Ron Paul will have at least 9 deligates at the convention

[Universe Prince]

Yeah, Lincoln made it clear a number of times that, even though he was abolitionist, he had no problems with keeping or even increasing slavery if it kept the union together.

Doesn't seem like something an abolitionist would find acceptable, but then I guess it's all a matter of priorities.

[Stray Pooch]

I had to take a couple days break from this thread.  Kind of a Bloom County dandeliion break.  I meant no disrespect, just had some issues in my life that required a little less stress to deal with.  Anyway, back to the fray.

BT's point seemed to be that big government was necessary, that ending slavery was an example of such, and therefore to oppose big government was to oppose the ending of slavery. Hence his question.

This is still a decidely semantic argument.  You use and emphasize the word "big."  That is a subjective analysis. (Though to your credit, you did qualify the statement with 'BTs point seemed to be . . .')  What you call "big" government is a generic term that libertarians use to describe any government polic, program or action they disagree with.  Few people on our side of the political spectrum believe in "big" government, but libertians wish to stop the government from taking actions or creating programs that other believe are necessary.  That too, of course, is subjective.  Some people think Affirmative Action, Welfare, Social Security and other such programs are necessary.  Others can live without them, and also without Defense, Education and Transportation.  A bit too much, I would say.  But then there are things like the FDA, the FCC, HUD and other organizations that are considered to be "big" government.  Are they necessary?  Opinion, that's all.

But Libertarians are constantly complaining about things like Affirmative Action, Environmental policies, the war on drugs and other such things.  I constantly hear Libertarians whining about any attempt to use government to solve problems, and THAT IS THE ONLY REASON TO HAVE A GOVERNMENT.   So BT was using slavery as an example on when government was needed to accomplish a task.  YOU interpret that as "big" government is needed to accomplish the task.  That is your take, not, I think. BT's. 

Actually I believe my objection, at least initially, was to the notion that the government had some sort of program or project to end slavery. As best I can tell, it did not, and barring the Civil War, slavery would likely have continued for some time. When BT decided to try to call the war, the Emancipation Proclamation and the 13th Amendment a program, I pointed out what a laughable notion that is. You may call it semantics, but it goes to the core of his argument. There was no program, general or otherwise.[/color]

You are both missing and illustrating my point.  The term "program" is generic.  You chose to focus on that term for debate - as you just stated in the above quote.  The point was not that a "program" was in place - but rather that it took government action to end slavery - and it did. 

So you're saying BT's argument was a strawman? I am fairly certain that no one at any point in this thread suggested that the government should have done nothing about slavery.

No, in fact just the opposite. YOU were saying BTs question (Do you think ending slavery is a bad thing?) was a strawman.  I understand WHY you were saying that, and the point has merit, but I say BT was trying to make the point that government was serving its function by acting to end slavery.  As such, his question was rhetorical.  Had it been an actual question then yes, I would agree such a question would have been a strawman.  But it wasn't.

Either you're being naive, or you're expecting me to be.

No.  I'm being objeective and you are too biased to see that.

Well, so far you keep talking like I was arguing otherwise.

No, that is just you personalizing generic points.  You are insisting on technical precision. That is a reasonable debate method in a courtroom, and perhaps it is reasonable in a debate club.  But when I make a statement like "Libertarians want no government" I do not mean that either as a broadbrush or as a literal statement.  I mean something more along the lines of "Most people who profess to be libertarians talk about wanting to limit government to a point I think is far too restrictive to allow government to be effective."  But with all of the words I already put into these posts, I think a little verbal shorthand is acceptable.  I am not saying you said there should be no government, and while you can technically call me out for not stating my case precisely, I tire of fine tuning my prose to the point of clinically sterile verbage.  I'd like to say "You know what I mean" but it's quite obvious that you don't.  So FTR I understand that black-and-white statements are seldom, if ever, true.  But when I say "Government is necessary" I do not, by so stating, imply that you have said otherwise.  I mean that your arguments lead to the reasonable conclusion that you feel largely that government is only barely necessary - and I think libertarians follow that concept well beyond the point of rational restraint on government.

Well, then maybe you shouldn't start a general argument against libertarianism with "This is why I have no respect for libertarianism.  You are making semantic arguments, UP." Sure looks like you were talking to me. And your quote of my post sure did look like you were responding directly to me. I appear to be the only libertarian in this particular dog fight, so why wouldn't I, why shouldn't I take it personally?

Point taken, but the reason you shouldn't take it personally is because this is a debate club and disagreements in response to a particular post will key on the comments made in that post.  The argument you made was not, IMO, substantive - it was semantical.  I was keying my second statement on that point.  Unfortunately, my intro was generic in nature and it led directly into the more specific point.  That was very poor organization and diction.  I can see why you might take that personally, but it was not intended as such.   When I write, I take a lot of time to revise my stuff.  When I post online, I take SOME time to try to see where something might seem personal, but obviously not enough.  I missed that one.  Be assured that my thought process was not as that opening statement made it appear.

<<My desire to point out the obvious wouldn't exist were it not for the general lack of understanding that libertarians have about the Constitution and the role of government.>>

Not sure how this is something I shouldn't take personally. But let's keep this polite. A difference of opinion does not mean a lack of understanding.

You shouldn't take the point about libertariansism personally because it was aimed at a philosophy, not you personally.  But you SHOULD take personally the tone, because it was in direct response to your use of "Mr. Observant" in the quote I was replying to.  Your continual sarcasm through the thread was getting on my nerves, which is why I got into it in the first place.  We have enough flame warriors on this site.  I prefer to debate with the more sensible and intelligent of the bunch.  When I see people acting foolish who I KNOW are capable of (and generally engaged in) keeping rational debate going it pisses me off.  Perhaps it would be better to avoid entering the fray in such cases, but that's kinda why we have this saloon. 

libertarians want to llive in a dream world where moral behavior eliminates the need for government.

Complete nonsense. I don't know of any libertarians who think we can get rid of government and just depend on everyone to act morally, or that expect that at some time in the future everyone will be moral. This is why I have hard time believing you know much of anything about libertarianism.

It's not nonsense.  It's the logical conclusion of the libertarian mindset.  I know not all libertarians are anarchists (though I think some are).  But they do desire to limit government intervention in areas where things like the free market (for example) should be allowed to function independently.  That relies on the oft-disproved concept that the retail market will keep prices rational,  the labor market will keep employees rights protected and self-interest will keep businesses from destroying the environment for profit.  History just plain shows us otherwise.  I HATE labor unions, but I hate having employers with the right to control our lives without recourse - and labor unions sageguard against that.  Similarly, we need the government to institute programs like Affirmative Action, as terrible as the idea is, because left to their own devices, companies WILL discriminate.  Now please don't respond by saying "I wasn't talking about Affirmative Action" or "I didn't say we didn't need AA" because I am just giving examples.

I listen to Boortz whining about "Stop complaining about people taking YOUR job - it's not YOUR job."  Like hell it isn't!  I may not have the capital to start my own business, but I damn sure have the skills to make my employer money, and I have the right to expect to profit from that just as much as my employer does.  He risks his capital - I risk my livelihood.  He may put in more money, but my contribution is just as important and he can't make money without me.  But of course, it is easier for him to find another worker than it is for me to find a new job.  So damn right I want somebody watching my back. 

I know I'm rambling, but this is my point.  Libertarians want to restraint government so that they can be unrestrained.  Again, that sounds like a good idea, but the results of that lack of restraint are pretty scary.  It's pretty obvious that liberal social programs appeal to those with the least economic opportunity and the lowest social station.  There is an obvious self-interest there.  But libertarian ideals tend to appeal to those who have more fiscal power and are higher up the ladder.  That's just as self-interest laden as the other side.  I don't approve of BIG government, but I don't approve of LITTLE government either.  We can most certainly shrink a helluva lot from this government and still keep it effective, but as much as I think liberals love government too much, I think libertarians love it too little.

I would call it sarcasm. In context it is sarcasm about trusting government and politicians to always do the right thing.

And you don't believe sarcasm is ridicule?  Because I gotta tell ya, I think most people do.   It is certainly not respectful, and it is woefully bad debate technique. 

<<I know you have made that argument.  Again, I don't question your sincerity, I just think you fail to understand the full significance of the argument.>>

That's kinda what I figured you meant. And you wonder why I took your attack personally?

That comment falls under the category of "If you can't stand the heat . . ."  I won't apologize for saying that I don't think you get the full significance of the argument.  That's a valid - and constructive - critique.  If you take an observation that "you just don't get my point, dude" as a put down, then I'm sorry, but you're being too sensitive.   That argument was similar to your critique that I don't understand libertarianism.  I didn't take that as a personal attack.   I took it as a critique, though I disagree with it.  I also thought that the rationale you used to support the critque was flawed.  But I didn't take it as some great assault on my intellect, education (other than specific to the issue) or personal character.  I took it to mean you literally thought I didn't know what I was talking about.  On some issues, I don't.  On this one, I do.  And you yourself just pointed out in this thread that I didn't get your point about taking my opening statement personally.  You were right.  I'm not offended by you telling me I didn't get it.  Of course, your whole point (or at least strong underlying theme) to this debate is that I don't understand your position, or BT's intentions or the issue in general.  THAT I can take.  This is debate.  Omelettes - eggs - you know the drill. 

Not a threat, just a comment about my level of patience with your post. Did not mean it to seem like a threat.

No. no. I was just trying to inject a little humor there.  Like, 'Gosh, I wonder what -- ---- -------- means?')  I just thought your wording - and the perfect spacing of the blanks - was funny (intentionally or not) and I was playing into it.  I used the word "threat" very lightly there.

To be honest, BT kinda brings that out in me. (Not saying it's his fault. I know it's really my own choice.) His posts, or at least the ones that seem directed toward me, seem rather smug and patronizing to me, and I have a tendency to respond in kind. When people get smug and superior with me, I usually give it back, and usually sarcastically. And quite frankly, when someone is telling me libertarians don't understand the Constitution and the role of government, that doesn't really make me want to ease up.

I understand that.  Of course, a better way of wording that would be "libertarians understand the constitution in a way I think is incorrect."  But the fact is, I disagree with libertarianism because I really do think the philosophy is (or at least certain applications of that philosophy are) based on a misunderstanding of what the founders intended the constitution to be about.  This is really just a continuation of the ongoing debate that originated in Philadelphia. 

Are you? You said, "But the libertarian response to that is to basically do away with the government and let the free market and personal choice rule the day." Seemed like a perfect place to mention that not all libertarians are anarchists. You know, as in not all libertarians want to do away with the government. You made a blanket statement. I pointed out one reason rather obvious reason why it was wrong.

Yes, but again I was using a verbal shorthand - not an intentional broadbrush.  That's the point the above quote was intended to clarify.  (Clear as mud now, in'nt it?)  Again, I realize that the libertarian philosophy does not mean to LITERALLY do away with government, but the characterization I made there is not unfounded. It is what I consider to be the logical conclusion of the mindset.  I also recognize that there is diversity of opinion and degrees of intensity among libertarians just as any organization.  Again, you are technically correct in your rebuttals, but they miss the mark because they assume I was speaking literally.

Fail to account for human nature how, exactly?

Given that you were speaking generally instead of specifically (there are lots of programs . . .) an exact response is not possible.   

Given that you took to lecturing me with arguments I've made myself many times and that you seem to think libertarianism is some sort of dreamy plan for chaos, misery and destruction, I find hard to believe that you have an open mind on the matter.

I know.  That's because you disagree with me.  I "lectured" you with arguments that you have already made because I believe you understand those arguments differently from me.  The problem stems, I think, from the blurred line that exists between how you and I define "government" and "big government."  But that is a matter of perspective. 

Well, when you want to make that case rather than rant about how libertarians don't understand the Constitution or human nature, let me know.

