Ron Paul is the only real conservative candidate, and he is dead honest about what he believes, which is more that can be said of McCain, Romney and Huckleberry.
I am all for the GOP nominating him and giving us all a clear choice.
What Ron Paul has done, in my opinion, is separate the self-proclaimed libertarians of the Republican Party from the real life libertarian activists, who truly believe in the principles that Paul espouses.
The reality is that there is a tiny percentage of folks who are libertarians, but most conservatives wholeheartedly denounce much of that agenda. They used it when it was useful, but they sure as hell won't let the libertarians run the party any time in the foreseeable future.
The reality is that there is a tiny percentage of folks who are libertarians, but most conservatives wholeheartedly denounce much of that agenda. They used it when it was useful, but they sure as hell won't let the libertarians run the party any time in the foreseeable future.
What Ron Paul has done, in my opinion, is separate the self-proclaimed libertarians of the Republican Party from the real life libertarian activists, who truly believe in the principles that Paul espouses.
Indeed. The people of the Republican Party have said pretty plainly that they, for the most part, reject the notions of smaller government.
The GOP definately has fallen completely away from their original platform of limited Government, and now think running as Democrat lite, is the way to go. well, that last election cycle helped educate DC how that really doesn't go over well with the GOP base
Seems to be going over just fine with some of the Republican base.
Of course it is. Some Republicans were just fine with government projects like ending slavery and building interstate highways. or using the powers of government to conserve the environment.
The GOP definately has fallen completely away from their original platform of limited Government, and now think running as Democrat lite, is the way to go. Well, that last election cycle helped educate DC how that really doesn't go over well with the GOP base
Seems to be going over just fine with some of the Republican base.
QuoteThe reality is that there is a tiny percentage of folks who are libertarians, but most conservatives wholeheartedly denounce much of that agenda. They used it when it was useful, but they sure as hell won't let the libertarians run the party any time in the foreseeable future.
Republicans might, Conservatives might not. The terms are not interchangeable. And Ron Paul was not the guy to bring about that sea change. The message is only as good as the messenger.
The soul of a capitalist is not being revealed when you bash them. Your soul is being revealed.
What Ron Paul has done, in my opinion, is separate the self-proclaimed libertarians of the Republican Party from the real life libertarian activists, who truly believe in the principles that Paul espouses.
Indeed. The people of the Republican Party have said pretty plainly that they, for the most part, reject the notions of smaller government.
The reality is that there is a tiny percentage of folks who are libertarians, but most conservatives wholeheartedly denounce much of that agenda. They used it when it was useful, but they sure as hell won't let the libertarians run the party any time in the foreseeable future.
I wouldn't say "tiny". Small maybe. And I think it might be a mistake to assume that everyone who voted for Ron Paul represents the whole of libertarians in this country. There are many libertarians who don't like Ron Paul for one reason or another.
And you say the same about those who bash communists? socialists?
Interestingly, I've never seen that.
QuoteAnd you say the same about those who bash communists? socialists?
Interestingly, I've never seen that.
Seems fairly obvious, that while bashing opposing views you reveal your own biases, background and influences. Do you disagree?
Do I hide the fact that I'm a socialist?
Of course Government was the proper instrument to end slavery. Government has the power to either legalize or criminalize such actions. They also have enforcement powers.
Are you saying ending slavery was a bad thing?
No, but I might be saying that you're an ass.
I'm sure you picked up on this, but (just so there is no confusion with the readers who thought your question was clever) I was scoffing at your suggestion that there was a government program to end slavery.
Brilliant!
Well let's see . There was a war, and an Emancipation Proclamation and passage of an amendment.
All government sanctioned.
Did the fed overstep their bounds?
Certainly there were programs in palce to enforce the 14,15 and 16th amendments.
It was called reconstruction.
I guess your sarcasm is used to cover up the fact that you are wrong.
The freedmens bureaus is a perfect example of a federal program dealing with freed slaves.
"............. since you can't be bothered to make an argument beyond some weak, mostly tangential "gotcha" type comments, I guess I'm going to have to keep being sarcastic [insert overly dramatic sigh and shoulder shrug here]. Oh well.[/color]"
"Ironically Hillary is now more acceptable to me than the GOP front runner and she is less acceptable than Obama as far as the good of the country goes .
Maybe you should vote a right in canadate
All rigt , bt don't forget how to write well , or loose your talent for exaustive exploration of an idea.
Don't loose what you are great at already as you attempt to develop something new.
This is the problem.
In your haste to paint Republicans as hypocrits because they rejected Dr. Paul you fail to recognize that the reason is that republicans reject the extremes of Pauls message.
While it is possible that Georgia could launch a space program it is more efficient use of resources to do it at the federal level. I don't know many republicans who are against space exploration.
And though Georgia does have a highway department, the interstate highway system was better funded and managed at the federal level.
There are times when regional and national solutions are more appropriate than state or local solutions.
No, this republican is not against government.
This republican understands that political philosophy is just jaw boning unless it is implemented. And therin lies the main difference between republicans and libertarians.
Republicans are in the arena. Libertarians sit in the bleachers. All sarcastic and pious but unable to garner more than 14 delegates even with their favorite son carrying their flag. Perhaps it is the message, perhaps it is the messenger, but what is painfully obvious is that it isn't selling well, even with the dearth (to me) of other viable candidates.
You accuse me of being in haste to paint Republicans as hypocrites, but I don't have to do any painting. They have "painted" themselves. George Bush (the younger) campaigned on reducing the size of government, and he basically worked to achieve the opposite.
With all due respect Prince, he didn't. You call campagining for a prescription drug program "reducing the size of Government"? You call his campaining for NCLB as reducing the size of government? And I won't even bring up Homeland Security
Either Paul is for the space program or he isn't.
And the space program is big government.
Either Paul is for the interstate highway system or he isn't.
And the highway program is big government.
So either there is a place for big government or there isn't.
Here's a clue: Small government is code for efficient government. I'm all for that.
There is a place for federal programs. There is a place for a more regional or local approach.
And i don't think that makes me or any other republican who supports efficient govt a hypocrite.
Government is all about providing services. That is why they exist.
Elections are no more than deciding who controls the franchises and what the services will cost.
The war was not a program to end slavery, but rather a war to prevent the breakup of the Union, not to free the slaves. The Emancipation Proclamation was a political maneuver against the Confederacy. (No, I'm not siding with slavery, just pointing out a fact.) And the passage of an amendment did not require a federal program or the Emancipation Proclamation or a civil war. (Notice the lack of civil wars in relation to other constitutional amendments.) So no, there was no program to end slavery. As best I can discover, Lincoln didn't give a damn about ending slavery until the war made it politically advantageous to do so.
