Ron Paul will have at least 9 deligates at the convention

[Universe Prince]

But that's OK, my words have no meaning except what you take them to mean.

Says the man who apparently thinks that I, as a libertarian, am too blind to understand the "full significance" of my own arguments. The arguments mean what he says they mean, and there is no contradicting him. And pointing out that someone might find this view of his to be somewhat insulting, and there are apologies aplenty, but followed by more insistence that libertarians just don't understand.

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.

Was the "perhaps never" not enough?

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.)

No matter what I said to counter your argument, it was wrong because you claimed to have meant something else. My criticism of and sarcasm toward BT's comment was wrong because, according to you, I did not understand BT's comment. You even seem to know what I really mean better than I do. I explain that I take a sentence to mean exactly what it says, and somehow this too is wrong because what I really mean, according to you, is that nothing has meaning except what I insist it has, as if I'm some how making up meanings. The underlying premise here seems to be that I'm wrong regardless of what I say. Even if you and I should somehow make the same sort of argument, I'm still wrong because, according to you, I don't understand the "full significance" of it. But you're being sarcastically critical of my logic? Heh. Okay. Oh, and I am pretty sure I never mentioned your ego.

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.

I take exception to being told I cheat by suggesting words have meanings.

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.

I'm sure plenty and certain that you don't. Imagine my surprise when the opposite seemed to have happened here. Imagine further my surprise that you started out with the premise that libertarians don't understand their own arguments, which essentially allowed you to assign any meaning you wanted to them and then claim my counter arguments were irrelevant because I misunderstood you.

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."

Well, it seemed rather odd that not a single thing I said was relevant because you meant something other than what you seemed to have said. And you started with the premise that I don't understand my own arguments, that I did not even understand the debate in which I was participating, and that my arguments were semantic. Meanwhile you make blanket statements, "Libertarians cry that relying on the government to protect our rights is cowardice" and then you cry "Baloney" as if you've somehow found the weak link in libertarianism when all you've done is make wholly incorrect statements about libertarians and/or libertarianism. But when I point this out I am told I am wrong because you didn't really mean the blanket statements you made, they were just shorthand for some longer, more specific criticisms. But when I point out that you then didn't say what you meant, I'm told I am wrong because then I'm supposedly insisting that everything only means what I say it means, and of course you said exactly what you meant. And I'm not to take offense or find fault because that's just unreasonable.

Finally, you provide examples of government abuse.  So what?

Heh. Since you missed it, I'll repeat it:

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.

The point being that if the government causes as much abuse as you claim it exists to prevent, then the net gain is nil. And I'll repeat something else I said as well: 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.

There is a difference between becoming enlightened and becoming perfect. [...] But it is not inconsistent to suggest that people changing - for better or worse - does not mean eventual utopia.  It doesn't.

Again with the utopia. I was going point out, again (sigh), that no one is arguing we'll end up in a utopia full of perfect people who all think alike, but then I remembered that you think libertarians don't understand the "full significance" of their own arguments. So I won't bother.

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.

In your own words, "Baloney." I can take criticism just fine. But there is a difference between criticism and outright falsehoods. (You know, like "Libertarians cry that relying on the government to protect our rights is cowardice.") There is a difference between criticizing an argument and suggesting that people don't understand the arguments they make. One is about the argument. The other is about the person's faculty for comprehension. You expect people not to take that as an insult? If I said Mormons are naive for buying into all that crockery about Joseph Smith "interpreting" the Urim and Thummim, you wouldn't think that was just a little bit of an insult? If I said Mormons did not understand the true nature of their own religion, you wouldn't think that was insulting Mormons? If I said your "interpretation" of BT's comment was wrong because you did not understand what the debate was really about and your insistence of your "interpretation" being right was really nothing but arrogance, you wouldn't think maybe I was insulting you, not even a little?

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.

Open my mind to your viewpoint that libertarians are naive, utopian and lack understanding of the "full significance" of their own arguments? Oh gee, I'm (not) sorry. Why in the world would I, a libertarian, have ever taken that personally? So what if you lied about libertarian positions then said pointing that out was irrelevant? How could anyone not see that you meant that only in the most respectful way? (Oops, I'm being sarcastic again.)

Pooch, I do respect your ability to debate. I don't expect you to agree with libertarianism. I'm surprised to ever find out anyone agrees with any libertarian position, so I suppose I expect you to not agree. But you tell me you have no respect for my political philosophy, tell me libertarians believe all sort of things which they do not believe, that I had no understanding of the debate in which I was participating, and that while I might be sincere I don't understand the "full significance" of my own arguments. And then, heh, and then you basically claim there is something unreasonable about me finding some offense in all that. After all that, you're pissed that I treated you like a hostile opponent? Come on. Talk about not understanding the full significance of your own arguments... Sheesh.

[Stray Pooch]

Says the man who apparently thinks that I, as a libertarian, am too blind to understand the "full significance" of my own arguments. The arguments mean what he says they mean, and there is no contradicting him. And pointing out that someone might find this view of his to be somewhat insulting, and there are apologies aplenty, but followed by more insistence that libertarians just don't understand.

Libertarians do not understand the Constitution.  They do not understand the way common law works.  They do not understand the way our government works.  They do not understand the way the founders intended our nation to grow.  They THINK they do, but they don't.  Now, if you find these observations to be insulting, consider yourself insulted.  They are, in fact, expressions of my opinion.  I do not extend the meaning of these criticisms to the intellectual capacity, the education, the integrity, the morality or any other personal trait that libertarians in general or any particular libertarian may possess.  But I surely think that they don't get it.  I also think that Jewish people don't get that Jesus is, in fact, the Messiah.  I think that Muslims don't understand that Israel belongs to the Jewish people by divine intent.  I think that abortion providers just don't realize they are killing live children.  I think that gun-control advocates don't understand the second amendment.  I think that Yankees fans don't realize that George Steinbrenner is the anti-Christ.  (OK, a lot of them do, but can live with it as long as the Yanks are in contention.)  These are all opinions.  Those who take these as insults are unable to differentiate between a disagreement of opinion and a personal insult.  Another way someone might choose to express that is that they "can't take criticism." 

Was the "perhaps never" not enough?

Which "perhaps never?"  If you're going to quote something as proof of my saying something I didn't say, please have the courtesy to quote it in full.  I didn't say you wanted to eliminate government now.  You said I did.  I never said or implied that.  That was a complete fabrication on your part.  You took something I said and read into it.  You've been doing that this whole thread.  Please give me a quote of mine which ACTUALLY says that you want to eliminate government now or have the decency to admit that you have misstated my position.

I explain that I take a sentence to mean exactly what it says, and somehow this too is wrong because what I really mean, according to you, is that nothing has meaning except what I insist it has, as if I'm some how making up meanings.

That is exactly what you are doing.  You do not take a sentence to mean exactly what it says.  You take a sentence to mean exactly what you THINK it says.  Since very few sentences outside of (perhaps) legal documents have an "exact" meaning, you may be right or wrong in what you take something to say.   For the record, since you are making such a huge point of this, YOU ARE FULLY CAPABLE AND OFTEN GUILTY (if such is an appropriate term) OF MISINTERPRETTING OTHER'S STATEMENTS.  If you define that trait as stupid, you are in fact by YOUR definition, stupid.  By MY definition you are simply human, like everyone else of this forum including me. 

The underlying premise here seems to be that I'm wrong regardless of what I say. Even if you and I should somehow make the same sort of argument, I'm still wrong because, according to you, I don't understand the "full significance" of it. But you're being sarcastically critical of my logic? Heh. Okay. Oh, and I am pretty sure I never mentioned your ego.

When did I ever say you were wrong regardless of what you say?  I never said that.  Please provide a quote where I made that statement. 

I take exception to being told I cheat by suggesting words have meanings.[/color]

Good thing I never said any such thing, isn't it? 

Imagine further my surprise that you started out with the premise that libertarians don't understand their own arguments, which essentially allowed you to assign any meaning you wanted to them and then claim my counter arguments were irrelevant because I misunderstood you.

Tell me, UP.  Are you capable of misinterpretting something I post?  If it is within the realm of possibility that your omnipotence does not extend to reading minds (which you have, yourself, stated it does not) and you DO misinterpret something I say and then take offense at it, how might I convey to you my true intent without being accused of changing my meaning? 