But that IS my case.  I believe that libertarian views of the Constitution are incorrect, because they largely view it as some written-in-stone piece of scripture, instead of a fluid, living intentionally changing document.  I believe the founders intended it to be just that, not the be-all and end-all of government in this union.  I think that basic misunderstanding is the reason libertarianism is wrong - just as I feel that the idea that government exists to make the world a perfect place and solve every problem is why liberals don't understand the Constitution or human nature.  If that offends you, I can't help it. 

I doubt the overwhelming majority of Americans know enough or have thought enough about libertarianism to have rejected it on its merits. Most non-libertarians I encounter, should the subject of politics ever come up and I bother to get involved, haven't the first clue what libertarianism is, many have never even heard of it. They reject Ron Paul because they think of him as that kook who wants to go back to the gold standard or bring all the troops home. The fact that they think he wants to go back to gold standard shows they heard only some sound bite, rather than paid attention to what he said.

I cannot argue with your complaint about the general knowledge level of American voters, but I can say that Libertarians are NOT making good arguments, fielding good candidates or representing themselves intelligently.  Most Ron Paul supporters I see come off about Ron like Tom Cruise comes off about Scientology.  The general policies and arguments libertarians make are, IMO, foolish and utopian - or at least unrealistic.  Ron Paul supporters in general remind me very much of Lyndon LaRoche nuts (though I do not equate the fanaticism of Paul voters with the wild-eyed craziness of those LL kooks).  When I see the RP supporters in my home town calling the radio stations, writing the paper or waving the signs around Court Square they all clamor like toddlers insisting on getting attention.   This does not warrant attention, other than perhaps medical.

Nope. Disagreement I don't mind at all. I don't expect everyone to agree with me. Discussing things with people who disagree with me is exactly why I'm here. Telling me you have no respect for libertarianism is a sign of more than a disagreement. I don't agree with socialism, but I can respect it. I don't agree with your particular sect of Christianity, but I can respect it. And by the way, the whole, "gosh, I know you're sincere, but you're ignorant" bit, imo, indicates something more than a simple disagreement.

Sorry, but I don't buy it.  I have no respect for the Nazi philsophy.  I haven't shut my mind to it, I have judged it on merit.  Though I obviously don't equate libertarianism in any other way with Nazi-ism, I feel the same way about it.  I do have no respect for the philsophy and I don't apologize for that.  That doesn't indicate a closed mind, it indicates a decision.  I understand that disagreement and disdain are different things.  I have both with libertarianism.  That is not to say that I do not find great merit in some of the ideals the philosophy espouses, and maybe as I think about it I am speaking too strongly to say I have "no respect" for it.  But in general, I don't take it seriously as a way of running our country.  (Then again, I don't take liberalism seriously in that way either.)

As for my comment that "I know you're sincere but you're ignorant" if I followed your debate technique I would insist that I never said that.  I certainly did not.  You're simply rephrasing what I DID say in the way that you took it.  What I intended to say was that I was not accusing you of flip-flopping or misrepresenting your position for the convenience of your argument, but that I thought you were wrong.  I don't make such qualifications gratuitously.  You have been quite sensitive in this thread, and I wanted to make sure you did not think I was making accusations of AMBE-ism.  (Man, that has to be made into a word, somehow.)  You say that my comments indicate something more than mere disagreement.  They do.  They indicate that I respect you personally, and have no question about your integrity or character, but that I think you are wrong about your opinions on this matter.

<<It was NOT a stupid question, nor was it intended as a "gotcha.">>

Are you kidding?

No.  and I repeat you only ridiculed it because it goes against your concept of what the debate was.

Or maybe because it had nothing to do with my comments.

Yes it did.  You just refuse to make that connection.

You leave me no choice here but to argue semantics, which is to say, meaning. "Living without government" and "living without big government" are not the same ideas at all. "You're too cowardly to live without big government" is not the same sentiment as "wanting the government to protect you from the big, bad world is cowardice." There are plenty of libertarians who support the idea of government and police and courts and all that. I don't listen to Boortz, but I have occasionally read opinion pieces by him. I don't recall  Neal Boortz saying there should be no government to protect people. As I understand it, Boortz is one of the minds behind the "Fair Tax" idea, so he must be okay with government continuing to function, at least for now. And even anarcho-capitalists recognize the need for methods of protecting rights and property. So I find your blanket comment "Libertarians claim that wanting the government to protect you from the big, bad world is cowardice" to be rather difficult to believe.

You are arguing down to super-specific semantic points.  This resolves to absurdity.  If you can't see that saying "you need the government to protect you from the big bad world" is pretty much the same as saying "you're too cowardly to live without the government" we are irreconcilably different in mindset. 

Well, when you talk about libertarianism as "wanting the government to turn a blind eye on abuses of power in the free market, discriminatory practices and wholesale destruction of the environment" that doesn't really lead me to believe that you're paying that much attention to what libertarians say. I have yet to see or hear any libertarian say the government should turn a blind eye to abuses of power in the market (I didn't say "free market" because we don't have one) or wholesale destruction of the environment. Maybe Boortz says these things on his radio show, but if he does, he might be the only one. I certainly have never seen or heard any libertarian propose that libertarian ideas were somehow going to result in a perfect society without need for laws. Even the Anarcho-Capitalist himself, Murray Rothbard, wrote about how laws could work and civil law disputes could be handled in an anarchist society. I think he even wrote about how to handle protection of the environment. So when you talk as if libertarians are expecting some miracle of morality to take hold or that they don't understand the possible consequences of their ideas, well, that makes me believing that you're more than fleetingly familiar with libertarianism quite difficult indeed.

Yes, no libertarian has said "I want to turn a blind eye on the abuses . . .blah, blah, blah."  I haven't really heard a lot of liberals say "I want to steal what other people earn and give it to lazy welfare cheats so I can get more votes" either.  Generally, people don't state those sorts of things directly.  In fact, and again I make this point, most people don't THINK they are doing those kinds of things.  Few Nazis would have proudly said "We are mass-murdering animals led by a madman who hate anybody that isn't like us."  And you never see a Sons of Confederates Veterans charter reading "We want to perpetuate the myth that black people are an inferior race who were greatly assisted by the wonderful way in which our ancestors kidnapped them, separated them from their countries and families and kept them in bondage for centuries."  But all  of those things are, at least to some extent, true.  People rationalize their acts, their beliefs and their policies.  Very few people actually revel in the idea of being evil, misinformed or just wrong.  But I was expressing an opinion, not quoting a libertarian website.  I know nobody "said" those things.  I simply think that is where the philosophy leads to.

It's not a pretty sight. Ranting, raving and sometimes even spittle is involved. (That's a joke, man, a joke.)

Well hell, I had two out of three going in this post myself.  (I couldn't figure how to spit on the post.)

[Amianthus]

btw, Ami.  Thanks for the link to the "Amahl and the Night Visitors" torrent.    It took my son almost two days to download the entire thing but I now have a very nice recording (not to mention a whole lot of other good stuff).  I haven't heard the full opera in years.  Thanks!

BTW, Pooch, according to Wikipedia:

For several years it was assumed that the original telecast, preserved on kinescope, had been lost, but a surviving copy was found and now resides in the Paley Center for Media (formerly The Museum of Television & Radio), available for viewing by visitors. This production, however, has not been broadcast on television for many years. A kinescope of the 1955 broadcast starring Bill McIver as Amahl was digitized in 2007 and is available commercially on DVD.

For years, Amahl was presented live, but in 1963 it was videotaped by NBC with an all-new cast, and this version was shown from 1963 to 1966. After 1966, it seemed to have been retired from television, but in 1978, a new production, starring Teresa Stratas as Amahl's mother, Robert Sapolsky as Amahl, and Willard White, Giorgio Tozzi and Nico Castel as the Three Kings, was filmed by NBC, partly on location in the Holy Land. It, however, did not become an annual tradition the way the 1951 and 1963 versions had. The 1955 and 1978 productions are the only ones released on video. Cast recordings of both the 1951 and the 1963 productions were recorded by RCA Victor, and the 1951 cast recording was released on compact disc. The 1963 recording of Amahl was the first recording of the opera made in stereo.

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

[Amianthus]

I constantly hear Libertarians whining about any attempt to use government to solve problems, and THAT IS THE ONLY REASON TO HAVE A GOVERNMENT.

Libertarians whine about using the government to solve ALL problems. Some are appropriate uses of the government to solve problems, others are the application of a hammer as a screwdriver.

[Universe Prince]

This is still a decidely semantic argument.

[...]

No, that is just you personalizing generic points.  You are insisting on technical precision.

[...]

The argument you made was not, IMO, substantive - it was semantical.

[...]

Again, you are technically correct in your rebuttals, but they miss the mark because they assume I was speaking literally.

[...]

You are arguing down to super-specific semantic points.  This resolves to absurdity.  If you can't see that saying "you need the government to protect you from the big bad world" is pretty much the same as saying "you're too cowardly to live without the government" we are irreconcilably different in mindset.

I'm arguing semantics in the sense that I argue meaning. Words have meaning. If you say something, then I disagree with what your chosen sequence of words means, or appears to mean based on the words used, and you follow up by saying that you meant something else so my argument is flawed because I didn't grasp that you meant something other than what you said, that seems a bit like cheating to me.

If I say something, and you misinterpret the meaning, I think you'll find that I pretty much go back to what I said as a starting point to explain my meaning. I don't claim that I meant something other than what I said, though I might claim you misunderstood my meaning. This is one of my problems here at the Saloon. When I say something with direct and specific meaning, too often people try to read between the lines to find meaning that isn't there. Most of the time, I'm just not that subtle, and if I am attempting to be so, I usually make that clear. Even when I'm being sarcastic, I point it out so there is no confusion about what I meant.

While you may call it absurd and insubstantial, I think the meaning of words and sentences used in arguments is important. How can I ever rebut anything you say if later you get to come back and argue my rebuttal is insubstantial because really you meant something else and I'm just too absurd to figure it out? What a great tactic, because then you can claim a win every time.

Of course there will be times I misunderstand something you said. At some point, however, you either mean what you say, or you don't. If you don't, then how is discussion anything but useless? If you do, then looking at the meaning of what you said and arguing against it if I disagree is neither absurd nor insubstantial.

But Libertarians are constantly complaining about things like Affirmative Action, Environmental policies, the war on drugs and other such things.  I constantly hear Libertarians whining about any attempt to use government to solve problems, and THAT IS THE ONLY REASON TO HAVE A GOVERNMENT.

Example #792 why I think you're wrong in your assessment of libertarianism. Mostly what libertarians will complain about is using government to solve ALL problems, or perhaps specific problems, but rarely will you find a libertarian (well, unless he's an anarchist, but I don't believe anarchists are the majority of libertarians) arguing that any and every attempt to use government to solve problems is wrong.

But when I make a statement like "Libertarians want no government" I do not mean that either as a broadbrush or as a literal statement.

And yet, it is by all appearances a broadbrush.

I mean something more along the lines of "Most people who profess to be libertarians talk about wanting to limit government to a point I think is far too restrictive to allow government to be effective."

Then say that.

But with all of the words I already put into these posts, I think a little verbal shorthand is acceptable.  I am not saying you said there should be no government, and while you can technically call me out for not stating my case precisely, I tire of fine tuning my prose to the point of clinically sterile verbage.

I'm not asking for clinically sterile verbiage. But I tire of this constant vagueness of meaning that results so frequently in somehow being my fault for not knowing that you mean something specific when you make generalized and/or broadbush comments. I, unlike some other members of the Saloon, am not a mind reader. While I will sometimes summarize a meaning of several statements, I don't assume you meant something you did not say. I don't like when people do that to me and I don't do so other people. Or at least I try not to.

I mean that your arguments lead to the reasonable conclusion that you feel largely that government is only barely necessary - and I think libertarians follow that concept well beyond the point of rational restraint on government.

