Peaceful honest people can lick it

[Liberal]

RT

Actually, Lib, no - you’ve never said that on any thread I’ve been on.

I doubt that’s true, unless I haven’t been on threads where you asked your question.

'Cause you see, I have heard the same bullshit questions from weekend ethics hacks for several years now. Yours is a stock one, and the answer I just gave you is my stock answer to it.

A libertarian whatever will have a strong military, and enforce peace and honesty - but what it consists of, well, depends, so we don’t know WTF it can enforce, do we?

It stands to reason that, as Phil understood, people who are defending their rights and property on principle, will put together as strong a military as they possibly can and will fight with all their heart for their freedom, which they value more than their lives.

There is precedence, you know, for David beating Goliath when men prefer death to no liberty.

Putz.

Asshole.

It must be fun to say, “here are the properties a libertarian ______ will have” (strong military, the ability to enforce peace and honesty), and then, when people ask how that will come to pass, you get to shrug your shoulders and say, “I dunno - libertarianism is just a context.”

Well, that’s what it is. It is a philosophy, stupid.

I’ve explained a thousand times that no matter what form it takes — monarchy, democracy, whatever — a government is libertarian if it secures the rights of its citizens.

It’s also intellectually dishonest.

A baseless and gratuitous assertion.

It all amounts to the same thing: magic will make it happen. It will happen because I say the words, and my intellect is above reality.

Those words reflect, not what I’ve said, but what little comprehension you have and what a teensy imagination you can muster.

People have tried to nail you down on the mechanics of how the things happen that you will say happen on a multitude of threads now; it’s really a kind of joke.

Yes, I know that you and one or two others hate me, but I don’t care.

Explaining one more time that it will work however people want it to work BECAUSE THEY ARE VOLUNTEERS probably wouldn’t sink in this time any more than the other times, so I won’t.

Be a mensch, for cryin’ out loud. Be a stand-up guy. Or admit that your whole ‘context’ is the Elven Fairy Dust Kingdom.

I don’t know what a mensch is.

The great irony is that libertarian accomodates even an irrascible curmudgeon like you. You can join together with other irrascible curmudgeons to torture and taunt each other with the very same moronic and tyrannical scenarios that you so dependably put forth so often.

[RTFirefly]

I doubt that’s true, unless I haven’t been on threads where you asked your question.

And who else would I have asked it of?

It stands to reason that, as Phil understood, people who are defending their rights and property on principle, will put together as strong a military as they possibly can and will fight with all their heart for their freedom, which they value more than their lives.

It also ‘stands to reason’ that a group of people who are in a ‘context’ where they can secede from one another over the slightest difference, will have to slap a military together at the last minute if there’s ever an outside threat. And the individual militaries of the various groups in the ‘context’ will spend half their time fighting each other, draining the resources of those in the ‘context.’

Lots of things ‘stand to reason.’ That doesn’t make 'em syllogistic proofs. We’ve been down that road already: people aren’t good syllogism material, once you get past ‘Bob is taller than John; John is taller than Fred.’

[Libertarianism] is a philosophy, stupid.

Which, right there, suggests that it is a bad basis for government.

I’ve explained a thousand times that no matter what form it takes — monarchy, democracy, whatever — a government is libertarian if it secures the rights of its citizens.

So? That means nothing. Every monarchy that’s ever been, every democracy that’s ever been, is tyrannical, according to you. So we’re talking about imaginary governments that exist in your airy ‘context.’ (Whatever you mean by a ‘context.’) You’ve explained nothing, other than to wave the magic wand again: these perfect governments will happen within this context, because Lib says they must. Appropriate for a guy who even makes God into a Libertarian.

(RTF) It’s also intellectually dishonest.
(Lib) A baseless and gratuitous assertion.

I think I’ve proven my assertion pretty well, thanks. But I couldn’t have done it without your help.

(RTF) People have tried to nail you down on the mechanics of how the things happen that you will say happen on a multitude of threads now; it’s really a kind of joke.

(Lib) Yes, I know that you and one or two others hate me, but I don’t care.

Well, you may interpret our attempts to nail you down on the mechanics of how a libertarian society would work as ‘hate’, but frankly that’s your problem.

I don’t know what a mensch is.

You can say that again.

[RTFirefly]

Lib - you know how you periodically whine that I’m stalking you around the board? This thread was going for a week before I posted. One post from me, and you’re here. :rolleyes:

---

Enough of voting for the lesser of evils - vote Cthulhu 2000!

