Post by: Hoppy on October 07, 2007, 08:52:52 PM
Quote
YES, sign me up as a member of the Libertarian Party. To validate my membership, I certify that I do not advocate the initiation of force to achieve political or social goals.
is that a common agreement in political partys' or is this something wierd. cause to be honest some "political or social goals" could require force to be achieved ( preservation of a free state, preservation of rights etc)and i think to just write off all these things is very un-libertarian.
Post by: Nitrogen on October 07, 2007, 09:53:16 PM
If the government starts it first, then i'd reconsider.
Post by: brer on October 07, 2007, 10:08:49 PM
From a libertarion point of view. Many of the governments wrongs spring from its ability to initiate force for any reason. Removal of the right of the government to initiate force changes the way the government has to work.
Post by: MechAg94 on October 08, 2007, 03:33:13 AM
I don't think you are going to have an effective govt without some ability to use force. I think the founding fathers knew that after their experiences with the Articles of Confederation. I think many of the states at that time were not very libertarian. These days, I think the problem is that the Constitution is not really followed. The general welfare clause basically is the Constitution.
What would a non-force-capable govt do about the Barbary pirates way back when?
Post by: brer on October 08, 2007, 03:44:01 AM
The barbary pirates had already initiated force or the threat of force. The U.S response was a reaction and used force.
I am not a libertarian, but I have listened to a few that were a bit better spoken. The libertarian viewpoint would not stop the government from using forces were it was called for. Just the government could not initiate it.
Post by: Firethorn on October 08, 2007, 08:25:43 AM
I tend to avoid absolutes - especially vague absolutes like this one.
I mean, how would you define 'initiation'? Are you allowed to preemptively strike when it becomes obvious that another is going to attack you?
I could see the courts twisting this around so that police officers can't use force to stop a burglar/shop lifter if they try to flee. After all, their crime involved no force.
Post by: K Frame on October 08, 2007, 08:39:19 AM
When I signed up for the Republican Party during the Reagan years I got a rifle, a bandolier of ammunition, and a wad of cash.
Post by: RadioFreeSeaLab on October 08, 2007, 09:42:58 AM
Post by: Len Budney on October 08, 2007, 09:53:48 AM
Quote
YES, sign me up as a member of the Libertarian Party. To validate my membership, I certify that I do not advocate the initiation of force to achieve political or social goals.
is that a common agreement in political partys' or is this something wierd...
For many of us small-l libertarians, it's the definition of libertarianism: we unconditionally condemn initiation of force. Defensive force, on the other hand, is perfectly fine for most of us--i.e., all of us who aren't pacifists.
Dasmi, I think in cases where force against the state is justified, it is easily enough seen to be defensive force, so it doesn't contradict the above.
--Len.
Post by: RadioFreeSeaLab on October 08, 2007, 09:54:42 AM
Post by: Paddy on October 08, 2007, 09:58:20 AM
Our hired mercs in the Pacific now want to renegotiate their contract. They threaten a strike (oops! coercion-that isn't allowed, what to do?) Or, if you don't like that scenario, the Supreme Libertarian Council-LSC (or whatever you guys call yourselves; I have no idea how you administrate the country) declares a breach of contract by the mercs because they're no longer able to provide security with 3k killed and half their assets destroyed).
OK, so what do you libertarians do? You can't conscript anybody, that would be slavery or initiation of force or whatever the hell........
I think you'd all wind up speaking German before it was over.
Post by: Len Budney on October 08, 2007, 10:03:42 AM
It's December 1941. America is Libertopia. Imperial Japanese forces have attacked our hired mercenaries defense forces at Pearl Harbor. 3k killed, half the assets destroyed...
It's tough to play "what if" games of that sort, because too many things would be different. For example, we wouldn't have provoked the Japanese looking for an excuse to enter the war, so Pearl Harbor would probably not have happened.
Quote
Our hired mercs in the Pacific now want to renegotiate their contract. They threaten a strike...
Yeah, because they'd much rather become subjects of the Third Reich as a result of dithering around for pennies.
Quote
OK, so what do you libertarians do? You can't conscript anybody, that would be slavery or initiation of force or whatever the hell........
I can tell you what I do: I open my gun cabinet wide. As does everyone else who doesn't want to learn German. The beauty of defensive force is that one doesn't have to sell it, the way invasions are sold. German landing craft off the shore of Connecticut has a splendid way of motivating every able-bodied person to rally.
--Len.
Post by: Paddy on October 08, 2007, 10:33:13 AM
Quote
For example, we wouldn't have provoked the Japanese looking for an excuse to enter the war, so Pearl Harbor would probably not have happened.
It seems extremely naive to believe there is no aggression without provocation. Power hungry megalomaniacs have been attacking others without provocation for thousands of years.
Quote
Yeah, because they'd much rather become subjects of the Third Reich as a result of dithering around for pennies.
Why do you automatically assume they have some allegiance to Libertopia? They're negotiating with the Third Reich also. Highest bidder wins. Cash is king.
Quote
I can tell you what I do: I open my gun cabinet wide. As does everyone else who doesn't want to learn German. The beauty of defensive force is that one doesn't have to sell it, the way invasions are sold. German landing craft off the shore of Connecticut has a splendid way of motivating every able-bodied person to rally.
Len's gun cabinet is going to stand against the Nazi war machine? Do your really believe that? If you haven't 'rallied' long before German landing craft are off the Connecticut shore, you've already lost.
Bottom line is Libertopia has no workable policy for self defense against outside aggression, save a lot ow wishful thinking.
Post by: RadioFreeSeaLab on October 08, 2007, 10:35:46 AM
Quote
"You cannot invade the mainland United States.
There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass."
- Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto
(Japanese Navy)
There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass."
- Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto
(Japanese Navy)
The Germans probably would've come to the same conclusion. And they'd have been right.
Post by: Len Budney on October 08, 2007, 10:54:10 AM
Quote
For example, we wouldn't have provoked the Japanese looking for an excuse to enter the war, so Pearl Harbor would probably not have happened.
It seems extremely naive to believe there is no aggression without provocation.
I never said that. I said that Pearl Harbor was provoked.
Quote
Quote
Yeah, because they'd much rather become subjects of the Third Reich as a result of dithering around for pennies.
Why do you automatically assume they have some allegiance to Libertopia? They're negotiating with the Third Reich also. Highest bidder wins. Cash is king.
Sounds like a caricature. In the 1930's and 1940's there were tens of millions of Americans who didn't want to become part of the Third Reich. There's no reason to suppose that if those people had been free from impositions such as income tax and the NFA, they would have suddenly yearned to be ruled by Hitler.
