Lib, why are you such a prick?

The BBQ Pit
1

From this thread:

I was going to address Lib’s comments in that GD thread, but soon realized that I could not do so without making a personal attack. Thus this rant.

You could say that, but you’d be wrong. Very very wrong.

I honestly started this thread to fight my own ignorance. If you could be arsed to reread the OP, you’d see that I was asking an honest question. I was then pressed to give my own opinion, even though I had not truly formed one yet. So I did, based on the little information that I had. The philosophy of Lib’ism seemed to me at the time, as it does now, to not make much sense. That is my honest opinion, which I was asked for.

Suddenly I’m here to incite? To rant? Where the hell have I ranted? (OK, now, but where before this?) What in the holy name of fuck are you talking about with tail feathers?

Lib, this may come as a shock to you, but just because someone doesn’t fall to your feet and agree with you does not mean that person is ranting, nor does it mean that that person is incapable of thinking for himself. Surprise of surprises, “Thinking for yourself” is not synonymous with “Sucking Lib’s dick.”

You might want to review the purpose of this board. The purpose is to fight ignorance. You have used it primarily to judge others and to advance your own political agenda. And now, when I ask some honest questions about your political philosophy, you accuse me of inciting something?

While before I may have felt that Lib’ism may have had some merit, you give me the impression that one must not question it. This is a very poor advertisement of your so-called freedom of thought.

You’ve accused me of not being able to think for myself. I’d like to see a cite on that, you crazy fucknut.

Also, in your cite on charitable contributions made by Lib’ians, I have noted that “Although not all of these would describe themselves as libertarian, they are sufficiently pure in their mission to merit listing.” In other words, Lib’ians don’t have enough examples of charity from their own ranks, so they must co-opt others. And even then, the examples given are charities for drugs and guns. Conspicuous in their absences are words like “food bank” and “homeless shelter.”

In short, Lib’ism may have its merits. I’m still trying to figure it out. But if you are representative of the movement, one must conclude that Libs are insane, judgemental, assholes.

I trust that you are not representative of the movement.

Oh, and one more thing: Please change your user name back to the movement you claim to represent. You do all liberals a disservice with your present name.

2

I’ve got nothing against Lib (if that’s what we’re calling him now). But, I am curious about the name change.

Oh, and he was acting a bit rude in that GD thread. I didn’t see anything but noble intentions from the OP.

3

Thanks. I was honestly trying to ask an honest question. Lib’s comments were way out of line.

As for the name change, I gave you a link back in that thread. Basically it states that Lib is living in the 18th century.

4

I explained it [post=4870283]here[/post] when asked the same question:

The heart of liberalism is a belief in the intrinsic worth of every individual. Liberalism is poltical courage. It was liberals who abandoned their homes hundreds of years ago and journeyed to the New World. The hardships they endured for the sake of freedom are scarcely imaginable today. For them, hard work was noble, struggle was edifying, and success was not something given, but something earned by walking on the slippery and unforgiving stepping stones of failure. It was a liberal, Henry David Thoreau, who wrote, “If I knew for a certainty that a man was coming to my house with the conscious design of doing me good, I should run for my life.”

5

Got it. Thanks, both!

Why is it that I’m always the last person in the know around here? mumble grumble

6

We’d tell you why, but we wanted to make sure everyone else knew the answer before you did. :smiley:

7

The only problem that I have with this statement is that you could sub in any number of other socio-political systems and it would read the same.

‘Liberalism (Libertarianism nowadays) is poltical courage’?

Not for me. I’m looking for more of a cowardly system, myself. Maybe something with a sprinkling of Satanism, that promotes bad hygene as one of its central tenets?

No on ever claims to be against freedom. We just all have differeing views on 1) what freedom is, 2)what freedoms are essential, and 3) what freedoms we want to deny others.

The definition of the word Liberal has evolved. I consider myself a Liberal, and I cringe at what **Lib ** proposes as an alternative.

8

The irony, of course, is that libertarianism recognizes your authority to give or withhold your consent as you please. Therefore, freedom to look for a cowardly system is not a rejection of libertarianism but rather a manifestation of it.

Not quite right, I’m afraid:

“While the State exists, there can be no freedom. When there is freedom there will be no State.” — V. Lenin, “State and Revolution”, 1919

9

Except, he was denigrating the state, not freedom. Try reading it in context.

10

In other words - rah, rah, liberalism is all that is good and noble in the world. Don’t think about anything, just believe us. If you don’t agree with us, you hate freedom and can’t think for yourself.

Whatever.

11

I have. Many times. And in context, he says that once everyone is working for nothing and doing it gladly and voluntarily without thought of resistance such that it is assured they will never revert to capitalism again, then the state can disband. That is the status he called freedom. Meanwhile, the state is a necessary agent for forcing the populace into the groove. Or as he put it, “It follows that under communism there remains for a time not only bourgeois law, but even the bourgeois state, without the bourgeoisie!” In other words, mile-long lines for toilet paper.

12

[Long post abandoned, I’m giving up after years of coddling] The irony is that - despite your ideology - you seem incapable of taking other people’s views seriously. Fair dinkum, you cite Lenin’s views as a riposte to Stonebow? Haven’t you heard of withering away of the state? How thick are your ideological blinkers?

And the name change explanation? The first sentence is not consistent with the “rights are an aspect of property” approach you’ve espoused here for some time. The rest is just a wank.

I don’t see a righteous open-minded persuader in what you’ve posted recently, Lib. Even given that you’re a passionate man with little empathy.

I fucking give up.

13

Yes, but your original response was to Stonebow, who said that no-one ever claims to be against freedom.

You said this was wrong but, as your own analysis shows, Lenin had an idea of freedom towards which he was striving. He simply definied it differently than some people.

It seems to me that Stonebow’s point was about the rhetorical use of the term “freedom.” Even though we may all have different conceptions of what constitutes freedom, everyone is in favor of one sort of freedom or another, even if this is simply a rhetorical device designed to win other people over to your point of view.

14

I used to think of **Libertarian ** as an intelligent, passionate, honest, but misguided person. My respect for him, however has been gradually eroding. The egregious dishonesty of the name change, however, nails it: I now think of him as a fullon batshit wacko who has no contact with reality whatsoever. Sad, but perhaps inevitable: a full commitment to Libertarianism is wholly incompatible with a clear grasp of reality. But then, if we can refer to Philip Morris as Altria, we can call Libertarian Liberal.

15

If I were a vindictive person, I would make this my signature. Good thing I love Mary more than I hate Libertarianism (which is a lot).

16

I thought Lib’s post in the GD thread was pretty darn snarky, basically impying that a failure to agree with Libertarian ideas was a character flaw.

But hey, it was just one post and could have been dealt with pretty easily in that thread. Pit-worthy? I guess it’s in the eye of the beholder.

17

Now, Now. Lib clearly has his faults, but he is a decent person. I think a pile on is unbecoming. And this is a person that disagrees with most of his ideals.

18

I started my reply there, but then I realized that there was no way I could address him (in the mood I was in at the time) without getting in a few personal attacks. Rather than tone my post down to conform to forum rules, I decided to put it here and let the explitives fly. All three of them.

Granted, it was a pretty borderline decision.

19

First of all, faults? The guy clearly needs medication.

Second, despite my initial vitriol, this thread is pretty lame, as pile ons go. I’ll be surprised if it doesn’t fall off the board before the end of the day.

20

Even I disagree with most of my ideals.

Yes, but he defined it as commitment to the state, which itself he defined as an instrument of assimilation. It is like calling anti-abortionism “pro-life”.