Yeah, as always, lots of bluster and sputtering and nothing at all to refute it.

Feel free to show me where I am wrong.

astonerii on January 10, 2013 at 10:21 AM

I think I was a bit harsh.

Always is too much of a position, you have presented facts at times. Some were even valuable facts that made me alter a part of my position and view.

More straw man arguments, but that was a great job refuting your totalitarian nature.

Dante on January 10, 2013 at 9:51 AM

Yeah, as always, lots of bluster and sputtering and nothing at all to refute it.

Feel free to show me where I am wrong.

You are a far more totalitarian than me. Your solution is the kind of thing that makes people want a tyrant. People will only TOLERATE a certain level of diversity in their communities. This has been the case for all of mankind’s existence.

So, in order to allow this massive level of ultimate allowable diversity that you propose, the only solution is for an all powerful government to use massive levels of threatened and actual violence to force the people to tolerate that level of diversity.

Wrap your head around that, and then come back when you can prove this is not the case.

astonerii on January 10, 2013 at 9:47 AM

More straw man arguments, but that was a great job refuting your totalitarian nature.

God you are ignorant. What a little totalitarian you are.

Dante on January 9, 2013 at 9:00 PM

You are a far more totalitarian than me. Your solution is the kind of thing that makes people want a tyrant. People will only TOLERATE a certain level of diversity in their communities. This has been the case for all of mankind’s existence.

So, in order to allow this massive level of ultimate allowable diversity that you propose, the only solution is for an all powerful government to use massive levels of threatened and actual violence to force the people to tolerate that level of diversity.

Wrap your head around that, and then come back when you can prove this is not the case.

Now days if I beat the shit out of some vulgar punk I will be the one arrested and punished. Just a few decades ago, the police would almost never get involved, unless the vulgar punk won the fight or was politically connected…

You cannot keep the same low level of laws when you strip the community of the power to self police itself.

astonerii on January 9, 2013 at 2:44 PM

God you are ignorant. What a little totalitarian you are.

TMOverbeck on January 9, 2013 at 1:24 PM

The point is that they would tear down or circumvent something deliberately created with out ever wondering why it was ever put there in the first place.

The reason our nation could prosper with few laws centuries ago is because the vast majority of people were kept moral through the church and self policing where a law did not exist but a social more that had community backing through the threat and actual use of violence against those who broke social mores.

Now days if I beat the shit out of some vulgar punk I will be the one arrested and punished. Just a few decades ago, the police would almost never get involved, unless the vulgar punk won the fight or was politically connected…

You cannot keep the same low level of laws when you strip the community of the power to self police itself.

As Ace of Spades had on their site today… Only an idiot, upon finding a road block on the highway, chose to, without ever contemplating why it was put there, tear it down or drive around it head long into the reason it was there. Libertarians in the whole, not every one of them, but on the whole are those idiots.

astonerii on January 8, 2013 at 6:29 PM

And us responsible libertarians would argue that it would be better off if a checkpoint was placed there instead of a roadblock (in other words, letting responsible consenting adults do a questionable activity instead of flat out banning said activity). Failing that, we’d take a longer way around in secret.

The idiots have already sided with the Democrats.

Well so much for that. Granted, I didn’t have any confidence that you’d be up for discussion or that you’d try and meet half-way for a civil discussion. No, you just doubled down on your ignorance. That’s all you have to offer.

Here’s to your growing up some day.

Dante on January 8, 2013 at 10:58 PM

You are the one with the ignorance. You are unwilling to actually live by the rules that existed at the closest to your ideal philosophy, which is that witches were burned, gays were run out of town, peeping toms were likely beaten to an inch of their lives, and otherwise vulgar individuals were called out to the street to be shot fairly and squarely. This is what allowed a limit on laws, such that the diversity of the community was small enough to be tolerated and did not require laws to accomplish. Horse thieves could be strung up without a law enforcement officer present let alone a trial and the likelihood of the person stringing them up being punished was practically zero, and the only exceptions to that were when it was a known miscreant who did the stringing up and his credibility was lacking.

