Clinton was a touchy-feely-emotional liberal and if we didn’t have him in office and a calculating and rational libertarian instead we wouldn’t have witnessed the whole Lewinsky affair.
And look at all those Somalis who are becoming pirates. Which, as everyone knows, is the manliest profession.
Well, Grace O’Malley, Anne Bonny, Mary Read, Ching Shih, the Dragon Lady, the Surprisingly Curvaceous Pirate, and Johnny Depp aside.
Yeahhh…I’m just going to talk to someone else now.
Are you suggesting that merely admitting to the existence of emotions is irrational? Because I’m not sure how else to interpret this.
Good point. If only we’d had instead a small-government crusader like Mark Sanford in office…
He’s not libertarian. He’s conservative.
IceQube, is there any reason you’re avoiding my question?
Is running away from a simple question being asked of you a “manly, logical” thing to do? Or is cowering from a couple of words an emotional response?
According to Wikipedia, “The libertarian Cato Institute ranked Sanford as the best governor in America in their 2010 fiscal policy report card”.
Also he had an affair with a foreigner. That doesn’t quite fall under the category of rational given he had a wife.
That is nice, but we are not discussing Vulcans, the reality is that most of the examples pointed as being representatives of libertarianism are human after all.
I don’t know why I’m bothering but still:
Libertarianism isn’t about freedom. It’s about property rights. Libertarians are perfectly fine with the most grotesque perversions of freedom so long as property rights are preserved.
Would it have been more rational if the affair were with an American?
Yes, if we had had a libertarian president in office, he wouldn’t have been having affairs with women. He’d have had no interest in that feminine womanly stuff. He would have been doing manly he-man masculine things like reading body-builder magazines and watching gladiator movies and dressing up in leather and making the Marine guards feel uncomfortable with all those surprise locker room visits.
So who’s the libertarian archetype? Who is the example of the manly, non-gross-outable manly man that should be leading the country?
Ron Paul?
Libertarianism is strongly anti-freedom; it is anti-government, not pro-freedom and government is vital to freedom. It simply redefines non-government examples of oppression as not counting, and calls the result “freedom”. It’s basically neo-feudalism; a weak “king” in the form of the government, and a society of powerless serfs ruled over by “lords” in the form of corporations, the wealthy, religious organizations, and other non-government organization. And that’s assuming it holds together and doesn’t collapse into outright warlordism.
Have you never seen a picture of Milton Friedman shirtless?
Is that a threat?
Paul Ryan was held up as an example of a true libertarian, but ran a much slower marathon time than Harry Reid, Max Baucus and John Edwards. Does this refute the “manly libertarian” hypothesis or does it mean that Edwards and Reid are secret libertarians?
I hear he’s going to be played by Hugh Jackman in the movie Uncle Milty Goes to Washington.
I’m gonna go ahead and call this thread a wash. The OP has shown no intent to debate the points, has done nothing to address any questions of objections lodged, and instead has opted for, well…
…We done here? IceQube, you’d do well to look up FDR’s four freedoms. In particular the third; libertarianism fails massively.