For those who might be confused about libertarianism

[steveh_131]

So defamation isn't aggression. Only physical force.

Let's take another look at my post.

Aggression is defined by classical liberals as the initiation of physical force against other persons or their property, the threat of such, or fraud upon other persons or their property.

Defamation, as it is typically defined, includes some sort of false claims. If so, that may constitute a type of fraud. Like I said, offer some definitions or examples and we can discuss it.

 

[level.eleven]

Are you equating defamation and fraud? Doesn't fraud require personal gain?

 

[steveh_131]

Are you equating defamation and fraud? Doesn't fraud require personal gain?

I suppose fraud can include defamation, but defamation doesn't necessarily include fraud.

I would categorize fraud as aggression, but probably not defamation. I haven't thought it through to completion, so I won't comment on it further for now.

 

[hornadylnl]

This sums it up rather nicely, in my opinion.

Principle of non-aggression - Mises Wiki



And the definition of 'aggression', in this context:

Aggression - Mises Wiki



This is what I mean when I reference the 'non-aggression principle'.

If you want to change your definition to include things like internet arguments, criticism, vocal opposition, bad attitudes, and self defense then feel free to do so. But let us be clear that your revised definition has no relevance to my explanation of my own ideals.

No, all libertarians must share the same ideology. Therefore, there are a lot of Mitt Romneys on this board. He's a republican and so are many of the posters here.

 

[poptab]

http://youtu.be/wuow3f_eZZM

 

[foszoe]

No, all libertarians must share the same ideology. Therefore, there are a lot of Mitt Romneys on this board. He's a republican and so are many of the posters here.

thanks for another very inciteful or is that insightful post!

 

[Liberty1911]

thanks for another very inciteful or is that insightful post!

He's our resident straw man sniper, and has over 300 confirmed kills.

 

[lucky4034]

Yep. Pretty good summary of some of the self professing Libertarians on INGO.





You lost me there. Two points:

1. On abortion - The "Right to Life" is enshrined in the Declaration of Independence and is the first and most basic right that we have. If someone isn't willing to defend the life of the most vulnerable people in society, then they don't have much credibility on any other issue concerning rights.

It always amazes me that liberals claim to be the protectors of the weak and vulnerable but stand at the abortion clinic door and cheer each time a baby is dumped in the trash. And not only that, they demand taxpayers foot the bill.


2. Homosexual marriage - There's no room for compromise biblically speaking. The Bible is clear about this issue.

However, if you want to look at it strictly from a civil point of view, then there's room for debate. But if you're going to debate the issue, then you have to define marriage first. I have yet to see anyone do that, and there's a reason why they won't.

Marriage isn't a right, no matter how many people scream it is. Therefore, you're left with one of two choices - Either the government can't define it at all, in which case the point is moot, or if you demand the "right" to get married, then implicit in that demand is the fact that government gets to define what marriage is.

The homosexual community has opted for the latter, although they try to have it both ways. They demand the "right" to get married, but reject the idea that government can define what marriage is.

That's fundamentally dishonest and is proof that "homosexual marriage" has nothing to do with marriage and everything to do with the homosexual community seeking government endorsement of their behavior which most people consider to be immoral.

Once they have that endorsement, they will use it as a weapon to attack any opposition to their agenda.

And these two points pertain to libertarians how exactly? And how does this equate to promoting liberty void of personal responsibility?

Again... it seems your viewpoints on "personal responsibility" are based on your own personal value system.

 

[hornadylnl]

thanks for another very inciteful or is that insightful post!

He's our resident straw man sniper, and has over 300 confirmed kills.

Non libertarians get to define what I must believe as a libertarian. Don't I as a non republican get to define what you must believe as republicans? You guys like to state that it's not very libertarian of me if I say this or that. So is Romney and Boehner the standard bearers of republican philosophy? They're the party leadership. The majority of republicans voted in Romney as their nominee.

 

[foszoe]

Non libertarians get to define what I must believe as a libertarian. Don't I as a non republican get to define what you must believe as republicans? You guys like to state that it's not very libertarian of me if I say this or that. So is Romney and Boehner the standard bearers of republican philosophy? They're the party leadership. The majority of republicans voted in Romney as their nominee.

Your first conclusion is that Romney and Boehner are standard bearers of republican philosophy. Can you assert proof of that? I believe the republican party is quite fragmented and could even split into two factions.

 

[rambone]

Your first conclusion is that Romney and Boehner are standard bearers of republican philosophy. Can you assert proof of that? I believe the republican party is quite fragmented and could even split into two factions.

About a week ago Raging Boehner just got reelected to the speakership, with support of 95% of the members of his party.

 

[hornadylnl]

Your first conclusion is that Romney and Boehner are standard bearers of republican philosophy. Can you assert proof of that? I believe the republican party is quite fragmented and could even split into two factions.

Yes, they should split into different factions. But it seems that defeating the opposing candidate is more important than actually putting forth a candidate that enough people want to vote for.

I used to vote straight ticket republican. After 6 years of Bush, I started asking where it was getting me. Goverment got bigger and liberties got smaller. The republicans speak a good game but once actually in power, they do none of the things they say. I've gone Galt. I'm under no illusion that libertarians will win elections or that I will convert anyone to my thinking. Liberty goes against human nature. People love to worry about what everyone else is doing.

I don't think Boehner or Romney represent the majority of republicans. But how in the hell did Romney become the nominee?

 

[foszoe]

About a week ago Raging Boehner just got reelected to the speakership, with support of 95% of the members of his party.

I believe the fallacy of you answer lies in the assumption that the national leadership of the republican party is equivalent to the wishes of the rank and file republican that you meet in the street everyday.

 

[IndyDave1776]

Yes, they should split into different factions. But it seems that defeating the opposing candidate is more important than actually putting forth a candidate that enough people want to vote for.

I used to vote straight ticket republican. After 6 years of Bush, I started asking where it was getting me. Goverment got bigger and liberties got smaller. The republicans speak a good game but once actually in power, they do none of the things they say. I've gone Galt. I'm under no illusion that libertarians will win elections or that I will convert anyone to my thinking. Liberty goes against human nature. People love to worry about what everyone else is doing.

I don't think Boehner or Romney represent the majority of republicans. But how in the hell did Romney become the nominee?

Simple. If you can't win a fair competition, cheat. Works equally well for both major parties albeit with minor differences in detail.

 

[hornadylnl]

Simple. If you can't win a fair competition, cheat. Works equally well for both major parties albeit with minor differences in detail.

You'd think with customer service that poor, people would take their business elsewhere.

 

[IndyDave1776]

You'd think with customer service that poor, people would take their business elsewhere.

Why would they do that when they allow themselves to get sucked into the 'battle' over the window dressing so deep that they can't see that they are fighting over whether to have ketchup or mustard on their s**t sandwich?

 

[jbombelli]

You'd think with customer service that poor, people would take their business elsewhere.

Many of these people are Republicans for life. It doesn't matter what happens or what the Republican party does... they'll vote Republican.

 

[foszoe]

You'd think with customer service that poor, people would take their business elsewhere.

Windows, Apple, Linux

 

[Liberty1911]

Non libertarians get to define what I must believe as a libertarian. Don't I as a non republican get to define what you must believe as republicans?

I'm not a republican.

 

[IndyDave1776]

I'm not a republican.

I understand completely. To a great extent, I feel politically homeless.