So one has to be a "newbie" to be opposed to libertarianism? What sort of idiotic argument is that?
I note you didn't deny anything I wrote.
"As for the rest of what you wrote, it's just bilious grandstanding that has nothing to do with my original proposition. Merely a straw man argument" doesn't count as a denial of what you wrote? I think you need to start reading more closely....
BTW, I said nothing about communists. You may want to use a dictionary. communitarian: of or relating to social organization in small cooperative partially collectivist
Nope, I was merely responding to the implicit thrust of your argument, which had little to nothing to with communitarianism, per se, not even that provided by yourself in the definition above. Shoot, by the definition you provided, America's early Republican society would be communitarian, and the groups of people who opened up the west to settlement definitely would be, as would Locke, de Tocqueville, and Burke, depending on the particular definitions applied to the terms used.
So one has to be a "newbie" to be opposed to libertarianism? What sort of idiotic argument is that?
Another straw-man from you. I stated two facts. You turn it into you being almost a victim. Hey, you're the one that assumed wrong. So far about all you've done is pi$$ on your own foot.12
TQC: To 8 As for the rest of what you wrote, it's just bilious grandstanding that has nothing to do with my original proposition. Merely a straw man argument" doesn't count as a denial of what you wrote? I think you need to start reading more closely.... 14
As you no doubt know very well the post you quote of yourself came after my post. My 15 post was a response to your 12 post. Thus I had not read your 14 post. You assert that what you wrote above (highlighted in red) was in your 12 post. It wasn't, isn't. It was in your 14 post. Just as obvious is that the time span between my 15 post and your 14 posts is 1 minute 27 seconds. So unless I was really fast -- which I'm not -- in reading and thinking/forming a response, writing it and posting it, I wouldn't be able to have read your post at 14 and done all that in just1 minute 27 seconds. So what ever game you're playing it sure isn't honest. See my tagline.
Nope, I was merely responding to the implicit thrust of your argument, which had little to nothing to with communitarianism, per se, not even that provided by yourself in the definition above.
Fine with me, It's your choice. So in your 12 post you make yourself an almost victim when you wrote: "I do love how libertarians assume that if a person isn't a stark raving anarchist, then they must be a communist." A victim of your own making. What I wrote has nothing to do with communism, rather, it has everything to do with inalienable rights, individual rights and their protection; and the corollary that many people enlist government agents to act on their behalf to initiate force/harm against persons and their property.