But the South broke a union they had agreed to as perpetual,
But the South broke a union they had agreed to as perpetual,
Where was this "perpetual" union agreed upon?
Article XIII of the Articles of Confederation.
btw, Ami. Thanks for the link to the "Amahl and the Night Visitors" torrent.
It took my son almost two days to download the entire thing
Forgive me, but I was under the impression that the union formed under the Articles of Confederation was dissolved with the signing of the Constitution.
Since Article XIII of the Articles of Confederation says that if every state legislature agrees to a change, then the Articles will be considered changed, and every state legislature adopted the new Constitution, then the articles should be considered "changed." And the new Constitution says nothing about a "perpetual union."
As a matter of fact, Virginia held out on the new Constitution until they were insured that it did not forbid them from seceding.
I'm not sure if that torrent was setup as separate files, though many are. If they are setup as separate files, most torrent software will allow you to just download the pieces you want, or setup one or more pieces as "high priority" so they will download first. I personally use uTorrent (http://utorrent.com/)which allows both of these options, plus it has a very small memory footprint.
That is an interesting statement. It does not sound inconsistent with the Southern temperment. I would be interested in reading about that. What is your source?
DO in the name and in behalf of the people of Virginia, declare and make known that the powers granted under the Constitution, being derived from the people of the United States may be resumed by them whensoever the same shall be perverted to their injury or oppression,http://www.usconstitution.net/rat_va.html (http://www.usconstitution.net/rat_va.html)
but no new States shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other StateUS Constitution, Article IV, Section 3
I suppose that there is a court case here, but I hardly think it's likely. Maybe there was a case long ago.
The State of Virginia's ratification document states it, it is also present in the documentation of their deliberations:QuoteDO in the name and in behalf of the people of Virginia, declare and make known that the powers granted under the Constitution, being derived from the people of the United States may be resumed by them whensoever the same shall be perverted to their injury or oppression,
Interestingly enough, since in your claim Virginia could not secede, do you think that the creation of West Virginia is illegal?
Further, the wording states that the "people" retain the rights - not the individual states. That IS consistent with the tenth amendment. One could argue (and I do make this argument with respect to the second amendment, as well as the nonth and tenth) that a deliberate distinction exists in the Constitution between the Union, the several States, and the people.
To me the larger question has always been the legality of any legislative actions taken during the period between secession and reunification. What are the rules for a quorum in the legislature and how were they dealt with when the South left?
I agree that it seems WV is illegal (though in fairness we have to have SOMEPLACE where a decent man can still cohabitate with his sister :D ). I imagine there is a rational basis for it, but I would be interested in looking it over.
Massachusetts shrank in 1821 when Maine was separated from it and admitted as a separate state.
This is why I have no respect for libertarianism. You are making semantic arguments, UP.
Whether there was a government "program" is not the point - not at all.
The FACT is that slavery COULD NOT have been ended by "the people" no matter how concerned SOME of them were. It took the GOVERNMENT - by way of the Congress and the Courts - to abolish and then enforce the abolishment of slavery.
The South wanted to continue with slavery so badly that they decided to break the Perpetual Union they agreed to in the Articles of Confederation.
It is all well and good - and correct - to say that the South wanted out of the Union because of what they correctly perceived as the Federal government overriding state's rights. So what? That hasn't got a thing to do with whether the government was required to assert and protect the rights of people unjustly oppressed.
You keep ridiculing the notion of using the power of government to protect people from the "big bad cruel world."
Well I've got news for you. That's what a government is for. It doesn't exist to build roads. Private companies can do that. It doesn't exist to educate children. Families can do that. It doesn't exist to make the world fair. Nobody can do that. It exists only to protect, as best as possible, the rights of individuals.
There is no question that the Federal government is far too big and has far too much power. There is no question that Lincoln and Roosevelt bear heavy responsibility for that. There is no question that the founders did not intend the behemoth that sits astride the hills of Rome in DC. But the libertarian response to that is to basically do away with the government and let the free market and personal choice rule the day.
But BT's question about whether ending slavery was a good thing IS a valid question, because it was the action of the government - not the people - that did that. You ridicule it because it does not fit in with your conception of what we are debating.
It is right to teach that Lincoln saved the union and ended slavery because that is what happened in a nutshell.
Libertarians claim that wanting the government to protect you from the big, bad world is cowardice.
One can equally claim that wanting the government to turn a blind eye on abuses of power in the free market, discriminatory practices and wholesale destruction of the environment is another form of cowardice.
The fact is, most libertarians (and conservatives in general) will tell you that they do not endorse abuse of workers, or destruction of the environment or discrimination in housing. Most of those who makes such claims are sincere.
But just as too much government empowers those who would use the police powers of the state to oppress individuals, too little government empowers those who would use their economic power to do the same.
It is right to teach that Lincoln saved the union and ended slavery because that is what happened in a nutshell.Whatever helps you sleep at night.
No, Pooch, I'm not. The Civil War was not a program to end slavery. You can call it a program, but that would be you making semantic arguments, not me.
Of course it wasn't the point. The point was that since there was this government "program" to end slavery someone opposing big government must oppose the ending of slavery. It was clever in a childish sort of way, but it's a bogus argument.
Hey, Pooch, before you get on some angrily righteous rant about the need for government (oops, too late) I'd like to point out that I never said either that the government was not needed to or should not have abolished slavery.
These conversations would be a lot easier if people like you and BT would stop assuming that I oppose any and all government, and any and all things done by government. I wouldn't have to be so sarcastic all the time, and you wouldn't have to spend the time typing out long pro-government rants.[/color]
I'm pretty sure that by 1860 we had moved on from the Articles of Confederation. And by 1860, there were a few more states involved than had been represented at the signing of the Articles of Confederation. So I'd have to say your argument there doesn't hold up.
Sigh. Hey, Mr. Obseravnt, no one argued that the government shouldn't protect the rights of the people. In point of fact, I have more than once in this forum argued that government should do exactly that.
Uh, no, I don't. I don't at all. If I ridiculed anything it would be the notion that support for, say, the abolition of slavery means I should then also support and not criticize big government.
I have some news for you, Mr. Righteously Indignant. I have made that argument here in this forum many times. And usually I get criticized for it. And now, here you are, lecturing me about it. If I were less patient, this is the point where I'd tell you to -- ---- --------. But I won't say that.