I did NOT say that you did not understand your OWN argument.  What I said was, you did not understand the full significance of some WORDS which we BOTH used in a similar fashion.  You INSIST that this means you do not understand your OWN argument.  See, this is where I cannot correct your misperception because you REFUSE to accept that what you TAKE my meaning to be might not be what I INTENDED the meaning to be.  I mean that even though we use the same WORDS (or, at least, pretty much the same) we are, in fact, not making EXACTLY the same argument.  I've even tried to illustrate that point by making an argument that could equally be used by Hitler, Clinton, Bush, other world leaders and a couple of generic voters.  Same words - totally different meaning.  You can't accept that.  That's your problem, not mine. 

But when I point out that you then didn't say what you meant, I'm told I am wrong because then I'm supposedly insisting that everything only means what I say it means, and of course you said exactly what you meant. And I'm not to take offense or find fault because that's just unreasonable.

Yeah, that's pretty much true.

Heh. Since you missed it, I'll repeat it:

No need to.  I didn't miss it.  I simply think it proves nothing.  It is the typical "sky is falling" nonsense that libertarians use to justify their fear of government.  I give such anecdotal evidence and the arguments they are intended to support the same creedence I give to liberal anti-gun arguments that cite Columbine, Virginia Tech, NIU and the like. 

For the record, I think libertarianism is the far end of the "reduce government" argument.  It is not the EXTREME end - that would be anarchists.  I also think liberalism is the far end of the "increase government" argument.  The extreme end is communism.  I view libertarianism and liberalism as foolish (as opposed to anarchy and communism, which I view as actually evil).  You may feel free to be offended by that critique of your political beliefs.  I certainly make no apologies for having that opinion, nor for expressing it on a political debate forum.  But I make no judgment as to the intelligence, integrity or morality of people who espouse those positions.  If you take personal offense at my critique of your political stance, that's your problem. 

Again with the utopia. I was going point out, again (sigh), that no one is arguing we'll end up in a utopia full of perfect people who all think alike, but then I remembered that you think libertarians don't understand the "full significance" of their own arguments. So I won't bother.

No, you DID bother.  Again with the "I'd say this, but I won't."  Now what, exactly, does "won't" mean, I wonder?  I always took it to be a contraction meaning "will not."  I further took that phrase to mean you intended to, um, NOT do the thing that you said you "won't" do.  In the context of your several uses of this particular word, it appears "won't" means "just did."  Now see, THAT is what I would call "changing the meaning" of a word.  Because, I'm pretty sure that, with all of the many possible meanings of "won't,"  "just did" is not one of them.  If we were involved in some sort of scored competition, I might even accuse you of "cheating."  I might even say you use an immature and petulant technique to take a cheap shot rather than address an argument sensibly.  But, hey, I won't. 

I can take criticism just fine.

No you can't.

But there is a difference between criticism and outright falsehoods. (You know, like "Libertarians cry that relying on the government to protect our rights is cowardice.")

That's not a falsehood.  Libertarians do make that argument. Neil Boortz is a libertarian.  He makes that argument frequently.  I did not at any time say ALL libertarians.  I simply said that "libertarians" make that argument.  I would say that you are using the "broadbrush" defense gratuitously even after I have clarified it because your poor arguments are not supported by the facts without that fallback position.  But, hey - oh wait, I just did.

There is a difference between criticizing an argument and suggesting that people don't understand the arguments they make. One is about the argument. The other is about the person's faculty for comprehension.

Yeah.  You don't comprehend my meaning.  That's pretty much true. 

You expect people not to take that as an insult?

No.  I have seen that you consider the possibilty that you misunderstand something as an insult.  So I NOW expect you to take it as such.  OTOH, I expect most rational, intelligent people to take that as a clarification.  I, personally, do not take offense at someone telling me "you misunderstood me, let me correct that misperception."  I am, as it turns out, not omniscient.

If I said Mormons are naive for buying into all that crockery about Joseph Smith "interpreting" the Urim and Thummim, you wouldn't think that was just a little bit of an insult?

Not at all.  I get it all the time.  I expect people who disagree with Mormonism to pretty much take that stance.  Calling me naive for that belief could be taken as insulting.  It could also be taken as concern.  I don't take such things personally.  After all, if Mormonism is false, then any such criticism is accurate - and might even save my eternal life if heeded.  I think, of course, that such criticism is wrong.  That is just difference of opinion.

If I said Mormons did not understand the true nature of their own religion, you wouldn't think that was insulting Mormons?

No.  I would think it was saying Mormons were deceived. I get that constantly.  I pretty much think all other Christian religions are missing some very important points about Christianity.  I think non-Christian religions are missing the most important thing - the divine nature of Jesus Christ.  As such, I think that most of them do not understand the full significance of their own beliefs.  Those who believe there is a god, whomever he, she or it may be, are correct - but some do not understand that God is our eternal father, the God of Abraham.  Of the three great religions that DO get that much, one of them doesn't understand that he is also the God of Isaac and Jacob, and two of them don't get that Jesus Christ is his literal son - the savior and redeemer of the world.  Within the faith division that gets that latter point, the overwhelming majority don't get that Christ's religion was corrupted over two millenia and needed to be restored.  I mean no insult by that.  I simply mean that not everyone gets the full truth.  Since ALL of us can't be right (our positions are incompatible) SOME of us must be wrong.  The fact that most people think I am the wrong one doesn't insult me. If they are right, I most certainly DON'T get the true nature of my faith which would be eternal in consequence.   I don't think they are right.  But I am not offended by their disagreements.

Where I take offense about religious disagreement is where I am told that I am "brainwashing" people.  That implies deliberate intent - as opposed to "preaching false doctrine" which implies a error.  I disagree with the latter, but I understand the intent.  I take offense at people insulting Jesus Christ.  I consider him sacred, and it bothers me to see him maltreated in the same way it would bother me to have someone insult my wife.  I get offended when someone talks about temple garments as "holy underwear" or make other such trivial characterizations of things I consider sacred.  (That's one of the main reasons I avoid doctrinal debate.  Like most debate, it convinces few, but unlike my political views, it involves casting pearls before swine.)  I get downright pissed off when someone refuses to vote for Mitt Romney simply because of his religion.  I view that as religious bigotry.  But I generally do not take religious criticism as personal criticism. 

If I said your "interpretation" of BT's comment was wrong because you did not understand what the debate was really about and your insistence of your "interpretation" being right was really nothing but arrogance, you wouldn't think maybe I was insulting you, not even a little?

I didn't say that. 

I said that:

1)  Your interpretation of BT's comment was wrong.

That was my first statement.  I would never take offense at someone telling me I misunderstood the meaning of a sentence.  I would examine it to see if that might be true.  If it was a third party who was offering the critique (as I was, in this case) I might say that he was wrong and I disagree with him.  If it was the original poster, I would take his clarification as a statement of his true intent.  I assume that if a person believes what he said, he will defend it on merit.  If he says that I have misinterpretted his meaning I will accept his word for that.  I am human.  I assume that you have a better idea of your intent than I do (and please look at point 2 below before offering an argument that this contradicts my belief that you do not understand the debate).  In no case, however, would I take offense at someone telling me I didn't understand something. 

2)  You didn't understand what the debate was about. 

Even at face value, this is a statement than can be interpretted several ways.  There is no EXACT meaning to this statement.  But I have clarified this several times, and you refuse to ackowledge my intent in this statement.  My meaning, and this statement reflects this appropriately - if not without some ambiguity - is that BT was responding to HIS interpretation of what you said.  He was offering a rhetorical question to illustrate that many see government as a good thing.  You took it to mean something more than that - and responded to it as such.  So I said, and I still believe, that you responded in that fashion because of what YOU THOUGHT the debate (on THIS PARTICULAR POINT) was about.  BT meant something different from what you thought he did.  So it would be correct to say that both of you thought the debate was about a slightly different point.  I would not take offense at such a critique.  In fact, it is exactly the critique that you are countering with.  I take no offense in your saying it is I who misunderstand BT's intent - and therefore the debate.  I think it is wrong, but it is not offensive.

3)  You were arrogant in assuming that yours was the only interpretation of BTs comments.

Of the three, I might be offended at the third point.  That was intentionally about YOU.  The first two were simply critiques of your argument.  I did not make all of those arguments together.  I made the third in response to several attempts to clarify what I was trying to say with the first two.  Your initial misunderstanding (if, in fact, I am correct in my interpretation of BT's question) was just misunderstanding.  your continued insistance that you could not be wrong about that interpretation, that "words have meaning" and your further statements that I am deliberately changing the meaning of my own statements is, in fact, arrogant.  You deserve the critique, it is accurate, and you may feel free to be insulted.  The difference, of course, is that I wouldn't refuse to accept that I might be wrong about something.  So while there are numerous times when I have been accused of arrogance (some of which were accurate) I wouldn't find myself in this particular situation.