I'm a minarchist who would like to be an anarchist. The best summation of what I mean by that is a quote from Thoreau: "I heartily accept the motto--'That government is best which governs least'; and I should like to see it acted up to more rapidly and systematically. Carried out, it finally amounts to this, which also I believe--'That government is best which governs not at all'; and when men are prepared for it, that will be the kind of government which they will have." I don't believe we can simply do away with government now and expect everyone to behave. But I think at some point in the future humans might have developed a society that does not require a government. However, I don't see how we can unless we first work towards the notion that "that government is best which governs least". You speak of using the government to solve problems, and I don't deny it can and should be so used. But how many problems does government try to solve and then make worse? We're told that without the "war on drugs" drug use would run rampant and destroy the country, yet the trade in illegal drugs has never been so strong or so profitable as it is now. The federal government has gotten more and more involved in trying to "fix" education. To what end? Students in 12th grade have trouble passing a test of 10th grade level English, and American students' educational achievement is behind that of students in Denmark, Sweden, Finland, Norway, Canada, Germany, Ireland, Poland, and Belgium. Belgium for pizza's sake! Seems to me some restraint on government beyond what many people in the U.S. find "rational" would, in point of fact, be a really good idea.

It's not nonsense.  It's the logical conclusion of the libertarian mindset.

No, it is not, though I bet you're going to claim I just proved it with that last paragraph. Again, your assessment of libertarianism is wrong. You speak as if you think libertarians expect government to do nothing, and that simply is not true. Libertarians are not in favor of turning a blind eye to corporations and expecting them to behave morally and ethically. Libertarians are generally opposed to government reacting to every single failure of a corporation as if it requires extensive regulation of the entire business world. Libertarians are also generally opposed to the partnering of government and corporations that results from the government attempts to regulate everything. There are any number of things libertarians would like to see government do and ways government can be used. You speak of destroying the environment. Libertarians generally would love to see people use private property rights as a means of punishing corporations for polluting the environment. Yeah, that's right, using the government to punish corporations for violations of individual rights. That libertarians think the government should be used differently than you do does not mean they seek to never use the government at all or that they have no solutions for how to deal with the issues you present as solvable only by the government.

I listen to Boortz whining about "Stop complaining about people taking YOUR job - it's not YOUR job."  Like hell it isn't!  I may not have the capital to start my own business, but I damn sure have the skills to make my employer money, and I have the right to expect to profit from that just as much as my employer does.  He risks his capital - I risk my livelihood.  He may put in more money, but my contribution is just as important and he can't make money without me.  But of course, it is easier for him to find another worker than it is for me to find a new job.  So damn right I want somebody watching my back.

That doesn't make it your job. I'm reminded here of the line in the movie McClinock!, "I don't give jobs. I hire men." You agree to an exchange of your time and effort for the company's money. My dad had a job, and he'd gone about as far with it as he was going to get, salary-wise, and when a head-hunter came looking for people, offered my dad a job with better pay, better chance for advancement, my dad resigned from the old job and took the new job. I doubt you'd insist he should have stayed at the other job. Seems like a double standard to claim the company for whom one works should be prevented from making a similar sort of decision. So you want someone watching your back. That's fair. But there is a difference between someone watching your back and someone regulating the behavior of others.

We can most certainly shrink a helluva lot from this government and still keep it effective, but as much as I think liberals love government too much, I think libertarians love it too little.

That assumes it should be loved at all.

And you don't believe sarcasm is ridicule? It is certainly not respectful, and it is woefully bad debate technique.

Well, I have a problem being respectful to people who are not being respectful to me. And quite frankly, sarcasm is just another manner of phrasing, not a debate technique. You don't want clinically sterile verbiage, well, neither do I.

I know you have made that argument.  Again, I don't question your sincerity, I just think you fail to understand the full significance of the argument.

That's kinda what I figured you meant. And you wonder why I took your attack personally?

That comment falls under the category of "If you can't stand the heat . . ."  I won't apologize for saying that I don't think you get the full significance of the argument.  That's a valid - and constructive - critique.  If you take an observation that "you just don't get my point, dude" as a put down, then I'm sorry, but you're being too sensitive.

But that isn't what you said. You're comment about me not understanding the argument even though I've made it before means you think I don't understand my own argument. Again, not sure how that is not a personal attack.

And you yourself just pointed out in this thread that I didn't get your point about taking my opening statement personally.  You were right.  I'm not offended by you telling me I didn't get it.

Saying you don't understand my point is not the same as saying you don't understand your own argument. The latter I have not said of you.

Given that you took to lecturing me with arguments I've made myself many times and that you seem to think libertarianism is some sort of dreamy plan for chaos, misery and destruction, I find hard to believe that you have an open mind on the matter.

I know.  That's because you disagree with me.

Bzzzz. No, but thank you for playing. It has more to do with the fact that you seem to be judging libertarianism based on notions that are not true and seem uninterested in correction of those notions.

But that IS my case.  I believe that libertarian views of the Constitution are incorrect, because they largely view it as some written-in-stone piece of scripture, instead of a fluid, living intentionally changing document.  I believe the founders intended it to be just that, not the be-all and end-all of government in this union.

So you think the Constitution was meant to be a document with ever changing meaning which is to say, no meaning at all? (note the question mark)

Nope. Disagreement I don't mind at all. I don't expect everyone to agree with me. Discussing things with people who disagree with me is exactly why I'm here. Telling me you have no respect for libertarianism is a sign of more than a disagreement. I don't agree with socialism, but I can respect it. I don't agree with your particular sect of Christianity, but I can respect it. And by the way, the whole, "gosh, I know you're sincere, but you're ignorant" bit, imo, indicates something more than a simple disagreement.

Sorry, but I don't buy it.  I have no respect for the Nazi philsophy.

I didn't say I respected every ideology. But there is a difference between disagreement and disrespect. The one does not require the other.

As for my comment that "I know you're sincere but you're ignorant" if I followed your debate technique I would insist that I never said that.  I certainly did not.

You didn't say it, but you came across as having meant it. If you didn't mean it, then I will say in my defense that I have little way of knowing that since you seem disinclined to say what you mean and inclined to make generalized comments when you mean something else.

and I repeat you only ridiculed it because it goes against your concept of what the debate was.

Seeing as I was actively participating in the debate and you were not, seems a little odd that you're trying to argue that I didn't understand what the debate was. This whole implication that I don't understand what I'm talking about I'm trying not to take as personal, but I'm not sure how I should take it if not personally.

You are arguing down to super-specific semantic points.  This resolves to absurdity.  If you can't see that saying "you need the government to protect you from the big bad world" is pretty much the same as saying "you're too cowardly to live without the government" we are irreconcilably different in mindset.

I repeat: "Living without government" and "living without big government" are not the same ideas at all. "You're too cowardly to live without big government" is not the same sentiment as "wanting the government to protect you from the big, bad world is cowardice." Words have meaning.

[Stray Pooch]

I'm arguing semantics in the sense that I argue meaning. Words have meaning. If you say something, then I disagree with what your chosen sequence of words means, or appears to mean based on the words used, and you follow up by saying that you meant something else so my argument is flawed because I didn't grasp that you meant something other than what you said, that seems a bit like cheating to me.

What do you mean by that?
(Sorry, couldn't resist )

<<But when I make a statement like "Libertarians want no government" I do not mean that either as a broadbrush or as a literal statement.>>

And yet, it is by all appearances a broadbrush.

Granted, but that is what clarification is for.  Communication is often difficult, and I can understand why you might misinterpret something I say - especially if it is stated ambiguously.   But when a person says "You've misunderstood this."  it is incumbent upon you to reconsider the meaning.  The most obvious example in this thread (though it was a BT quote, not mine) was the "Do you think ending slavery is bad?" question.  When I read that, I immediately understood it as a rhetorical question intended to lead to the conclusion that government had done a good thing.  You insisted that it was a strawman argument, and irrelevant to your point.  I think you're completely wrong about that.

You say that words have meaning.  I know that, and when I feel like I am in an important situation (like drafting that appeal for my wife) I spend a lot of time very carefully selecting my words to get my meaning as clear as possible.  When I write for publication, or when I write a poem or song, I agonize over each word.  That's one reason I can't write a story.  Writing to me is a craft, and I go crazy trying to fine tune sentence by sentence.  But in general conversation (and I include this forum) words have LOTS of meanings and sentences even more.  Informal conversation is FULL of ambiguity and a lot of it is understood.  When I say "I'm going to kill my kid when he gets home," nobody thinks I mean that literally.  Everybody gets that such a statement is rhetorical.  We attack broadbrushing on this forum, so I have the criticism you give in this matter coming.  But it should be reasonably clear that when I make a statement like "Libertarians object to the war in Iraq" I don't actually mean all libertarian thinkers.  It might even be assumed that by "object to the war" I might mean "object to the original invasion but recognize we have to finish" or "had no problem with the initial invasion but want us out now."    There are levels of meaning to everything, and geez I over-analyze as it is.  Can you imagine me picking each individual idea out of an argument to be absolutely precise?  Cripes, that's a habit I'm trying to cut DOWN on.

<<I mean something more along the lines of "Most people who profess to be libertarians talk about wanting to limit government to a point I think is far too restrictive to allow government to be effective.">>

Then say that.

Don't need to.  Making the broadbrush is not ALWAYS bad.  If you say to me "Mormons don't drink coffee"  I will accept that you mean "Mormons aren't supposed to drink coffee, though some do" rather than "A Mormon drinking coffee is impossible."  Sometimes that precision has to be relaxed a little. 

As an example, in that Jane Fonda thread I posted a joke about pissing on Jane Fonda's grave.  (Well, half-joke.)  MT immediately countered with a question about why "those hypocritical bastards" didn't want to piss on Lt Calley's grave.  I could have taken this to mean he was calling me a "hypocritical bastard" - a not unreasonable expectation or interpretation.  Then I could have countered with "As a matter of fact, I wouldn't have a problem pissing on his grave, as I think he and many others at My Lai were actually war criminals."  But I didn't feel the point was aimed directly at me, and even if it was, I didn't think he was trying to parse who, given the opportunity and the  bladder capacity, I might choose to use as a posthumous porcelain Buddha.  I took his point in a broader sense to mean that it was hypocritical to denounce a "peace" worker and glorify warriors.  Had I chosen to respond, I would have keyed on the facts that Jane Fonda was not doing anything for peace; and that the warriors were under far more duress when they did those terrible things.  And the use of the word "hypocritical" in that context seems incorrect, though a argument could be made to support it.  But I wasn't keying on the words.  i was keying on the idea.  Had I responded in that way and MT said "No, when I said A I meant B - not C as you interpreted it"  I would have reevaluated my response based on the clarification.

I'm not asking for clinically sterile verbiage. But I tire of this constant vagueness of meaning that results so frequently in somehow being my fault for not knowing that you mean something specific when you make generalized and/or broadbush comments. I, unlike some other members of the Saloon, am not a mind reader. While I will sometimes summarize a meaning of several statements, I don't assume you meant something you did not say. I don't like when people do that to me and I don't do so other people. Or at least I try not to.

The point is well taken.  The only remedy I can offer, however, is to clarify when misunderstandings occur.  I am not likely to change my way of speaking anytime soon.  Obviously, given this exchange, I will give verbal shorthand in the form of broadbrushes more attention and consideration, but Pooch am what Pooch am. 