You sure do not know much about the life you promote, do you?

John wants the freedom to smoke dope. He wants a free market to control the costs, which won’t work. No such thing.

archer52 on January 9, 2013 at 7:09 AM

Please explain your meaning.

John wants the freedom to smoke dope. He wants a free market to control the costs, which won’t work. No such thing. He wants to be left alone, I actually get that, but it won’t happen. The government, for some reason, has reached the point it CAN’T leave us alone. Read the link below.

http://www.clickorlando.com/news/College-Park-couple-says-front-yard-vegetable-garden-is-under-fire-again/-/1637132/18035884/-/png2kpz/-/index.html

Here is a quick portion, remember what is their “crime” again??

And this is not the first example. Detroit did it to another person up there. Hell, you can’t fly an American flag in some places without violating “code”.—-

ORLANDO, Fla. -

A College Park couple’s vegetable garden is on the chopping block again after the city threatened fines if they don’t uproot it by Thursday, according to the Institute for Justice Florida Chapter.

Jason and Jennifer Helvenston are launching “Plant a Seed, Change the Law,” a protest of Orlando’s law, which they say violates their constitutional right to peacefully use their property to grow their own food.

In November, Local 6 broke the story about the controversial garden after the city told the Helvenstons their 25-by-25-foot front yard vegetable garden was not in compliance with the city’s code.

After hundreds of emails supporting the couple flowed in and initially allowing the Helvenstons to keep their garden, saying it will hold off on violations, the city has since asked the couple to uproot the garden and replace it with a lawn or face fines.

“The greatest freedom you can give someone is the freedom to know they will not go hungry,” said Jason Helvenston. “Our Patriot Garden pays for all of its costs in healthy food and lifestyle while having the lowest possible carbon footprint. It supplies valuable food while being attractive. I really do not understand why there is even a discussion. They will take our house before they take our Patriot Garden.”

According to Ari Bargil, an attorney for the Institute for Justice, the Helvenstons have a scheduled inspection and will be fined starting on Thursday, up to $500 a day.

“We are seriously interested in taking a look at this,” Bargil said, when asked if the firm would be suing the city of Orlando. “We’re focused on helping the Helvenstons get the word out, encouraging the city to reach a sensible compromise here.”

—–

During WWII citizens were encouraged to grow their own food in gardens by the government.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victory_garden

Ask yourself what happened? What is different.

Government isn’t on our side anymore. It lives to feed itself first, to protect itself first, it will try to survive above all else and will sacrifice you in the process. In that environment John wants to grow, use, distribute drugs freely.

Won’t happen. Can’t. World has changed, sadly forever.

And on our watch. I apologized to my kids just a month ago for failing them. Their future world will not resemble my past world at all.

“Moralist”: the liberaltarian definition for anyone who has more standards than a hippie, and/or would like a society with more law and order than a pub brawl.

MelonCollie on January 8, 2013 at 6:50 PM

Moralist are just that: people who want to impose their morals on others because they think they know what is best. “Nannies” is another name for them.

astonerii on January 8, 2013 at 6:29 PM

Well so much for that. Granted, I didn’t have any confidence that you’d be up for discussion or that you’d try and meet half-way for a civil discussion. No, you just doubled down on your ignorance. That’s all you have to offer.

Here’s to your growing up some day.

But since I am forced to underwrite their bad behavior with my tax dollars and borrowings on my daughter’s and any future children I have earnings, I am not willing to TOLERATE it.

astonerii on January 8, 2013 at 9:10 PM

I don’t always agree with your posts but I will stand with you and anyone else on this position to the bitter end.

If Liberaltarians wanted the right to stone themselves to an early grave on some desert island without being bothered, I could care less because I won’t have to pay for their folly. But when they not only want to play the grasshopper while we’re the ants, but pull any semblance of order in drug law and civil order down around our ears, I am compelled to fight in self-defense.