Let's just snip this right here, cutting out a lot of really boring if passionate arguments about how libertarians would allow chaos, abuse, racism, rights violations and probably satan himself to run rampant. First of all, not all libertarians are anarchists.
Second, there are lots of ideas within libertarianism about how to protect the rights of individuals, even in the absence of a government proper.
Third, even if I had the time to try to counter you point for point, I doubt seriously it would make one whit of difference. Talking about libertarianism is useless to people who righteously and indignantly shut their minds to it. Even if I could eloquently spell out all the different ideas various libertarian folks have for dealing with these issues, I would still end up being lectured to by the likes of you about how horrible libertarianism is for wanting to abolish government and supposedly leave every last human without any protection from or recourse against all the worst that could ever happen. So frankly, I don't think you are worth wasting the effort.
No, I ridicule it because it is a stupid question. I was not arguing against government or government actions to protect the rights of people. I was not arguing against the government action to end slavery. The question was intended as a "gotcha". It would be sort of (not exactly, but sort of) like you arguing against socialism and someone asking if you're against protecting workers from abusive employers.[/color]
Whatever helps you sleep at night.
They do? Have you some examples? I'm fairly certain I never said such a thing.
One could, yes, but then I have not seen any libertarian make argument for wanting such a thing. Ever. I have, on the other, hand, seen libertarians denounce the abuses of power that come from the collaboration of corporations and government. I have also seen libertarians argue in favor of protecting the environment through strong protection of property rights. Of course, I have also seen libertarians argue against abuses of power by government, discriminatory laws and wholesale trampling of property rights and such. But I won't mention that because I would hate to see you going off on another "libertarians want chaos and anarchy" rant.
Gee, thanks. You're so (I'm being sarcastic again) fair.
Not to mention that too much government empowers those who would use their economic power to do the same to simply use the government to accomplish it. Kelo vs. New London ring a bell?
This notion you seem to have, Pooch, that libertarians want to see corporations free and unrestrained in any way to trample over people's rights is not even fit enough to be called excrement. You say you have no respect for libertarianism, but you seem not to know the first thing about it.
I guess respecting something you only know from lies and distortions is difficult. But I'm sure you as a Mormon wouldn't know anything about that, now would you?
I've about reached the limit of my patience on this. I could go on, and probably do some ranting myself, but that would serve no purpose.
I'm guessing a lot of people were asleep in history class when the Crittenden-Johnson Resolution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crittenden-Johnson_Resolution) was discussed.
It is cut and dried.
It is cut and dried.
It's so cut and dried that there were no slave holding states in the Union.
Oh wait. There were 5 that did not secede at all and another 4 that did not secede until Union troops started marching through their territory.
So what? We are not discussing the reasons why slaveholding states REMAINED in the union, we are discussing why slaveholding states LEFT the union.
Pay particular attention to the designation of the States on both sides of the battle. The are the "Slaveholding states" and Non-slaveholding states." They are not the "Federal" or "Union" States and "Confederate States" nor the "Lincoln-supporting" and "Non-Lincoln Supporting" states.
Look at what Missouri's Declaration said "Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world."
Then why did you say:Pay particular attention to the designation of the States on both sides of the battle. The are the "Slaveholding states" and Non-slaveholding states." They are not the "Federal" or "Union" States and "Confederate States" nor the "Lincoln-supporting" and "Non-Lincoln Supporting" states.
You clearly say that one side of the war was "slave holding states" and the other side was "non-slave holding states". However, this statement is not true.
And the document you linked is no more or no less political than the document I referenced. If my reference can be discounted because it's "political" so can your document.
Look at what Missouri's Declaration said "Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world."
You realize that the Missouri Compromise was declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court, right?
This is why I have no respect for libertarianism. .......
Wow
What a great post !
I am awed at your ability to casually toss off such excellent essays, which would raise the standards of the tipical National publication. I don't need to agree with all of it to recognise the excellence.
Now about the parts I don't agree with;
Lbertrianism is mostly untried , unlike Communism there has never been totaltaran Libertarian government to demonstrate how badly it can go wrong , but does a totaliarian Libertarian seem likely? It is the nature of untested ideals to be uncmpromised and unscarred by implemetation amoung real people who are such cussed creatures that no system of Ideals has ever lasted long in any society without beomeing compromised or corrupted. But a Libertrian does not preach his ideals in vain .
Harry Truman once stated that in the USA no good idea is ever forgotten , he was refering to the ideas and proposas of the Populists that had survived longer than the party and were adopted by his Democratic party , in a truncated and compromised form. Libertarians can perhaps eventually convince the people that they have the nswers and get elected as a party , ut even if they never do if they expound their ideas and uplift their ideals those concepts that appeal to the public strongly will never be forgotten and ill likely be adopted by whichever party can improve its appeal thereby.
ON the CSA , how many clauses of the Articles of Cnfederation are still in force? How has one bit of it remaied in force when the rest of it has lost its function?
IN the USA there is precident for dissolveing a Union and establishig a new Nation and this precident was what was attempted by the CSA . I don't see Lincon as haveing strong constitutinal grounds for legality in preventing the Secession , neither did he . Lincon was the sort to cut the Gordian knot rather than try to unravel it. The Civil War as I understand it was a grand failure of Government trying to cope with its people , this is reciprocally a failure of the people to do right. A Government of the People can't be a whole lot better than those people.
BT's point was that government was necessary.
He used the general expression that a "program" was in place to end slavery and you focused on it and changed the debate from the effacy of government to whether or not the war was a "program." That's a semantical argument.
In fact, you certainly CAN call a war a program, since that term is generic. But whether that term covers a war, a new cabinet department or an ongoing debate in congress or among the people for that matter, is a completely irrelevant point. The point is that the end of slavery required a government - not the fine good will of the Southern white people.
The point was that government was required to do the job and the question was rhetorical.
QuoteI'd like to point out that I never said either that the government was not needed to or should not have abolished slavery.
Who said you did?
These conversations would be easier if you would stop assuming that by making a general point about libertarianism I wasn't personally attacking you.
My desire to point out the obvious wouldn't exist were it not for the general lack of understanding that libertarians have about the Constitution and the role of government.
libertarians want to llive in a dream world where moral behavior eliminates the need for government.
Then how do you explain this comment you made earlier in the thread? "Yes, BT, We all need the kind, compassionate and leviathan government, who only ever looks out for the good of the citizens, to save us all from the wild, frightening and oh so dangerous world in which we live." I'd characterize that (and I did) as ridiculing those who are rely on government to protect them from the big, bad, world. I think that's a pretty reasonable paraphrase of your comment. What would you call it?