I'm a minarchist who would like to be an anarchist. The best summation of what I mean by that is a quote from Thoreau: "I heartily accept the motto--'That government is best which governs least'; and I should like to see it acted up to more rapidly and systematically. Carried out, it finally amounts to this, which also I believe--'That government is best which governs not at all'; and when men are prepared for it, that will be the kind of government which they will have." I don't believe we can simply do away with government now and expect everyone to behave. But I think at some point in the future humans might have developed a society that does not require a government. However, I don't see how we can unless we first work towards the notion that "that government is best which governs least". You speak of using the government to solve problems, and I don't deny it can and should be so used. But how many problems does government try to solve and then make worse? We're told that without the "war on drugs" drug use would run rampant and destroy the country, yet the trade in illegal drugs has never been so strong or so profitable as it is now. The federal government has gotten more and more involved in trying to "fix" education. To what end? Students in 12th grade have trouble passing a test of 10th grade level English, and American students' educational achievement is behind that of students in Denmark, Sweden, Finland, Norway, Canada, Germany, Ireland, Poland, and Belgium. Belgium for pizza's sake! Seems to me some restraint on government beyond what many people in the U.S. find "rational" would, in point of fact, be a really good idea.[/color]

But see, that Thoreau quote, which I have seen used here before by you or Victor as a signature, states pretty much the same thing I said when I stated that liberals want government to eliminate the need for morals and libertarians want morals to do away with government.  That's a pithy way (I hope) of saying what Thoreau said (at least half of what I said).
[/quote]
 

No, it is not, though I bet you're going to claim I just proved it with that last paragraph.

HA!  And you said you couldn't read minds!  Revealed, sir!  You are REVEALED!!

Again, your assessment of libertarianism is wrong. You speak as if you think libertarians expect government to do nothing, and that simply is not true. Libertarians are not in favor of turning a blind eye to corporations and expecting them to behave morally and ethically. Libertarians are generally opposed to government reacting to every single failure of a corporation as if it requires extensive regulation of the entire business world. Libertarians are also generally opposed to the partnering of government and corporations that results from the government attempts to regulate everything. There are any number of things libertarians would like to see government do and ways government can be used. You speak of destroying the environment. Libertarians generally would love to see people use private property rights as a means of punishing corporations for polluting the environment. Yeah, that's right, using the government to punish corporations for violations of individual rights. That libertarians think the government should be used differently than you do does not mean they seek to never use the government at all or that they have no solutions for how to deal with the issues you present as solvable only by the government.[/color]

Well, you are talking a matter of degree.  I understand what you are saying, but where we part is that you believe that loosening the reigns of government while not completely doing away with it will lead us toward the need for less government.  I think that historically, that doesn't play out well.  You use our poor education showing against other countries as a point against government.  But are those other nations you cite under private education systems?  I haven't done any research, but I'm willing to bet those nations have government run school systems.  Given that assumption to be true, that does not speak against government - in fact it speaks FOR government.  It speaks only against the way our government handles education.  (In fact, I could fit a diatribe against the NEA and that crowd in here, but that would be digression to insanity.)  While I recognize that a discussion of libertarianism in this country necessarily involves OUR government, my point about the need for government is more generic.  I think almost everybody agrees OUR government is far too big and inefficient, we just argue about which programs to cut and what policies to implement.  And, pointedly, how far that ought to go.

That doesn't make it your job. I'm reminded here of the line in the movie McClinock!, "I don't give jobs. I hire men." You agree to an exchange of your time and effort for the company's money. My dad had a job, and he'd gone about as far with it as he was going to get, salary-wise, and when a head-hunter came looking for people, offered my dad a job with better pay, better chance for advancement, my dad resigned from the old job and took the new job. I doubt you'd insist he should have stayed at the other job. Seems like a double standard to claim the company for whom one works should be prevented from making a similar sort of decision. So you want someone watching your back. That's fair. But there is a difference between someone watching your back and someone regulating the behavior of others.

If my boss gets to regulate my behavior why can't I have someone regulate his?  THERE is your double standard.  There are rules on the job, policies that HE makes, consequences that can destroy my life if he doesn't get laid the night before but I am supposed to accept that?  What about bosses (and there are many) who insist on making me work in unsafe conditions for crappy pay or ridiculous hours?  Sorry.  It may be YOUR money but its MY job until such time as I choose another.  If you decide to sell your company and buy another, nobody will say a word.  But until you do it is YOUR company.  When some hostile takeover happens, I'll bet you will fight it like hell.  Now granted, if I screw up and start messing up your company, you might take back that job and legitimately so.  But if YOU screw up and start affecting my life, I want to be able to take YOUR money.  That gives me some leverage when you didn't get any and I happen to be in the crossfire.  Without the kinds of safeguards our government has put in place, there is nothing to stop you from abusing me.  When there are consequences, you are a little more careful. 

That assumes it should be loved at all.

Which is pretty much my argument. 

But that isn't what you said. You're comment about me not understanding the argument even though I've made it before means you think I don't understand my own argument.

No it doesn't.  This is a perfect example of what I mean by refusing to accept clarification.  You misunderstood my  meaning, I clarified my meaning, and you say "You didn't mean what YOU say you mean, you mean what I THINK you mean.  (btw, if you want to say "What does that mean, anyway?  Now would be the time!) 

When I say you do not understand the FULL SIGNIFICANCE of your argument, I mean that while you use the same words that I do, you do not FULLY UNDERSTAND the significance of those words.  (I guess a better way of saying this would be that you do not understand those words in the same way that I understand them.  Saying that you do not fully understand them begs the question.)   So let me give you an extreme example of how I mean this:

Let's say that you and I agree with the following:

   We have serious problems in the world today.  We need to take action to correct them for the good of our children.  The present government is not doing that.  We need to get a government in there that will stop those who threaten us and make our country safe again.

You could say exactly that and vote for Hillary Clinton.  You could also say that and vote for George Bush.  You could also say that and vote for Adolph Hitler, Mahatma Ghandi, or Josef Stalin.   If you happened to be a Hitler supporter in the 1930's and I made that argument to you, then you said "I said exactly that same thing yesterday." Now you might think the problem is that Belgians are making Sauerkraut these days and our national dish is being diluted.  So we should institute a statewide boycott of Belgian Sauerkraut.  You think that THAT is what Hitler means when he says those same words.  So you agree with him.  I tell you "You don't understand the FULL SIGNIFICANCE of the argument. Then if you asked me to clarify I might say "Hitler thinks the PROBLEM is racial impurity.  The action he plans to take is to MURDER ALL JEWS.  That's because he thinks the JEWS are the threat."   So that doesn't mean I think you do not understand your own argument. It means you do not understand the FULL SIGNIFICANCE of that argument. Further, I might mean that the problem is Hitler and we should keep him from gaining power or our world might be destroyed.  You, me and Hitler all say the same words, but we mean something completely different.  You know what YOU mean, but you do not understand that when Hitler or I use the same words, that is  not what WE mean.

Again, not sure how that is not a personal attack.

Well, hopefully my last response clarified this, but if not, I give up.

Bzzzz. No, but thank you for playing. It has more to do with the fact that you seem to be judging libertarianism based on notions that are not true and seem uninterested in correction of those notions

That is a matter of opinion.  YOU say those notions are not true.  I say they are.  So I repeat, that is because you disagree with me. 

So you think the Constitution was meant to be a document with ever changing meaning which is to say, no meaning at all? (note the question mark)

You asked two questions.  Which one would you like me to answer?

In case that is too subtle, let me clarify.  "Ever changing meaning" does not mean "No meaning at all."  What you did is defined one term to mean another, and that is an assumption.  In fact, the whole constitution has a meaning.  It is intended to be a philosophy by which the country is governed.  It includes concepts of basic rights, a structure for the governing body and certain principles (such as the idea of government by consent of the governed).  As such, it is intended to have a full meaning.  But consent of the governed implies change - since people will change with the times, the world situation and the changing nature of our own country.  Moreover, a nation which does not connect itself with a nationality will change simply by the inclusion of other cultural ideas into its own culture.  We have come to view slavery as horrific.  Many, perhaps most, people in 1787 did not feel that way.  We have come to expect women to have the same rights as men, including voting, owning property and holding office.  Very few bought that in 1787.  We have become the dominant power in the world.  We were a smarty-pants upstart in 1787, with neither military nor economic might.  (Both, in fact, were pathetic.) 

But our founders recognized that this sort of thing was bound to happen.  They did not intend - indeed correspondence between Jefferson and Madison made much of this - to force THEIR idea of government on future generations.  There was serious consideration of giving the Constitution an expiration date of twenty years or so, giving each generation a chance to reconsider how the government was working out.  (Remember, the reason the Constitution came to be is because the Articles of Confederation had proved a failure.)  Instead, provisions were built into the Constitution to make it adaptable - BY DESIGN.  The founders recognized that the nation was almost certainly going to grow and change far beyond what it was in the eighteenth century, and they were not so arrogant as to suggest that they could think of everything.  So they left it to future generations to adapt and change the constitution rather than have to discard it completely.  That's why we can still govern today using a constitution that included a fugitive slave law, a national legislative body appointed solely by state legislatures, a gender bias in power and rights, and a minuscule military.  It was not even out of the question to our founders that this nation might one day reject the Constitution outright, and try another approach.  And that is exactly as it should be.  The founders, profound and brilliant as they were, have no more right to tyrannize us with their ideas of a perfect union than King George did.

You didn't say it, but you came across as having meant it. If you didn't mean it, then I will say in my defense that I have little way of knowing that since you seem disinclined to say what you mean and inclined to make generalized comments when you mean something else.

Or, another way of saying that is, you misunderstood what I said.  But that is moot, since I went on to explain what I meant by it.  My point in making the statement you quoted is "I know you don't mean that LITERALLY, but you have been calling ME on just such generalizations all through this thread."  That's why I said "If I were using YOUR technique . . ." 

Seeing as I was actively participating in the debate and you were not, seems a little odd that you're trying to argue that I didn't understand what the debate was. This whole implication that I don't understand what I'm talking about I'm trying not to take as personal, but I'm not sure how I should take it if not personally.

Already explained that, so won't go there again.  As to actively participating in the debate, the entire thread was posted, on this forum, for everyone to see.  Unless you were carrying on emails offline I think I can make a fair appraisal of what was going on.  I might be wrong, mind you, but I can certainly see the points made before me.  This is not the same as not being there when something happens and making an uninformed judgment.  As to my saying you thought the debate was about something else, I was not talking about what YOU said. I was talking about what BOTH of you were saying.  I am saying that you thought the question was intended to be a strawman about your point and I think BT meant something completely different.  This is not an uncommon problem in debate.  I usually word that as "we are having two different arguments."  I believe you misinterpreted BT's intent in making the original statement.  As such, you thought he was arguing ONE point where in fact he was arguing another.  If your assumption was correct, your critique was equally correct, however; if your assumption was incorrect (as I believe it to be) your critique was irrelevant.  That is what I meant by saying you ridiculed his statement because it didn't fit YOUR concept of what the debate was about.

How about this.  A woman says to her husband "I wish we could take a trip to Paris."  She just means that Paris would be a nice place to visit, and one day she'd like to go there.  He takes it to mean "I wish you had a better job so we could afford nice vacations."  He responds, in a sarcastic tone, "Yeah, maybe you could wear that dress you just bought."  He means that if she didn't keep spending money on clothes maybe he wouldn't NEED a better job.  She takes this to mean "You look like a cow in that dress and I wouldn't be seen in Cleveland with you, much less Paris."  The case will eventually go to the lawyers with both of them thinking the other is a completely unreasonable idiot.  Afterwards, she will tell her friends.  "He treated me like dirt, but he was a great provider."  He'll say "She took me for a lot in court, but I have to admit she was a looker - and she sure knew how to dress."

Two different arguments.

I repeat: "Living without government" and "living without big government" are not the same ideas at all. "You're too cowardly to live without big government" is not the same sentiment as "wanting the government to protect you from the big, bad world is cowardice." Words have meaning.

Words have many meanings. 

[Universe Prince]

The most obvious example in this thread (though it was a BT quote, not mine) was the "Do you think ending slavery is bad?" question.  When I read that, I immediately understood it as a rhetorical question intended to lead to the conclusion that government had done a good thing.  You insisted that it was a strawman argument, and irrelevant to your point.  I think you're completely wrong about that.