So your oversimplification of many points made over the course of this debate cannot be answered in one pat answer.  But in general the answer is no.  I would think that your opinion of my argument was wrong, but that such an opinion was limited to my argument - not me personally.  I have a lot of opinions that are wrong.  Sometimes I'm pretty arrogant about them.  Sometimes I come to understand that I am, in fact, wrong.  Sometimes I fail to see that fact.  Sometimes others think I am wrong, and I'm not.  If being wrong makes me stupid, then I am one stupid SOB.  So is everybody else on this forum, and in the world.

Open my mind to your viewpoint that libertarians are naive, utopian and lack understanding of the "full significance" of their own arguments?

No.  Open your mind to the fact that you are misunderstanding my meanings.  Open your mind to the fact that clarifying my meaning is not the same as changing it.  Open your mind to the fact that, whatever my shortcomings may be, changing my meaning to avoid losing a point is not one of them.

Oh gee, I'm (not) sorry. Why in the world would I, a libertarian, have ever taken that personally? So what if you lied about libertarian positions then said pointing that out was irrelevant? How could anyone not see that you meant that only in the most respectful way? (Oops, I'm being sarcastic again.)

Well, since I didn't lie about libertarian positions, that argument IS irrelevant. 

Pooch, I do respect your ability to debate. I don't expect you to agree with libertarianism. I'm surprised to ever find out anyone agrees with any libertarian position, so I suppose I expect you to not agree. But you tell me you have no respect for my political philosophy, tell me libertarians believe all sort of things which they do not believe, that I had no understanding of the debate in which I was participating, and that while I might be sincere I don't understand the "full significance" of my own arguments. And then, heh, and then you basically claim there is something unreasonable about me finding some offense in all that. After all that, you're pissed that I treated you like a hostile opponent? Come on. Talk about not understanding the full significance of your own arguments... Sheesh.

The only thing I am pissed about is your insistance that I am deliberately changing the meaning of my words.  That goes beyond telling me my position is wrong.  It goes to my own integrity.  That IS a personal insult.  It doesn't depend on my political view, my religious beliefs, my outlook on life or even my understanding of a point.  It is directly and intentionally ad hominem. You are not criticizing my viewpoint (even if by extension such a critique might be taken to criticize me).  You are not saying (except where it might support your underlying accusation) that I am making a poor argument, or that my argument contradicts some other argument I have made somewhere else.  In fact, you have accused me of several unpleasant personal traits, and in some you might be right.  Perhaps I may be ignorant of libertarian views.  Perhaps I am mistating them as a result of that ignorance.  Perhaps (though you may not have specifically said these things) I simply lack the intellect, open-mindedness or general common sense to get the ultimate brilliance and correctness of libertarianism.  I don't think so, but I'm not perfect.  But any of those traits would not involve a lack of integrity.  By saying I deliberately change the meaning of my words when I go to clarify them, you are directly accusing me of lying.  I do not do that.  On that point, and that point alone, I take offense.  The rest is simply disagreement.

[Universe Prince]

There seems to be a pattern, Pooch, throughout this conversation of you placing yourself as understanding and correct and placing me as not understanding and incorrect. You've got no respect for libertarianism for all these reasons that misrepresent libertarianism, but my counter arguments are wrong because Neil Boortz says so all the time. Libertarians don't understand much of anything about government or law or the Constitutions because we don't understand the full significance of the words and the meaning, but I am apparently wrong to argue the meaning of words used in argument against libertarians and against me. You understand what BT's question really meant, and I am arrogant to disagree with you about it. I grasp that your argument about me not understanding the full significance of my arguments means you're saying I don't fully understand the actual meaning of the argument, and you chastise me for not accepting your explanation. Somehow the argument that I don't understand the full significance of my arguments becomes you meaning merely that we're not making the exact same argument and I'm told you're insulted that I might suggest you're changing your meaning.

Pooch, you seem unwilling to ever accept that my disagreement with you about BT's question is anything except arrogant and wrong--while you seem to be able to righteously insist you understand it better and therefore it means only what you say it means--so let's just forget that. And you seem stuck on this notion that libertarians don't agree with you because they don't understand things like law and the Constitution while obviously you do. And apparently there is no dissuading you from the notion that every examination of the meaning of words you make is correct and supported by open-minded understanding while every examination of the meaning of words I make is incorrect and based on arrogant close-mindedness. So rather than another long post countering each of your points, I'm going to focus on two things.

I did NOT say that you did not understand your OWN argument.  What I said was, you did not understand the full significance of some WORDS which we BOTH used in a similar fashion.  You INSIST that this means you do not understand your OWN argument.  See, this is where I cannot correct your misperception because you REFUSE to accept that what you TAKE my meaning to be might not be what I INTENDED the meaning to be.  I mean that even though we use the same WORDS (or, at least, pretty much the same) we are, in fact, not making EXACTLY the same argument.  I've even tried to illustrate that point by making an argument that could equally be used by Hitler, Clinton, Bush, other world leaders and a couple of generic voters.  Same words - totally different meaning.  You can't accept that.  That's your problem, not mine.

Wrong. I did accept your explanation of your meaning as explaining what you meant, and I did not like, did not agree with it, did not find it to be reasonable. But let's take a look at what you explained:

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.

At this point in history, pretty much everyone knows what Hitler intended. So what do we see here in your example? You placed yourself in the position of understanding fully the real meaning of Hitler's intent, and you placed me in the position of being ignorant of Hitler's intent, but more than that, ignorant of the reality of the situation. This is not just we disagree. This is you understand and I don't. Am accepting your explanation as meaning exactly what you intended when you said "Again, I don't question your sincerity, I just think you fail to understand the full significance of the argument." You understand the meaning, the reality of the situation, and I do not. This is what you are saying to me. I have looked over this and over this, examining each time you tried to "correct" me on this, and I cannot see how anyone is supposed to come away from your explanations as meaning anything other than that I don't understand my own arguments. My political beliefs, you claim, are foolish and naive. Libertarians, you claim, do not understand the Constitution, common law, the Founder's intent or how government works. My arguments, you claim, even if I use the same words as you are different arguments because I don't understand the full significance of the words. It all comes down to you claiming that I don't understand my own arguments. You're not only insulting me by that, you're insulting me by suggesting I don't understand what you're saying. I'm no genius, but, whatever else my many faults might be, I'm not that stupid.

But there is a difference between criticism and outright falsehoods. (You know, like "Libertarians cry that relying on the government to protect our rights is cowardice.")

That's not a falsehood.  Libertarians do make that argument. Neil Boortz is a libertarian.  He makes that argument frequently.  I did not at any time say ALL libertarians.  I simply said that "libertarians" make that argument.  I would say that you are using the "broadbrush" defense gratuitously even after I have clarified it because your poor arguments are not supported by the facts without that fallback position.

What facts? So far all you have offered is "Neil Boortz says it." Where are the verifiable quotes? As a libertarian who has seen a lot of libertarian arguments with which I both agree and disagree, I have yet to see any libertarian come even remotely close to saying "relying on the government to protect our rights is cowardice."  What libertarians generally say is that government is supposed to protect the rights of individuals. Even the anarchists will say that such is one of the things the U.S. government was intended to do. So as best I can determine, your comment is entirely a falsehood. But by all means, show me the quotes from Neil Boortz saying this frequently. Exact quotes, please. If all you have is some "afraid of liberty" stuff, then I'll tell you now you probably haven't got anything to support your claim. I'm a libertarian and I say your claim is false. So bring it on, Pooch. If you're going to hold up patently ridiculous statements as tenets of libertarianism and reasons why you have no respect for libertarianism, then by golly let's see some proof. You've talked a tough game about libertarians not understanding the Constitution or government or the Founder's intent, and you've accused me of insisting on statements meaning only what I say not what they really mean, so let's see you prove your full comprehension of libertarianism and the statements by libertarians. Let's see your skills.

[Stray Pooch]

At this point in history, pretty much everyone knows what Hitler intended. So what do we see here in your example? You placed yourself in the position of understanding fully the real meaning of Hitler's intent, and you placed me in the position of being ignorant of Hitler's intent, but more than that, ignorant of the reality of the situation.