Quote
Quote
I can tell you what I do: I open my gun cabinet wide. As does everyone else who doesn't want to learn German. The beauty of defensive force is that one doesn't have to sell it, the way invasions are sold. German landing craft off the shore of Connecticut has a splendid way of motivating every able-bodied person to rally.
Len's gun cabinet is going to stand against the Nazi war machine?
Mine and three hundred million others, yes. See Dasmi's quote. The entire German "war machine" consisted of only about 15 million soldiers. We'd outnumber them 20 to 1--and since in libertopia every citizen is a rifleman, we'd outshoot them by a wide margin.
--Len.
Post by: brer on October 08, 2007, 12:19:40 PM
We were fighting the nips by proxy quite a while before our involvement in WW2. FDR was looking for a way into the war and did everything in his power to provoke the Japs.
Lens gun cabinet might not defeat an invading force, But mine in addition to his, and all of our neighbors, and their neighbors and their neighbors neighbors,,,
Post by: roo_ster on October 08, 2007, 12:25:10 PM
The reason given in the historical records by the Japanese was that refusing to sell them the requisites for their war machine (iron, oil) were what instigated Japan's attack on Pearl Harbor. IOW, we refused to provide the Japs the resources to Nanking the rest of east Asia.
Just how is choosing not to deal with someone "provocation?"
Quote from: RileyMc
It seems extremely naive to believe there is no aggression without provocation. Power hungry megalomaniacs have been attacking others without provocation for thousands of years.
Len doesn't believe in aggression without provocation or power hungry megalomaniacs who might attack without being attacked first. We went over this ground in another thread (Len never really comes to grips with it, as you'll see if you scroll down & read his replies).
Post by: Hoppy on October 08, 2007, 12:36:13 PM
whats the differnance between a "Small l Libertarian" and i suppose, a large L one?
im seriously interested in joining the Libertarian Party. i was a die hard republican for a long time, but now i can no longer support something i no longer see hope in. i dont want to choose the lesser of 2 evils. dem's who want my money to go to all kinds of gov freebies for lazy bastards or illegals. and want to take all guns away. or republicans who only want to take a little of my money illegaly, 16th ammendment IS unconstitutional. whether we SHOULD be taxed by the gov is another arguement.and cave to political pressure to take some guns away (years like 1934 and 1986 come to mind along with numbers like 922 and letters like UN come to mind)
i figure we should do the closests to "cleaing the slate" and drasticaly cut gov.
Post by: RadioFreeSeaLab on October 08, 2007, 12:39:53 PM
Post by: Len Budney on October 08, 2007, 12:49:21 PM
Len doesn't believe in aggression without provocation or power hungry megalomaniacs who might attack without being attacked first...
Please don't put words in my mouth. I'm perfectly aware that such people exist. We even have one as our executive right now. The answer to that problem is not to go anoint your own power-hungry megalomaniac. The answer is to get out your battle rifle and defend your home until said megalomaniac, along with his followers, are dead or in retreat.
--Len.
Post by: Len Budney on October 08, 2007, 12:52:18 PM
whats the differnance between a "Small l Libertarian" and i suppose, a large L one?
Big-L is the Libertarian party. Lately they've been willing to make major compromises on principle in hopes of improving their chances of getting elected. We small-l libertarians regard that with disgust, because it doesn't materially improve their chances, but does great harm to the cause.
Think "gun owners versus the NRA," and you have the general idea.
Quote
im seriously interested in joining the Libertarian Party. i was a die hard republican for a long time, but now i can no longer support something i no longer see hope in. i dont want to choose the lesser of 2 evils. dem's who want my money to go to all kinds of gov freebies for lazy bastards or illegals. and want to take all guns away. or republicans who only want to take a little of my money illegaly...
Welcome! Have you considered staying registered Republican long enough to vote for RP in the primaries?
--Len.
Post by: RadioFreeSeaLab on October 08, 2007, 12:53:45 PM
Welcome! Have you considered staying registered Republican long enough to vote for RP in the primaries?
--Len.
I switched back to the Darkside for exactly that purpose.
Post by: brer on October 08, 2007, 01:37:35 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_Tigers
America had been involved attacking the japanese military before Pearl harbor.
Post by: Sergeant Bob on October 08, 2007, 02:10:50 PM
jfruser
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_Tigers
America had been involved attacking the japanese military before Pearl harbor.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_Tigers
America had been involved attacking the japanese military before Pearl harbor.
If you'd read the story you linked you'd have noticed this:
Quote
The AVG did not see combat until December 20, 1941, twelve days after Pearl Harbor.
Also, they were their to help the Chinese defend themselves against the Japanese.
Post by: Paddy on October 08, 2007, 02:44:24 PM
Meanwhile, Topps continues to produce and sell millions of pounds of tainted meat. The hospitalizations and deaths increase to epidemic proportions which then become national news. The plaintiffs notify the media that Topps is the source; Topps denies the allegations and asserts their product is safe. People stop buying meat. Meat industry stock goes into freefall, dragging ancillary industries with it. The stock market drops 25% in a little over a week. Individuals and pension funds lose billions $.
The meat industry get an emergency injunction (is that even allowed in Libertopia? Who enforces it?)
Anyway, they get Topps to stop producing meat, however Topps now has 50 million pounds of tainted meat out in the marketplace. By the time all this happens, over 1,000,000 people have eaten infected meat and a quarter of them (250,000) have died.
Reality: What really happened of course is that the USDA shut down Topps, using the police power of government, before anyone died. Only 30 people got sick. The stock market was unaffected.
The 'free market' proves itself again. Thanks, Libertopia!
Post by: RadioFreeSeaLab on October 08, 2007, 02:47:31 PM
I'd also like to know in what alternate universe people in private business, like a meat company, are so evil that they'd sell tainted meat, to millions of people, knowingly, but people in government and virtuous and benevolent. There is only one species of human. Entering the public sector does not bestow virtue and honor upon a person, just as working for Topps meant doesn't make someone evil.
Post by: Paddy on October 08, 2007, 02:54:58 PM
Quote
I'd also like to know in what alternate universe people in private business, like a meat company, are so evil that they'd sell tainted meat, to millions of people, knowingly, but people in government and virtuous and benevolent. There is only one species of human. Entering the public sector does not bestow virtue and honor upon a person, just as working for Topps meant doesn't make someone evil.
Uh, this just happened. Topps Meat Co did in fact keep pumping out tainted meat until the USDA shut them down. Industry doesn't have to be 'evil' to do harm. It can simply be greedy, or what you call 'profit driven' to slack on inspections, safe handling, etc.
