Ron Paul Rises

[Mazmaz]

There was laws that said you can't have buttsex? What if it was hetero buttsex?

[Churchill]

It's awfully entertaining to watch your ignorant buffoonery bleed through between the blatant trolling.

Libertarianism was called a cult, and in another remark a set of economic principles. Guartz simply proved you were wrong as Libertarian principles apply to those who don't even associate themselves with it and clearly understand very little if anything about it.

What's sad is Kuya and your apparent hatred for something (again) you clearly don't understand is extremely similar to what you hear from a Neocons mouth about the next big threat or person we need to kill. The difference being that your type of thought process, mentality, is much scarier. You know where a Neocon stands, you know they are fucking crazy and ignorant. "Liberals" (and I strongly emphasize the quotations) whose pretense is peace, human rights, economic fairness who hold such hatred for others so vehemently are much more dangerous than a man who clearly outlines that he is a fucking nutcase. Our current President is a great example: a man guilty of murder, treason, and pandering to those influences which consist of countries not the US and money not belonging to taxpayers paid through taxes.

None of this matters anyway, the response is going to be bullshit trolling from a fucking monkey with a patriots signature.

[Andalusian girls]

There was laws that said you can't have buttsex? What if it was hetero buttsex?

the laws made no distinction

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_v._Texas

[guartz]

it makes perfect sense but the primary motivation for marriage equality is a desire for equality not a mistrust of any coercive action by the government

you could argue the latter is what is impeding the former but the coercive power of the federal government is the only thing that will force states to grant full marriage rights to homosexuals, much as only the coercive power of the federal government was able to end slavery / segregation / anti-sodomy laws / miscegenation / child labor etc, etc

That's a good argument, it gave me pause for a second. I'll reply like this; Is it coercion to stop a rapist from raping? It certainly is for the rapist, but since the rapist initiated aggression it is fully within moral possibility to use coercion to stop him. Which still falls under libertarian moral principles, and my assertion still stands for the Queen of Libertarians.

[Demosthenes11]

It's awfully entertaining to watch your ignorant buffoonery bleed through between the blatant trolling.

Libertarianism was called a cult, and in another remark a set of economic principles. Guartz simply proved you were wrong as Libertarian principles apply to those who don't even associate themselves with it and clearly understand very little if anything about it.

What's sad is Kuya and your apparent hatred for something (again) you clearly don't understand is extremely similar to what you hear from a Neocons mouth about the next big threat or person we need to kill. The difference being that your type of thought process, mentality, is much scarier. You know where a Neocon stands, you know they are fucking crazy and ignorant. "Liberals" (and I strongly emphasize the quotations) whose pretense is peace, human rights, economic fairness who hold such hatred for others so vehemently are much more dangerous than a man who clearly outlines that he is a fucking nutcase. Our current President is a great example: a man guilty of murder, treason, and pandering to those influences which consist of countries not the US and money not belonging to taxpayers paid through taxes.

None of this matters anyway, the response is going to be bullshit trolling from a fucking monkey with a patriots signature.

ahahahahahaha go fuck yourself

[Churchill]

lol^

[Jeryhn]

Our current President is a great example: a man guilty of murder, treason, and pandering to those influences which consist of countries not the US and money not belonging to taxpayers paid through taxes.

Pretty lofty claims. Just curious, are you currently still in the active armed forces or currently subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice?

[Demosthenes11]

Pretty lofty claims. Just curious, are you currently still in the active armed forces or currently subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice?

whoa, you calling someone full of shit is lihitlerally worse than hitler. just ask churchill

[Kuya]

ok ok, all joking aside. You see now that libertarianism is a set of principles that apply even to people who don't associate themselves with it, or more frankly, don't fully know what it is.

It's awfully entertaining to watch your ignorant buffoonery bleed through between the blatant trolling.

Libertarianism was called a cult, and in another remark a set of economic principles. Guartz simply proved you were wrong as Libertarian principles apply to those who don't even associate themselves with it and clearly understand very little if anything about it.

What's sad is Kuya and your apparent hatred for something (again) you clearly don't understand is extremely similar to what you hear from a Neocons mouth about the next big threat or person we need to kill. The difference being that your type of thought process, mentality, is much scarier. You know where a Neocon stands, you know they are fucking crazy and ignorant. "Liberals" (and I strongly emphasize the quotations) whose pretense is peace, human rights, economic fairness who hold such hatred for others so vehemently are much more dangerous than a man who clearly outlines that he is a fucking nutcase. Our current President is a great example: a man guilty of murder, treason, and pandering to those influences which consist of countries not the US and money not belonging to taxpayers paid through taxes.