OMG, are you really that paranoid?  First of all, I specified that this HYPOTHETICAL event happened in 1930.  Nobody in this HYPOTHETICAL situation actually knew Hitler's real intent, though many in that time period suspected he was up to no good.  It happens that I said "You are this and I am that" because I usually happen to choose that sort of verbage in hypothetical situations.  But I just as easily could have said "I was a Hitler supporter and you were not" or "There were these two guys, one was a Hitler and the other wasn't."  I was making the point that sometimes people say the same thing and mean two different things.  That was my only point. You chose, like some hypersensitive teenager, to focus on the fact that the HYPOTHETICAL "You" were the Hitler supporter.  For God's sake how paranoid can you get?

This is not just we disagree. This is you understand and I don't. Am accepting your explanation as meaning exactly what you intended when you said "Again, I don't question your sincerity, I just think you fail to understand the full significance of the argument." You understand the meaning, the reality of the situation, and I do not.

Well, yes, you see.  That is correct. You are a libertarian and you believe in that philosophy because you do not understand the real world.  If that offends you, tough.  In case you haven't figured this out, everybody on this site thinks somebody else is wrong about something.  I think Brass believes in a hopelessly irrational view of the world because the RBE would never work.  He believes I am hopelessly irrational because I believe in God.  See, when someone says they disagree with you, that is - pretty much by definition - an implication that you do not understand something.  You think the Consitution is written in stone.  I don't think so.  So I think you don't understand the Constitution and hey, guess what?  You think I don't understand the Constitution.  A lot of liberals were claiming Bush was a "deserter" back in the '04 campaign, and they were wrong.  They were wrong because they didn't understand military records, and I do.  You are sitting here, claiming that I do not understand libertarianism.  Oh, horrors!  I am SOOO offended.  You have called me stupid!  How DARE you suggest such a thing?

This is what you are saying to me. I have looked over this and over this, examining each time you tried to "correct" me on this, and I cannot see how anyone is supposed to come away from your explanations as meaning anything other than that I don't understand my own arguments. My political beliefs, you claim, are foolish and naive. Libertarians, you claim, do not understand the Constitution, common law, the Founder's intent or how government works. My arguments, you claim, even if I use the same words as you are different arguments because I don't understand the full significance of the words. It all comes down to you claiming that I don't understand my own arguments. You're not only insulting me by that, you're insulting me by suggesting I don't understand what you're saying. I'm no genius, but, whatever else my many faults might be, I'm not that stupid.

Oh yes, you most certainly are. 

What facts? So far all you have offered is "Neil Boortz says it." Where are the verifiable quotes? As a libertarian who has seen a lot of libertarian arguments with which I both agree and disagree, I have yet to see any libertarian come even remotely close to saying "relying on the government to protect our rights is cowardice.

OK. Let me be clear on this.  Are you saying that you don't believe me when I tell you Boortz has stated that people who rely on the government are being cowardly?  The man is a radio talk show host I listen to several times a week.  I can't cut and paste his broadcasts, so if you insist on getting "verifiable" quotes, I confess I cannot immediately do so.  But that is a pretty lame defense.  You have, however, accused me of stating falsehoods.  You have now, if I interpret your point correctly, implied that I am lying about that now.  You're doing an awful lot of accusing.  Prove any of it.  I keep asking you to cite specific examples of YOUR claims, you have avoided even addressing those points.

What libertarians generally say is that government is supposed to protect the rights of individuals. Even the anarchists will say that such is one of the things the U.S. government was intended to do. So as best I can determine, your comment is entirely a falsehood. But by all means, show me the quotes from Neil Boortz saying this frequently. Exact quotes, please. If all you have is some "afraid of liberty" stuff, then I'll tell you now you probably haven't got anything to support your claim. I'm a libertarian and I say your claim is false. So bring it on, Pooch.

Ok, since he is a talk-show host and I don't have transcripts of his shows available I can only give what his archives have available.  Of course, I have to be careful to find an EXACT quote, since you rationalize that saying someone is fearful is not the same as accusing them of cowardice - even if you suggest that their actions are based on that fear.  But let's just look at one example:

By the time this whole Social Security Ponzi scheme collapses I'll be laughing at the rest of you from a boat cruising the Florida inter-coastal waterways.  Knock yourselves out, you cowards.  Remember .. the government will take care of you.

In context, Boortz is talking about people who rely on the government for Social Security benefits.  Now, I'll bet I know how you're going to rationalize your way around that.  You're going to claim that Boortz wasn't talking about people who loved big government.  He was only talking about social security supporters.  That's not EXACTLY the same thing.  Or maybe you will have an attack of common sense and realize that this is not a good argument, so you will claim this was only one isolated example.  Of course I haven't done an exhaustive search, and the VAST majority of what Boortz says is not posted online.  Or maybe you'll say that Boortz is only one libertarian and has no right to speak for the party.  Well, Rush Limbaugh is only one conservative, and Al Franken is only one liberal.  But those talk show hosts are pretty strong influences in there own political world.  Boortz is the most vocal proponent of the libertarian view in the country.  He has disagreements with his own party, specifically over the war.  But he is as credible a spokesperson for the viewpoint as anyone - and the Libertarians don't complain too much except for on the war issue.  Indeed, he has spoken at libertarian conventions.  So there you have an EXACT quote of Boortz calling those who rely on government "cowards."

Now, YOU bring it on.  I asked you for EXACT examples.  You started whining.  Give the SPECIFIC examples or shut up.

If you're going to hold up patently ridiculous statements as tenets of libertarianism and reasons why you have no respect for libertarianism, then by golly let's see some proof. You've talked a tough game about libertarians not understanding the Constitution or government or the Founder's intent, and you've accused me of insisting on statements meaning only what I say not what they really mean, so let's see you prove your full comprehension of libertarianism and the statements by libertarians. Let's see your skills.

Let's see yours.  I asked you to come up with EXACT examples of quotes supporting your accusations of what you claim I said or admit that you misstated my position.  You avoided those challenges.  You posted volumes on deutero-debate points you have shown a complete incapacity to comprehend, but you remain unsurprisingly mute on the direct challenges.  Bring it on, UP.  When you have the courage to admit that you directly misstated my position I will then take further trouble to show you why libertarians are misguided - not that you will be convinced, but at least I'll pay you the courtesy.  But until you either meet my direct challenges to provide EXACT examples of where I said what you claim or admit you misstated my position, I am not going to waste any time presenting a logical argument to you. 

As to libertarian believes, it doesn't matter what I quote.  You will insist it means something else.  But here's a quote from a libertarian that I think proves libertarians don't understand the constitution.

"So you think the Constitution was meant to be a document with ever changing meaning which is to say, no meaning at all?"

That says to me that you believe that my statement that the founders intended to make the Constitution changable means I believe the Constitution has (effectively) no meaning.  Am I misstating that? Because if you say you meant something different I will be glad to accept whatever explanation you claim.  But you definitely said it in response to my point, so if you tell me I misinterpretted your meaning, I will ask you to provide the exact quote to which you responded and how that response should be interpretted with respect to my quote.  But it seems to me that a reasonable interpretation of your statement was to suggest that my belief that the founders intended to make the Constitution an adaptable document fully intended to evolve with society was effectively the same as saying its meaning was "ever changing" and that THAT meant the same as it having "no meaning."  That is nonsense.  It is a complete misunderstanding of the founder's intent and the meaning of the Constitution. 

Libertarians believe the Constitution was meant to be a permanent, virtually unchanging solution to the problem of government.  It was not.  it was intended as the most perfect example of government attainable in that day. It was recognized by the founders that as the nation grew, the concepts of freedom would grow as well.  The needs of the people would grow.  They planned for that eventuality.  So yeah, the libertarian view of the Constitution is silly and naive.  The Constitution IS a living document, because the alternative would be that this document which once codified the evils of slavery and insisted that only men could vote would be a dead document.  It was intended to be flexible enough to grow with the times and evolve.  Remember that it did not claim to make a "perfect" union, but rather a "more perfect" union (and that as compared to the one created in the Articles of Confederation).   That the union could be made more perfect still was, if not implicit, certainly at least not ruled out.

Here is another example:

"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."

