Dewey cheats them and how

Dear persona non grata,

From this thread:

Let me just state up front that the reason I don’t respond to you in Great Debates is because I don’t like you. I don’t respect you. I think you’re a creep. In other words, I don’t respond to you for the exact same reasons that you do respond to me.

Yeah, I know. You said before that you do respect me, but you were lying. Respect is as respect does. Everything you post to me (which will likely include everything in this thread) is testament to your dishonesty. You treat me like I am a throw rug. You talk down to me like I am a witless student in your grand Straight Dope class.

You purposely use a term that I begged you not to use because I find it derogatory. You continue using it nevertheless, mumbling something about how a utopia is merely an ideally perfect place. You pretend that there is not a second definition that says it is an impractical, idealistic scheme.

You might be a creep, but you’re not stupid. You use the term because you hope that the second definition will shine through as the brighter edge of your double-edged sword.

I am indeed famous for cherry-picking. At least I hope I am. Cherry-picking is what discerning people do. It’s a matter of picking out what is good, right, and true while discarding what is worthless, wrong, and meaningless. And I choose to discard you and the gang-rapes that you call debates.

I don’t begrudge your having a big dick. I merely begrudge your slamming it into my ass whenever you sense that I am already deluged with more dicks than I can handle. You seem to like your assholes pre-reamed.

I’ve never ducked a question. A question (singular). I don’t mind answering the most ridiculous hypotheticals imaginable. In fact, I welcome them because they illustrate to what depths you have to sink in order to find something that you believe will damn the notion that peaceful honest people should be free to pursue their own happiness in their own way.

When I do duck out is when I cannot handle — not the questions, but the sheer number of questions. Or when the questions are dishonestly derived and disingenuous. Or when they are repeats of the same questions already answered. Or when they are Pit-type questions that you post in Great Debates.

You have zero respect for me and for my philosophy, your pretense otherwise notwithstanding. You don’t really want your questions answered. What you want is your grandstanding observed. And that’s exactly what you get, so you ought to be as satisfied as a pig in a pile of slop.

You prattle on as though Libertaria were some nightmarish application of social anarchy. You do this even while countless people live out real nightmares in the Ameritopia that you champion.

You conjure up the notion that in Libertaria, children will need to be tied to leashes because of neighborhood beartraps and present this caricature as a legitimate concern. You ignore what has already been explained about excessive force being coercive force and children being incapable of giving meaningful consent, thereby holding them exempt from liability.

More importantly, you imply by condemning the Nocoercion Principle that all is well in Ameritopia with children. But alas, all is not well. While you prattle on about imaginary nightmares, real children are living out real nightmares.

In Ameritopia, children are abused, trampled, neglected, and even altogether lost. People in Ameritopia give more concern to the obligations of owning a new car than they do to the obligations of raising a child. But this doesn’t bother you, or at least you express no concern. What bothers you is that parents might actually be held responsible for the well-being of their children, and you consider such an exercise of responsibility to be onerous and impractical. And so it goes with all your pretentious drivel about the supposed shortcomings of my inoffensive philosophy.

The great irony, of course, is that America was conceived and founded on the very principles that I espouse — liberty, pursuit of happiness, and the legitimacy of government by the sacred consent of free people. But America is dead. Lawyers and politicians destroyed her by shoving their big dicks so far up her ass that she gasped her last breath a long time ago. What has taken her place is a sick, chain-smoking expedience whore, whose bloated tits are sucked dry by delinquent, snotty brats. Welcome to Ameritopia.

I have had many debates with opponents of libertarianism, including Xeno, Eris, Fenris, Gadarene, and many others. They have been respectful discussions among peers. These good people did not come into the debates with words and phrases designed to offend. They did not play the role of “I know the law and you’re an idiot.” They understood that law is a branch of ethics, and that I am entitled to hold and defend an ethic that differs from theirs.

I just wanted you to know (as I suspect you already know despite your Neanderthal chest thumping) that I do not avoid you because you are smart, or because your arguments are compelling, or because you ask questions that I cannot answer. I avoid you simply for the same reason that I avoid any sanctimonious prick.

In fact, it isn’t even for your benefit that I’m opening this thread. It is for the benefit of people who, because they are not privvy to your history and techniques, might actually take you seriously when you accuse me of ducking questions. I don’t give a rat’s ass what you think. But I do care what they might think.

Here. You can have your shitty dick back.



Do you really want to do this Lib? The last time you Pitted me, it didn’t really go your way.

More in a bit.

You don’t have to like me to answer my questions. I’d hope you’d be more interested in explaining and defending your philosophy than in holding on to petty grudges.**

Dare I ask…cite?

I mean, really. I’m a pretty evenhanded poster. Go look at the GD thread on the Estrada nomination; outside of a little testiness with December, it is a productive and polite discussion with people I disagree with on a fundamental level. **

As discussed before, “Libertopia” is neither derogatory nor inaccurate. You don’t get to be the sole arbiter of terms, you know.**

“Gang-rapes”? I’m just one guy!