None of this matters anyway, the response is going to be bullshit trolling from a fucking monkey with a patriots signature.

That's a good argument, it gave me pause for a second. I'll reply like this; Is it coercion to stop a rapist from raping? It certainly is for the rapist, but since the rapist initiated aggression it is fully within moral possibility to use coercion to stop him. Which still falls under libertarian moral principles, and my assertion still stands for the Queen of Libertarians.

What are both of you trying to imply with this argument? I can't tell what exactly what the argument is, so i'm gonna have to dissect all the different things you two seem to be saying:

1. Guartz says that libertarianism is a moral principle, not an economic one. No idea why he thinks this is a given.

2. Demos believes gay people should be able to marry, and allegedly, so do libertarians. No mention was made or a distinction made with believing that gays should have a right to marry under law which is what a liberal believes, and the idea that anyone should be able to marry with no government sanctioning involved which is what a libertarian believes. No distinction was made between the idea that everyone should have the same rights and the idea that government should not intervene. No distinction was made between libertarians that say the states should decide and those that say that no government should decide.

3. Presumably, it was assumed that the principles behind opposing banning marriage between people of the same sex are the same for both a libertarian and a liberal. No justification was given, but this was taken to mean, if i understood right, that if liberals and libertarians believe in the same things, then how can libertarianism be a cult and not liberalism.

Apparently, the definition of a dogmatic ideology like libertarianism is based on what its principles are and not the way it handles its principles. At least that's what i got from guartz and churchill. Meanwhile, i say libertarianism is dogmatic or cultish, because it relies on:

1. A given set of principles which are assumed true, and when they contradict reality or observation, the latter is assumed wrong.

2. In applying these principles to reality, they use leaps of faith in order to justify the conclusions.

3. In the case of austrians, that would be marginalism, how human nature determines value, how the free market system is believed to be the best system most adapted to that human nature which is ruled by marginalism, and that even though they can't determine how a market produces prices (prices which are a conduit by which humans judge value) in an exact way, they then take this difficulty in understanding the free market system as proof that no one can interfere with it, because no human can truly fully understand it. Then you arrive at how the free market becomes sort of an absolute Truth. No one can interfere with it, because humans cannot fully understand it in such a way as to completely predict outcomes, and instead, all things should be guided by the market, as the best means of determining value, which is in accord with human nature.

[Churchill]

Pretty lofty claims. Just curious, are you currently still in the active armed forces or currently subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice?

I would be pretty fucking stupid if I was

[Jeryhn]

I'm pretty glad you aren't then.

[guartz]

What are both of you trying to imply with this argument? I can't tell what exactly what the argument is, so i'm gonna have to dissect all the different things you two seem to be saying:

1. Guartz says that libertarianism is a moral principle, not an economic one. No idea why he thinks this is a given.

It is first a moral principle. Free market is adapted because it fits the moral principle with minimal contradictions. While the latter is most often argued, I am unaware of any criticism for the moral principle itself. I'll admit the term libertarianism is interchangeable between it's political theory, economic theory and moral theory, never the less, it's foundation is the moral theory. This is the given.

2. Demos believes gay people should be able to marry, and allegedly, so do libertarians. No mention was made or a distinction made with believing that gays should have a right to marry under law which is what a liberal believes, and the idea that anyone should be able to marry with no government sanctioning involved which is what a libertarian believes. No distinction was made between the idea that everyone should have the same rights and the idea that government should not intervene. No distinction was made between libertarians that say the states should decide and those that say that no government should decide.

3. Presumably, it was assumed that the principles behind opposing banning marriage between people of the same sex are the same for both a libertarian and a liberal. No justification was given, but this was taken to mean, if i understood right, that if liberals and libertarians believe in the same things, then how can libertarianism be a cult and not liberalism.

Really? Through that entire 2 page trollfest that's what you gathered? hehe. It's more like my mental kung fu beat The Queen of Libertarian's mental kung fu. In actuality I simply highlighted how Demos moral stance was similar to a libertarian's moral stance, which threw his 'hurrdurr libertarians r tooopids" stance into a loop. No doubt he'll recover sooner then I'd like, but alas, that's life. It was never meant to be deeper then that.