See, here is a perfect example of a libertarian - you - who believes in the silly notion that Thoreau suggested, a utopian society in which government becomes unnecessary.  That's just silly.  Its OK if you live in a dreamworld, like Thoreau did.  But it doesn't work in the REAL world.  You say that Thoreau's quote - which explicitly states that government should eventually go away - is OK, and it is in fact the BEST SUMMATION OF WHAT[YOU] MEAN.  You then explicitly state that you believe we can eventually "[develop] a society that does not require a government."   Since I count you as a libertarian, and since many other libertarians have made the same or similar arguments I think my claim is supported.  Libertarians want to reduce government to the point that it would be ineffective, and eventually to the point of no government at all. 

These are perfect examples of YOU stating naive, silly opinions.  That's what libertarians believe, isn't it?  Are you a libertarian?  Because I am watching you idignantly whining about how I am trashing silly libertarian beliefs but you are stating the very silly beliefs I trash.  So unless I am misinterpretting something here, you believe the silly libertarian notion that government should be reduced to the point of ineffectiveness and eventually reduced to NO government.  You believe the silly notion that the Constitution is supposed to retain the exact meaning it had two hundred years ago.   These are just two examples of silly notions that libertarians do, in fact, believe. 

Now, I DO believe that government has too much say in what goes on in our lives.  I do believe that the size of our government (and by that I mean the size of the attendant bureacracy - I have no problem with the concept of representative government) needs to be reduced.   I do believe that private solutions to problems, with government acting in the role of overseer to prevent abuses, are likely to be far better for society than government ones.  So I do not think that libertarian notions have no place in the debate.  I just think that libertarians take the notion too far, because they give too much creedence to those ideals.   Similarly, I reject the liberal notion that government exists to make the world perfect (which, btw, is a subjective and deliberately oversimplified statement of their position, just as "libertarians want to do away with government" is of libertarianism).  But I do believe that the government ought to step in to insure that workers are protected from unsafe conditions, unfair employers and discriminatory hiring practices.  I do believe that some provision ought to be made to help the less fortunate in society.  I think that reasonable regulation ought to exist to insure that indiscriminate destruction of our natural resources is not allowed.   So I believe that the liberal position needs to be at least considered in the context of how we govern ourselves.  I also believe that moral values such as fidelity in marriage, self-reliance and free religious expression should be given a high place in our society.  I believe defense of our nation is a necessary, indeed indispensible component of our freedom and security.  I believe that we should crack down hard on criminals and allow everyone to carry concealed weapons without someone's permission.  (If anyone ever does allow that, violence will go up for a while, and then WAY down.)  So I believe that conservative values have a place in this nation.  I tend to lean more toward them than otherwise, but I do not consider myself bound by any party or philosophy.

Now I have stated my positions.  If any of those positions offend you, tough.  If you take personal offense at what I have tried to clarify, tough.  If you take offense at my saying you are acting arrogantly and foolishly, good.  It was intended.  I have given more attention to you than your actions in this debate warranted.  I leave idiots alone a lot faster.  Intelligent people I try to engage for a while.  People for whom I have great respect I will spend hours on. But I have gone beyond the point where I have any further responsibility to clarify, apologize or otherwise attempt to be diplomatic.  This debate is pointless because most of it is deutero-debating and the points that are relevant to the purpose of this forum are matters of opinion on which we will continue to disagree. 

[Universe Prince]

OMG, are you really that paranoid?  First of all, I specified that this HYPOTHETICAL event happened in 1930.  Nobody in this HYPOTHETICAL situation actually knew Hitler's real intent, though many in that time period suspected he was up to no good.  It happens that I said "You are this and I am that" because I usually happen to choose that sort of verbage in hypothetical situations.  But I just as easily could have said "I was a Hitler supporter and you were not" or "There were these two guys, one was a Hitler and the other wasn't."  I was making the point that sometimes people say the same thing and mean two different things.  That was my only point. You chose, like some hypersensitive teenager, to focus on the fact that the HYPOTHETICAL "You" were the Hitler supporter.  For God's sake how paranoid can you get?

Pooh yi. I didn't say you placed me in the position of a Hitler supported. What I said was, "you placed me in the position of being ignorant of Hitler's intent, but more than that, ignorant of the reality of the situation" while you "placed yourself in the position of understanding fully the real meaning of Hitler's intent". The point was not who was or was not supporting Hitler, as I did not believe your example really was intended to touch on that. You were showing an example of you understanding and me not understanding as part of your explanation. I don't know why anyone would have to be paranoid to see that this is the case.

First of all, I specified that this HYPOTHETICAL event happened in 1930.

Duh, no, really?

Sheesh.

You are a libertarian and you believe in that philosophy because you do not understand the real world.

This is basically what you've been saying all along, is it not?

See, when someone says they disagree with you, that is - pretty much by definition - an implication that you do not understand something.

And you're calling me paranoid? Anyway, um, no. Maybe that is what you mean. When I say I disagree, I mean I have a different opinion. Seems to me someone who accepts he might be wrong would understand that.

You think the Consitution is written in stone.

Okay, let's play your game. Find me the exact quote where I said that.

You think I don't understand the Constitution.

So now you're determining what I think too? Wow. Must be nice to be you.

I'm no genius, but, whatever else my many faults might be, I'm not that stupid.

Oh yes, you most certainly are.

I'm not, but at least you're owning up to your attitude on this.

OK. Let me be clear on this.  Are you saying that you don't believe me when I tell you Boortz has stated that people who rely on the government are being cowardly?

I'm saying I haven't seen the evidence. While this might all be easier for you if I just took your say so for everything, that ain't gonna happen, bub.

The man is a radio talk show host I listen to several times a week.  I can't cut and paste his broadcasts, so if you insist on getting "verifiable" quotes, I confess I cannot immediately do so.

Take your time. He also has columns online. I'll wait.

But that is a pretty lame defense.

Expecting you to back up your claims with facts is a lame defense? You expect me to simply take your word for it that every claim you make about libertarianism is true even though almost none of it coincides with pretty much everything I know about libertarianism? Wow. Maybe you really do think I'm that stupid.

You have, however, accused me of stating falsehoods.  You have now, if I interpret your point correctly, implied that I am lying about that now.  You're doing an awful lot of accusing.  Prove any of it.

Prove that what you say is not true? Now I'm supposed to prove a negative? Geez, you never stop.

I keep asking you to cite specific examples of YOUR claims, you have avoided even addressing those points.

I'm not certain what those claims might be, but I'll guess you mean the bit about wanting to eliminate government now. Again, I thought the "perhaps never" covered that. You're still pissed, so I'll say I probably misspoke by adding the now and implying somehow that you said it. And yeah, that is as much as you're gonna get.

Ok, since he is a talk-show host and I don't have transcripts of his shows available I can only give what his archives have available.  Of course, I have to be careful to find an EXACT quote, since you rationalize that saying someone is fearful is not the same as accusing them of cowardice - even if you suggest that their actions are based on that fear.

So, are you implying that being fearful of a thing is necessarily the same thing as cowardice? (Please note, that is a question, not a statement.)

But let's just look at one example:

By the time this whole Social Security Ponzi scheme collapses I'll be laughing at the rest of you from a boat cruising the Florida inter-coastal waterways.  Knock yourselves out, you cowards.  Remember .. the government will take care of you.

That obviously wasn't so hard.

In context, Boortz is talking about people who rely on the government for Social Security benefits.  Now, I'll bet I know how you're going to rationalize your way around that.  You're going to claim that Boortz wasn't talking about people who loved big government.  He was only talking about social security supporters.  That's not EXACTLY the same thing.  Or maybe you will have an attack of common sense and realize that this is not a good argument, so you will claim this was only one isolated example.  Of course I haven't done an exhaustive search, and the VAST majority of what Boortz says is not posted online.  Or maybe you'll say that Boortz is only one libertarian and has no right to speak for the party.  Well, Rush Limbaugh is only one conservative, and Al Franken is only one liberal.  But those talk show hosts are pretty strong influences in there own political world.  Boortz is the most vocal proponent of the libertarian view in the country.  He has disagreements with his own party, specifically over the war.  But he is as credible a spokesperson for the viewpoint as anyone - and the Libertarians don't complain too much except for on the war issue.  Indeed, he has spoken at libertarian conventions.  So there you have an EXACT quote of Boortz calling those who rely on government "cowards."

You'll bet, huh? I wouldn't advise it.