I know you have made that argument. Again, I don't question your sincerity, I just think you fail to understand the full significance of the argument.
As to your patience level and your cryptic threat to tell me 2 blanks 4 blanks 8 blanks
But there are some posters on this forum - and you are at the top of my list - from whom I expect a higher standard of debate. Damn right I'm being self-righteous, but I find it hypocritical to make that accusation given the implicitly self-righteous nature of your sarcastic style in this thread.
I am not talking about the motives of libertarianism - I am talking about the results of the philosophy.
QuoteSecond, there are lots of ideas within libertarianism about how to protect the rights of individuals, even in the absence of a government proper.
But those are ideas based on a flawed philosophy and - as in communism - they sound great in theory but fail to account for human nature. I see very good arguments in libertarian principle, but I see them as flawed.
I find your complaint that I "righteously and indignantly shut my mind" to be specious.
I have listened to - even flirted with - libertarian philosophy for years. I have rejected it on merit, not on narrow-mindedness.
As it happens, the overwhelming majority of Americans have done so as well
Because I disagree with something you feel so strongly about you accuse me of shutting my mind.
It was NOT a stupid question, nor was it intended as a "gotcha."
you only ridiculed it because it goes against your concept of what the debate was.
Again, if you want to argue semantics, maybe it hasn't been said exactly in that fashion. "You're afraid of freedom" (a favorite Boortz-ism) isn't EXACTLY the same as "You're too cowardly to live without big government." But that is Clintonian logic.
I find your pattern interesting. You say something, then say you "won't say" that something in order to use as a launching point for an ad hominem attack. You've done that several times.
If you are that upset, why bother to waste the time (which you claim is scarce enough not to waste on substantive debate) answering posts with which you disagree at all?
But the unintended results of SOME of those types of very sincere stands lead to the very kinds of abuses I cited earlier.
The reason I acknowledge, when I can, that I recognize the sincere good intentions of many who fight such battles is because I understand that sometimes a criticism of a particular philosophy can either be taken as a personal attack or a broadbrush of an entire group. I try to short-circuit that by acknowledging it in advance, but as is evident from this thread, the effort is seldom successful.
When I listen to Libertarian Neal Boortz (almost daily), or read what you or Victor or others post on this site, or listen to what a Libertarian candidate publicly states and base my opinion of libertarianism on those sources, I can hardly be accused of basing my opinion on "lies and distortion."
If this, sir, is your idea of patience, I would not like to see you when you lack it.
I'm guessing a lot of people were asleep in history class when the Crittenden-Johnson Resolution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crittenden-Johnson_Resolution) was discussed.
| Pursuant to Article V of the Constitution, consideration of the Corwin Amendment then shifted to the state legislatures. Abraham Lincoln, in his first inaugural address, declared his support for the proposed amendment: "[H]olding such a provision to now be implied constitutional law, I have no objection to its being made express and irrevocable." (The reference to "implied constitutional law" pointed to the U.S. Supreme Court's recent decision in the Dred Scott case.) |
Yeah, Lincoln made it clear a number of times that, even though he was abolitionist, he had no problems with keeping or even increasing slavery if it kept the union together.
BT's point seemed to be that big government was necessary, that ending slavery was an example of such, and therefore to oppose big government was to oppose the ending of slavery. Hence his question.
Actually I believe my objection, at least initially, was to the notion that the government had some sort of program or project to end slavery. As best I can tell, it did not, and barring the Civil War, slavery would likely have continued for some time. When BT decided to try to call the war, the Emancipation Proclamation and the 13th Amendment a program, I pointed out what a laughable notion that is. You may call it semantics, but it goes to the core of his argument. There was no program, general or otherwise.[/color]
So you're saying BT's argument was a strawman? I am fairly certain that no one at any point in this thread suggested that the government should have done nothing about slavery.
Either you're being naive, or you're expecting me to be.
Well, so far you keep talking like I was arguing otherwise.
Well, then maybe you shouldn't start a general argument against libertarianism with "This is why I have no respect for libertarianism. You are making semantic arguments, UP." Sure looks like you were talking to me. And your quote of my post sure did look like you were responding directly to me. I appear to be the only libertarian in this particular dog fight, so why wouldn't I, why shouldn't I take it personally?
<<My desire to point out the obvious wouldn't exist were it not for the general lack of understanding that libertarians have about the Constitution and the role of government.>>
Not sure how this is something I shouldn't take personally. But let's keep this polite. A difference of opinion does not mean a lack of understanding.
libertarians want to llive in a dream world where moral behavior eliminates the need for government.
Complete nonsense. I don't know of any libertarians who think we can get rid of government and just depend on everyone to act morally, or that expect that at some time in the future everyone will be moral. This is why I have hard time believing you know much of anything about libertarianism.
I would call it sarcasm. In context it is sarcasm about trusting government and politicians to always do the right thing.
<<I know you have made that argument. Again, I don't question your sincerity, I just think you fail to understand the full significance of the argument.>>
That's kinda what I figured you meant. And you wonder why I took your attack personally?
Not a threat, just a comment about my level of patience with your post. Did not mean it to seem like a threat.
To be honest, BT kinda brings that out in me. (Not saying it's his fault. I know it's really my own choice.) His posts, or at least the ones that seem directed toward me, seem rather smug and patronizing to me, and I have a tendency to respond in kind. When people get smug and superior with me, I usually give it back, and usually sarcastically. And quite frankly, when someone is telling me libertarians don't understand the Constitution and the role of government, that doesn't really make me want to ease up.
Are you? You said, "But the libertarian response to that is to basically do away with the government and let the free market and personal choice rule the day." Seemed like a perfect place to mention that not all libertarians are anarchists. You know, as in not all libertarians want to do away with the government. You made a blanket statement. I pointed out one reason rather obvious reason why it was wrong.
Fail to account for human nature how, exactly?
Given that you took to lecturing me with arguments I've made myself many times and that you seem to think libertarianism is some sort of dreamy plan for chaos, misery and destruction, I find hard to believe that you have an open mind on the matter.
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.
I doubt the overwhelming majority of Americans know enough or have thought enough about libertarianism to have rejected it on its merits. Most non-libertarians I encounter, should the subject of politics ever come up and I bother to get involved, haven't the first clue what libertarianism is, many have never even heard of it. They reject Ron Paul because they think of him as that kook who wants to go back to the gold standard or bring all the troops home. The fact that they think he wants to go back to gold standard shows they heard only some sound bite, rather than paid attention to what he said.