Apparently, the definition of a dogmatic ideology like libertarianism is based on what its principles are and not the way it handles its principles. At least that's what i got from guartz and churchill. Meanwhile, i say libertarianism is dogmatic or cultish, because it relies on:

1. A given set of principles which are assumed true, and when they contradict reality or observation, the latter is assumed wrong.

2. In applying these principles to reality, they use leaps of faith in order to justify the conclusions.

3. In the case of austrians, that would be marginalism, how human nature determines value, how the free market system is believed to be the best system most adapted to that human nature which is ruled by marginalism, and that even though they can't determine how a market produces prices (prices which are a conduit by which humans judge value) in an exact way, they then take this difficulty in understanding the free market system as proof that no one can interfere with it, because no human can truly fully understand it. Then you arrive at how the free market becomes sort of an absolute Truth. No one can interfere with it, because humans cannot fully understand it in such a way as to completely predict outcomes, and instead, all things should be guided by the market, as the best means of determining value, which is in accord with human nature.

1. and 2. I assume your talking about the free market. I'd like to see a specific example of contradiction in reality.

and as to 3., you are totally off base here, most libertarian economists subscribe to subjectivity in economics, including austrians. It's not a difficulty in understanding free market, it's specific understanding that utilities and costs of individuals cannot be added or measured. While moral principles can be objective and measured. In fact, here is an article from Mises that criticizes what you describe (you are describing is utilitarian free-market) http://mises.org/rothbard/ethics/twentysix.asp

tl:dr You are wrong about austrian school of economics.

[Demosthenes11]

hey guys a few of my opinions are in line with libertarians, which I've been aware of since 8th grade. HOLY SHIT THROWN FOR LOOP

[guartz]

I wish I was gay. Football would be fucking awesome to watch.

[guartz]

irrelevant I know, just want post 3333 to be that. ^

[Andalusian girls]

That's a good argument, it gave me pause for a second. I'll reply like this; Is it coercion to stop a rapist from raping? It certainly is for the rapist, but since the rapist initiated aggression it is fully within moral possibility to use coercion to stop him. Which still falls under libertarian moral principles, and my assertion still stands for the Queen of Libertarians.

that is a vision of a more active government than many who champion the cause hold, and one i am far more receptive to.

some celebrated libertarian arguments, such as that segregation would have ended of its own accord because of economic pressures (which my favorite economist Milton Friedman unfortunately first engendered) or that the civil war was unnecessary are an affront to decency and logic. perhaps the market and cultural pressures would have corrected them eventually, but how many would have to suffer for how long under an oppressive governing apparatus? by what right do you tell lovers of different ethnicities they are not allowed to consummate their love before man, God, and government because of the 10th amendment?

Madison specifically formatted the Constitution in its incipient form to prevent parochial factions from attaining a hegemony on national power as they so easily do on regional power and as a counterbalance to the excesses of the latter, the natural progression of which led to many things an 18th century slave owner would not have been comfortable with, but this notion that libertarianism and unrestrained states rights are somehow the true progeny of our founding document so maddeningly flies in the face of Madison's Federalist essays it's as though these people don't know what the hell they are talking about.

no conservative doubts the Federal government's overreach or trusts any aggregation of power which will both form and attract individuals of lesser character but the solution is not to embrace factionalism.

[guartz]

Madison specifically formatted the Constitution in its incipient form to prevent parochial factions from attaining a hegemony on national power as they so easily do on regional power and as a counterbalance to the excesses of the latter, the natural progression of which led to many things an 18th century slave owner would not have been comfortable with, but this notion that libertarianism and unrestrained states rights are somehow the true progeny of our founding document so maddeningly flies in the face of Madison's Federalist essays it's as though these people don't know what the hell they are talking about.

no conservative doubts the Federal government's overreach or trusts any aggregation of power which will both form and attract individuals of lesser character but the solution is not to embrace factionalism.

I think when people like Ron Paul say things "..well the states reserves the X right, not the federal government" they are making an argument from the 10th amendment, and not specifically from any libertarian point of view.

[guartz]

fyi, nobody likes Milton Friedman, not even Milton Friedman himself, who, if I'm not mistaken, confessed in his later years to being a dick sucking sellout.

edit: to be more specific, in this case the dick belongs to the big banks.

[Andalusian girls]

i like him, and you're mistaken

[guartz]

Chicago school is a joke, and at best intellectually dishonest.

but back to the 10th amendment for a second. What are you trying to say? It seems pretty clear, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." What's there not to understand?