Look at the way many industries operate today. Skimp on quality control and put the product out there. Fix it in warranty.
Post by: RadioFreeSeaLab on October 08, 2007, 02:58:24 PM
Post by: Paddy on October 08, 2007, 03:05:32 PM
Quote
That's fine that it just happened. My point was that you seem to think government is virtuous and only has our best interest at heart. I believe humans can find a way to be safe, clothed, fed, and well defended without all-powerful government.
It has nothing to do with 'virtue'. I don't think government is 'virtuous'. I think it's a PITA, but a necessary PITA. Topps managed to pump out 21.7 million pounds of contaminated meat before the USDA shut them down. Why didn't they correct the problem themselves?
Post by: RadioFreeSeaLab on October 08, 2007, 03:07:45 PM
Post by: brer on October 08, 2007, 03:31:10 PM
It is not a question of what the U.S were there to do, it is what they were doing.
Prior to Pearl Harbor, A volunteer force of american pilots were waging warfare on the japanese military. This falls under the initiation of force that the libertarians talk about. We drew first blood, not them.
Post by: Paddy on October 08, 2007, 03:52:12 PM
Obviously it boils down to money. We don't disagree there. We don't disagree that Topps meat is certainly run by morally bankrupt people. I simply believe that the private sector can handle anything better, cheaper, more efficiently, and in a more fair fashion than government can.
That's the point. Libertopia needs some mechanism that can respond quickly enough to guard public health and safety. From food, to water systems, to pharmaceuticals, there will always be a Topps Meat Co., that, for whatever reason- stupidity, greed, you name it- markets something dangerous, even deadly. Right now, that stopgap is government-big bloated centralized government. It got big and bloated little by little, in reponse to some failure or another of the marketplace.
Lawsuits won't do it. They are way too slow. And lawyers are out of control now Can you imagine how litigious a libertarian society would be? Where there is no threat other than that of lawsuit?
If you want libertarianism take seriously, you're going to have to address issues such as these.
Post by: Len Budney on October 08, 2007, 04:14:04 PM
It's fall 2007. America is Libertopia....
Your fanciful anecdotes don't really do much for your case. Far more deaths are attributable to the FDA than would be attributable to its absence. This is actually a fairly well-researched topic.
--Len.
Post by: Len Budney on October 08, 2007, 04:16:02 PM
Uh, Riley, what world do you live in? Do you really think once the word got out that this company was selling meat, people would still buy it? The media would have a field day.
Exactly. An excellent example is the spinach contaminated with E Coli last year. Grocery stores had isolated and rectified the problem long before the government got off its hump. After the fact, the government ran around like an outraged bull blathering about criminal charges, mainly to cover up their uselessness.
--Len.
Post by: Paddy on October 08, 2007, 04:31:10 PM
It's fall 2007. America is Libertopia....
Your fanciful anecdotes don't really do much for your case. Far more deaths are attributable to the FDA than would be attributable to its absence. This is actually a fairly well-researched topic.
--Len.
You'll have to prove that one.
Len, it's clear you're not interested in the acceptance of libertarianism as a viable political system. You are unable, or unwilling, to address even the most rudimentary of concerns that many people have. If you want to be taken seriously, you're going to have to come up with more than platitudes.
OTOH, maybe you don't care a whit about the libertarian philosophy. Maybe you're just a malcontent who likes to hear himself proselytize on an abstract and unworkable system.
Post by: Len Budney on October 08, 2007, 04:46:23 PM
Len, it's clear you're not interested in the acceptance of libertarianism as a viable political system. You are unable, or unwilling, to address even the most rudimentary of concerns that many people have. If you want to be taken seriously, you're going to have to come up with more than platitudes.
I'm happy to discuss people's concerns when they're posed as topics of discourse. If you're going to announce flatly that something will never work, when it's plain you haven't looked into it and are giving a knee-jerk response, there isn't much basis for discourse.
But you're well within your rights to ask (politely!) for support for my statement. In a nutshell, the FDA kills for a couple of reasons. First, they withhold life-saving drugs from the market, because nobody was ever condemned for not approving a drug. Second, they increase the price of development with excessive regulation so that no drug will be produced if it doesn't promise at least $1B in profits to cover development costs. Third, they indemnify the producers of dangerous drugs, who can legitimately say, "Hey, it's not our fault--the FDA said it was safe!" And fourth, they are a political organization in bed with the pharmaceutical industry--where do you think FDA gets its regulators?
Here are some preliminary examples (all form the same site for my searching convenience):
--Len.
Post by: Paddy on October 08, 2007, 04:50:14 PM
Uh, Riley, what world do you live in? Do you really think once the word got out that this company was selling meat, people would still buy it? The media would have a field day.
Exactly. An excellent example is the spinach contaminated with E Coli last year. Grocery stores had isolated and rectified the problem long before the government got off its hump. After the fact, the government ran around like an outraged bull blathering about criminal charges, mainly to cover up their uselessness.
--Len.
'Isolated and rectified' after they found themselves under investigation by the FDA, without which they'd still be denying blame.
They needed some incentive. They got it.
Post by: Len Budney on October 08, 2007, 04:52:14 PM
Uh, Riley, what world do you live in? Do you really think once the word got out that this company was selling meat, people would still buy it? The media would have a field day.
Exactly. An excellent example is the spinach contaminated with E Coli last year. Grocery stores had isolated and rectified the problem long before the government got off its hump. After the fact, the government ran around like an outraged bull blathering about criminal charges, mainly to cover up their uselessness.
'Isolated and rectified' after they found themselves under investigation by the FDA, without which they'd still be denying blame.
No. They identified the offending products and pulled them off the shelves before the FDA got off its butt.
--Len.
Post by: Paddy on October 08, 2007, 04:53:36 PM
Len, it's clear you're not interested in the acceptance of libertarianism as a viable political system. You are unable, or unwilling, to address even the most rudimentary of concerns that many people have. If you want to be taken seriously, you're going to have to come up with more than platitudes.
I'm happy to discuss people's concerns when they're posed as topics of discourse. If you're going to announce flatly that something will never work, when it's plain you haven't looked into it and are giving a knee-jerk response, there isn't much basis for discourse.
But you're well within your rights to ask (politely!) for support for my statement. In a nutshell, the FDA kills for a couple of reasons. First, they withhold life-saving drugs from the market, because nobody was ever condemned for not approving a drug. Second, they increase the price of development with excessive regulation so that no drug will be produced if it doesn't promise at least $1B in profits to cover development costs. Third, they indemnify the producers of dangerous drugs, who can legitimately say, "Hey, it's not our fault--the FDA said it was safe!" And fourth, they are a political organization in bed with the pharmaceutical industry--where do you think FDA gets its regulators?