Well, considering that I was not questioning whether or not government had done a good thing, I still insist the question was irrelevant. If making a counter argument against something that was never in question is not a strawman, then what is? You claim his question was not a "gotcha" question, but frankly, I don't know how BT's question, "Are you saying ending slavery was a bad thing?" isn't a gotcha question, and I don't how it was rhetorical, since his post was clearly criticizing my comments.

Making the broadbrush is not ALWAYS bad.

Of course. But when you make a broadbush kind of comment that is not really a common idiom of speech (like speaking of "killing" someone), I think maybe you should not necessarily expect your "listener" to grasp the more specific meaning that you meant but did not say.

But see, that Thoreau quote, which I have seen used here before by you or Victor as a signature, states pretty much the same thing I said when I stated that liberals want government to eliminate the need for morals and libertarians want morals to do away with government.  That's a pithy way (I hope) of saying what Thoreau said (at least half of what I said).

Wanting morals to eliminate a need for government at some distant and unspecified point in the future is hardly the same thing as expecting to do away with government now and now have people morally take up the slack on their own. And being optimistic about humans being able to eventually grow to a point where government is no longer a necessity is not something for which I intend to apologize.

I understand what you are saying, but where we part is that you believe that loosening the reigns of government while not completely doing away with it will lead us toward the need for less government.

Well, I hardly think increasing people's dependence on government is somehow going to magically result in a desire for less government.

You use our poor education showing against other countries as a point against government.  But are those other nations you cite under private education systems?  I haven't done any research, but I'm willing to bet those nations have government run school systems.  Given that assumption to be true, that does not speak against government - in fact it speaks FOR government.  It speaks only against the way our government handles education.

Yep. You're right. I was not arguing for no government. I was arguing for less government. Arguing that we might benefit from less federal government does not mean I'm arguing against public schools. Any time you want to argue for the U.S. setting up a system of competition between schools as exists in Europe (because per student spending is attached to students not schools), I'll be happy to back you up on that.

If my boss gets to regulate my behavior why can't I have someone regulate his?  THERE is your double standard.

First of all, no one forces you to work for a particular employer. You can look for a job somewhere else. But you want to punish the employer if he wants to hire someone somewhere else? Yeah, that seems like a double standard.

What about bosses (and there are many) who insist on making me work in unsafe conditions for crappy pay or ridiculous hours?

What about them? I didn't say there should be no laws protecting individuals from abuse. I said expecting the employer to be prevented from making the same sort of decision an employee makes when deciding to change jobs was a double standard.

You misunderstood my  meaning, I clarified my meaning, and you say "You didn't mean what YOU say you mean, you mean what I THINK you mean.

Not what I said at all. What I said was, essentially, that you did not say what you meant.

When I say you do not understand the FULL SIGNIFICANCE of your argument, I mean that while you use the same words that I do, you do not FULLY UNDERSTAND the significance of those words.

That does not seem like an improvement for my part in this.

(I guess a better way of saying this would be that you do not understand those words in the same way that I understand them.  Saying that you do not fully understand them begs the question.)   So let me give you an extreme example of how I mean this:

Let's say that you and I agree with the following:

   We have serious problems in the world today.  We need to take action to correct them for the good of our children.  The present government is not doing that.  We need to get a government in there that will stop those who threaten us and make our country safe again.

You could say exactly that and vote for Hillary Clinton.  You could also say that and vote for George Bush.  You could also say that and vote for Adolph Hitler, Mahatma Ghandi, or Josef Stalin.   If you happened to be a Hitler supporter in the 1930's and I made that argument to you, then you said "I said exactly that same thing yesterday." Now you might think the problem is that Belgians are making Sauerkraut these days and our national dish is being diluted.  So we should institute a statewide boycott of Belgian Sauerkraut.  You think that THAT is what Hitler means when he says those same words.  So you agree with him.  I tell you "You don't understand the FULL SIGNIFICANCE of the argument. Then if you asked me to clarify I might say "Hitler thinks the PROBLEM is racial impurity.  The action he plans to take is to MURDER ALL JEWS.  That's because he thinks the JEWS are the threat."   So that doesn't mean I think you do not understand your own argument. It means you do not understand the FULL SIGNIFICANCE of that argument. Further, I might mean that the problem is Hitler and we should keep him from gaining power or our world might be destroyed.  You, me and Hitler all say the same words, but we mean something completely different.  You know what YOU mean, but you do not understand that when Hitler or I use the same words, that is  not what WE mean.

Nope, definitely not an improvement for me. I'm still left as the guy who doesn't understand the real meaning of the argument. You may have to forgive me, but as low as my sense of self-worth is, I just don't believe I'm that stupid.

That is a matter of opinion.  YOU say those notions are not true.  I say they are.

Either the notions are true or they are not. Since I'm the libertarian, I think I might be in a slightly better position to comment on that. In much the same way you would be in a better position to comment on various notions people have about Mormonism. I'm not going to claim I know your religion better than you do.

You asked two questions.  Which one would you like me to answer?

In case that is too subtle, let me clarify.  "Ever changing meaning" does not mean "No meaning at all."

First, no, I asked one question, and second, yes, it does. If the meaning is ever in flux, then it doesn't really have a meaning at all. If you change your home church every week, do you really have a home church? If you change your child's name from moment to moment, does your child really have a name? If the meaning of a statement or document changes any time we feel it like changing it, does it really have a meaning? I think it does not.

In fact, the whole constitution has a meaning.  It is intended to be a philosophy by which the country is governed.  It includes concepts of basic rights, a structure for the governing body and certain principles (such as the idea of government by consent of the governed).  As such, it is intended to have a full meaning.  But consent of the governed implies change - since people will change with the times, the world situation and the changing nature of our own country.

I did not say the Constitution could not or should not change. I asked if "you think the Constitution was meant to be a document with ever changing meaning which is to say, no meaning at all?" Obviously the Constitution can change, that is why we have amendments. But I'll ask another question, more specific, to clarify my meaning. Do you think the meaning of the Second Amendment is something different today from its meaning when it was written?

How about this.  A woman says to her husband "I wish we could take a trip to Paris."  She just means that Paris would be a nice place to visit, and one day she'd like to go there.  He takes it to mean "I wish you had a better job so we could afford nice vacations."

So he is reading out-of-context meaning into her comments that she did not actually state. Hm. Yes, sometimes people misunderstand each other. Frankly, in the context of of the discussion, I simply don't see BT's question as merely a good natured, rhetorical question. I'm not reading meaning into it; I'm taking at face value, in context. Of course, BT could settle this by chiming in with a clarification.

Words have many meanings.
 

But usually not constantly changing ones. Or arbitrary ones. Otherwise communication would be next to impossible.

[Universe Prince]

Libertarians whine about using the government to solve ALL problems. Some are appropriate uses of the government to solve problems, others are the application of a hammer as a screwdriver.

Yeah, that too.

[Universe Prince]

Libertarians claim that wanting the government to protect you from the big, bad world is cowardice.

Again, if you want to argue semantics, maybe it hasn't been said exactly in that fashion.  "You're afraid of freedom" (a favorite Boortz-ism) isn't EXACTLY the same as "You're too cowardly to live without big government."  But that is Clintonian logic.

If my boss gets to regulate my behavior why can't I have someone regulate his?  THERE is your double standard.  There are rules on the job, policies that HE makes, consequences that can destroy my life if he doesn't get laid the night before but I am supposed to accept that?  What about bosses (and there are many) who insist on making me work in unsafe conditions for crappy pay or ridiculous hours?  Sorry.  It may be YOUR money but its MY job until such time as I choose another.  If you decide to sell your company and buy another, nobody will say a word.  But until you do it is YOUR company.  When some hostile takeover happens, I'll bet you will fight it like hell.  Now granted, if I screw up and start messing up your company, you might take back that job and legitimately so.  But if YOU screw up and start affecting my life, I want to be able to take YOUR money.  That gives me some leverage when you didn't get any and I happen to be in the crossfire.  Without the kinds of safeguards our government has put in place, there is nothing to stop you from abusing me.  When there are consequences, you are a little more careful.

Now explain to me how it is you want government to "have your back", to protect you from bad things employers might do, but you're not afraid of what would happen without the government to protect you. Notice, I didn't say 'but you're a coward.'

Is having a firearm for self-defense or learning karate for self-defense cowardly? No, I wouldn't say so. But it does show that a person feels some, let us say, concern about what could happen in the absence of the ability of self-defense. One might even say such a person might be afraid of what might happen in the absence of the ability of self-defense.

Is fear really the same as cowardice? I think it is not so. Everyone has fears. Cowardice is being ruled by fear. Conversely, courage is not the absence of fear, but overcoming fear. So is it fair or reasonable or even rational to equate fear with cowardice? I think it is not so.

So if someone says you're afraid of what might happen without government, does that mean they're calling you a coward? Further, is it reasonable to be offended by being accused of having fear when you certainly appear to be expressing some measure of fear?

[Stray Pooch]

Well, considering that I was not questioning whether or not government had done a good thing, I still insist the question was irrelevant. If making a counter argument against something that was never in question is not a strawman, then what is? You claim his question was not a "gotcha" question, but frankly, I don't know how BT's question, "Are you saying ending slavery was a bad thing?" isn't a gotcha question, and I don't how it was rhetorical, since his post was clearly criticizing my comments.

So because YOU get to control the meaning of the debate, anyone who makes a statement that YOU interpret in a particular way must accept your interpretation - not what HE meant.  That's nonsense.  Debate is a give-and-take and your insisting that words have meaning (by which you mean YOUR meaning) cuts out any chance that YOU might be wrong.

Of course. But when you make a broadbush kind of comment that is not really a common idiom of speech (like speaking of "killing" someone), I think maybe you should not necessarily expect your "listener" to grasp the more specific meaning that you meant but did not say.

I don't expect a listener to grasp my meaning if I am ambiguous.  I do, however, expect a listener to accept my clarificataion when it is given.  Communication is a two-way responsibility.  I do have a responsibility to be clear in my meaning, but you have a responsibility to consider that your own prejudices, experiences and mindset may effect your interpretation of what I say. 

Further, you do NOT have the right to assume that YOUR communications are so precisely worded that they cannot be honestly misunderstood.  If BT simply misinterpreted your meaning in the arguments that led to his slavery comment, perhaps rather than arrogantly insisting that he is deliberately baiting you, you might simply assume that he has misunderstood your meaning.  It might make you less sarcastic and more civil. 

Wanting morals to eliminate a need for government at some distant and unspecified point in the future is hardly the same thing as expecting to do away with government now and now have people morally take up the slack on their own. And being optimistic about humans being able to eventually grow to a point where government is no longer a necessity is not something for which I intend to apologize.

When did I ever say libertarians wanted to do away with government now?  When did I ever suggest that you needed to apologize for your optimism?   I said, quite correctly, that libertarians want to reduce government to the point I believe it would be ineffective.  And I said that the libertarian notion of doing so is naive and utopian.  YOU are now the one arguing irrelevently.  You claim that I do not say what I mean.  Nonsense.  I say exactly what I mean, you simply fail to understand it.  Some of that is ambiguity on my part, but some of that is poor interpretation on your part.   I am happy to clarify when something is misunderstood, irrespective of where the difficulty lies, but it is your part to accept the clarification and adjust your arguments accordingly.  We're not trying to score brownie points here, we are discussing a difference of opinion.  Allowing that you may have misunderstood the meaning of something said is not a concession of a point, it is simply an adjustment in your interpretation of my argument.

Well, I hardly think increasing people's dependence on government is somehow going to magically result in a desire for less government.t

Obviously not, but we are arguing different points.  I am saying that reducing government too far will result in abuses that government is able to correct.  I don't think that decreasing government to the point where it is ineffective will lead to a desire for less government.  I think it will cause many people to want MORE government.  That is in fact exactly what brought about the "Constitutional" convention in the first place.   We overthrew the established government and decreased our own level of government to the point of ineffectiveness.  So the committee came up with the idea to make a stronger federal government to take up the slack. 