Nope. Disagreement I don't mind at all. I don't expect everyone to agree with me. Discussing things with people who disagree with me is exactly why I'm here. Telling me you have no respect for libertarianism is a sign of more than a disagreement. I don't agree with socialism, but I can respect it. I don't agree with your particular sect of Christianity, but I can respect it. And by the way, the whole, "gosh, I know you're sincere, but you're ignorant" bit, imo, indicates something more than a simple disagreement.
<<It was NOT a stupid question, nor was it intended as a "gotcha.">>
Are you kidding?
Or maybe because it had nothing to do with my comments.
You leave me no choice here but to argue semantics, which is to say, meaning. "Living without government" and "living without big government" are not the same ideas at all. "You're too cowardly to live without big government" is not the same sentiment as "wanting the government to protect you from the big, bad world is cowardice." There are plenty of libertarians who support the idea of government and police and courts and all that. I don't listen to Boortz, but I have occasionally read opinion pieces by him. I don't recall Neal Boortz saying there should be no government to protect people. As I understand it, Boortz is one of the minds behind the "Fair Tax" idea, so he must be okay with government continuing to function, at least for now. And even anarcho-capitalists recognize the need for methods of protecting rights and property. So I find your blanket comment "Libertarians claim that wanting the government to protect you from the big, bad world is cowardice" to be rather difficult to believe.
Well, when you talk about libertarianism as "wanting the government to turn a blind eye on abuses of power in the free market, discriminatory practices and wholesale destruction of the environment" that doesn't really lead me to believe that you're paying that much attention to what libertarians say. I have yet to see or hear any libertarian say the government should turn a blind eye to abuses of power in the market (I didn't say "free market" because we don't have one) or wholesale destruction of the environment. Maybe Boortz says these things on his radio show, but if he does, he might be the only one. I certainly have never seen or heard any libertarian propose that libertarian ideas were somehow going to result in a perfect society without need for laws. Even the Anarcho-Capitalist himself, Murray Rothbard, wrote about how laws could work and civil law disputes could be handled in an anarchist society. I think he even wrote about how to handle protection of the environment. So when you talk as if libertarians are expecting some miracle of morality to take hold or that they don't understand the possible consequences of their ideas, well, that makes me believing that you're more than fleetingly familiar with libertarianism quite difficult indeed.
It's not a pretty sight. Ranting, raving and sometimes even spittle is involved. (That's a joke, man, a joke.)
btw, Ami. Thanks for the link to the "Amahl and the Night Visitors" torrent. It took my son almost two days to download the entire thing but I now have a very nice recording (not to mention a whole lot of other good stuff). I haven't heard the full opera in years. Thanks!
For several years it was assumed that the original telecast, preserved on kinescope, had been lost, but a surviving copy was found and now resides in the Paley Center for Media (formerly The Museum of Television & Radio), available for viewing by visitors. This production, however, has not been broadcast on television for many years. A kinescope of the 1955 broadcast starring Bill McIver as Amahl was digitized in 2007 and is available commercially on DVD.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amahl_and_the_Night_Visitors (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amahl_and_the_Night_Visitors)
For years, Amahl was presented live, but in 1963 it was videotaped by NBC with an all-new cast, and this version was shown from 1963 to 1966. After 1966, it seemed to have been retired from television, but in 1978, a new production, starring Teresa Stratas as Amahl's mother, Robert Sapolsky as Amahl, and Willard White, Giorgio Tozzi and Nico Castel as the Three Kings, was filmed by NBC, partly on location in the Holy Land. It, however, did not become an annual tradition the way the 1951 and 1963 versions had. The 1955 and 1978 productions are the only ones released on video. Cast recordings of both the 1951 and the 1963 productions were recorded by RCA Victor, and the 1951 cast recording was released on compact disc. The 1963 recording of Amahl was the first recording of the opera made in stereo.
I constantly hear Libertarians whining about any attempt to use government to solve problems, and THAT IS THE ONLY REASON TO HAVE A GOVERNMENT.
This is still a decidely semantic argument.
[...]
No, that is just you personalizing generic points. You are insisting on technical precision.
[...]
The argument you made was not, IMO, substantive - it was semantical.
[...]
Again, you are technically correct in your rebuttals, but they miss the mark because they assume I was speaking literally.
[...]
You are arguing down to super-specific semantic points. This resolves to absurdity. If you can't see that saying "you need the government to protect you from the big bad world" is pretty much the same as saying "you're too cowardly to live without the government" we are irreconcilably different in mindset.
But Libertarians are constantly complaining about things like Affirmative Action, Environmental policies, the war on drugs and other such things. I constantly hear Libertarians whining about any attempt to use government to solve problems, and THAT IS THE ONLY REASON TO HAVE A GOVERNMENT.
But when I make a statement like "Libertarians want no government" I do not mean that either as a broadbrush or as a literal statement.
I mean something more along the lines of "Most people who profess to be libertarians talk about wanting to limit government to a point I think is far too restrictive to allow government to be effective."
But with all of the words I already put into these posts, I think a little verbal shorthand is acceptable. I am not saying you said there should be no government, and while you can technically call me out for not stating my case precisely, I tire of fine tuning my prose to the point of clinically sterile verbage.
I mean that your arguments lead to the reasonable conclusion that you feel largely that government is only barely necessary - and I think libertarians follow that concept well beyond the point of rational restraint on government.
It's not nonsense. It's the logical conclusion of the libertarian mindset.
I listen to Boortz whining about "Stop complaining about people taking YOUR job - it's not YOUR job." Like hell it isn't! I may not have the capital to start my own business, but I damn sure have the skills to make my employer money, and I have the right to expect to profit from that just as much as my employer does. He risks his capital - I risk my livelihood. He may put in more money, but my contribution is just as important and he can't make money without me. But of course, it is easier for him to find another worker than it is for me to find a new job. So damn right I want somebody watching my back.
We can most certainly shrink a helluva lot from this government and still keep it effective, but as much as I think liberals love government too much, I think libertarians love it too little.
And you don't believe sarcasm is ridicule? It is certainly not respectful, and it is woefully bad debate technique.
QuoteI know you have made that argument. Again, I don't question your sincerity, I just think you fail to understand the full significance of the argument.QuoteThat's kinda what I figured you meant. And you wonder why I took your attack personally?