Here are some preliminary examples (all form the same site for my searching convenience):
--Len.
It's not enough to simply attack the existing system. You're going to have to provide an alternative. Which you haven't done. You haven't explained how the 'free market' would be any better than the existing system.
Post by: Paddy on October 08, 2007, 04:57:31 PM
Uh, Riley, what world do you live in? Do you really think once the word got out that this company was selling meat, people would still buy it? The media would have a field day.
Exactly. An excellent example is the spinach contaminated with E Coli last year. Grocery stores had isolated and rectified the problem long before the government got off its hump. After the fact, the government ran around like an outraged bull blathering about criminal charges, mainly to cover up their uselessness.
'Isolated and rectified' after they found themselves under investigation by the FDA, without which they'd still be denying blame.
No. They identified the offending products and pulled them off the shelves before the FDA got off its butt.
--Len.
That's your assertion. It now becomes your responsibility to explain why the same mechanism did not prevent the Topps Meat Co. from pumping out 21.7 million pounds of contaminated meat before it was stopped by the USDA.
Post by: Len Budney on October 08, 2007, 06:20:26 PM
It now becomes your responsibility to explain why the same mechanism did not prevent the Topps Meat Co. from pumping out 21.7 million pounds of contaminated meat before it was stopped by the USDA.
Actually, you're trying to have it both ways: you're saying that without the FDA, millions of pounds of contaminated meat will be sold--but then point out a glaring example in which the FDA failed to prevent exactly that! I'd say it's your job to explain why the FDA waited two weeks before issuing the recall.
Also note that 21.7 million pounds of meat was recalled; that does not mean that 21.7 million pounds of meat were contaminated. It's almost certain that not all of the meat was contaminated: the recall was issued so broadly because of flawed record keeping. If the producer were better able to link shipments with specific processing plants and dates, they could have recalled far less--about 330K lbs, again not all of which was necessarily contaminated.
But most importantly of all, you're simply wrong: the recall was issued September 25; Walmart had already pulled Topps meat off their shelves on August 30, 25 days earlier.
This by the way, like the spinach episode, illustrates how the market (which is admittedly not altruistic) can look out for the well-being of customers. It's possible (though it would be foolish of them) for a supplier knowingly to release an unsafe product. The standard Marxist analysis says that this would be standard procedure: big, rich capitalists poisoning helpless workers to improve their bottom line. However, the "helpless" consumers have a powerful advocate: the retailer. It's the retailer that deals quickly and harshly with suppliers, in order to protect their profits from the damage done by angry (or sick or dead) customers. The individual customers complain to the retailers. The retailer, in this case Walmart, then socks it to the supplier, who either cleans up his act or goes out of business.
--Len.
Post by: Paddy on October 08, 2007, 06:29:08 PM
Quote
This by the way, like the spinach episode, illustrates how the market (which is admittedly not altruistic) can look out for the well-being of customers. It's possible (though it would be foolish of them) for a supplier knowingly to release an unsafe product. The standard Marxist analysis says that this would be standard procedure: big, rich capitalists poisoning helpless workers to improve their bottom line. However, the "helpless" consumers have a powerful advocate: the retailer. It's the retailer that deals quickly and harshly with suppliers, in order to protect their profits from the damage done by angry (or sick or dead) customers. The individual customers complain to the retailers. The retailer, in this case Walmart, then socks it to the supplier, who either cleans up his act or goes out of business.
Only if the consumer can positively link a specific retailer with the poisoning. The economic power (and deniability) of a Walmart overwhelms any consumer (especially Walmart consumers) to the point of no lo contendre. It is no contest, my libertarian friend. Again, your 'defense' is to attack the strawman of Marxism, which clearly does not exist in the U.S.
Post by: Len Budney on October 08, 2007, 06:39:47 PM
Quote
This by the way, like the spinach episode, illustrates how the market (which is admittedly not altruistic) can look out for the well-being of customers... It's the retailer that deals quickly and harshly with suppliers...
Only if the consumer can positively link a specific retailer with the poisoning. The economic power (and deniability) of a Walmart overwhelms any consumer (especially Walmart consumers) to the point of no lo contendre. It is no contest, my libertarian friend.
You're not making sense any which way. In this case Walmart protected its customers, just as I said. You're trying to pretend the opposite. And as for "linking the retailer with the poisoning," you're being silly. If I get sick on home-cooking, my wife knows where she got her groceries. And if we get sick after eating at Chi-Chis, we know who to go complain to.
Finally, I'm not sure but it looks as if by "positively" you mean that the customer has to prove it. If so, you're wrong again: Walmart will gladly drop a supplier that customers yell about whether or not there's actually anything wrong. The customer is always right. And Walmart, unlike the judicial system, doesn't have to give its retailers "due process." That's one of the strengths of the market.
--Len.
Post by: Paddy on October 08, 2007, 06:44:30 PM
Quote
This by the way, like the spinach episode, illustrates how the market (which is admittedly not altruistic) can look out for the well-being of customers... It's the retailer that deals quickly and harshly with suppliers...
Only if the consumer can positively link a specific retailer with the poisoning. The economic power (and deniability) of a Walmart overwhelms any consumer (especially Walmart consumers) to the point of no lo contendre. It is no contest, my libertarian friend.
You're not making sense any which way. In this case Walmart protected its customers, just as I said. You're trying to pretend the opposite. And as for "linking the retailer with the poisoning," you're being silly. If I get sick on home-cooking, my wife knows where she got her groceries. And if we get sick after eating at Chi-Chis, we know who to go complain to.
Finally, I'm not sure but it looks as if by "positively" you mean that the customer has to prove it. If so, you're wrong again: Walmart will gladly drop a supplier that customers yell about whether or not there's actually anything wrong. The customer is always right. And Walmart, unlike the judicial system, doesn't have to give its retailers "due process." That's one of the strengths of the market.
--Len.
OK. Then please explain what is Walmart's incentive to drop a supplier based on a few complaints from some poor people (a few of Walmart's customers) until it becomes an epidemic affecting thousands. And is well publicized to the point of hurting Walmart sales? hmmm? Remember, we're talking about a multi billion dollar company here.
Post by: Perd Hapley on October 08, 2007, 06:46:22 PM
Post by: Paddy on October 08, 2007, 06:53:36 PM
Len, I'm glad you and I agree on things now and then. What's so funny is the way Riley harps on Bush for not being a conservative, yet Riley has more faith in the FDA than in the free market. Pot and kettle and they are both black.
