Sorry, but that wouldn’t be fair to him or me. Either apologize or don’t.
I don’t honestly believe that Lib was responding to my rudeness, in the main.
I’m intellectually curious about libertarianism, as I am about all thought and philosophy. I would love to have a mature, dignified conversation about libertarian’s professed belief that the moral choice between spending on AIDS or war should be answered with the response that the money should go back into the taxpayers’ pockets.
My style is somewhat confrontatinal and socratic, though, so those who would take aggressive questions as personal attacks, rather than as honest probing, should be forwarned.
Nogginhead
I do not mind an aggressive question. I ask them myself. But I do mind a complex question that demands a birfucated answer. I simply will not put up with it. Once you have apologized for your characterizations of me as corrupt, evasive, and shallow, our dialog can begin.
To facilitate matters and meet you halfway, I hereby apologize to you for calling you all these names in the Pit. My exasperation got the best of me.
I have apologized for rudeness in GD. There, I called Lib’s system shallow and corrupt. I would, really, truly, in my deepest heart, love to have a mature conversation about his statements that lead me to that conclusion.
On the other hand, I believe the personal attacks and blatant misrepresentation of my perspective in this pit thread are themselves now evidence of shallowness and corruption on a personal level.
I’ll retract that statement if Lib will admit he attacked on a personal level in an intellectually unfair way on this thread.
And all rudeness or grudges for same on both sides erased for all time.
I’ll accept that. Thank you. I apologize in return for name-calling. For some reason I felt I should defend myself. 
::buries hatchet::
Now, where were we? How shall we continue this? Back in GD? Would you prefer to start the thread?
Be my guest.
[obligatory whining about the Pit turning into the Old Ladies’s Sewing Circle]
Seriously, though, successful conflict resolution is cool.
As I look back, I see that I was also very mean several times, on top of name-calling. I apologize for that as well. I must have been very angry.
A> Now, as I see it, I’m trying to find out how libertarianism would direct public policy, given your money has been taken from you. You would like it to go back into your pocket.
Fair enough?
I accept this as a theoretical, idealistic goal, but not as a practical one in our current world.
Thus the issue from my perspective is to question the perspective of libertarianism on public policy given not only that your money is out of your pocket (as above) but also that it ain’t going back in there, in the real world.
Is that a discussion we can have? I would consider it very educational. Or is there a different direction you would prefer to go from A?
It will be exceedingly difficult. Libertarianism does not really address such issues as public policy. Perhaps the best way to go is to start at the root fundamentals, such as “what is libertarianism?”, “what sorts of issues does it address?”, that sort of thing.
Wow. Well, shitfire, Lib, are you telling us you think libertarianism is unrelated to reality? Why have you been arguing with those who try to tell you so, then?
Elvis, libertarianism does not include in its scope of governmental responsibilities anything more than the protection of its citizens from initial force. Public policy is left to the public.
Have you not paid attention in the “sentient squid owns rights to all roads leading to water supplies” threads?
No, I’m not telling you that I think libertarianism is unrelated to reality. I’m telling you that it does not really address such issues as public policy. Thank you for not translating the Bible.
Oops, sorry, Xeno. I didn’t see in time that you had already answered. Thanks.
Sigh … silly me, thinking that the government is the means by which the public sets and implements public policy. Why is it that almost everyone in the world is as dense as I, absolutely refusing to understand, after so much patient explanation?
Could there be a problem with the concept itself, perhaps?
What is it that you’re having trouble with? Is it that you think your (and my) preference for government as the means for implementing public policy is the only possible method? Or that you think libertarians don’t understand their own political philosophy?
Honestly Elvis, it’s possible to believe that libertarianism is not a good fit for real societies at our present levels of technology and social development, while accepting libertarianism as a well-developed political philosophy. Try it for a while; I have confidence in your ability to do this.
No, it’s that when you have created a system for deciding upon and implementing public policy, it is government. Nowhere have I seen a thoughtful explanation to the contrary, that goes beyond claiming “Well, you see, government is coercive and tyrannical, but the thing we’re proposing instead wouldn’t be. No, I’m not saying what it would be, that’s for the public to decide”.
That doesn’t even begin to address reality. The insistence of self-described libertarians on claiming there is a difference at all between the system they want and the system that already is, much less a difference worth creating a belief system out of, can be amusing. Yet, despite that and libertarianism’s lack of applicability to “real societies at our present levels of technology and social development” (your words, above), you call it “a well-developed political philosophy”. Hah. Here’s a hint: If it can’t point toward answers to even the most basic problems, it isn’t developed at all, and can fairly be described as fantasy.
Or try this: In your considered view, then, after all this time, has your philosophy failed to convince any significant numbers of people outside the “none of the above” crowd and the “cut my taxes” crowd? Is the rest of the world just too stupid or obstinate to understand and accept your brilliance, or is there a fundamental problem along the lines I’ve just suggested to you?
I can point toward lots of answers to my own problems. In fact, given the freedom, I could implement them. But if you turn over to me or any other man the authority to solve your problems, you are a fool.
“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.” — Henry David Thoreau, Walden.
Libertarianism is not a system of government. Even if you say that it is a hundred times, it still isn’t. It is a political philosophy that provides a context of peace (no initial force) and honesty (no initial fraud). It is amenable to any arbitrary system of government. It doesn’t even pretend to solve people’s problems.
Whether authoritarian government actually does solve people’s problems, despite its manifest intention to do so, is another debate — one that anti-libertarians like yourself scrupulously avoid.
Thanks for confirming what I have said, Lib. Instead of actually providing answers to the most elementary questions, you simply suggest that anyone who might disagree is a fool.
Dismissed.
Elvis, were you teased a lot in school?
Well, Andros, I was teased a lot. Let’s see… Sharon teased me. Then, Rhonda, And then… Oh, wait. You meant… 