Yep. You're right. I was not arguing for no government. I was arguing for less government. Arguing that we might benefit from less federal government does not mean I'm arguing against public schools. Any time you want to argue for the U.S. setting up a system of competition between schools as exists in Europe (because per student spending is attached to students not schools), I'll be happy to back you up on that.

We are in agreement on that. 

First of all, no one forces you to work for a particular employer. You can look for a job somewhere else. But you want to punish the employer if he wants to hire someone somewhere else? Yeah, that seems like a double standard.

It would be if the power relationship between employer and employee were equal but that is simply not the case.   If I leave my employer he loses an easily replaced worker (or, if I happen to be highly skilled, perhaps a less-easily replaced one).  If I am a major league pitcher and losing me might cost a world series, well I have an agent to do my bargaining for me and I can put some pressure on my employee.  Further, my skills are so in demand that I can usually find another employer fairly quickly.    And even then, the team owner can still hire another pitcher who might as easily take me to the World Series assuming I have an otherwise contending team.  But those sorts of situations are by far the exception to the rule.  Normally, it is me against an employer who has far more power.  For the majority of workers, the company can replace us with impunity and we are left struggling to find a job (with, possibly, a blemish on our record which makes doing so harder) while the company goes on doing what it does.  My family is struggling to eat and pay our bills and your company is getting along fine.  You have no incentive to protect my job - in fact, you have a strong incentive to dump me when my pay has become too high or I am close to qualifying for a pension - and that happens all the time.   Again, the double standard is when you get to regulate MY behavior for the good of the company (to which I do not object) and I get no ability to regulate YOUR behavior for the good of the workers (to which I DO object). 

NOW PLEASE PAY ATTENTION TO THIS COMMENT:  When you REDUCE government to the point where SUFFICIENT PROTECTION for workers is not available (and I acknowledge that this is a subjective thing) workers are subject to abuse and families can be fiscally destroyed.  THAT IS NOT THE SAME THING AS DOING AWAY WITH GOVERNMENT COMPLETELY.  Please stop arguing about whether you intend to do away with government completely.  We have both clarified our positions to the point where such an argument is unnecessary.  I disapprove of libertarian philsophy not because the end result is anarchy (which some do want but I have never thought that even most libertarians do) but because the long-term results of libertarian philosophy will be to make government ineffective.  I have no fear of the utopian ideal your quote espouses, since rational thought would stop that situation ffrom ever occurring.  But I do have no respect for that utopian notion for the same reason I have no respect for Brass's RBE ideal.  I hold them both as hopelessly optimistic viewpoints which disregard reality for a viewpoint of humanity that is unrealistic. 

Now, I have my own optimistic view of a utopian future.  I believe that Christ will one day come to reign for a thousamd years and the earth will be as a paradise.  But this viewpoint rests on divine intervention.  It assumes the government to be perfect and people to be all in harmony with it.  Brass has no respect for this notion, and I understand that, given his beliefs.  I'm not sure how you stand on such an idea but I would not be offended if you thought it was silly.  It only works if the concept of Christ as God and my particular interpretation of scriptural prophecy is correct.  Barring that, it IS silly.  But there is no circumstance wherein human beings will ever evolve into billions of organisms who all think the same, all have the same motivations, all have strong social bonds and all become concerned about making sure that we all progress together.  It just isn't going to happen.  So long as the possibility of misinterpretation of someone else's meanings, desire for gain, intolerance of differences, or need for resources exists, we will have a need for strong, moral governments.   Our argument is the degree to which that government need be strong in the now, and whether there will ever be a time in the future that such a need is eliminated.   I believe in less government than liberals want but more than libertarians do.   

What about them? I didn't say there should be no laws protecting individuals from abuse. I said expecting the employer to be prevented from making the same sort of decision an employee makes when deciding to change jobs was a double standard.

And I say you cannot have laws protecting workers without a strong government to back them.  Further, as I have stated, employers do NOT make "the same sort of decision" that employees make, because the effect of firing a worker is far more devastating to the worker than would be the effect of seeking another job is to the employer.  This again goes to the black-and-white view that "words have meaning."  Yes, me dumping you is grammatically the same as you dumping me.  But practically in an empoyee-employer relationship the effects of those decisions are far different.

Not what I said at all. What I said was, essentially, that you did not say what you meant.

I said exactly what I meant.  You simply misinterpreted it.  When I look at your counterargument and see that you have misunderstood my meaning, I have no problem with clarifying it.  I understand that miscommunication happens.  But when you refuse to accept the clarification, that is arrogance.  You insist that BT HAD to mean what you think he did.  That is arrogance.  You insist that "words have meaning" by which you practically mean "Words mean what I think they mean and not what you think they mean."  That is arrogance.  Words have many meanings, and the fact that you interpret a sentence or paragraph of mine differently than the message I intended to convey is not a question of fault.  It is simply a function of the inate ambiguity of all human language.  You are taking it as a personal insult to suggest that you have misinterpreted my meaning.  That's nonsense.  You are not God, and as you pointed out you cannot read minds (though I believe I have established that you can!).  When you read something I - or BT - writes and misinterpret it, its just a matter of miscommunication.  It doesn't matter who has made the error, neither of us is stupid or even necessarily wrong. 

Nope, definitely not an improvement for me. I'm still left as the guy who doesn't understand the real meaning of the argument. You may have to forgive me, but as low as my sense of self-worth is, I just don't believe I'm that stupid.

I assume your comments about low self-esteem are sarcastic.  In fact, it is not stupid for you to not understand the meaning of the argument.  It is simply normal human communications difficulties.  Your apparent assumption that misunderstanding an argument makes you stupid (or that pointing out that you misunderstand an argument means I am accusing you of stupidity) is incorrect.  When I say you do not understand the meaning of something I have said, I am not calling you stupid.  I am not even assigning a blame for where the misunderstanding lies, since I have no problem seeing where some of the misunderstandings you have had in this thread come from based on my wording.  I am simply clarifying the argument.  You seem to be very sensitive to the perception that you might be wrong about something.  I am not as sensitive about such things, since I have a well-earned (if not well-deserved) huge ego when it comes to debate.  As such, perhaps I am missing an important point about how my arguments are offensive to you.  It is not my intention to offend you, though my opinion of libertarianism might well be offensive. 

You have mentioned my faith, as a perfectly good analogy, several times in this thread.  It might interest you to know that I am not offended by people who disagree with my faith.  I expect that.  You are correct in saying that I get offended by people who mischaracterize my faith, though one gets used to that over time.  But there is a difference between someone who says I am not a Christian as a subjective opinion based on that person's opinion of my beliefs, and a person who says I am not a Christian as an objective fact because he honestly doesn't know that Mormons believe in Christ.  Further, there is a difference between the opinion that Mormons are not Christians (subjective) and that Joseph Smith was pro-slavery (objective and incorrect - Joseph was anti-slavery).  There is a difference in believing that Mormons preach false doctrine (subjective) and the statement that JS claimed to have done more for salvation than any man including Christ (objective and false).  My point is that a general statement of subjective opinion is different from a statement of objective fact that is incorrect.  If I say that libertarians preach anarchy, that would be false (though perhaps true in some specific cases).  But if I say that what libertarians believe is tantamount to anarchy (subjective) I may be incorrect in that opinion, but I am not stating a falsehood.  (For the record, I am not saying that libertarianism is tantamount to anarchy either.  I just believe that libertarians wish to limit the government too much.)

Either the notions are true or they are not. Since I'm the libertarian, I think I might be in a slightly better position to comment on that. In much the same way you would be in a better position to comment on various notions people have about Mormonism. I'm not going to claim I know your religion better than you do.

No, but you certainly have the right to express the view that Mormonism is false.  You certainly could claim that certain doctrines of my faith are wrong.  You could claim that Brigham Young ordered the massacre at Mountain Meadows.  You could claim that Joseph Smith never preached polygamy or that he intended the Presidency of the church to be passed to his son.  All of those are things with which I would disagree.  Either they are true, or they are not, but my being a Mormon doesn't make me better able to judge that.  In fact, some could even argue that my prejudices as a Mormon make me LESS able to judge it objectively. 

A better example of that, however, would be the notion that Mormons are not Christian.  I will tell you that I was a Lutheran and now I am a Mormon and I believe in Jesus Christ as my savior today as I did then.  I will tell you that my church worship, my teaching, my viewpoints about divinity all center around Jesus Christ as the savior and redeemer of the world.  I will tell you that without his atoning sacrifice, we could not ever be forgiven of our sins or enter the kingdom of heaven, even if we improved ourselves to the point of absolute perfection.  I will tell you that all of my hope is centered on his dying for me and taking upon himself my sins.  Seems to me that qualifies as Christian.  But many will tell you that I believe in a false prophet, a false set of scriptures and a false concept of Jesus Christ.  As such, I may call myself a Christian, but I am not one.  Even to an outsider, looking at mainstream Christianity and comparing Mormonism shows many differences that make Mormonism unique among Christian faiths, so many would agree that Mormonism is, at best, an offshoot of Christianity.  Therefore, when a person has the notion that Mormons are NOT Christians, whether that is "true or not" depends very much on how one interprets several words, the most significant of which is "Christian."  He might better express it as "Mormons aren't true Christians," or "Mormons believe in Jesus, but they don't really understand who He is."  But the statement "Mormons aren't Christians" expresses his meaning in a way that suits him. 

Similarly, when I say "Libertarians preach against government" I mean that libertarians preach against "big" government, not that they preach anarchy.  But I also mean that such a belief would lead to results that are tantamount to anarchy in some ways. So the notion that libertarians preach against government is not "true or not" but rather a subjective opinion which could be true or false, depending first on how you interpret the meaning of the sentence and second on whether my opinion happens to be correct.  If in fact electing a libertarian government would ultimately lead to anarchy my notions are absolutely correct.  In otherwise, my notions are false.  But being a libertarian doesn't make you more or less able to determine the correctness of those beliefs.  I RECOGNIZE THAT YOU ARE NOT NECESSARILY DENOUNCING THE SPECIFIC NOTION I CITED.  I am just using that one particular notion as an example.  (Incidentally, I use caps in this thread as emphasis - not as shouting.  Sorry, if they come off that way.)

First, no, I asked one question, and second, yes, it does. If the meaning is ever in flux, then it doesn't really have a meaning at all. If you change your home church every week, do you really have a home church? If you change your child's name from moment to moment, does your child really have a name? If the meaning of a statement or document changes any time we feel it like changing it, does it really have a meaning? I think it does not.[
/quote]

No, "ever-changing meaning" does NOT mean "no meaning."  By definition "ever changing meaning" has to mean "meaning."  You are the one insisting that words have "meaning."  Well if "meaning" doesn't have meaning then I words cannot, by definition have any meaning at all.  (I think I just broke something). 

But that is exactly the kind of thing you have done throughout this thread.  You have made the point that words have meaning, implying that misinterpretations are the fault of the speaker's word choice - not your own misunderstanding of the specific meaning intended.  In fact, as you are illustrating by this line of reasoning, words have many meanings and many interpretations are possible.  To state that "ever changing meaning" has the same definition as "no meaning" is logically incorrect.  It is, however, rhetorically acceptable in spite of that.  But on merit, it is absolutely true that "ever-changing meaning" does not mean the same as "no meaning."  Our language is, in fact, ever changing.  As one of thousands of examples, the word "Silly" originally meant "Blessed" - as in the "Silly Virgin Mary."  Over centuries that meaning evolved into "innocent" and then "Child-like" and then "Childish" which led to its present usage.  Does that mean that "silly" has no meaning?  No.  It simply means that interpretations and notions change. 

