So basically you need to a hardcore libertarian to hang out around here? [admin: no]

[Kludge]

You know what gets me about people who love liberty? They are always voting to expand the size of the government... I don't really like that... you know? Liberty proponents would be just fine if they stopped voting to increase taxes and fund the war... even the wars we are not even in yet!

But hey, that's the understanding of liberty... we can't be free unless we are destroying other cultures.

RAWR! You make me so angry when you do that. Grr! ARRR! Anger is surging through my body because you do not understand English.

OMFG! ARRR! ARRR! ESSS! TEEE!

 

[SnappleLlama]

I'm a simple guy. I'm for anyone who will leave me and my wallet alone. Call me which ever political title I should fall under. I'd rather say I'm American than saying I'm a Libertarian.

Okay, Ron Paul, get off the forums!

 

[ARealConservative]

The problem here is that all of you are mostly advocates for Economic Liberalism... I shouldn't even be me defending the term!

wow - you were teetering dangerously on the edge of an absolute world.

Nice save.

 

[Kludge]

I'd hate to break it to most you guys like this, but you are all actually neo-liberals.

Pick up a Chomsky book or two... "Profit Over People" is pretty good.

AHH! My heart! It just dropped.... Chomsky?

 

[SnappleLlama]

Yumm....Chomsky. Only really studied him in reference to linguistics, way back when I was a Linguistics major....

/end threadjack

 

[Kade]

Because neocons support liberal economic policies. C wut I did thar?

But, humor me Kade, would you satisfied if I added "neo" as a suffix of "liberalism"?

Liberals tend to favor government control of some services, notably education, mail, transportation, etc...

You are not insulting me to compare liberals to support an unfettered market. I figured that the "real conservatives" would be up in arms, but apparently they don't even understand their own philosophy.

Economic liberalism with Social Liberalism is basically what most real Libertarians support... and I don't see anyone really contradicting that point.

 

[Kade]

AHH! My heart! It just dropped.... Chomsky?

I read Strauss and Mises too, doesn't mean anything other than that I read a lot...

And actually, Natural Rights and History was decent... albeit, flawed.

 

[ARealConservative]

Liberals tend to favor government control of some services, notably education, mail, transportation, etc...

You are not insulting me to compare liberals to support an unfettered market. I figured that the "real conservatives" would be up in arms, but apparently they don't even understand their own philosophy.

Economic liberalism with Social Liberalism is basically what most real Libertarians support... and I don't see anyone really contradicting that point.

how cute.

Kade is talking down to people that continually abuse him in debates, like it never happened.

 

[Kludge]

I don't support social liberalism, and I'd say I'm dangerously close to being a libertarian purist.

 

[Kade]

how cute.

Kade is talking down to people that continually abuse him in debates, like it never happened.

The last debate I remember ended when about four idiots couldn't contribute anything more than a few flames and self congratulations at having rubbed oil on their own asses..

I happen to win both that debate and the flame war that followed. Alone.

 

[LibertyEagle]

I don't support social liberalism, and I'd say I'm dangerously close to being a libertarian purist.

NO WAY, Kludgey. Libertarians don't advocate world government.

Libertarians are ANTI-state (against big government); they most certainly do not advocate a super-state.

 

[Kade]

I don't support social liberalism, and I'd say I'm dangerously close to being a libertarian purist.

If you don't believe that society ought to protect individual rights, how do you suppose individual rights ought to be protected...?

Just curious.

 

[Kludge]

NO WAY, Kludgey. Libertarians don't advocate world government.

Libertarians are ANTI-state; they most certainly do not advocate a super-state.

libertarians don't advocate expanding gov't authority. I never have.

 

[Kludge]

If you don't believe that society ought to protect individual rights, how do you suppose individual rights ought to be protected...?

Just curious.

For social liberals the lack of education, health, or employment is seen as a major threat to the freedom of state compulsion and coercion.

I believe the ONLY role of government is to protect private property by providing the deterrence that is law enforcement (laws only being those that violate the NAP)

 

[Kade]

I believe the ONLY role of government is to protect private property by providing the deterrence that is law enforcement (laws only being those that violate the NAP)

I see no difference from your stance and the stance of most social liberals in regards to individual rights.

 

[Kludge]

I don't believe the gov't has any duty to provide healthcare, public education or employment.

 

[ARealConservative]

The last debate I remember ended when about four idiots couldn't contribute anything more than a few flames and self congratulations at having rubbed oil on their own asses..

I happen to win both that debate and the flame war that followed. Alone.

Sure you did.

It was pure genius bowing out on my discussion by claiming absolutes never exist. You are a true logical genius, don't let anyone ever say otherwise!

 

[Kade]

I don't believe the gov't has any duty to provide healthcare, public education or employment.

That is a philosophical concern. One that you and I are unqualified to really debate about... at least in this thread.

The point is that labels matter, and our language is shrinking... we are experiencing newspeak in real life... and nobody seems to care.

Economic Liberalism is a term for minimal government interference in the market.

Nothing has changed. Stop abusing it. It's your word still.

 

[LibertyInJeopardy]

If we can all agree on one thing - that we will be bound by and uphold the constitution - then all arguments from here forward should be coupled with their justification and legality within the U.S. constitution. There's a real challenge to all of you unless you just enjoy arguing semantics and personal opinions.

Old or new lib-con-theo-secu-crat-lic, whatever, I for one would be glad to have them all as long as they desire to extend the protections and obligations of the constitution equally and individually to all citizens.

 

[Kade]

Sure you did.

It was pure genius bowing out on my discussion by claiming absolutes never exist. You are a true logical genius, don't let anyone ever say otherwise!

Reduce your level of asshole, and I guarantee you that you will talk with less feces spewing.