Dear Mr. fistful (aka 'redbeard'),
George Bush is a joke, not only in the international community, but here in the USA as well. Both Letterman and Leno regularly ridicule him, to everyone's amusement. He's history as of January 20, 2009. Also, Mr. Redbeard, he's currently the 'Chief Executive', which means the FDA is under his control. If it's incompetent , remember A FISH STINKS FROM THE HEAD.
Post by: Perd Hapley on October 08, 2007, 07:49:44 PM
The one thing I don't understand is how an American can reach your advanced age and think that Late Show comedy means anything. They never ridiculed any other presidents, did they?
Post by: Paddy on October 08, 2007, 08:09:37 PM
It just gets better. You think I'm defending George Bush. Hilarious. I'm pointing out that Bush is not very conservative, and neither are you, despite your pretense. A real conservative understands that bureaucracies are almost always less efficient and less competent than the market, regardless of who's in the Oval Office. Railing on George Bush won't help you, sir.
The one thing I don't understand is how an American can reach your advanced age and think that Late Show comedy means anything. They never ridiculed any other presidents, did they?
The one thing I don't understand is how an American can reach your advanced age and think that Late Show comedy means anything. They never ridiculed any other presidents, did they?
First, I'm not at an 'advanced age', mr source of my social security benefits (keep workin', I'm pickin' up the cash deducted from your paycheck)
Second, you have no concept of a 'real conservative', as I've pointed out in a previous thread. Barry Goldwater was a real conservative, and he wanted nothing to do with your religious right hallelujah holier than thou flim flam men.
Third, you've always defended George Bush because he's the first President you've ever voted for. You have no sense of history, young man. You have not voted Republican since 1968 like me, you have not been schtuped by the Republican party, like me, And you have no sense of the Real America, the America that existed just after WWII, bringing the greatest prosperity ever known in the history of mankind on the face of this planet. You're just riding the wave, child. And you don't even know it. Better watch your ass, son. The rest of the world is hungry and predatory. And Mr. GWB, son of wealth, power an influence aint' gonna help you. He already got his.
Post by: roo_ster on October 09, 2007, 02:24:31 AM
Quote from: RileyMc
You have not voted Republican since 1968
Now, that's pretty funny: A guy who voted for the not-so-conservative Nixon criticizing another who voted for another not-so-conservative GWB...for not being conservative enough. More pot & kettle, I'm afraid.
Post by: Perd Hapley on October 09, 2007, 02:38:41 AM
Post by: Len Budney on October 09, 2007, 04:07:44 AM
OK. Then please explain what is Walmart's incentive to drop a supplier based on a few complaints from some poor people (a few of Walmart's customers) until it becomes an epidemic affecting thousands...
Um, Riley, Walmart did pull Topps meat from the shelves, 25 days before the recall. You're trying to argue theoretically that they won't do that, and they already did. You're not making sense.
--Len.
Post by: K Frame on October 09, 2007, 04:16:37 AM
You really have no clue about the history of the war in the Pacific, do you?
The Pacific war is NOT, by any stretch of the imagination, the war that Roosevelt and other members of the Government wanted to enter.
Provoking a war with the Japanese was absolutely NO guarantee that it would result in war with Germany as well.
Anyone who claims that the United States provoked the war with Japan as a guaranteed means of getting into the European war doesn't know squat about World War II history.
The claim is blatantly FALSE, as is the claim that the United States was the aggressor in the Pacific in the first place. Just another apologist for nearly 40 years of naked Japanese terror and aggression, it would seem.
Post by: Manedwolf on October 09, 2007, 04:20:10 AM
"For example, we wouldn't have provoked the Japanese looking for an excuse to enter the war, so Pearl Harbor would probably not have happened."
You really have no clue about the history of the war in the Pacific, do you?
The Pacific war is NOT, by any stretch of the imagination, the war that Roosevelt and other members of the Government wanted to enter.
Provoking a war with the Japanese was absolutely NO guarantee that it would result in war with Germany as well.
Anyone who claims that the United States provoked the war with Japan as a guaranteed means of getting into the European war doesn't know squat about World War II history.
The claim is blatantly FALSE, as is the claim that the United States was the aggressor in the Pacific in the first place. Just another apologist for nearly 40 years of naked Japanese terror and aggression, it would seem.
You really have no clue about the history of the war in the Pacific, do you?
The Pacific war is NOT, by any stretch of the imagination, the war that Roosevelt and other members of the Government wanted to enter.
Provoking a war with the Japanese was absolutely NO guarantee that it would result in war with Germany as well.
Anyone who claims that the United States provoked the war with Japan as a guaranteed means of getting into the European war doesn't know squat about World War II history.
The claim is blatantly FALSE, as is the claim that the United States was the aggressor in the Pacific in the first place. Just another apologist for nearly 40 years of naked Japanese terror and aggression, it would seem.
The only "conspiracy" that actually happened was within Japan itself, a long history of a powergrab that began with forbidding the Samurai from carrying weapons and basically causing the whole tradition of local rule to die out, and then developed into the perversion of the peaceful Shinto religion into a literal cult of emperor-worship. That was used as a tool to whip the soldiers into a nationalistic fervor to pursue an expansionist policy...divine right and all. The Emperor and military planners also used allusions to ancient myths to drive their pilots to the later desperation strategy of suicide "for the Emperor and Japan". Kamikaze, or "divine wind", was an allusion to an old story of typhoons that had scattered Mongolian invasion fleets, saving Japan. It made the impressionable young pilots feel like they were part of the old legends.
Of course, it also backfired when the sense of "divine invincibility" caused war planners to suffer a terrible case of hubris in their strategies. That was most seen at Midway, when participants in the war game planning for it refused to take any of their carriers off the table for contingency planning, arguing that it was impossible that any could be destroyed.
The fact that "emperor worship" hadn't been around too long let us knock it down quickly once the war was over.
Post by: Len Budney on October 09, 2007, 04:56:28 AM
The claim is blatantly FALSE, as is the claim that the United States was the aggressor in the Pacific in the first place.
False, arguably. Blatantly, no. See here for one decent starting place.
Quote
[You are j]ust another apologist for nearly 40 years of naked Japanese terror and aggression, it would seem.
Is it necessary to get personal?
--Len.
Post by: K Frame on October 09, 2007, 05:32:03 AM
Japan was engaged in aggressive expansionism in the Pacific region for nearly 20 years before the United States even began to act in a manner that could be considered overtly hostile.
Japanese whining about "we were goaded into war" not withstanding, the only reason there was a Pacific war is because of Japanese actions.