First of all, I went and looked up this quote. And in context it is actually about young people (along with Republicans and President Bush in particular) not standing up to the Democrats and the AARP by doing something to put an end to "Social Security". But hey, why talk about context, when we can see it for ourselves:

Democrats are telling Social Security recipients "Don't' be scared.  We can fix this problem."   Yeah .. they can fix the problem. They can fix the problem the way Democrats always fix problems. Raise taxes.  Seize more money.  Transfer more income. The AARP declared war on the young people of this country.  The younger generations put up little or no fight, Republicans are defecting, and the AARP is getting a victory.  By the time this whole Social Security Ponzi scheme collapses I'll be laughing at the rest of you from a boat cruising the Florida inter-coastal waterways.  Knock yourselves out, you cowards.  Remember .. the government will take care of you.

http://boortz.com/nuze/200501/01212005.html#ss (Hey look, a source link!)

Yep, Boortz did call them cowards. Did he call them cowards for depending on government or for running away from a fight? What the frell, let's say he called them cowards for depending on government. Good job. I don't agree with him and I still don't know of any other libertarians saying something like that, but you proved Boortz said so.

Unless you're claiming "Social Security" is a right, however, this doesn't directly answer my challenge. Your claim was, "Libertarians cry that relying on the government to protect our rights is cowardice." And you said, "Libertarians do make that argument. Neil Boortz is a libertarian.  He makes that argument frequently." After explaining that such a claim is contrary to what I know of libertarianism, my challenge was, and I quote, "But by all means, show me the quotes from Neil Boortz saying this frequently. Exact quotes, please." So, I'm still waiting. You made the claim, you back it up.

I will say Boortz is only one person, and while I'm not going to say he has no place to speak for libertarians, I would hesitate to suggest he represents the attitude of all or most libertarians any more than I would suggest that Rush Limbaugh represents the attitude of all or most conservatives. For example, I won't be claiming "conservatives believe 'Feminism was established to allow unattractive women easier access to the mainstream'" any time soon.

Now, YOU bring it on.  I asked you for EXACT examples.  You started whining.  Give the SPECIFIC examples or shut up.

I'm still guessing this is about the "not", and I addressed that already. If there is something else, let me know.

As to libertarian believes, it doesn't matter what I quote.  You will insist it means something else.

I might insist it means what it says.

But here's a quote from a libertarian that I think proves libertarians don't understand the constitution.

"So you think the Constitution was meant to be a document with ever changing meaning which is to say, no meaning at all?"

That says to me that you believe that my statement that the founders intended to make the Constitution changable means I believe the Constitution has (effectively) no meaning.  Am I misstating that?

You're ignoring the fact that it was a question to you, not a statement, something I pointed out initially by following the question with a note to pay attention to the question mark. So yes, you're misstating.

Because if you say you meant something different I will be glad to accept whatever explanation you claim.  But you definitely said it in response to my point, so if you tell me I misinterpretted your meaning, I will ask you to provide the exact quote to which you responded and how that response should be interpretted with respect to my quote.

Uh, you found the quote, but you want me to provide the quote to which I responded? Okay. What the frak. I'll go one better. I'll show the progress to that question. Ready? Let's go:

Stray Pooch: I have listened to - even flirted with - libertarian philosophy for years.  I have rejected it on merit, not on narrow-mindedness. Universe Prince: 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. SP: 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. UP: 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)

It was a question to you about what you believed. And as I recall, you never directly answered it.

But it seems to me that a reasonable interpretation of your statement was to suggest that my belief that the founders intended to make the Constitution an adaptable document fully intended to evolve with society was effectively the same as saying its meaning was "ever changing" and that THAT meant the same as it having "no meaning."  That is nonsense.  It is a complete misunderstanding of the founder's intent and the meaning of the Constitution.

Well, I was not commenting on the Constitution or the Founder's intent. I was asking you a question about what you believed. I hope we've cleared that up.

Libertarians believe the Constitution was meant to be a permanent, virtually unchanging solution to the problem of government.

You got quotes on that? And yes, I'm serious.

Libertarians believe the Constitution was meant to be a permanent, virtually unchanging solution to the problem of government.  It was not.  it was intended as the most perfect example of government attainable in that day. It was recognized by the founders that as the nation grew, the concepts of freedom would grow as well.  The needs of the people would grow.  They planned for that eventuality.  So yeah, the libertarian view of the Constitution is silly and naive.  The Constitution IS a living document, because the alternative would be that this document which once codified the evils of slavery and insisted that only men could vote would be a dead document.

I am not aware of any libertarians who suggest the Constitution was never intended to be altered in any way. So yeah, I think you're misrepresenting libertarianism as something other than what it actually is.

Here is another example:

"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."

See, here is a perfect example of a libertarian - you - who believes in the silly notion that Thoreau suggested, a utopian society in which government becomes unnecessary.  That's just silly.  Its OK if you live in a dreamworld, like Thoreau did.  But it doesn't work in the REAL world.  You say that Thoreau's quote - which explicitly states that government should eventually go away - is OK, and it is in fact the BEST SUMMATION OF WHAT[YOU] MEAN.  You then explicitly state that you believe we can eventually "[develop] a society that does not require a government."   Since I count you as a libertarian, and since many other libertarians have made the same or similar arguments I think my claim is supported.  Libertarians want to reduce government to the point that it would be ineffective, and eventually to the point of no government at all.

Wanting to reduce government to the point it would be ineffective? Well, there you go again. No, not to the point of being ineffective. To the point of doing what it supposed to do, and not much else. That you think a small government might be ineffective does not mean ineffective government is the goal of libertarians or that small government would necessarily be ineffective. But you conflate what you think might be the result with what you seem to think to be the goals of libertarians, and again I say you're misrepresenting libertarianism. That you apparently think only a utopian society could not need a government does not mean that libertarians believe so or that their ideas are necessarily utopian. I don't know of any libertarians, including the anarchists, who think that somehow we'll all magically end up in a fantasy society where no one ever does anything wrong and everyone thinks alike. There are plenty of articles and books about how a libertarian, even anarchist, societies could deal with the inevitable conflicts that arise between people. But no amount of explaining this seems to get through to you. You simply keep insisting libertarians are utopian and don't understand how the real world works. You talk and talk about open you are to being proven wrong, how you are so willing to accept when people tell you you've misunderstood, and yet, here you are, ignoring everything I've said to the contrary of your misrepresentations of libertarianism, insisting that you know because you listen to Neil Boortz. In fact, I expect this entire paragraph to be used by you to explain how I'm being inflexible and foolish.

These are perfect examples of YOU stating naive, silly opinions.

No, they are perfect examples of you misrepresenting reasonable positions and then ridiculing your misrepresentations as silly and naive. And yeah, I guess your misrepresentations are, by now at least, quite silly and naive.

So unless I am misinterpretting something here, you believe the silly libertarian notion that government should be reduced to the point of ineffectiveness and eventually reduced to NO government.

Uh, yeah, I'd say you're misinterpreting a lot.

You believe the silly notion that the Constitution is supposed to retain the exact meaning it had two hundred years ago.   These are just two examples of silly notions that libertarians do, in fact, believe.

No, they are two examples of silly notions that probably no libertarian actually believes, but that you use, I can only suppose, because misrepresenting and ridiculing is easier than actually building a case against actual libertarian arguments. I'm not saying such a case cannot be made. There are some ideas in some libertarian camps that I would even help you build a case against.

Now I have stated my positions.  If any of those positions offend you, tough.

No, those positions have never offended me.

If you take offense at my saying you are acting arrogantly and foolishly, good.  It was intended.

Physician, heal thyself.

I have given more attention to you than your actions in this debate warranted.  I leave idiots alone a lot faster.  Intelligent people I try to engage for a while.  People for whom I have great respect I will spend hours on. But I have gone beyond the point where I have any further responsibility to clarify, apologize or otherwise attempt to be diplomatic.

I passed that point along ago. Heck, this post is itself certainly much longer than your response really deserved. But I hang in there because I don't like to give up a fight where I think I'm right. I don't say I did not make mistakes. I don't say I did not misunderstand certain things. But Pooch, you're saying untrue things about me and about libertarianism. That is something I really don't like no matter who says it. Disagree all day long, and I might act peeved, but I'm really okay with it. However, when you are saying things that, in all my experience and investigations into libertarianism and libertarian ideas, are quite wrong and insisting therefore that what I believe is inherently foolish and naive, well, golly, I'm going to take a bit of offense at that. If you don't like that, too damn bad.

I was too pissy in my first couple of replies to you, and I apologized for that. But I don't take kindly to being treated like a ignorant child, even by people I respect. That is about where you started, and you never let up. And I tend give back what I get. (Not saying it's a virtue, just saying it is.) So if you've been offended or insulted, well, I guess I don't feel too bad about that just now. I might later, but not now.