That comment falls under the category of "If you can't stand the heat . . ." I won't apologize for saying that I don't think you get the full significance of the argument. That's a valid - and constructive - critique. If you take an observation that "you just don't get my point, dude" as a put down, then I'm sorry, but you're being too sensitive.
And you yourself just pointed out in this thread that I didn't get your point about taking my opening statement personally. You were right. I'm not offended by you telling me I didn't get it.
QuoteGiven that you took to lecturing me with arguments I've made myself many times and that you seem to think libertarianism is some sort of dreamy plan for chaos, misery and destruction, I find hard to believe that you have an open mind on the matter.
I know. That's because you disagree with me.
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.
QuoteNope. Disagreement I don't mind at all. I don't expect everyone to agree with me. Discussing things with people who disagree with me is exactly why I'm here. Telling me you have no respect for libertarianism is a sign of more than a disagreement. I don't agree with socialism, but I can respect it. I don't agree with your particular sect of Christianity, but I can respect it. And by the way, the whole, "gosh, I know you're sincere, but you're ignorant" bit, imo, indicates something more than a simple disagreement.
Sorry, but I don't buy it. I have no respect for the Nazi philsophy.
As for my comment that "I know you're sincere but you're ignorant" if I followed your debate technique I would insist that I never said that. I certainly did not.
and I repeat you only ridiculed it because it goes against your concept of what the debate was.
You are arguing down to super-specific semantic points. This resolves to absurdity. If you can't see that saying "you need the government to protect you from the big bad world" is pretty much the same as saying "you're too cowardly to live without the government" we are irreconcilably different in mindset.
I'm arguing semantics in the sense that I argue meaning. Words have meaning. If you say something, then I disagree with what your chosen sequence of words means, or appears to mean based on the words used, and you follow up by saying that you meant something else so my argument is flawed because I didn't grasp that you meant something other than what you said, that seems a bit like cheating to me.
<<But when I make a statement like "Libertarians want no government" I do not mean that either as a broadbrush or as a literal statement.>>
And yet, it is by all appearances a broadbrush.
<<I mean something more along the lines of "Most people who profess to be libertarians talk about wanting to limit government to a point I think is far too restrictive to allow government to be effective.">>
Then say that.
I'm not asking for clinically sterile verbiage. But I tire of this constant vagueness of meaning that results so frequently in somehow being my fault for not knowing that you mean something specific when you make generalized and/or broadbush comments. I, unlike some other members of the Saloon, am not a mind reader. While I will sometimes summarize a meaning of several statements, I don't assume you meant something you did not say. I don't like when people do that to me and I don't do so other people. Or at least I try not to.
I'm a minarchist who would like to be an anarchist. The best summation of what I mean by that is a quote from Thoreau: "I heartily accept the motto--'That government is best which governs least'; and I should like to see it acted up to more rapidly and systematically. Carried out, it finally amounts to this, which also I believe--'That government is best which governs not at all'; and when men are prepared for it, that will be the kind of government which they will have." I don't believe we can simply do away with government now and expect everyone to behave. But I think at some point in the future humans might have developed a society that does not require a government. However, I don't see how we can unless we first work towards the notion that "that government is best which governs least". You speak of using the government to solve problems, and I don't deny it can and should be so used. But how many problems does government try to solve and then make worse? We're told that without the "war on drugs" drug use would run rampant and destroy the country, yet the trade in illegal drugs has never been so strong or so profitable as it is now. The federal government has gotten more and more involved in trying to "fix" education. To what end? Students in 12th grade have trouble passing a test of 10th grade level English, and American students' educational achievement is behind that of students in Denmark, Sweden, Finland, Norway, Canada, Germany, Ireland, Poland, and Belgium. Belgium for pizza's sake! Seems to me some restraint on government beyond what many people in the U.S. find "rational" would, in point of fact, be a really good idea.[/color]
No, it is not, though I bet you're going to claim I just proved it with that last paragraph.
Again, your assessment of libertarianism is wrong. You speak as if you think libertarians expect government to do nothing, and that simply is not true. Libertarians are not in favor of turning a blind eye to corporations and expecting them to behave morally and ethically. Libertarians are generally opposed to government reacting to every single failure of a corporation as if it requires extensive regulation of the entire business world. Libertarians are also generally opposed to the partnering of government and corporations that results from the government attempts to regulate everything. There are any number of things libertarians would like to see government do and ways government can be used. You speak of destroying the environment. Libertarians generally would love to see people use private property rights as a means of punishing corporations for polluting the environment. Yeah, that's right, using the government to punish corporations for violations of individual rights. That libertarians think the government should be used differently than you do does not mean they seek to never use the government at all or that they have no solutions for how to deal with the issues you present as solvable only by the government.[/color]
That doesn't make it your job. I'm reminded here of the line in the movie McClinock!, "I don't give jobs. I hire men." You agree to an exchange of your time and effort for the company's money. My dad had a job, and he'd gone about as far with it as he was going to get, salary-wise, and when a head-hunter came looking for people, offered my dad a job with better pay, better chance for advancement, my dad resigned from the old job and took the new job. I doubt you'd insist he should have stayed at the other job. Seems like a double standard to claim the company for whom one works should be prevented from making a similar sort of decision. So you want someone watching your back. That's fair. But there is a difference between someone watching your back and someone regulating the behavior of others.
That assumes it should be loved at all.
But that isn't what you said. You're comment about me not understanding the argument even though I've made it before means you think I don't understand my own argument.
Again, not sure how that is not a personal attack.
Bzzzz. No, but thank you for playing. It has more to do with the fact that you seem to be judging libertarianism based on notions that are not true and seem uninterested in correction of those notions
So you think the Constitution was meant to be a document with ever changing meaning which is to say, no meaning at all? (note the question mark)
You didn't say it, but you came across as having meant it. If you didn't mean it, then I will say in my defense that I have little way of knowing that since you seem disinclined to say what you mean and inclined to make generalized comments when you mean something else.
Seeing as I was actively participating in the debate and you were not, seems a little odd that you're trying to argue that I didn't understand what the debate was. This whole implication that I don't understand what I'm talking about I'm trying not to take as personal, but I'm not sure how I should take it if not personally.
I repeat: "Living without government" and "living without big government" are not the same ideas at all. "You're too cowardly to live without big government" is not the same sentiment as "wanting the government to protect you from the big, bad world is cowardice." Words have meaning.
The most obvious example in this thread (though it was a BT quote, not mine) was the "Do you think ending slavery is bad?" question. When I read that, I immediately understood it as a rhetorical question intended to lead to the conclusion that government had done a good thing. You insisted that it was a strawman argument, and irrelevant to your point. I think you're completely wrong about that.
