Well, all I saw happening in the thread is that Minty and December were having one of the usual sorts of Minty/December conversations, in which Minty patiently explains things to December and then December says, “Yes, but…” and brings up something else, and then Minty patiently explains it, and then December says, “Yes, but…” and brings up something else, and then Minty patiently explains that, and I was just settling in for a long GD thread with the Ranch Flavor Corn Nuts safely esconced in my lap, when Lib butted in with a totally snotty remark and sent Corn Nuts flying everywhere. Egad.
Thank you, Scylla. When my evil plan for world domination finally comes to fruition, I assure you that you will be spared from my righteous wrath. I’m just an old softie that way. 
Spavined Gelding, unless the random lawyer-bashing asshole has the guts to make a substantive point instead of just spewing bile, I happily shrug it off as beneath both contempt and response. That’s why I was shocked to see it from Libertarian, who is decidedly not some random jerk with more bile than brains. Hell, I’m not even mad at the guy, I just want an explanation.
Cervaise, I’m pretty much right there with you. I value the guy and his philosophical perspective, even though I disagree with most of the details.
Duckie, I find that if you have a dog, Corn Nuts cleanup is a snap. And Ranch Flavor is far and away the best Corn Nuts flavor. Once again, your taste is impeccable.
Yup, Daisy the Beagle was in heaven, and she has Lib to thank.
Libertarian killed your dog?! :eek:
To my friend, Minty:
It wasn’t personal. You just happened to be there when I exploded. That’s unfortunate, and I apologize for offending you. I should have been more considerate of your presence.
I realize that my worldview — a custom blend of Christianity, Libertarianism, and Objectivism — can be difficult for someone else to appreciate. After all, someone else isn’t me, and doesn’t see through my eyes. My fervent hope is someday to arrive at the point where I can see something like, “You know, Lib, I disagree with you, but if I were to reason from your same axioms, I would come to your same conclusion.”
Who’s to blame that I’m not at that place? I am, of course. I’m simply not willing to restate the entire deduction set every time a newbie wanders in and goes, “Huh? What the hell are you talking about? A retail license is tyrannical?”
It is unfortunate for you that the most recent time that I encountered someone so thoroughly oblivious to the philosophical ethics of politics, it happened to be a lawyer. As you know, I reason that rights accrue to property ownership. Surprisingly, in ordinary discourse, people generally allow the same thing. Robert Johnson, for example, has purchased an NBA team for Charlotte. Even in the popular press, that event has been described as “buying the rights”. So, there is a general understanding that owning the property equates to owning the rights. Thus, rights and property are synonyms.
I believe that it is the absolutism, and not the general gist, of the application of that principle that bothers some people. But when the principle is extended to property of any kind, including a person’s life, mind, and body, there accrues to every man certain fundamental rights that are bestowed by either nature or His God: that he may pursue his own happiness in his own way, living his life however he chooses; that he may offer or withhold his consent, using his mind as he sees fit; and that he may exist in a context of freedom from the coercion of other men, being secure in the knowledge that his body is safe from harm.
I believe that men are not prone naturally to recognize the rights of other men, and therefore advocate a government whose sole purpose is to enforce noncoercion. That leaves men free to use (or not) the original property with which they are born to acquire peacefully and honestly additional property that is more mundanely understood to be property proper. That is, they may work with their bodies and their minds to improve their lives.
I have no illusions that such a government will ever be implemented. It is too threatening to men who would rather acquire rights and property through force, intimidation, and tyranny, believing as they do that might makes right. And such men are ubiquitous.
But among people here at Straight Dope, people with incredible intelligence and insight, I do expect at least an acknowledgment that I am not insane, and that my libertarianism is logically derived. Instead, I often encounter outright hostility, as though I am some wild man who lives in the wilderness on locusts and honey, and drops in on occasion, eyes bulging, arms flailing, to blow snot and spout doomsday rhetoric. Either that, or the even worse condescension that I am a man with a noble idea that might work in theory but is not practical.
And yet I tell you that whatever is practical depends entirely on what men are practicing. What will work is thoroughly tied to what men are working on. If they are practicing tyranny, then they will need a philosophy that will allow them eminent domain over the property of other men. If they are working on usurpation, then they will need a philosophy that will allow them to claim ethical authority over people beneath them.
But when I advocate libertarianism, I am advocating the practice of voluntary relations among free people in a context of peace and honesty. When I invoke the Noncoercion Principle, I am working on the basis of man’s sacred consent. In my many years of study in this matter, I have yet to hear one person explain why I should discard the inoffensive notion that peaceful honest people ought to be free to pursue their own happiness in their own way.
