Attack of the Nazi Trolls: A Lesson for Message Board Moderators

You have, in all too typical Libertarian fashion, labeled those with whom you find disagreement (the anti-patriots).

It is just such posturing (arrogant in its' effect) that draws deserved fire from many quarters. ( I do not call you arrogant, John, your posts are always reasonable in intent, in my view...I assert that the labeling of others by the LP is arrogant).

As to lunatics at FR, I would assert that the percentage, compared to the mentioned LP forum, is far less.

As to your assertion, and that of OWK's, that those who suggest that abandonment of Israel could bring the curses of God, how do you know that they are crazy to make such a claim? Where do they find the understanding of such claims? Why would they be anti-partiots for accepting what is written by the prophets of their faith?

But even if one is to dismiss religious people, and their view based upon what their scriptures impart, how is it that Libertarians find principle in abandonment of the only democracy in the Middle East?

John, the head in the sand concept of foreign policy of the LP is a foolish, even simplistic, and potentially deadly, idea....

I do not really want answers to the questions possed...they are presented as statement of disagreement with your assertion that those who believe we should support Israel are KOOKS or anti-patriots.

"As written that is a perfectly legitimate position in 2003 America. "

Apologies on my side; I had misread your post (you wrote unpatriotic, I read patriotic); my intention was to note that its a legitimate position to hold in 2003 America.

All too typical? I was using a tactic to demonstrate a point that different people view different positions with different perspectives. I have been very clear with fellow libertarians, and I am sure you are aware the OWK and I agree on nothing libertarian save the corruptness of the DC tax-regime, that they should not be rude or arrogant.

Support for the Iraqi War adventure is the litmus test held by many a squeaky wheel from David Frum to the majority of posters (not lurkers at least if the supportive Freep Mail is any sign) on this forum for patriot or anti-patriot.

"John, the head in the sand concept of foreign policy of the LP is a foolish, even simplistic, and potentially deadly, idea.... "

If I happen to believe that George Washington's Farewell Address should be the basis of American foreign policy, and if I happen to believe that a decentralized government and a well-armed citizenry complete with a culture that will defend the herd alla Todd Beamer is a better policy than sending teenage girls from West Virginia to act as human bait for terrorists, you will see I have clearly positioned my point of view in conservative parameters and we should debate it out.

This 'head in the sand' (cliche) was addressed by 1950s and 1960s conservatives who feared that the national security state would simply come up with whatever rational was needed to justify permanent war for permanent peace. The sad part is that Mainstream Rightists, and the many I respected over the years on FR, are completely silent on this issue and fundamental conservative foreign policy question.

Let alone, how many of you stood by silently, as my point of view was called anti-Semitic, un-patriotic or un-American when simply, when the heart of your argument is that my point of view is anachronistic. I wholeheartedly agree that all of my theories might be incorrect; I am human after all, but I am a patriot who does not follow the heard.

On later posts on this thread you will see me address the real issue, which is the presence of "group think" that has hurt individual thought on this web site.

I am a Christian and dispensationalism (invented in the 1800s) has long been dealt within traditional Christian faiths. I see it as heretical and I will go one step further, most of us were raised to believe the so-called anti-Christ would claim to be acting in God's name. This is a standard part of both Western and Christian archetypes of the devil or the Trickster. It is not to be taken literally but to induce a healthy skepticism towards our leaders.

It is possible to be both a supporter of Israel's rightwing government, and an American conservative patriot.

Real quick additions:

I am a rightwing libertarian, or a radical localists. The left-libertarian LP believes in a top down solution and has no appeal to me.

You can obviously support Israel and be an American patriot (example: my very good friend, billbears.) I never said otherwise; I did say that the idea America is struck by natural disasters when Israel is slighted (or find that an interesting story)is an unpatriotic idea.

I hope you see the subtle difference.

Mmmmm. - Yes, of course. Avoiding_fractured sentences is best accomplished by studying the examples of Brownian Motion.

I can dig it..

Yes, of course. Fish eyes. Always open. Only the spicula obscure the eyesight of fish. Some discussions seem to become "spiculalated" -- to coin a term.

LF (for whatever problems it may have) will always have the morally superior position to you and your ilk. It doesn't keep "profiles" on posters.. It doesn't ban.. it doesn't threaten... it doesn't censor... it doesn't hide the past.

Frankly, invocations of moral superiority -- in respect to matters of free association -- strike me as decidedly unlibertarian. Isn't a key aspect of libertarian philosophy a belief in a free market, including the marketplace of ideas, where a diversity of policies are adopted, giving free persons a variety of choices and increasing the total creativity of the society?

I enjoy reading your posts, and usually find you a consistent and informative libertarian, but here I think you misstep (even in terms of your own ideals). You come very close to arguing that there is 'one best system' of communal internet discourse which (ideally) should be adopted by all fora.

Traffic drops off 15-20% on the weekends.

Does he believe in being kind to his neighbors? If so, would he object to his neighbors stripping his belongings?

The perfect can be the enemy of the good.

I decided long ago that allowing Nazi trolls to occupy my message board and drive off everyone who does not share their idiosyncratic obsessions is a very poor method for encouraging "free speech." Therefore, I make frequent and forceful use of such allegedly un-libertarian methods as censoring and, when necessary, banning troublemakers, brownshirted or otherwise.

Why does it work this way? I would appreciate your thoughts...

I always find it interesting that the definition of "sticking to one's principles" means that you will end with no rules at all, and label it as free speech...in the principled world of Libertarians, one finds company with every fringe hate group, UFO cultists, conspiracy theory devotees, and anti-government extremists, so that you can climb atop a soap box, beat one's chest and proclaim to be the true champions of freedom.....

If I may be so bold as to answer a question that wasn't asked of me:
interesting that the definition of "sticking to one's principles" means that you will end with no rules at all, and label it as free speech...

The problem isn't about Principles, but instead about Rights and formulaic solutions to human society. It comes about when your definition and usage of Rights is a metaphysical one.

Thomas Sowell writes about this in A Conflict of Visions where he points out that those who hold the Constrained view of humanity, which generally includes traditional conservatives, think of Rights as use-defined or based on if they are actually present in the culture.

When Rights are metaphysical, many others can be added by metaphysical arguements and they can be balanced between each other by utilitarian principles of the "greater good" and the like.

He explains that this is why for the Unconstrained view holders (like the left) Rights held by the "many", like free speech", end up trumping a property right held by a lone individual.

"Rights" also suffer when held like an Ideology; as a magic formula that mere adherance to will solve all problems.

Sowell points out that Libertarians are a conflicted class and fall partly in with both views and have a problem therefrom. Keep in mind, however, that he uses the term Libertarian to describe himself.

Thanks. You "get it".

When Rights are metaphysical, many others can be added by metaphysical arguements and they can be balanced between each other by utilitarian principles of the "greater good" and the like. He explains that this is why for the Unconstrained view holders (like the left) Rights held by the "many", like free speech", end up trumping a property right held by a lone individual.

"Rights" also suffer when held like an Ideology; as a magic formula that mere adherance to will solve all problems.

Sowell points out that Libertarians are a conflicted class and fall partly in with both views and have a problem therefrom.

BTTT.

Hillary's Secret War:
The Clinton Conspiracy to
Muzzle Internet Journalists
by Richard Poe