians prefer "states rights" ,however , is because these protections of rights and diminished role of government is more LIKELY to stay intact if power remains at the local level. If not , we can easily move to another state that does.

How can a government protect individual liberties while taxing people?