[Alphagene]

Look, I’d honestly rather this thread die than have it sustained by Yet Another Libertarian Debate. Besides, it’d the wrong forum.

I hear there’s a GD topic or two that relates to Libertarianism! Yeah! Check it out!

---

Gypsy: Tom, I don’t get you.
Tom Servo: Nobody does. I’m the wind, baby.

[The_Asbestos_Mango]

you’re ignoring the most important point–“Libertarian and the Peaceful Honest People” would be a great name for a band.

Hey, cool. I’m packing up my bass. Where are the auditions being held?

---

The trouble with Sir Launcelot is by the time he comes riding up, you’ve already married King Arthur.

[Liberal]

RT

And who (sic) else would I have asked it of?

Like I care.

It also ‘stands to reason’ that a group of people who are in a ‘context’ where they can secede from one another over the slightest difference, will have to slap a military together at the last minute if there’s ever an outside threat.

What madness is this, this straw man conception of people willy nilly opting in and out of binding contracts?

And the individual militaries of the various groups in the ‘context’ will spend half their time fighting each other, draining the resources of those in the ‘context.’

While that might seem obvious to a man who thinks capitalism is a dirty word, there do exist those of us whose interest in socializing is to create commerce and make money. There are people who value freedom and its attending advantages.

The eternal squabbles you predict will likely go on among those of you who dispair over losing your fat nanny government to make your decisions for you.

Lots of things ‘stand to reason.’ That doesn’t make 'em syllogistic proofs.

[Yawn…]

Yes. I see that your posts are chock full of definitions, axioms, derived premises, and conclusions.

Let me see if I can follow your good example:

“Oh m’God! If men are free from the coercion and fraud of other men, a vortex of evil will begin to spin right in the heart of our society and pull us all into a flaming hell of eternal war!”

How’d I do?

Which [libertarianism being a philosophy], right there, suggests that it is a bad basis for government.

Yes, God knows what disaster might await a society whose law is based on good principle.

You’ve explained nothing, other than to wave the magic wand again: these perfect governments will happen within this context, because Lib says they must. Appropriate for a guy who even makes God into a Libertarian.

Well, I’ll give you that, at least.

It is true that if I pour water on a man’s head, I have done nothing to quench his thirst. For that purpose, I suppose I would have to take his hair, bend his head back, and pry open his mouth.

“They listen and listen, but do not hear. They look and look, but do not see.” — Jesus, the Libertarian God.

I think I’ve proven my assertion pretty well, thanks. But I couldn’t have done it without your help.

Don’t forget to mention me in your “little people” speech at the Lyndon Larouche Obfuscation Awards banquet.

Well, you may interpret our attempts to nail you down on the mechanics of how a libertarian society would work as ‘hate’, but frankly that’s your problem.

What problem? Your government has solved all our problems, hasn’t it?

Not yet? Oh, don’t worry. This new batch of public servants going in will surely get the job done this time.

You can say that again.

I don’t know what a mensch is.

[RTFirefly]

How’d I do?

Quite well, Lib. It’s almost like you’re posting in the Pit against your ownself - I hardly need to add anything.

---

Enough of voting for the lesser of evils - vote Cthulhu 2000!

[Liberal]

Well. [lighting cig…]

Was it good for you, too?

[RTFirefly]

Well, it all depends…do you prefer smooth peanut butter to crunchy, or vice versa?

---

Enough of voting for the lesser of evils - vote Cthulhu 2000!

[jab1]

Hey, Firefly, try this latest quote from Lib:

in Libertaria, there is only one law, and upon it all arbitration is based. There is no legislation.

Yeah, that would work! :rolleyes:

---

When all else fails, ask Cecil.

[Spiritus_Mundi]

Just don’t tell him his view of Libertaria is utopian. He really doesn’t like that.

---

The best lack all conviction
The worst are full of passionate intensity.
*

[RTFirefly]

Hell, his Libertaria makes most utopias look like the incarnation of realpolitik.

---

Enough of voting for the lesser of evils - vote Cthulhu 2000!

[foolsguinea]

“mensch” is Yiddish for “guy” or “decent chap” I think.

Hey, I used to be an anarchist!

Y’know, “libertarian” isn’t such a bad thing; I just don’t like lawless libertinism.

---

I’m a member of the Monarchist political party.