Maybe I should have just scoffed at you and sloughed off your anti-libertarianism rant, but I didn't. So here we are. And overall I feel I've done okay (not great but okay) in this thread because I didn't let you start sh--ing all over my political beliefs without a challenge, and I think I've stood my ground. If you want to quit now, I'll let it be, but while I might have done certain things differently, I don't regret sticking up for what I believe.

[Stray Pooch]

OMG!  I can't freaking believe it.  I got at least two thirds of the way through a reply and then I just made one missed keystroke and somehow deleted the whole damn post!!!!   (I frikkin' highlighted the whole damn thing and then the next keystroke replaced everything!!!!)  I don't understand how that happens.  DOES ANYBODY KNOW WHAT KEY SEQUENCE WOULD, IN ONE FELL SWOOP HIGHLIGHT AN ENTIRE POST?   Even if I hit Shift and the up-arrow both at once, I would only expect that to highlight the text ABOVE that point.  I could just spit bullets!

There's no way I have the energy to rethink and retype all of that, so let's just cut to the chase. It's probably better anyway, since I said a lot of things I would probably regret and it frustrated me to the point that I just read the rest of your post before deciding whether it was worth the effort to restart.  I have, I confess, a bad habit bred of laziness of replying to posts on the fly, rather than reading the whole thing before starting to address it.  Probably better to read through first.  Gets the stupid out - or at least tames it a bit.

You and I are always going to differ on the issue of libertarianism.  You think it is because I do not understand libertarianism and I think it is because I do.   There is no point to debating further, because I have debated the issue before and found the defenses wanting.  I may be right, and you may be, but I am certain I cannot convince you and I know you can't convince me.  I do not consider you closed-minded.  I consider you to have decided that libertarianism is a good way of running the country, and to have based that decision on a rational analysis of the philosophy.  I happen to think that your conclusion is wrong.  I have no desire to hang you for it.  (Just maybe torture you a little.)  But I think it is wrong.

I went on in my original response about your saying you "misspoke" when you used "now."  The gist was that I wasn't going to hold your feet to the fire about "changing the meaning" of your original words.  You just clarified your intent.  Or perhaps you realized that you were not correctly interpretting my original intent  Either way,  I have no problem with that.  My only objection to your points in this thread have been ones of opinion and interpretation.  For example, I think that libertarians believe the constitution is written in stone.  That's a metaphor.  I didn't say that any libertarian ever stated that in those exact terms, I mean that libertarians believe in an interpretation of constitutional history and content that, in my opinion, amounts to an overly rigid definition of the constitution.  That opinion remains and I think that the most basic tenets of libertarianism support that opinion.   

I believe that libertarians want to reduce government to the point that it would be ineffective.  By that, I do not mean to say that libertarians desire an ineffective government.  I mean that libertarian philosophy, taken to the extent that I think libertarians have expressed a desire to do, would reduce government to the point that, IMO, would not effectively protect people from abuses.   I think it is not unreasonable to say that libertarians want to reduce government to the point where it would be ineffective, because that is an accurate - if not perfectly unambiguous - way of expressing my opinion of what libertarianism would lead to.  No libertarian would say "I want to reduce government to the point where it is no longer effective."  They would, however, say something like "I want to eliminate the Department of Homeland Security" (hypothetically - I do not say that any libertarian has ever actually made that statement) to which I might respond  "I think that might make the government ineffective in fighting terrorism."  (Not that I am making that particular argument, I am simply looking for an illustrative example and DHS is the first thing that popped into my mind.)
So you insist that I am accusing libertarians of, in effect, desiring an ineffective government (based on your interpretation of the phrase "libertarians want to reduce goverment to the point of ineffectiveness")  when in fact what I intended to convey was two related thoughts which might better be expressed in this way:

"Libertarians want to reduce government.  I think that the result of their expressed intentions on how to accomplish that would cause our government to be ineffective."

Can you not see how that idea could be expressed by the phrase "libertarians want to reduce government to the point that it would be ineffective."?   I can certainly see where your interpretation could be valid.  There was enough ambiguity in that phrase to support your interpretation.  You are justified in doing so.  But when I say "No, you misunderstood me.  I meant (see statements in bold above)"  you accuse me of deliberately changing the meaning.  I'm not changing the meaning.  I am clarifying my intent.  It is at this point that I truly take offense, because you are no longer challenging my point.  You are directly accusing me of lying, which I am certainly not doing. 

So based on that, you accuse me of stating "falsehoods" about your political beliefs.  I have done no such thing.  I have expressed an opinion, with which, in its original intent, I presume you disagree.  I have, it is easy to see, stated that opinion poorly, but I am not allowed to choose better wording.  I am stuck with your interpretation of my original phrase.  I must either admit that I actually meant exactly what you think I did, and therefore find some libertarian out there who says "Gosh darn it, I would sure like to get the government down to the point where it would be ineffective.  Oo-Wee, that would be a blast!"  or simply say "Gosh darn it, UP, you're right.  I'm just a lying sombitch.  You done caught me at it.  Damn!" 

You, however, do not have the common decency to admit that you simply misunderstood my meaning.  Instead, you resort to calling me a cheater.  I wrung out of you an admission that your statement that I claimed libertarians wanted to eliminate government NOW was a case of you "misspeaking" but I don't get that same right.  You even went so far as to say "that's all you're getting out of me" as if this small concession was somehow a favor to me and an injury to you.  In fact, you were just clarifying your opinion on the issue.  Maybe you meant that you didn't mean to say that I actually meant "now" or maybe you meant that you had misinterpreted my meaning to indicate that I meant "now" and you had come to realize that.  You didn't make that clear, but either way, I'm not accusing you of cheating.  There was a misunderstanding between us on that point.  To some extent, that small concession allows us to better debate the point.  I no longer have to prove that libertarians want to end government NOW and you no longer have to defend libertarians against that claim.  We can focus, if we choose, on the actual intent, rather than the unintended meaning.

In fact, you read into my comments an opinion I had neither expressed nor feel.  This particular example was small, and I can understand where you might have come away with that impression.  Communication is not perfect.  Words have more than one meaning.  And it turns out, words are not the only thing that make up communication.  Phrases, sentences and paragraphs do.  And they can have even more meanings than words.  THAT is what I have been trying to express during this whole thread, and in fact is the only reason I entered it in BT's defense in the first place. 

But where we can disagree on politics without offense (at least none intended) you have accused me of actually changing the meaning of my words.  I've been frustrated enough to use incendiary phrases about your lack of comprehension, and for that I apologize.  But I haven't been accusing you of deliberately lying.  You have questioned my open-mindedness.  I don't like that, and I disagree with it, but it only goes to my mental state (which is clearly questionable at my best moments).  I'm don't take that too personally.  I just think you're wrong.  You even implied that I deliberately left off the link to Boortz's website with the intention of misleading you.  Jeez, if you had seen my original response to that!  Man, it was a masterpiece of sarcasm, but the moment, alas, has passed.  Suffice to say that my laziness in cut-and-paste was negated by the fact that I had cited Boortz specifically and told you I was getting the quote from his website.  Hardly the stuff of subterfuge.  (I really was on a roll in that deleted thread, though.  Ya shoulda seen it!)

The bottom line, UP, is that I thought and still think that you are wrong about how you interpretted BT's intent in his original question.  I also think, from this thread, that you cannot accept that you might have been wrong in that. Even if BT were to come on and say "Oh, Pooch is exactly right about what I meant, and you were just plain ol' wrong" you would accuse him of changing his meaning, misrepresenting his viewpoint or just agreeing with me because it makes him look good.   (FTR, I frankly doubt that he has bothered to even read this thread or cares to enter the fray if he did.)  My first mistake was getting involved in the first place.  My second was continuing.

 

[Universe Prince]

OMG!  I can't freaking believe it.  I got at least two thirds of the way through a reply and then I just made one missed keystroke and somehow deleted the whole damn post!!!!   (I frikkin' highlighted the whole damn thing and then the next keystroke replaced everything!!!!)  I don't understand how that happens.  DOES ANYBODY KNOW WHAT KEY SEQUENCE WOULD, IN ONE FELL SWOOP HIGHLIGHT AN ENTIRE POST?   Even if I hit Shift and the up-arrow both at once, I would only expect that to highlight the text ABOVE that point.  I could just spit bullets!

A weird quirk of this board is that if you're selecting with the cursor, a hair's breadth too far to the left and you'll end up selecting everything before your starting point. It's kinda annoying, but if that mistake is made and then stuff gets deleted, just type Ctrl-Z and it will undo.