Post by: K Frame on October 09, 2007, 05:37:57 AM
The right of rule of the divine emperor had been codified under the Constitution of 1889(?), but the divinity of the Emperor had been an important part of the power hold of the various shogunates that ruled Japan from the 1100s on up through the Meiji Restoration.
Here's a little known fact...
In the 1970s, with the return of Okinawa to Japanese control, the Japanese Diet REAFFIRMED the divine status of the Emperor.
Post by: Len Budney on October 09, 2007, 05:40:10 AM
Japan was engaged in aggressive expansionism in the Pacific region for nearly 20 years before the United States even began to act in a manner that could be considered overtly hostile.
They posed no threat to the United States. You appear to be speaking as a citizen of China.
--Len.
Post by: Paddy on October 09, 2007, 06:15:16 AM
OK. Then please explain what is Walmart's incentive to drop a supplier based on a few complaints from some poor people (a few of Walmart's customers) until it becomes an epidemic affecting thousands...
Um, Riley, Walmart did pull Topps meat from the shelves, 25 days before the recall. You're trying to argue theoretically that they won't do that, and they already did. You're not making sense.
--Len.
OK. For the sake of argument let's say that's true-Walmart voluntarily removed the product from their shelves as soon as they became aware of a problem. What about the dozens of other retailers? Why didn't they do the same? Why was the recall necessary? And why didn't Topps recall the product before the USDA forced them to stop production?
Post by: Len Budney on October 09, 2007, 06:20:49 AM
What about the dozens of other retailers? Why didn't they do the same?
You're begging the question: how do you know they didn't do the same? I personally have no idea whether they did or didn't, and I suspect you don't either.
Quote
Why was the recall necessary?
Because this ain't heaven, and it ain't the garden of Eden. Bad stuff happens. Often by accident; sometimes not.
Quote
And why didn't Topps recall the product before the USDA forced them to stop production?
I have no idea what Topps did or didn't do, let alone why. But lets suppose, for the sake of argument, that the management at Topps is both greedy and malevolent, and purposely tainted the meat, and refused to recall it because they wanted to kill as many people as possible before they were stopped. Supposing all that, the free market acted more swiftly and effectively than the FDA. If it were up to the FDA, people would have been eating tainted meat for an extra 25 days.
--Len.
Post by: K Frame on October 09, 2007, 06:23:21 AM
Japan was engaged in aggressive expansionism in the Pacific region for nearly 20 years before the United States even began to act in a manner that could be considered overtly hostile.
They posed no threat to the United States. You appear to be speaking as a citizen of China.
--Len.
Wrong.
The increasing pace of Japanese expansion through the 1920s and 1930s DIRECTLY threatened US interests in the Pacific. Japanese policies made it very clear that they considered the whole of the Asian sphere, including Australia, the Philippines, and very possibly even the Hawaiian Islands, part of the Greater East Asian Co-Prosperity Sphere and as such were subject to Japanese annexation.
I'm not sure which is more frightening, your apparent willful ignorance of history, or your apparent apologism for Japanese aggression.
Post by: Len Budney on October 09, 2007, 06:31:58 AM
Japan was engaged in aggressive expansionism in the Pacific region for nearly 20 years before the United States even began to act in a manner that could be considered overtly hostile.
They posed no threat to the United States. You appear to be speaking as a citizen of China.
The increasing pace of Japanese expansion through the 1920s and 1930s DIRECTLY threatened US interests in the Pacific.
I said no threat to the United States. When you sneak in the word "interests," you convert a non-threat into a threat, by pretending that our interventionism constitutes a legitimate matter of self-defense. Sorta like when a guy started dating a girl I was interested in. He was a threat to my interests, so I assaulted him with a pipe. That kind of thing.
Quote
Japanese policies made it very clear that they considered the whole of the Asian sphere, including Australia, the Philippines, and very possibly even the Hawaiian Islands, part of the Greater East Asian Co-Prosperity Sphere and as such were subject to Japanese annexation.
Yeah, they were going to annex Australia and Hawaii. Now pull the other finger.
Quote
I'm not sure which is more frightening, your apparent willful ignorance of history, or your apparent apologism for Japanese aggression.
Please don't misrepresent me like that. The Chinese had legitimate self-defense rights, and were free to slaughter Japanese soldiers with gleeful abandon. Likewise the filipinos, and anyone else suffering their immoral aggression. None of that constitutes a threat to the United States, however, and it's disingenuous to claim otherwise.
--Len.
Post by: Sergeant Bob on October 09, 2007, 07:19:34 AM
You are the poster child for why so few people take the Libertarian Party seriously. I mean just......Wow.
Post by: Len Budney on October 09, 2007, 07:26:02 AM
You are the poster child for why so few people take the Libertarian Party seriously. I mean just......Wow.
I have no affiliation with the Libertarian party.
But aside from the personal remarks, can you clarify which bit you disagree with? Do you deny that the Chinese and Filipinos had a right to self-defense? Do you claim that Japan was going to annex Australia and Hawaii? I'm not at all sure what you're trying to say.
--Len.
Post by: Manedwolf on October 09, 2007, 07:44:48 AM
This all has gone over less than charmingly with a population that enjoys a quiet state, and does not care for carpetbaggers wanting to make it into a Waco-style battlefield.
Basically, libertarians are incapable of getting themselves elected to office if they're that stupid.
Post by: K Frame on October 09, 2007, 07:58:30 AM
Most people understand that concept.
A few apparently don't.
"Yeah, they were going to annex Australia and Hawaii. Now pull the other finger."
Jesus, you really don't have any clue as to what Japanese aims in the Pacific were, do you?
Do you even know how the Pacific war ACTUALLY played out? As in historically?
With the Japanese invading New Guinea, which, even in the 1940s, was part of Australia (a chunk was also part of the Dutch East Indies holdings)?
March 12, 1942: "Australia and New Zealand are now threatened by the might of the Imperial forces, and both them should know that any resistance is futile. If the Australian government does not modify her present attitude, their continent will suffer the same fate as the Dutch East Indies." Hideki Tojo.
Japanese short-term goals were to completely isolate Australia from Britain and the United States and the long-term goal was to bring Australia either under the Co-Prosperity Sphere or, if necessary, invade Australia and establish a Japanese protectorate government as had been done in numerous other Asian nations.
The Battle of the Coral Sea in 1942 was the Japanese attempt at the seizure of Port Morsby. Establishing air and naval bases at Port Morsby would have given the Japanese effective control over the sea and air lane approaches to Australia, would have given them tactical control over most of the major population centers, and would have provided a very effective stepping off point for eventual invasion of the Western coast.