Your example of the second amendment was an excellent argument - and it better makes your point.  There is a difference between what the founder's intended by protecting the right to bear arms in 1787 and how some interpret that meaning today.  (The argument, of course, is whether it is the gun-control advocates or the NRA types whose interpretation is correct.  I side, as I think you know, with the NRA types.)  But the constitution is not the second amendment - any more than the Bible is any one particular verse.  The Supreme Court is established by the Constitution.  Though many argue that Judicial Review is NOT established, it is clear from Federalist 78 that at least SOME of the founders did, in fact, assume that role for the judiciary.  Common law is not specified in the Constitution either, and yet that is the system we use.  Marshall cited that authority (judicial review) as a responsibility in Marbury vs Madison and it has been the standard ever since, but that decision was NOT the basis for it.  It was there all along.  So when the courts make a ruling concerning the intended meaning of the Constitution, it becomes the meaning.  That doesn't mean that if the SCOTUS rules that the right to bear arms does not exist it mirrors the original intent of the amendment.  It simply means that society - for better or worse - has evolved to the point that a specific set of justices believe gun control is (somehow) within the intended meaning of that amendment.  A similar argument can be made for the application of the death penalty.  Since "cruel and unusual" punishment is prohibited in the Constitution, if society has evolved to the point that a majority of people consider execution to be "cruel" (which one could certainly argue it is) and "unusual" (which it is becoming, relatively speaking) then it WOULD be correct to call it unconstitutional, though obviously it was not considered so in 1787.  The latter example is better for my part, since "cruel and unusual" are rather subjective terms to be included in a legal document where "the right of the people to bear arms" is far more objective (except "people" which some seem to think means the state).  The second amendment argument far better supports your position, but again, as society changes the meaning of certain terms and the ideals we believe in allows for a certain degree of reinterpretation.  Remember, if enough people want it to be so, we could be perfectly within our rights to reject the constitution outright and come up with another plan.  We could even, if we wanted, have a whole section of the country seceed and form a new one, even though the original contract was supposed to be perpetual.  Had the confederacy won, the argument about the AofC would be moot.  In fact, since they lost and were reincorporated, it's moot anyway. 

So he is reading out-of-context meaning into her comments that she did not actually state. Hm. Yes, sometimes people misunderstand each other. Frankly, in the context of of the discussion, I simply don't see BT's question as merely a good natured, rhetorical question. I'm not reading meaning into it; I'm taking at face value, in context.

That is completely subjective.  You are taking it at what YOU think is face value.  I believe you ARE in fact reading into it.  As to context (and this is just grammatical nitpicking, so feel free to ignore it) I would suggest that the hypothetical husband was not taking it out of context, simply misinterpretting it.  I define taking something out of context as quoting something outside of a full statement.  An absurd example would be if I typed:  You are completely wrong in saying Mormons are not Christians!"  and you quoted me as saying "Mormons are not Christians!"  But again, that is just nitpicking.  If the wife had come back after the dress comment and said "Gosh, do you mean I look bad in the dress?" and he had responded "No, I mean I make plenty of money but you spend too much" it might have led to a discussion that would have denied the lawyers some business.  But if she had then responded "No, you weren't complaining about my spending, since I wasn't saying anything ABOUT spending" the lawyers would have been buying those new cars.

But usually not constantly changing ones. Or arbitrary ones. Otherwise communication would be next to impossible.

Which is why we have lawyers, flame wars and military machines.  Communication is extremely difficult once you get beyond "feed me."  There are 6 billion people in the world, and all of them think in unique patterns.  Where we share experiences we can communicate more confidently, though even then not with complete clarity.  Where our experiences differ, we can say exactly the same words in the same order and mean completely opposite things.  THAT is why we argue - at least most of the time - and why we have so much difficulty compromising.

[Stray Pooch]

Now explain to me how it is you want government to "have your back", to protect you from bad things employers might do, but you're not afraid of what would happen without the government to protect you. Notice, I didn't say 'but you're a coward.'

I didn't say that I wasn't afraid.  In fact, I absolutely fear what unrestrained capitalism could do - as I feel about pretty much any unrestrained philosophy.  As to whether or not being afraid constitutes cowardice, I do not believe that to be the case.  But your suggestion, unless I misinterpret it, is that we who want government restraints (or more precisely, more government restraints than you do) are relying on government to do for us what we probably should be doing for ourselves.  I disagree with that notion, but I do believe that such an accusation is one of cowardice.  As an analogy, if I am worried that the school bully might beat me up I have two options.  I might stand up to him and either beat him or take my licking.  Or, I might get my big brother to beat him up for me.  Some would consider the latter to be cowardice.  (As an aside, isn't my choice of a "big brother" analogy just perfect given the topic at hand?  )  So while you did not specifically use the word "coward" it certainly seems reasonable to conclude that you were implying that. 

Is having a firearm for self-defense or learning karate for self-defense cowardly? No, I wouldn't say so. But it does show that a person feels some, let us say, concern about what could happen in the absence of the ability of self-defense. One might even say such a person might be afraid of what might happen in the absence of the ability of self-defense.

Is fear really the same as cowardice? I think it is not so. Everyone has fears. Cowardice is being ruled by fear. Conversely, courage is not the absence of fear, but overcoming fear. So is it fair or reasonable or even rational to equate fear with cowardice? I think it is not so.

So if someone says you're afraid of what might happen without government, does that mean they're calling you a coward? Further, is it reasonable to be offended by being accused of having fear when you certainly appear to be expressing some measure of fear?

All of that is well and good, but the tone of your words - the sarcasm and the use of terms like "big, evil world" (or whatever the exact expression was) indicated that you found some fault in that fear, and in the notion that government was the remedy.  As such, it is certainly implied that you consider those who look to government to cure their ills as "ruled by fear."  Once again, you live and die by the "meaning" of your word "fear" but there is far more to meaning than denotation alone.  The context of the argument, the tone of your post and the connotation of a sarcastic use of terms like "big, evil world" more than supports my interpretation.  If that interpretation is flawed, as is obviously the case, I think our understanding of such terms is so different as to make resolution improbable using the same terms.

So let's get that clear.  Why did you choose to point out that people who rely on government are showing fear?  If it is obvious that they are doing so, it is unnecessary to point it out.  What was your specific intent in making that point?  Was it just that people are afraid.  Because if that's all it was, why point out the obvious?  Was it that addressing this fear through government is a good thing?  a bad thing?  Because that is a specific judgment concerning the mindset of such people.  If relying on the government to solve such problems is a bad thing, then what specific character trait does that mean, in your judgment, such people have?   

[Universe Prince]

So because YOU get to control the meaning of the debate, anyone who makes a statement that YOU interpret in a particular way must accept your interpretation - not what HE meant.  That's nonsense.

Yes, it is. Good thing then that is not what I said.

Debate is a give-and-take and your insisting that words have meaning (by which you mean YOUR meaning) cuts out any chance that YOU might be wrong.

That is not what I mean, so no, it does not. On the other hand, making generalized comments which you clarify after someone makes a counter argument seems like the way to cut out any chance that you might be wrong.

Further, you do NOT have the right to assume that YOUR communications are so precisely worded that they cannot be honestly misunderstood.

I don't do that.

If BT simply misinterpreted your meaning in the arguments that led to his slavery comment, perhaps rather than arrogantly insisting that he is deliberately baiting you, you might simply assume that he has misunderstood your meaning.  It might make you less sarcastic and more civil.

Quite frankly, I would be surprised if anyone here (other than perhaps Knute or a newcomer) would somehow interpret my comments to mean that I was somehow against the end of slavery. That I support the rights of individuals strongly is not exactly a secret, not even to BT. So I find difficult to believe that BT would somehow misunderstand my comments to the point of thinking I would imply that government ending slavery was a bad thing.

Wanting morals to eliminate a need for government at some distant and unspecified point in the future is hardly the same thing as expecting to do away with government now and now have people morally take up the slack on their own.

When did I ever say libertarians wanted to do away with government now?

Perhaps never, but I believe one of your complaints was that "libertarians want to llive in a dream world where moral behavior eliminates the need for government." (http://debategate.com/new3dhs/index.php?topic=5340.msg52183#msg52183)

And being optimistic about humans being able to eventually grow to a point where government is no longer a necessity is not something for which I intend to apologize.

When did I ever suggest that you needed to apologize for your optimism?

Perhaps never, but I believe you are criticizing libertarians for such an optimistic view. I feel safe in saying your characterization of the notion as wanting "to live in a dream world" was not a complement. I am fairly certain your use of "naive and utopian" was also not a complement.

You claim that I do not say what I mean.  Nonsense.  I say exactly what I mean, you simply fail to understand it.

Of course. What a dunce I am.

Normally, it is me against an employer who has far more power.  For the majority of workers, the company can replace us with impunity and we are left struggling to find a job (with, possibly, a blemish on our record which makes doing so harder) while the company goes on doing what it does.  My family is struggling to eat and pay our bills and your company is getting along fine.

And if the company is not doing fine? The company should keep all employees and go bankrupt instead? You seem to be automatically assuming that a company letting employees go is necessarily screwing the employees just because it can, and such is generally not the case.

Again, the double standard is when you get to regulate MY behavior for the good of the company (to which I do not object) and I get no ability to regulate YOUR behavior for the good of the workers (to which I DO object).

I see. And how many companies sue employees for finding better paying jobs with other employers?

But I do have no respect for that utopian notion for the same reason I have no respect for Brass's RBE ideal.  I hold them both as hopelessly optimistic viewpoints which disregard reality for a viewpoint of humanity that is unrealistic.

So humanity never changes? Society never evolves? How else could you say the libertarian "utopian" notion is unrealistic? The notion that we cannot work towards a long term goal of reducing government to the point that it is no longer required seems unrealistic and unduly pessimistic.

But there is no circumstance wherein human beings will ever evolve into billions of organisms who all think the same, all have the same motivations, all have strong social bonds and all become concerned about making sure that we all progress together.  It just isn't going to happen.

I would be quite surprised if you found a libertarian who disagreed with that. I'm certainly not aware of any libertarians who think that humans will ever all think the same, et cetera. So as a criticism of libertarianism, it has no substance.

So long as the possibility of misinterpretation of someone else's meanings, desire for gain, intolerance of differences, or need for resources exists, we will have a need for strong, moral governments.

So long as the possibility of misinterpretation of someone else's meanings, desire for gain, intolerance of differences, or need for resources exists, strong and supposedly moral governments will be the source of at least as much abuse of individuals as they are supposedly intended solve. If governments were made up wholly of God's angels, I might share your faith in governments. But government are made up wholly of human beings, human beings with the same range of faults and desires as the people from whom you expect government to protect you.

You insist that BT HAD to mean what you think he did.  That is arrogance.

You insist that BT had to mean what you think he did. What is that?

You insist that "words have meaning" by which you practically mean "Words mean what I think they mean and not what you think they mean."  That is arrogance.

No, I mean that words don't mean whatever seems convenient at the time. If you say one thing and mean another, there is nothing wrong or arrogant about pointing out that your meaning is not what you said.

I assume your comments about low self-esteem are sarcastic.

Never assume.

In fact, it is not stupid for you to not understand the meaning of the argument.  It is simply normal human communications difficulties.  Your apparent assumption that misunderstanding an argument makes you stupid (or that pointing out that you misunderstand an argument means I am accusing you of stupidity) is incorrect.  When I say you do not understand the meaning of something I have said, I am not calling you stupid.  I am not even assigning a blame for where the misunderstanding lies, since I have no problem seeing where some of the misunderstandings you have had in this thread come from based on my wording.  I am simply clarifying the argument.  You seem to be very sensitive to the perception that you might be wrong about something.  I am not as sensitive about such things, since I have a well-earned (if not well-deserved) huge ego when it comes to debate.  As such, perhaps I am missing an important point about how my arguments are offensive to you.