Making the broadbrush is not ALWAYS bad.
But see, that Thoreau quote, which I have seen used here before by you or Victor as a signature, states pretty much the same thing I said when I stated that liberals want government to eliminate the need for morals and libertarians want morals to do away with government. That's a pithy way (I hope) of saying what Thoreau said (at least half of what I said).
I understand what you are saying, but where we part is that you believe that loosening the reigns of government while not completely doing away with it will lead us toward the need for less government.
You use our poor education showing against other countries as a point against government. But are those other nations you cite under private education systems? I haven't done any research, but I'm willing to bet those nations have government run school systems. Given that assumption to be true, that does not speak against government - in fact it speaks FOR government. It speaks only against the way our government handles education.
If my boss gets to regulate my behavior why can't I have someone regulate his? THERE is your double standard.
What about bosses (and there are many) who insist on making me work in unsafe conditions for crappy pay or ridiculous hours?
You misunderstood my meaning, I clarified my meaning, and you say "You didn't mean what YOU say you mean, you mean what I THINK you mean.
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.
That is a matter of opinion. YOU say those notions are not true. I say they are.
You asked two questions. Which one would you like me to answer?
In case that is too subtle, let me clarify. "Ever changing meaning" does not mean "No meaning at all."
In fact, the whole constitution has a meaning. It is intended to be a philosophy by which the country is governed. It includes concepts of basic rights, a structure for the governing body and certain principles (such as the idea of government by consent of the governed). As such, it is intended to have a full meaning. But consent of the governed implies change - since people will change with the times, the world situation and the changing nature of our own country.
How about this. A woman says to her husband "I wish we could take a trip to Paris." She just means that Paris would be a nice place to visit, and one day she'd like to go there. He takes it to mean "I wish you had a better job so we could afford nice vacations."
Words have many meanings.
Libertarians whine about using the government to solve ALL problems. Some are appropriate uses of the government to solve problems, others are the application of a hammer as a screwdriver.
Libertarians claim that wanting the government to protect you from the big, bad world is cowardice.
Again, if you want to argue semantics, maybe it hasn't been said exactly in that fashion. "You're afraid of freedom" (a favorite Boortz-ism) isn't EXACTLY the same as "You're too cowardly to live without big government." But that is Clintonian logic.
If my boss gets to regulate my behavior why can't I have someone regulate his? THERE is your double standard. There are rules on the job, policies that HE makes, consequences that can destroy my life if he doesn't get laid the night before but I am supposed to accept that? What about bosses (and there are many) who insist on making me work in unsafe conditions for crappy pay or ridiculous hours? Sorry. It may be YOUR money but its MY job until such time as I choose another. If you decide to sell your company and buy another, nobody will say a word. But until you do it is YOUR company. When some hostile takeover happens, I'll bet you will fight it like hell. Now granted, if I screw up and start messing up your company, you might take back that job and legitimately so. But if YOU screw up and start affecting my life, I want to be able to take YOUR money. That gives me some leverage when you didn't get any and I happen to be in the crossfire. Without the kinds of safeguards our government has put in place, there is nothing to stop you from abusing me. When there are consequences, you are a little more careful.
Well, considering that I was not questioning whether or not government had done a good thing, I still insist the question was irrelevant. If making a counter argument against something that was never in question is not a strawman, then what is? You claim his question was not a "gotcha" question, but frankly, I don't know how BT's question, "Are you saying ending slavery was a bad thing?" isn't a gotcha question, and I don't how it was rhetorical, since his post was clearly criticizing my comments.
Of course. But when you make a broadbush kind of comment that is not really a common idiom of speech (like speaking of "killing" someone), I think maybe you should not necessarily expect your "listener" to grasp the more specific meaning that you meant but did not say.
Wanting morals to eliminate a need for government at some distant and unspecified point in the future is hardly the same thing as expecting to do away with government now and now have people morally take up the slack on their own. And being optimistic about humans being able to eventually grow to a point where government is no longer a necessity is not something for which I intend to apologize.
Well, I hardly think increasing people's dependence on government is somehow going to magically result in a desire for less government.t
Yep. You're right. I was not arguing for no government. I was arguing for less government. Arguing that we might benefit from less federal government does not mean I'm arguing against public schools. Any time you want to argue for the U.S. setting up a system of competition between schools as exists in Europe (because per student spending is attached to students not schools), I'll be happy to back you up on that.
First of all, no one forces you to work for a particular employer. You can look for a job somewhere else. But you want to punish the employer if he wants to hire someone somewhere else? Yeah, that seems like a double standard.
What about them? I didn't say there should be no laws protecting individuals from abuse. I said expecting the employer to be prevented from making the same sort of decision an employee makes when deciding to change jobs was a double standard.
Not what I said at all. What I said was, essentially, that you did not say what you meant.
Nope, definitely not an improvement for me. I'm still left as the guy who doesn't understand the real meaning of the argument. You may have to forgive me, but as low as my sense of self-worth is, I just don't believe I'm that stupid.
Either the notions are true or they are not. Since I'm the libertarian, I think I might be in a slightly better position to comment on that. In much the same way you would be in a better position to comment on various notions people have about Mormonism. I'm not going to claim I know your religion better than you do.
First, no, I asked one question, and second, yes, it does. If the meaning is ever in flux, then it doesn't really have a meaning at all. If you change your home church every week, do you really have a home church? If you change your child's name from moment to moment, does your child really have a name? If the meaning of a statement or document changes any time we feel it like changing it, does it really have a meaning? I think it does not.[
/quote]
No, "ever-changing meaning" does NOT mean "no meaning." By definition "ever changing meaning" has to mean "meaning." You are the one insisting that words have "meaning." Well if "meaning" doesn't have meaning then I words cannot, by definition have any meaning at all. (I think I just broke something).
But that is exactly the kind of thing you have done throughout this thread. You have made the point that words have meaning, implying that misinterpretations are the fault of the speaker's word choice - not your own misunderstanding of the specific meaning intended. In fact, as you are illustrating by this line of reasoning, words have many meanings and many interpretations are possible. To state that "ever changing meaning" has the same definition as "no meaning" is logically incorrect. It is, however, rhetorically acceptable in spite of that. But on merit, it is absolutely true that "ever-changing meaning" does not mean the same as "no meaning." Our language is, in fact, ever changing. As one of thousands of examples, the word "Silly" originally meant "Blessed" - as in the "Silly Virgin Mary." Over centuries that meaning evolved into "innocent" and then "Child-like" and then "Childish" which led to its present usage. Does that mean that "silly" has no meaning? No. It simply means that interpretations and notions change.