And if I ask a lot of questions, it’s because I’ve got a big backlog of them that you’ve refused to answer over time. **

…Or when they are legitimate followups to your earlier answers. You think anyone who doesn’t get down on bended knee and sing the hosannas of Libertarianism after your first “answer” is being disingenuous.

There is a name for people who refuse to answer followup questions clearly and concisely: White House Press Secretary. Ari Fleischer would be proud. **

I have plenty of respect for small-l libertarianism; as I’ve said many times, I think libertarianist thought offers a good tool for policy analysis. I even think there is a valid strain of less-radical large-L Libertarianism that favors a combination of the private sector and local government for almost all things. What I do have a problem with is the ideologically radical vision of Libertopia you describe; I see many problems with it and intend to point those problems out whenever I can. **

I never claimed the status quo was perfect; I just claimed that radical Libertopianism would make certain things worse. **

Well, yes, I am bothered by a philosophy that requires parents to tie their children to the front porch like dogs lest they amble onto the neighbor’s bear trap.

Cite for when I’ve ever done this?

Well, let’s let them decide for themselves, shal we?


Oct. 2002
Short Story: Riboflavin the Murderer, by Libertarian.

Nonfiction: Libertarianism and Coercion, by Riboflavin.

Humor: Blue-Skinned Libertarians, by Milt.

Nov. 2002
Nonfiction: Libertarians and the Electorate, a collaborative work.

Dec. 2002
My Foray into the Nuances of Libertarianism:
A play in three acts starring Dewey, Lib, and several other Dopers.
Act I – BBQ Pit
Act III – BBQ Pit Revisited
Epilogue – GD

Short Story: The Freedom Paradox, by Blaron

Jan. 2003
Nogginhead the Inquisitive:
A one-act play with the usual cast.
The Play

Short Story: Culture Asks Some Questions, by culture.

Feb. 2003
Short Story: Libertarianism and the Children, by drachillix.

The Sucks Cycle:
Riboflavin Sucks, by Libertarian.
Dewey Sucks, by Libertarian.

Way to cross-post. Gah. You still don’t get it, do you?

Gathering troops for a gang-bang, posturing for vindication, kicking dirt in people’s faces — these are things that you value. I don’t care if you do what you always do. I already predicted in the OP that you would.

I just wanted to say my piece. And I did. Feel free to make it into the Dewey Show. It already stinks because it’s tainted by references to you.

And so, yet again, Lib starts something and fails to finish it.

Libertarian, I hope you will not take offense at this suggestion, but maybe you could use a break from the board for a little while?

You’ve started 3 Pit threads about 3 different people in the last five days. I don’t have any opinion on whether or not they are deserved, as I’ve not read the ‘inspiring’ threads. I just think this indicates that you are feeling frustrated and overwhelmed, and a break would do you some good.

Whether you are being unfairly targeted or you yourself have gotten touchy, a few days of vacation should cool everyone down a little bit. Please give the idea some consideration.

I will, Coosa. Thanks! :slight_smile:

Lib, I fully agree with coosa. I don’t always agree with your posts, I don’t agree with libertarianism, but we need you around here. I’ve been around here long enough to know when someone’s getting close to cracking. Three Pit threads in five days is a real red flag.

You can even call truces in Libertaria or Libertopia (“mutual protection contracts,” as Leonard Liggio might call them). IANA Moderator, but let’s settle down a bit here, huh?

How true to form, you are. I did finish it. You just think something isn’t finished until you’ve extracted blood. You’re the pied-piper, and if there are no rats around, you conclude they’ve all abandoned you.

Duke, Coosa

I’m fine. Honest. But thank you from the bottom of my heart.

Yeah Dewey, you’ve been boortzed.

Boortz (v) to assign evil motives to political opponents.

Do feel sorry for ScoobyTX, caught in the middle of a children’s playground during a mud slinging contest.

Now I know why my brother, who spends his vacations searching for Bigfoot, is a Libertarian. He’s looking for a civilization with sole. But all he finds are heels.

You’re far from fine, Lib.

And the next time you get up on your Christian horse, I hope somebody directs you to this thread.

Jeez, someone’s going loopy. You can’t just fling a rant like the petulant toss of a Nerf ball and then bail out of any response. Well, you can, but it makes you look like even more of what Dewey accuses you of: someone who can’t stand up to any inconvenient questioning. In debating, “scoring a point” or “making an argument that is difficult to respond to” != “extracting blood.” Or “garg rape” :rolleyes:

I gotta say, Lib, I have a good deal of respect for both you and DCU, and some of your comments, IMHO, in this thread overall and specifically in the OP were unfounded unless one takes an extreme apologist’s view at your exchanges with DCU.

And what Duke and coosa said … take a breather, go for a walk outside, something that doesn’t involve the board. You seem to do well after such absences … you might try to plan them in. Might prevent a meltdown of sorts:)

God go with you, my friend. When you’re on your form, you’re difficult to catch up to:) When you’re not, however (and I think this is an example of such), it can get a bit less enjoyable to discuss anything with you.