I speak out as I do because I believe in the depths of my soul that it is a voice that needs to be heard. I realize that I should temper my voice with patience and tolerance for those who might be unfamiliar with the axiomatic basis of my worldview. I know that in seeking to espouse an inoffensive philosophy, I too often offend. And yet, when I am told that my philosophy is “idiocy”, when I encounter arguments about Giant Squids arising from the ocean floor to reclaim their ancient property, when I receive the question as to whether a man may run naked through “public places” in “Libertopia” — I am like any man. I get angry.
The law is a subset of ethics. And ethics is a subset of philosophy. Libertarianism is, in fact, a philosophy of ethics. Just because I don’t believe that rights come from the whims of magistrates, or from scribbles in ancient documents, or from decisions made by men who view themselves as personified institutions (…this court rules that…) — that does not mean that I am ignorant of law, or that I do not understand law, or that I have no place in commenting on law. It simply means that the kind of law that I advocate is different from the kind you do.
If you believe that your life came from the Congress, then thank Congress for your rights. But if you believe in God, then thank God for your rights, since it was by His hand that you became an owner when you were born. If you don’t believe in God, then credit nature for your rights. Every right you have is an extension of your original property — your precious life. Credit your rights to that entity from which you believe your life emerged.
I don’t do drive-by posts. If I’m not allowed to comment based upon my worldview, then I might as well be banned. If it is definitively a hijack every time someone says, “Here’s another way to look at things…”, then I submit that every thread in Great Debates is a veritable cesspool of ambush and misappropriation. I want to be free, so long as I respect the rights of the board owners, to express myself and share my point of view. And although I appreciate disagreement, I do not appreciate ridicule. Nor do I appreciate a standard that says liberal and conservative views are on topic while libertarian views are hijacks.
You are right to be bewildered by the post you’ve cited. I regret that you were the object of my frustration. If I had it to do over, I would make certain that my phrasing left you with the understanding that you were not being personally attacked. Meanwhile, you will have to settle for this, my formal apology.
God go with you, Minty, in your pursuit of an enlightened ethic.
I don’t want to re-start a settled argument between the two of us, Lib, I tend to believe you. It still seems to me that a quite few people might disagree with your statement. 
“quite a few”. grr.
And you say the British are good at insults? That was a direct hit, below waterline, all hands lost remark if ever I saw one.
I reviewed the threads presently showing on the first page of Great Debates. For the threads in which I have posted, the average has been 8 posts, the median 6. Kindly admit your error in perception.
Promptly admitted.
Lib, I have no problem with your worldview, though I certainly disagree with the bulk of it. When you take the time to explain either your philosophy or its application to a particular instance, I usually pay attention. I value your unique perspective on life, which at the very least . So please do not take this as criticism of your worldview. I would no sooner slam you for your political philosophy than I would for your religious faith.
My problem with your post is not that it revealed your perspective, but that it revealed nothing other than your disdain for lawyers and the legal system. Okay, fine, you have major issues with the philosohical bases of the law, the people who make the law based on that philosophy, and the people whose job it is to make the laws work for their clients. I can handle that quite well, thank you.
Your post, however, made clear your ire without any sort of explanation or contextualization. It was the equivalent of dropping by a Lord of the Rings discussion in Cafe Society to announce, in a single line, that Tolkien sucks and all his fans are deluded sycophants. Ummm, okay, great, that was helpful. Maybe next time you could take the trouble to explain why Tolkien is so overrated and why we’d all be better off reading Toni Morrison?
Nevertheless, I have long regarded you as a friend on this board, and I continue to regard you as such. I thank you for your explanation, and am hopeful that our misunderstanding is corrected. Are we good here, pal?
“which at the very least prompts me to examine the bases of my own beliefs.” Sheesh.
Is this custom blend available at Starbucks?
Minty
I hope so.
Jackmannii
When I’m there, it is.
Would a passing moderator kindly lock this up? Thank you.
We have a “near-exclusive” lock? Woo Hoo!
Hey wait-- who are we sharing our lock with?
After you are done fashioning your tinfoil hat, could you let me know so I can sue them?
:rolleyes:
Sorry Minty, I saw this after my first post.
No apology necessary, elf6c.
I would like to protest the near-exclusive lock that moderators have on locking threads…
:d&r:
Done.