Well, if am I told I misunderstood something someone said, I'm usually okay with that. However, there are comments like this: "I know you have made that argument.  Again, I don't question your sincerity, I just think you fail to understand the full significance of the argument." I'm still only able to go by what you said, but it sure looks like the statement there is essentially saying that I don't understand my own argument. What is that if not a derogatory comment about my ability to understand? So then comes this odd explanation that is apparently intended to explain, "You don't understand the FULL SIGNIFICANCE of the argument" [...] doesn't mean I think you do not understand your own argument. It means you do not understand the FULL SIGNIFICANCE of that argument." Somehow that doesn't really seem less derogatory. There is still the suggestion that I'm somehow not able to understand what I'm saying. Yes, apparently I understand my argument now, but only a to a limited degree that excludes the true and full meaning. Again, I just don't believe I'm that stupid. If we were talking about multiple dimensions and super-strings and theoretical physics, maybe you'd be right, but we're not, and, I'm fairly certain, you're not.

You have mentioned my faith, as a perfectly good analogy, several times in this thread.  It might interest you to know that I am not offended by people who disagree with my faith.  I expect that.

I'm not offended by people disagreeing with libertarianism. I expect that. What offends me is people saying that libertarians are naive and too foolish to understand the implications of their own arguments.

No, "ever-changing meaning" does NOT mean "no meaning."  By definition "ever changing meaning" has to mean "meaning."  You are the one insisting that words have "meaning."  Well if "meaning" doesn't have meaning then I words cannot, by definition have any meaning at all.  (I think I just broke something).

You're the one talking about practical implications. The practical implication of words having ever changing meaning is that the words then have no meaning.

Our language is, in fact, ever changing.  As one of thousands of examples, the word "Silly" originally meant "Blessed" - as in the "Silly Virgin Mary."  Over centuries that meaning evolved into "innocent" and then "Child-like" and then "Childish" which led to its present usage.  Does that mean that "silly" has no meaning?  No.  It simply means that interpretations and notions change.

That words change meanings is not something I deny. I accept that completely. But gradually changing over long periods of time is not the same as ever changing. "Silly" may not mean the same thing today as it meant 500 years ago, but it means the same thing it meant yesterday and last year and even the last decade. That said, a statement made hundreds of years ago that uses "silly" to mean "blessed" rather than "childish" still means "blessed" when it uses the word "silly".

That doesn't mean that if the SCOTUS rules that the right to bear arms does not exist it mirrors the original intent of the amendment.  It simply means that society - for better or worse - has evolved to the point that a specific set of justices believe gun control is (somehow) within the intended meaning of that amendment.

That doesn't make SCOTUS correct.

But I find interesting that now you're arguing that society can evolve to the point of changing the meaning of words that form the basis of the government when a while back you were arguing, basically, that society cannot evolve to to the point of not needing government. If it can change in the one way, why not the other?

You are taking it at what YOU think is face value.

Well, seems to me the face value of "Are you saying ending slavery was a bad thing?" seems fairly clear and obvious. To claim the face value of it as something other than a question as to whether I was saying ending slavery was a bad thing would require something other than taking at face value. Taking the question as it reads is not somehow reading some other meaning into it. Seems to me the one arguing it had some meaning other than than the one it expresses is you.

[Universe Prince]

Why did you choose to point out that people who rely on government are showing fear?  If it is obvious that they are doing so, it is unnecessary to point it out.  What was your specific intent in making that point?  Was it just that people are afraid.  Because if that's all it was, why point out the obvious?
   

I believe the point, in context, was to criticize BT's I'm-okay-with-big-government comment. Let's look at what was said. JS said something about Ron Paul separating "the self-proclaimed libertarians of the Republican Party from the real life libertarian activists" And I said, "The people of the Republican Party have said pretty plainly that they, for the most part, reject the notions of smaller government." Then Sirs said, "The GOP definately has fallen completely away from their original platform of limited Government, and now think running as Democrat lite, is the way to go.  well, that last election cycle helped educate DC how that really doesn't go over well with the GOP base". To which I replied, "Seems to be going over just fine with some of the Republican base." To which BT retorted, "Of course it is. Some Republicans were just fine with government projects like ending slavery and building interstate highways. or using the powers of government to conserve the environment." Which led to the comment of mine to which I think you are referring: "Yes, BT, We all need the kind, compassionate and leviathan government, who only ever looks out for the good of the citizens, to save us all from the wild, frightening and oh so dangerous world in which we live." I was being sarcastic, clearly. Why? I felt like being sarcastic. If I were to try to be slightly more academic about this, I would probably say my point was that BT's faith in "Democrat lite" to be moral and solve problems was, imo, unrealistic and misplaced.

If relying on the government to solve such problems is a bad thing, then what specific character trait does that mean, in your judgment, such people have?

Too much faith in government, but that isn't something I would call a character trait. Different folks have faith in government to different degrees for different reasons, so I would be hesitant to try to pin it down to a single character trait.

But at least "afraid of living without big government" or "afraid of liberty" is no longer tantamount to calling someone a coward, right?

[Universe Prince]

So long as the possibility of misinterpretation of someone else's meanings, desire for gain, intolerance of differences, or need for resources exists, we will have a need for strong, moral governments.

So long as the possibility of misinterpretation of someone else's meanings, desire for gain, intolerance of differences, or need for resources exists, strong and supposedly moral governments will be the source of at least as much abuse of individuals as they are supposedly intended solve. If governments were made up wholly of God's angels, I might share your faith in governments. But government are made up wholly of human beings, human beings with the same range of faults and desires as the people from whom you expect government to protect you.

I feel I ought to provide some examples.

A few months ago, a judge ordered the FBI to pay more than $100 million to two men and the families of two more men who died in jail, the four men having been wrongfully imprisoned for something like thirty years. (Boston Globe news article) See, the F.B.I. informant who lied and testified against them was a mafia hit-man, who carried out his own murders while the other guys were in jail, and an F.B.I. informant. Now as best I can determine, the F.B.I. agents in charge of the informant knew that their guy gave false testimony. But they were protecting their informant as part of their "war on the mafia" and the four guys who were wrongly imprisoned were just so much collateral damage. But also, for thirty something years, no one at the F.B.I. said anything, and apparently the F.B.I. still claims four wrongly imprisoned men were none of their business. That is your strong and moral government in action.

More recently, there is the wall that will supposedly protect us from illegal immigrants. I'll just quote the Texas Observer news article:

As the U.S. Department of Homeland Security marches down the Texas border serving condemnation lawsuits to frightened landowners, Brownsville resident Eloisa Tamez, 72, has one simple question. She would like to know why her land is being targeted for destruction by a border wall, while a nearby golf course and resort remain untouched. Tamez, a nursing director at the University of Texas at Brownsville, is one of the last of the Spanish land grant heirs in Cameron County. Her ancestors once owned 12,000 acres. In the 1930s, the federal government took more than half of her inherited land, without paying a cent, to build flood levees. Now Homeland Security wants to put an 18-foot steel and concrete wall through what remains.

There is your strong and moral government at work.

Then there are cases like that of Cory Maye or Ryan Frederick who shot what they thought to be intruders into their homes, only to find out too late the intruders were police busting into the homes to look for drugs. Naturally these men get zero credit for acting in self-defense under confusing situations. As far as the justice department is concerned, the guys shot cops so they end up accused of murder. In Cory Maye's case, Maye was even on death row for some time. Right now, he's just in jail for life and no judge seems willing to grant the guy a new trial despite plenty of reasons to do so. So for the few ounces of marijuana found, cops get shot and lives are completely ruined. This is your strong and moral government put into practice.

And these are just a few examples of actions by the government you seem to think we cannot afford to see weakened because you don't want your employer to abuse you by taking away "your" job. You talk about libertarianism being "naive and utopian" because you think it cannot work in practice, well, I remain unconvinced that the strong government in practice is a better plan.

[Stray Pooch]

This is the way your whole debate in this thread has gone.

Everything I have said, or the quote from BT (which, even after your out-of-context quotes of the way the conversation went, still is CLEARLY a rhetorical question meant to point out that government (or, as you choose to qualify it, "big" government is not necessarily a bad thing) must be taken at what you call "face value" which means what YOU think the words mean.  Of course, you can interpolate whatever intentions you wish into those comments, so if I say one thing, you get to say the tone or your perceptions of intent count as meaning.

Your comments, OTOH, must be taken as perfectly clear.  Any "reading into" your comments is unacceptable.

So let's look at this rationalization:

SP <<When did I ever say libertarians wanted to do away with government now?>>

UP <<Perhaps never, but I believe one of your complaints was that "libertarians want to llive in a dream world where moral behavior eliminates the need for government.">>

Your interpretation does not, in any rational way, resemble what I said.  But that's OK, my words have no meaning except what you take them to mean.  Apparently the "face value" of complaining about the utopian vision of some unrealistic future world somehow equates to a desire for the immediate elimination of government.  You've done this several times in this thread and I tire of pointing out this double standard over and over.  Oh, but guess what?  NOW I'm cheating.  Because while I am suggesting that your interpretation of my statement is wrong, I'm ACTUALLY just changing my meaning because your unimpeachable logic and sharp detective skills have caught me in a glaring error and my fragile ego just can't take it.   (See, that's sarcasm and it means I think your logic is full of bologna.)

Have I ever backed down from a position I took?  Heck, yes.  On several occasions when a convincing argument (or some reputable proof) was cited I have changed an opinion or conceded a point.  That's because my ego is big enough to accept my own mistakes without feeling like I have suddenly made a fool of myself (or, more correctly, that I am such an obvious fool that one more example does me no further harm).   I don't mind being wrong.  In fact, I enjoy learning new things and being proven incorrect in an assumption or a particular fact is interesting.  I DO however, take great exception to your implication that I "cheat" by changing the meaning of my words when you have made a counter-argument.   How many times (and they have been far more frequent) have I stood up to the finest debaters on this site (even those on my side of the fence) in defense of my opinion?   I don't have any need to change my meaning.  If you  make a good counterargument I will either come up with a better one, concede the point or if necessary agree to disagree.  I don't change the meaning of my words, and the fact that you misinterpret them is not your fault or mine - it's the fault of the imprecise nature of language.  That your counter-arguments are based on that faulty interpretation is similarly nobody's fault.  You quite naturally respond to what you perceive as my point.  Within the context of your interpretation your arguments make perfect sense.  (Just as I said about your critique of BT's question.)  But when I respond by telling you that your arguments are not relevant because you misunderstood my original meaning, you call that "cheating."   Even if I was, in fact, deliberately changing my argument to circumvent your counterpoint (which I would characterize as cowardly, btw) what game are we "cheating" at?  I'm not playing a game here that requires a running scoreboard.  I'm here to express opinions and read opinions - and hopefully gather some interesting knowledge and hone my reasoning skills.   It's impossible to "cheat" at that. 

Finally, you provide examples of government abuse.  So what?  I can provide far more examples of private abuse.  I never said government was perfect.  I just said it is a necessary evil.  You suggest that I am contrary by saying that people can evolve to the point that execution is considered cruel but that they cannot evolve to the point where government is unnecessary.  Nonsense.  There is a difference between becoming enlightened and becoming perfect.  I believe that science can cure diseases.  I do not believe science will ever overcome death.   It is perfectly rational to suggest that people will evolve over time - and not necessarily for the better.  (There was a time when abortion, gay marriage and other evils were not seriously debated in this country.)   But it is not inconsistent to suggest that people changing - for better or worse - does not mean eventual utopia.  It doesn't.

You have stated all through this thread that I have insulted you.  Nonsense.  I have made observations and critiques with which you disagree.  You cannot take criticism.  Too bad.  I apologize for offending you but to do so was not my intent.  I have tried to explain our differences out of my great respect for you, but you cannot open your mind to my viewpoint enough to accept that you might be taking my points incorrectly, or at least too personally.  I'm done.  You have chosen to take offense and to accuse me of equivocating, dodging and "cheating".  I'm doing none of those things.  But we have beaten this horse to the point where a continuation would risk incrementing the name of this forum.  Let's keep it at three.