We share parts of a philosophy and have debated them in the past. We exchanged remarks of respect.

But I do think, from time to time, you duck question or respond with irrelevancies when asked legitimate questions.

I hope you’ll take that as constructively as I mean it. Nothing good will come of having a zillion threads from you and about you in the pit. Haven’t we sung this song too often?

What would you have me respond to, Matt?

He says that I am holding a petty grudge. And it isn’t petty at all to me. It’s petty to him. And since it’s petty to him, it’s petty definitively. That’s what he does. He declares that his questions and concerns are important, but mine are not. I submit that he is not great and I am not petty.

He says that he wants me to defend my philosophy. And yet he characterizes my philosophy as chaining children to porches, a confabulation that is totally invented by him. Would you defend something as if it were your philosophy if it were characterized that way?

He points to a rational and respectful discussion that he is having with others (although he admits to being “testy” with December). He submits this as evidence that he can be respectful. And yet, he is not respectful with me. I know respect when I see it. All he did was dig his hole deeper. He proved that he can show respect, but he has not explained why I have never deserved any of it.

He still says that he means no harm by “Libertopia”. And I know a lie when I see it, too. If he meant no harm, if it’s all the same to him, he would use the term “Libertaria” as it has been used here for more than three years. He uses the term for no reason other than he knows that I don’t like it.

He says he has a backlog of questions, as though he is my professor and I am behind on his test. I could ask him a thousand questions about the pitfalls and shortcomings of his legal system, but then I would be as disingenuous as he. It is one thing to ask questions because there is something you don’t understand. It is quite another to ask questions that are designed to obfuscate the issue and paint noncoercion as coercion.

He says that I disdain anyone who does not bend down to libertarianism. That’s another lie. Ask Xeno whether I disdain him. Ask Eris. Ask yourself whether I disdain you.

He admits that he has a problem with me personally, and my philosophy in particular. He unwittingly admits that he ridicules it as “Libertopia” merely because he considers it to be “radical”. Do you consider me to be a radical man? Did you know that if you needed a dollar, I would give you my last one? Do radical men put into practice what they espouse?

He responds to my question about abandoned and abused children in reality by dismissing the question altogether. He says he never claimed his “system” is perfect. But when have I ever claimed that Libertaria is perfect? Can you point to even one time? And yet, he insists that I take his bait, respond to his intentionally stupid questions about imaginary things, and he will not respond to questions about something real.

He says he cannot recall when he ever lectured me about the law. Incredibly, he will spare no effort to research the past in order to try to incriminate me, and yet he has no interest in whether or not I feel slighted and abused by him.

My complaint in the OP was that he claimed to respect me but is lying. Do you see any sign of respect? If I have overlooked one, I will consider it. I need not defend a rant. I respond now only out of respect to you, not him.

Take away from this whatever you wish, Matt. But you’ve known me for quite a while. And although I am a bit fiery from time to time, when have you ever known me to refuse an apology or an attempt to heal differences? When?

And if he offered it now, I would join with him in putting our differences behind us. But he has no interest in that. It is more fun to him to continue as he is doing. He has already said what he will do. He will continue to call Libertaria Libertopia. He will continue to single me out as the one person who deserves no respect. He will continue to see me as a worthless radical.

So what would you have me respond to, Matt?

Pun and Jon

Thanks so much! Your concern means a lot to me. Frankly, if I saw that someone said of you in Great Debates that you dodge them because you fear them or they’re smarter than you or you’re famous for ducking out, I would be here defending you with guns ablazing. Nobody accuses my friends of what I know is a lie.


Thanks, but I already know that I fall far short of knowing how to love. It won’t hurt my feelings if you point that out. As I’ve always said, learning how to love is what I’m here for, and I have a long ways to go.

I’m not Matt, but I’d like to give you a suggestion, as a friend. Respond to Dewey as if you are blind and deaf to his offensive characterizations, and as if you were considering his ideas the way you’d test drive a car. It took me a long time to learn to listen to what you were saying, instead of how you were saying it. You’ve called me (or more precisely, people who practice the political philosophy I prefer) “tyrant”, “jackbooted thug” and worse. Once I started considering why it is you think of me this way, I was able to accept the realities of my own convictions. Now that I’m trying to do the same with everyone else, I’m finding that my own message has become clearer as a result, and I can justify my own choice of vehicles.

I don’t deny that DCU actively tries, on occasion, to be offensive to you. I do submit, however, that the cleverest thing for you to do is pretend that he has not succeeded. I know you’re unafraid of ideas, and that it’s the insults against what you see as a simple and self evident defense of rights which get you upset. Ignore the stones thrown; if they do no damage to your beliefs, what do they matter? Deal with the thrower of stones as if he were offering you gifts. Sometimes they are gifts.
This cheek-turning is all very difficult to do my friend, and I can rarely do it. I hope you are more successful at it than I am.