Well, Lib, I don’t really understand why you are making my point for me, but Single Dad’s post was exactly what I referred to in my post on the other thread. What I said was (I won’t repeat myself exactly because I understand that the mods frown on reposting) that when faced with a reasonable objection, which in SD’s post was that under certain circumstances, such as in an isolated desert town, whoever controls a scarce and vital resource, such as water, can end up controlling everything, instead of making an attempt to reply to the objection, you came up with a strawman who owns all the water in the world, and have been sneering ever since at the foolishness of your strawman.
You have done the same with the donut question, (what prevents an "entrepreneur " who wants land that I don’t want to sell from buying the access to my property and then refusing my use of the access until I sell out at whatever price he offers?); with questions about who decides what discipline is proper for children- (does society have in interest in preventing parents who believe in Biblical standards of childraising from sending their children to school covered in what the Bible calls “stripes”?) and with a host of other questions, which if you insist I will look up and enumerate.
As to whether you have heard “the one about the man who owns all the water in the world” somewhere outside the SDMB, I have no opinion, and I expressed no opinion. In the other thread, you used that exact phrase in a manner that seemed obviously refering to the SDMB, which is why I called you on it.
Now you’re doing it again. Sake Samurai’s post offers an important objection to your brand of Libertarianism, and “Huge, powerful private private monopolies WILL control every …utility” does not equal “the one about the man who owns all the water in the world.” I happen to agree with SS, and if you disagree then argue against his post, not against your own strawman.
I did not insult you personally, and if you want to call me a liar kindly take it to the Pit. I did say that you continually use strawman arguments. That means that you attribute a position to your opponent that they don’t hold. Claiming that someone says something that they didn’t say is a false statement. A false statement
is, in essence, a lie. We can call it sophistry instead of “in essence, a lie” if that makes you feel better.
And I still would like to know why you feel that sophistry is necessary to defend Libertarianism.