So you insist that I am accusing libertarians of, in effect, desiring an ineffective government (based on your interpretation of the phrase "libertarians want to reduce goverment to the point of ineffectiveness")  when in fact what I intended to convey was two related thoughts which might better be expressed in this way:

"Libertarians want to reduce government.  I think that the result of their expressed intentions on how to accomplish that would cause our government to be ineffective."

Can you not see how that idea could be expressed by the phrase "libertarians want to reduce government to the point that it would be ineffective."?

I can, but barely. I think it is more than a bit of a stretch to suggest the one should be taken to mean the other.

But when I say "No, you misunderstood me.  I meant (see statements in bold above)"  you accuse me of deliberately changing the meaning.

Perhaps due to the fact that your explanation of your meaning does not, to me, look like what you said in the first place.

You, however, do not have the common decency to admit that you simply misunderstood my meaning.  Instead, you resort to calling me a cheater.

As I said before: I was too pissy in my first couple of replies to you, and I apologized for that. But I don't take kindly to being treated like a ignorant child, even by people I respect. That is about where you started, and you never let up. And I tend give back what I get.

Words have more than one meaning.  And it turns out, words are not the only thing that make up communication.  Phrases, sentences and paragraphs do.  And they can have even more meanings than words.  THAT is what I have been trying to express during this whole thread, and in fact is the only reason I entered it in BT's defense in the first place.

Seems to me you could have done that without the anti-libertarian rant.

Man, it was a masterpiece of sarcasm, but the moment, alas, has passed.

Too bad. I appreciate good sarcasm.

The bottom line, UP, is that I thought and still think that you are wrong about how you interpretted BT's intent in his original question.  I also think, from this thread, that you cannot accept that you might have been wrong in that.

I can, but I happen to think you're wrong. And you didn't say anything to persuade me otherwise.

Even if BT were to come on and say "Oh, Pooch is exactly right about what I meant, and you were just plain ol' wrong" you would accuse him of changing his meaning, misrepresenting his viewpoint or just agreeing with me because it makes him look good.

No, actually, I'd accept it though I might criticize him on his delivery. And possibly on the fact that he could have cleared up the confusion long ago.

[BT]

Even if BT were to come on and say "Oh, Pooch is exactly right about what I meant, and you were just plain ol' wrong" you would accuse him of changing his meaning, misrepresenting his viewpoint or just agreeing with me because it makes him look good.   (FTR, I frankly doubt that he has bothered to even read this thread or cares to enter the fray if he did.)  My first mistake was getting involved in the first place.  My second was continuing.

As these are some of the better exchanges on this board that i have seen in quite awhile, neither one of you are mistaken in continuing or getting involved in the debate.

[sirs]

Ditto.  I'm thoroughly impressed at the time and energy put into each response.  It's an example of what the saloon's all about, and what we all should strive towards.........when we have the time       

[Stray Pooch]

A weird quirk of this board is that if you're selecting with the cursor, a hair's breadth too far to the left and you'll end up selecting everything before your starting point. It's kinda annoying, but if that mistake is made and then stuff gets deleted, just type Ctrl-Z and it will undo.

NOW YA TELL ME!!!!!!!!  AAAAARRRGGGHHHHHHH!!  I actually think it hurts more to know I could have saved it - LOL!

I can, but barely. I think it is more than a bit of a stretch to suggest the one should be taken to mean the other.

Then perhaps, UP, you should stretch more often.  That is not much of a grammatical stretch at all.  But more to the point, I have told you that the second is what I meant.  You are not questioning my point.  You are questioning my integrity.

But when I say "No, you misunderstood me.  I meant (see statements in bold above)"  you accuse me of deliberately changing the meaning.

Perhaps due to the fact that your explanation of your meaning does not, to me, look like what you said in the first place.

I think "perhaps" is not necessary in that statement.  Obviously that is the case.  But that is a misinterpretation on your part and ambiguous wording on my part.  If we must assign a blame for the miscommunication, I would say the responsibilty for clear wording lies on my side.   But when I realize my mistake and try to clarify that point, any denial of that clarification places the responsibility on your part.  Even if you don't see where my original words were intended to convey the meaning I say they do, the alternative to accepting my clarification as honest is to say that I am deliberately lying.  That is a personal attack, not a critique of poor wording.

Seems to me you could have done that without the anti-libertarian rant.

True, but I do not apologize for that.  I might have chosen to word it more diplomatically had I not felt you were being "pissy" to BT without just cause.  But I would still believe it.

The smell of rotting horse flesh is getting intense, here. . .

[Stray Pooch]

Even if BT were to come on and say "Oh, Pooch is exactly right about what I meant, and you were just plain ol' wrong" you would accuse him of changing his meaning, misrepresenting his viewpoint or just agreeing with me because it makes him look good.   (FTR, I frankly doubt that he has bothered to even read this thread or cares to enter the fray if he did.)  My first mistake was getting involved in the first place.  My second was continuing.

As these are some of the better exchanges on this board that i have seen in quite awhile, neither one of you are mistaken in continuing or getting involved in the debate.

Ditto.  I'm thoroughly impressed at the time and energy put into each response.  It's an example of what the saloon's all about, and what we all should strive towards.........when we have the time     

LOL.  Well I guess I was wrong.  Congratulations, gentlemen, on your long-distance reading skills.

Hey UP, wanna split the proceeds from the popcorn stand? 

[Universe Prince]

That is not much of a grammatical stretch at all.

Obviously, I disagree.

You are questioning my integrity.

You are questioning my ability to comprehend the practicality and reality of my political philosophy.

Even if you don't see where my original words were intended to convey the meaning I say they do, the alternative to accepting my clarification as honest is to say that I am deliberately lying.  That is a personal attack, not a critique of poor wording.

Or me strongly (over?) reacting to the notion that I lack comprehension. Let me put it this way, you complained that libertarians don't understand this and that, then said that even if I make the same argument as you I don't understand the full significance of it, and then you explained your meaning of various comments to be something quite other than what, to me, you appeared to have said initially. I started out on the defensive, and, for good or bad, I stayed there.

[Universe Prince]

Hey UP, wanna split the proceeds from the popcorn stand?

Sure, so long as someone else sweeps up.

[Stray Pooch]

Obviously, I disagree.

Well, you be WRONG. 

You are questioning my ability to comprehend the practicality and reality of my political philosophy.

Well, you be RIGHT.

Let me put it this way, you complained that libertarians don't understand this and that, then said that even if I make the same argument as you I don't understand the full significance of it, and then you explained your meaning of various comments to be something quite other than what, to me, you appeared to have said initially. I started out on the defensive, and, for good or bad, I stayed there.

Well you be DONE OUT-OVER-ANALYZED MY POOCHIE BUTT!! 

Ya know, UP, you're right.  I jumped into the fray more than hot-headed because I think you were being unreasonable and more than a little pissy with BT, who I still think had a good point.  The anti-libertarian rant was based on the fact that your original argument (with BT, that is) was based on a libertarian ideal.  But I could have handled it in a far more civil way.  I think I had a temporary spike in the testosterone level and at my age and condition, ya just gotta go with that!  You happened to, I'm sure unknowningly, strike at a particularly sore point with me - integrity.  Without sharing more of the long, sad childhood of the Pooch (sounds like it oughta be the title of some weird new-age Indy movie - HEY, BRASS.) my dear old Dad was a compulsive liar and the results of that trait caused us kids problems in ways you couldn't even begin to imagine.  So, like the tee-totaler whose dad was a drunk, I tend to try to stay as close to honesty as a mere mortal can stand to be.  Not that I haven't added the occasional embellishment to a story for flare, but what I say is usually pretty trustworthy.  So to call me a dumbass I can stand, but to call me a liar just makes me get all growly-like inside.  I woulda just shut up while I was ahead, but you NEVER FRIKKIN' LET ME GET THERE!!!!

So in conclusion  <sounds of wild cheering from the saloon floor>  let me just say I am sorry for the ruckus and for allowing my anger to get the better of me.  I am going to post this apology on a website somewhere and just provide a hyperlink to it from now on.  Maybe I'll just make it my signature.  One last thing . . .








You STILL be WRONG!!!!

[Stray Pooch]

Sure, so long as someone else sweeps up.

Sure, I gotta clean it up.  Typical, these Universe Princes running around here, thinking they're some kind of ROYALTY or something. . .

Treats me like a DAWG!