Six Myths About Libertarianism

lewrockwell.com ^ | Jan. 15, 2002 | by Murray N. Rothbard

[Cultural Jihad]

Being in the middle of a forest, it's hard to see the trees.

[Roscoe]

You see, trying to define libertarianism is like trying to stack water.

Libertarianism rationalizations can take you anywhere you want to go.

[Texaggie79]

Go back and read this thread if you have forgotten. I do admire you for having the courage to stay with your views that have been shot down time and time again by so many FReepers.

"You gotta lotta heart kid." Unfortunately, heart does not make one correct in Constitutional Law.

[A CA Guy]

Another good post about the spirit of their argument. Very good.

[A CA Guy]

Don't know about a OCD but I will change to go to bed in my BVD!

[Cultural Jihad]

I have no problem with the non-initiation principle, just with your narrow definitions of fraud and force, and the exclusion of self from the protection against same.

[A CA Guy]

They just jaw it here because they KNOW they are wrong. If they felt they were right then the Libertarian Party would challenge issues in court. If they did that they'd get castrated in court and they know that.

They want the issue, not a conclusion in court.

[Cultural Jihad]

"Okay? Will you cease the harassing of the lawfully-protected heroin depots? Since everyone has a right to be enslaved by vice, will you swerve from your wicked ways of committing arson against the methamphetamine plants next to the schools? Will you stop your illegal campaigns against the most degrading and vicious of 1st Amendment pornography? Will you desist from blocking the Right to Death abortion mills? Will you shut up about how people have a right to determine what kind of a society they are to live in? No? Ha! Then the Libertarian Police will deal with you, O infringer of Constitutional rights!"

[Roscoe]

Will you shut up about how people have a right to determine what kind of a society they are to live in?

Criticism of their nonsense would constitute an "initiation of force." Goodbye freedom of speech.

[A CA Guy]

It is the truth in your post that makes it both worthy of laughter and tears.

[A CA Guy]

They want the issue, not a conclusion in court. That would quickly end their dreams and illusions of defeating good over evil in the name of Freedom and the Constitution while in the shadow of the flag of course.

[Cultural Jihad]

"Well, at least allow us Libertarians to shun you,
and refuse to sell or buy from you. You will starve
in the gutter to the end of your days, and all we will
do is nothing. Now, isn't that a better form of justice
than the use of actually-written laws, which require
the forced expropriation of my sacred dimes to enforce?"

[Roscoe]

They would simply follow the example of their cousins in the "patriot pro se" movement. Every defeat would generate new and ever more bizarre excuses.

[A CA Guy]

Great stuff. You must be a writer.

[A CA Guy]

Don't forget being snippy as well in that process!

[OWK]

So, why Libertarians here? Why don’t they go to the “online gathering place for independent, grass-roots Libertarianism on the web”?

Nothing funnier than a newbie asking Libertarians (who've been here from day one) to go away.

[OWK]

Thou Shalt Not Bear False Witness Against Thy Neighbor

[gjenkins]

"They want the issue, not a conclusion in court."

The courts reflect the political will of this country. Before GWB won, conservatives were lock step in critisizing the joke this country is becoming, including the courts. The principles which drive all of our judgements about life, including the courts, are what need mending.

[Cultural Jihad]

Nothing funnier than a newbie asking Libertarians (who've been here from day one) to go away.

FReepmail, Barnacle. One Libertarian even had the gall to sneak into FreeRepublic using another person's borrowed login after he was expressly banned by the owner of the forum. Nothing like forcing oneself onto others and committing fraud in the process. "Email me!" (spoken in the imperative sense)

[MadameAxe]

your narrow definitions of fraud and force

Our narrow definitions? According to Webster's:

Main Entry: fraud
Pronunciation: 'frod
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English fraude, from Middle French, from Latin fraud-, fraus
Date: 14th century
1 a : DECEIT, TRICKERY; specifically : intentional perversion of truth in order to induce another to part with something of value or to surrender a legal right b : an act of deceiving or misrepresenting : TRICK
2 a : a person who is not what he or she pretends to be : IMPOSTOR; also : one who defrauds : CHEAT b : one that is not what it seems or is represented to be
synonym see DECEPTION, IMPOSTURE

---

And from force's main entry...
3 : violence, compulsion, or constraint exerted upon or against a person or thing

These work for me. What is it that you disagree with?

...the exclusion of self from the protection against same.

Government is not our parent, as much as its promoters would like us to believe and act as if it is. It is an abstract entity composed of individuals. It is just as wrong for the government to initiate force against a citizen as it is for a citizen to initiate force against another citizen.