I have a bad feeling many conservatives will realize the last part only after significant pain. Like they find they have no lawful recourse whatsoever to evict the pill-pusher who’s set up shop with his now-legal wares 10 yards past where their kid goes to school.

If I ain’t subsidizing the results and actors of bad behavior I am much more willing to to ignore it and let it suffer its consequences. Much like I allow my daughter to cause herself pain (note I did not say harm) so that she learns lessons that need to be learned.

But since I am forced to underwrite their bad behavior with my tax dollars and borrowings on my daughter’s and any future children I have earnings, I am not willing to TOLERATE it.

If the moralists can’t have any fun, they want to make sure nobody else does either.

mazer9 on January 8, 2013 at 4:45 PM

“Moralist”: the liberaltarian definition for anyone who has more standards than a hippie, and/or would like a society with more law and order than a pub brawl.

If the moralists can’t have any fun, they want to make sure nobody else does either.

mazer9 on January 8, 2013 at 4:45 PM

I have plenty of fun and I could care less what forms of fun you partake in, as long as if they are immoral, they remain behind closed doors and are not advertised to my minor child.

You aren’t speaking from knowledge; you are speaking from ignorance. I doubt you could even define what libertarianism is in one or two sentences. Libertarianism is a political philosophy. That a person is human and “fails on the personal responsibility level” is not an indictment against the philosophy. It is, of course, disingenuous to state that libertarians always fail on personal responsibility. That is ignorance speaking.

So let’s start fresh; let’s see if the two of us can have a discussion without straw men or personal attacks or any other logical fallacy, and we can start this way:

In one or two sentences, what is libertarianism?

Dante on January 8, 2013 at 2:13 PM

I speak from the experience of dealing with libertarians online.
There is a reason everyone calls it the pot head movement. They are the vast majority of your numbers.

As it stands now, libertarianism is the enabler of the progressive left in the nation. First, the people are not responsible and are by and large huge users of the welfare state. They want the ability to do their perverted and sick activities, they want everyone else silenced on calling them out on their perverted and sick activities, and when their perverted and sick activities leave them screwed they turn into leeches.

First and foremost before I ever give respect to a libertarian is that those powers which civilians in the past had at their disposal to deal with miscreants be made immune from liability. Things like tarring and feathering and running out of town. Calling a man to a gentleman’s duel. Once vulgarity leaves the lips of the vulgar, their right to remain free from harm is temporarily nullified.

You see, that libertarian lifestyle you all dream ever existed was enforced through violence that was presented by those who were moral in order to keep order in their communities. If those methods remain illegal as they are today, then I am all for using the force and violence of the government to prevent other people’s vulgarity from being practiced at all.

It is the retards like Dante who have no understanding on how society was enforced in the past that make libertarians a worthless lot of pot headed wannabe perverts. They recall a time when there were many fewer laws, not understanding why there was no need for those laws.

As Ace of Spades had on their site today… Only an idiot, upon finding a road block on the highway, chose to, without ever contemplating why it was put there, tear it down or drive around it head long into the reason it was there. Libertarians in the whole, not every one of them, but on the whole are those idiots.

If the moralists can’t have any fun, they want to make sure nobody else does either.

mazer9 on January 8, 2013 at 4:45 PM

Psuedo-moralists, you mean.

Us libertarians aren’t enemies of personal responsibility. We just want that personal responsibility to exist within the framework of maximized personal freedom.

In other words, you can promote monogamous relationships and two-parent families all you want, but don’t start outlawing premarital sex or ban birth control as a means to that end. Make driving under the influence a serious crime, sure, but don’t ban responsible adults from buying or using those drugs that may put them under the influence.

I’d rather discuss having controlled environments for licentious activities/things that harm no one else, than just flat out criminalizing/banning them, as the nanny-staters always love to do.

TMOverbeck on January 8, 2013 at 3:30 PM

If the moralists can’t have any fun, they want to make sure nobody else does either.