As it was, it took American and Australian forces nearly until the end of World War II to evict the force Japan did have in New Guinea.
Post by: roo_ster on October 09, 2007, 08:18:20 AM
I'm still interested in knowing how refusing to sell the Japanese iron & oil was a provocation.
Post by: Sergeant Bob on October 09, 2007, 08:30:03 AM
You are the poster child for why so few people take the Libertarian Party seriously. I mean just......Wow.
I have no affiliation with the Libertarian party.
But aside from the personal remarks, can you clarify which bit you disagree with? Do you deny that the Chinese and Filipinos had a right to self-defense? Do you claim that Japan was going to annex Australia and Hawaii? I'm not at all sure what you're. trying to say.
--Len.
No, I'm not saying Japan was trying to annex Australia and Hawaii (although that may have been part of their plan) but, they did attack Hawaii along with much of the Pacific rim, which suggests it wasn't beyond the realm of possibility.
The thing that boggles my mind is, how can someone suggest we ignore what they were doing simply because they (other than Hawaii) they hadn't attack the U.S. proper directly? Besides the fact they were fighting a war of conquest for many years before we even got involved.
So we should just sit around and let them (along with Germany, with whom they had the Axis treaty ) attack and take over all of Asia and Europe. Wait till they land in Connecticut and California, then pull our shotguns and hunting rifles out of the closet and fight them on our own soil.
I have to admit it would have saved us a lot of money on that Marshall plan deal because we would have been too occupied trying to rebuild our own country we couldn't have afforded to help anyone else rebuild.
Mike and several others have pointed out to you why we got involved, but you still insist non-aggression (Neville Chamberlain) is the answer.
As for whether I believe the Filipinos and the Chinese did not have a right to self defense, WTH are you talking about? Where did I say anything like that? Now you're just trying to twist the debate around to confuse the issue (misdirection) to keep everyone else on the defensive.
Thats how this thread and just about every other political thread you get involved in gets turned away from the actual topic Re: Libertarian Party sign up into a Libertopia rant by you (who has no affiliation with the Libertarian Party).
I may not be as articulate as some at expressing my views, however, I do know when somebody is blowing smoke up my hiney and so do most of the other people on this board.
Post by: Len Budney on October 09, 2007, 08:46:36 AM
Quote
"Yeah, they were going to annex Australia and Hawaii. Now pull the other finger."
Jesus, you really don't have any clue as to what Japanese aims in the Pacific were, do you?
Are you claiming they were going to annex Australia and Hawaii? Fascinating.
Quote
March 12, 1942: "Australia and New Zealand are now threatened by the might of the Imperial forces, and both them should know that any resistance is futile. If the Australian government does not modify her present attitude, their continent will suffer the same fate as the Dutch East Indies." Hideki Tojo.
Fascinating indeed. I had no idea Australia was such a weak little country. Of course Australia's defense is Australia's problem; they are neither US territory nor US citizens.
Quote
Japanese short-term goals were to completely isolate Australia from Britain and the United States and the long-term goal was to bring Australia either under the Co-Prosperity Sphere or, if necessary, invade Australia and establish a Japanese protectorate government as had been done in numerous other Asian nations.
I admit to ignorance that Australia was such a weak little country. Interesting.
Quote
As it was, it took American and Australian forces nearly until the end of World War II to evict the force Japan did have in New Guinea.
Why was the US fighting over New Guinea? Is that one of those "US interests" you were talking about? I didn't realize New Guinea was American territory, nor its people American citizens.
--Len.
Post by: Len Budney on October 09, 2007, 08:50:58 AM
The thing that boggles my mind is, how can someone suggest we ignore what they were doing simply because they (other than Hawaii) they hadn't attack the U.S. proper directly? Besides the fact they were fighting a war of conquest for many years before we even got involved.
When did I ever say to "ignore" what they were doing? I don't remember saying any such thing.
Quote
Mike and several others have pointed out to you why we got involved, but you still insist non-aggression (Neville Chamberlain) is the answer.
I'm all for brutal slaughter in defensive force. I'm not advocating pacifism, nor peace, love and granola bars. Nonaggression is about not starting the fight. When the aggressor has started it, I advocate utter brutality in self-defense. Please don't confuse nonaggression with pacifism.
Quote
As for whether I believe the Filipinos and the Chinese did not have a right to self defense, WTH are you talking about? Where did I say anything like that?
You have it backwards: I affirm their right to self-defense to clarify that I'm in no way supporting Japan, as Mike improperly alleged. I'm all for the Nip aggressors getting their asses handed to them by their victims.
--Len.
Post by: Paddy on October 09, 2007, 08:43:48 PM
The thing that boggles my mind is, how can someone suggest we ignore what they were doing simply because they (other than Hawaii) they hadn't attack the U.S. proper directly? Besides the fact they were fighting a war of conquest for many years before we even got involved.
When did I ever say to "ignore" what they were doing? I don't remember saying any such thing.
Quote
Mike and several others have pointed out to you why we got involved, but you still insist non-aggression (Neville Chamberlain) is the answer.
I'm all for brutal slaughter in defensive force. I'm not advocating pacifism, nor peace, love and granola bars. Nonaggression is about not starting the fight. When the aggressor has started it, I advocate utter brutality in self-defense. Please don't confuse nonaggression with pacifism.
Quote
As for whether I believe the Filipinos and the Chinese did not have a right to self defense, WTH are you talking about? Where did I say anything like that?
You have it backwards: I affirm their right to self-defense to clarify that I'm in no way supporting Japan, as Mike improperly alleged. I'm all for the Nip aggressors getting their asses handed to them by their victims.
--Len.
So you think that an island of peace, tranquility and bliss (Libertopia, USA) can exist surrounded by a world of violence, brutality and evil?
How naive.
Go back. Go back to Eisenhower, a great and successful warrior. A champion of liberation and freedom for millions. Read what he said on the subject. Learn.
Post by: Len Budney on October 09, 2007, 08:55:09 PM
So you think that an island of peace, tranquility and bliss (Libertopia, USA) can exist surrounded by a world of violence, brutality and evil?
You're not even bothering to read what I write, so I don't see why you bother replying. Utter brutality in self defense is miles away from what you describe as "an island of peace, tranquility and bliss."
--Len.
Post by: Perd Hapley on October 10, 2007, 02:35:23 AM
Quote
So you think that an island of peace, tranquility and bliss (Libertopia, USA) can exist surrounded by a world of violence, brutality and evil? How naive.
He agrees with you, Riley. "Re-deploy all our troops to the border," and what-not.