In other words, you can promote monogamous relationships and two-parent families all you want, but don’t start outlawing premarital sex or ban birth control as a means to that end. Make driving under the influence a serious crime, sure, but don’t ban responsible adults from buying or using those drugs that may put them under the influence.

I’d rather discuss having controlled environments for licentious activities/things that harm no one else, than just flat out criminalizing/banning them, as the nanny-staters always love to do.

Actually, the reason that libertarianism is so detestable is that libertarians look at purely the liberty angle and always fail on the personal responsibility level. The other aspect for which they are absent is in ensuring that those of good morals have the tools they had in the past to enforce their moral codes in their communities. I am sure you will argue otherwise on a wide scale, but when it gets down to the nitty gritty individual powers that the moral people in the past used to police their communities, you will always fall on the side of defending the immoral.

astonerii on January 8, 2013 at 10:06 AM

You aren’t speaking from knowledge; you are speaking from ignorance. I doubt you could even define what libertarianism is in one or two sentences. Libertarianism is a political philosophy. That a person is human and “fails on the personal responsibility level” is not an indictment against the philosophy. It is, of course, disingenuous to state that libertarians always fail on personal responsibility. That is ignorance speaking.

So let’s start fresh; let’s see if the two of us can have a discussion without straw men or personal attacks or any other logical fallacy, and we can start this way:

In one or two sentences, what is libertarianism?

One of the reasons I left libertarianism, besides the ideological rot, was that way the hell too many of the average libertarians acted like spoiled toddlers who fancied themselves factual geniuses.

Conservationism can suffer from the same problem, but as Galt and Dante are amply demonstrating, it’s much worse on the other side of the fence.

MelonCollie on January 7, 2013 at 6:01 PM

It’s because you are anti-liberty, as you constantly prove. I doubt you could even accurately describe it’s basic tenets.

Dante on January 8, 2013 at 9:50 AM

Actually, the reason that libertarianism is so detestable is that libertarians look at purely the liberty angle and always fail on the personal responsibility level. The other aspect for which they are absent is in ensuring that those of good morals have the tools they had in the past to enforce their moral codes in their communities. I am sure you will argue otherwise on a wide scale, but when it gets down to the nitty gritty individual powers that the moral people in the past used to police their communities, you will always fall on the side of defending the immoral.

One of the reasons I left libertarianism, besides the ideological rot, was that way the hell too many of the average libertarians acted like spoiled toddlers who fancied themselves factual geniuses.

Conservationism can suffer from the same problem, but as Galt and Dante are amply demonstrating, it’s much worse on the other side of the fence.

MelonCollie on January 7, 2013 at 6:01 PM

It’s because you are anti-liberty, as you constantly prove. I doubt you could even accurately describe it’s basic tenets.

If a constitutional amendment was required to outlaw alcohol in the US, why was it not required to outlaw drugs?

Why hasn’t anyone noticed that drug prohibition has had the same effect as prohibition in the ’20′s?

Why do I now have to show my drivers license to buy effective cold medication when the effect on illegal meth sales is absolutely ZERO!?

Why are our tax dollars being spent to equip medium and small cities and towns with SWAT teams?

How much more difficult is it to rehab a drug abuser whom wants to stay clean when his/her job search is hobbled by a felony conviction for drug possession?

Why are we conservatives OK with civil forfeiture laws? Since when is carrying cash a crime? What happened to due process? I thought giving up our rights for temporary safety was the surrender mentality of liberals.

How many of our rights are we willing to give up to fight a war we have absolutely no chance of winning?

Russ in OR on January 7, 2013 at 5:43 PM

Great question.

You guys are silly, imo. Between you Dante and Galt, your juvenile name calling and childish whinging is not helping your status…it’s like a need to be burped and have a nap.

Mimzey on January 7, 2013 at 5:55 PM

One of the reasons I left libertarianism, besides the ideological rot, was that way the hell too many of the average libertarians acted like spoiled toddlers who fancied themselves factual geniuses.

Conservationism can suffer from the same problem, but as Galt and Dante are amply demonstrating, it’s much worse on the other side of the fence.