Post by: Sergeant Bob on October 10, 2007, 05:02:01 AM
So you think that an island of peace, tranquility and bliss (Libertopia, USA) can exist surrounded by a world of violence, brutality and evil?
You're not even bothering to read what I write, so I don't see why you bother replying. Utter brutality in self defense is miles away from what you describe as "an island of peace, tranquility and bliss."
--Len.
Are you bothering to read what you write? How do you reconcile your response to Riley with this?
Quote
Fascinating indeed. I had no idea Australia was such a weak little country. Of course Australia's defense is Australia's problem; they are neither US territory nor US citizens.
So, utter brutality in self defense is OK, while watching the rest of the world fall apart around us?
Quote
When did I ever say to "ignore" what they were doing? I don't remember saying any such thing.
Well, maybe you didn't actually say ignore but, in effect thats what you want to do. You got me there. I guess watching it all happen on TV qualifies as not ignoring all your allies being conquered.
Post by: Len Budney on October 10, 2007, 05:23:13 AM
Are you bothering to read what you write? How do you reconcile your response to Riley with this?
So, utter brutality in self defense is OK, while watching the rest of the world fall apart around us?
Quote
Fascinating indeed. I had no idea Australia was such a weak little country. Of course Australia's defense is Australia's problem; they are neither US territory nor US citizens.
So, utter brutality in self defense is OK, while watching the rest of the world fall apart around us?
What contradiction do you think you see here? Self-defense is moral. Enslaving others to defend you is not. Australia has a duty to defend herself, but has no right to enslave Americans for that purpose, either directly or by proxy.
Quote
Well, maybe you didn't actually say ignore but, in effect thats what you want to do. You got me there. I guess watching it all happen on TV qualifies as not ignoring all your allies being conquered.
If Americans want to volunteer as mercenaries for the defense of Australia, more power to them. That doesn't justify enslaving people for the "defense" of Australia (or any other nation). But you're presenting a false choice here: either wage aggressive war, or "ignore" the threat. There's a third choice, and it requires neither aggressive war nor enslavement.
--Len.
Post by: Sergeant Bob on October 10, 2007, 08:56:25 AM
When did Australia own Americans slaves?
Post by: Len Budney on October 10, 2007, 08:59:01 AM
So I guess all of us here who volunteered part of our lives (20 years myself) to the service of our country are just mercenaries?
I'm afraid that question doesn't make any sense. Serving in a defensive capacity is an honorable profession; why do you think I have in some way denigrated you?
Quote
When did Australia own Americans slaves?
When conscripts fight for Australia's defense, they are slaves. When volunteers do it, more power to them.
--Len.
Post by: Sergeant Bob on October 10, 2007, 09:59:11 AM
Post by: Len Budney on October 10, 2007, 10:15:31 AM
Buh-bye.
Sure, whatever. Thanks for the intellectually stimulating exchange.
--Len.
Post by: Firethorn on October 11, 2007, 10:38:26 AM
We're all neighbors today - WWI and II showed that these conflicts can spread out to the entire globe. It's best to stomp on Megalomaniacs early.
Post by: Len Budney on October 11, 2007, 11:38:46 AM
... wouldn't helping China in that situation simply be an extension of opening all the gun cabinets to help out the neighbors? After all, true libertarians don't have much in the way of government borders... We're all neighbors today...
I agree completely. However, there's room for debate whether military support really counts as "neighbors helping neighbors," because it isn't voluntary. The funding is not voluntary, and if a draft is in place the personnel are not volunteers either.
--Len.
Post by: Firethorn on October 11, 2007, 04:04:53 PM
I agree completely. However, there's room for debate whether military support really counts as "neighbors helping neighbors," because it isn't voluntary. The funding is not voluntary, and if a draft is in place the personnel are not volunteers either.
--Len.
--Len.
While I believe that they received some government money, I do remember that the unit in China was 100% volunteer.
As for the self defense, and one of the reasons I consider myself a moderate or small 'L' libertarian is that, especially when it comes to countries, offense is greater than defense today. At least as long as you're not trying to occupy the country - sweeping through, killing people and destroying stuff is quite easy compared to trying to stop such an advance.
As such, until 100% of the world goes down a libertarian path, we're going to need a professional military, capable of offensive operations that a bunch of citizens with small arms can't perform.
I'd rather stop invaders short of our soil. In addition, fighting a pure defensive war allows our opponent(s) to pour resources in for as long as it takes. You have to take the fight to the enemy.
And it's not like the military hasn't been able to meet it's long term recruitment goes - it may have had to offer more money and loosen enlistment requirements - but it's still made it's goals.
Keep the government out of people's day to day lives - but there's still a need for police, courts, and military.
Post by: Paddy on October 11, 2007, 05:01:58 PM
Damn good thing Libertarianism is nothing more than an exercise in abstract mental masturbation.
Post by: Firethorn on October 11, 2007, 06:33:09 PM
Len thinks he can live on an island of bliss and 'non coercion/aggression' happiness while the rest of the world is ruled by brutal tyrants.
Damn good thing Libertarianism is nothing more than an exercise in abstract mental masturbation.
Damn good thing Libertarianism is nothing more than an exercise in abstract mental masturbation.
Riley, do you consider me to be engaging in 'mental masturbation'?
Post by: Paddy on October 11, 2007, 07:55:05 PM
Len thinks he can live on an island of bliss and 'non coercion/aggression' happiness while the rest of the world is ruled by brutal tyrants.
Damn good thing Libertarianism is nothing more than an exercise in abstract mental masturbation.
Damn good thing Libertarianism is nothing more than an exercise in abstract mental masturbation.
Riley, do you consider me to be engaging in 'mental masturbation'?
No, and I apologize. Len masquerades as a libertarian, when in fact he's simply an anarchist. Libertarians need to guard against hijacking by malignant malcontents. Much as the religious right has hijacked and sucked the life out of the Republican party.
Post by: Ex-MA Hole on October 12, 2007, 05:57:12 AM
Guys, chill.
There, I said it.
Len: Wow.
Post by: Len Budney on October 12, 2007, 05:59:34 AM
Len: Wow.
Wow what?
Post by: Ex-MA Hole on October 12, 2007, 06:03:18 AM
No, forget it. Just forget it.
(Right now I'm shaking my head in disbelief and laughing, that subtle little laugh. And it's not because I'm happy).
Post by: doczinn on October 13, 2007, 09:12:14 PM
Post by: Gewehr98 on October 14, 2007, 08:51:30 AM
(Trying to figure out that Religious Right thing, too. I could be considered a member of that organization, and I certainly won't be made to feel bad about it, regardless of who's decrying their angst...)