Your example of the second amendment was an excellent argument - and it better makes your point. There is a difference between what the founder's intended by protecting the right to bear arms in 1787 and how some interpret that meaning today. (The argument, of course, is whether it is the gun-control advocates or the NRA types whose interpretation is correct. I side, as I think you know, with the NRA types.) But the constitution is not the second amendment - any more than the Bible is any one particular verse. The Supreme Court is established by the Constitution. Though many argue that Judicial Review is NOT established, it is clear from Federalist 78 that at least SOME of the founders did, in fact, assume that role for the judiciary. Common law is not specified in the Constitution either, and yet that is the system we use. Marshall cited that authority (judicial review) as a responsibility in Marbury vs Madison and it has been the standard ever since, but that decision was NOT the basis for it. It was there all along. So when the courts make a ruling concerning the intended meaning of the Constitution, it becomes the meaning. That doesn't mean that if the SCOTUS rules that the right to bear arms does not exist it mirrors the original intent of the amendment. It simply means that society - for better or worse - has evolved to the point that a specific set of justices believe gun control is (somehow) within the intended meaning of that amendment. A similar argument can be made for the application of the death penalty. Since "cruel and unusual" punishment is prohibited in the Constitution, if society has evolved to the point that a majority of people consider execution to be "cruel" (which one could certainly argue it is) and "unusual" (which it is becoming, relatively speaking) then it WOULD be correct to call it unconstitutional, though obviously it was not considered so in 1787. The latter example is better for my part, since "cruel and unusual" are rather subjective terms to be included in a legal document where "the right of the people to bear arms" is far more objective (except "people" which some seem to think means the state). The second amendment argument far better supports your position, but again, as society changes the meaning of certain terms and the ideals we believe in allows for a certain degree of reinterpretation. Remember, if enough people want it to be so, we could be perfectly within our rights to reject the constitution outright and come up with another plan. We could even, if we wanted, have a whole section of the country seceed and form a new one, even though the original contract was supposed to be perpetual. Had the confederacy won, the argument about the AofC would be moot. In fact, since they lost and were reincorporated, it's moot anyway.So he is reading out-of-context meaning into her comments that she did not actually state. Hm. Yes, sometimes people misunderstand each other. Frankly, in the context of of the discussion, I simply don't see BT's question as merely a good natured, rhetorical question. I'm not reading meaning into it; I'm taking at face value, in context.
That is completely subjective. You are taking it at what YOU think is face value. I believe you ARE in fact reading into it. As to context (and this is just grammatical nitpicking, so feel free to ignore it) I would suggest that the hypothetical husband was not taking it out of context, simply misinterpretting it. I define taking something out of context as quoting something outside of a full statement. An absurd example would be if I typed: You are completely wrong in saying Mormons are not Christians!" and you quoted me as saying "Mormons are not Christians!" But again, that is just nitpicking. If the wife had come back after the dress comment and said "Gosh, do you mean I look bad in the dress?" and he had responded "No, I mean I make plenty of money but you spend too much" it might have led to a discussion that would have denied the lawyers some business. But if she had then responded "No, you weren't complaining about my spending, since I wasn't saying anything ABOUT spending" the lawyers would have been buying those new cars.But usually not constantly changing ones. Or arbitrary ones. Otherwise communication would be next to impossible.
Which is why we have lawyers, flame wars and military machines. Communication is extremely difficult once you get beyond "feed me." There are 6 billion people in the world, and all of them think in unique patterns. Where we share experiences we can communicate more confidently, though even then not with complete clarity. Where our experiences differ, we can say exactly the same words in the same order and mean completely opposite things. THAT is why we argue - at least most of the time - and why we have so much difficulty compromising.
Now explain to me how it is you want government to "have your back", to protect you from bad things employers might do, but you're not afraid of what would happen without the government to protect you. Notice, I didn't say 'but you're a coward.'
Is having a firearm for self-defense or learning karate for self-defense cowardly? No, I wouldn't say so. But it does show that a person feels some, let us say, concern about what could happen in the absence of the ability of self-defense. One might even say such a person might be afraid of what might happen in the absence of the ability of self-defense.
Is fear really the same as cowardice? I think it is not so. Everyone has fears. Cowardice is being ruled by fear. Conversely, courage is not the absence of fear, but overcoming fear. So is it fair or reasonable or even rational to equate fear with cowardice? I think it is not so.
So if someone says you're afraid of what might happen without government, does that mean they're calling you a coward? Further, is it reasonable to be offended by being accused of having fear when you certainly appear to be expressing some measure of fear?
So because YOU get to control the meaning of the debate, anyone who makes a statement that YOU interpret in a particular way must accept your interpretation - not what HE meant. That's nonsense.
Debate is a give-and-take and your insisting that words have meaning (by which you mean YOUR meaning) cuts out any chance that YOU might be wrong.
Further, you do NOT have the right to assume that YOUR communications are so precisely worded that they cannot be honestly misunderstood.
If BT simply misinterpreted your meaning in the arguments that led to his slavery comment, perhaps rather than arrogantly insisting that he is deliberately baiting you, you might simply assume that he has misunderstood your meaning. It might make you less sarcastic and more civil.
QuoteWanting morals to eliminate a need for government at some distant and unspecified point in the future is hardly the same thing as expecting to do away with government now and now have people morally take up the slack on their own.
When did I ever say libertarians wanted to do away with government now?
QuoteAnd being optimistic about humans being able to eventually grow to a point where government is no longer a necessity is not something for which I intend to apologize.
When did I ever suggest that you needed to apologize for your optimism?
You claim that I do not say what I mean. Nonsense. I say exactly what I mean, you simply fail to understand it.
Normally, it is me against an employer who has far more power. For the majority of workers, the company can replace us with impunity and we are left struggling to find a job (with, possibly, a blemish on our record which makes doing so harder) while the company goes on doing what it does. My family is struggling to eat and pay our bills and your company is getting along fine.
Again, the double standard is when you get to regulate MY behavior for the good of the company (to which I do not object) and I get no ability to regulate YOUR behavior for the good of the workers (to which I DO object).
But I do have no respect for that utopian notion for the same reason I have no respect for Brass's RBE ideal. I hold them both as hopelessly optimistic viewpoints which disregard reality for a viewpoint of humanity that is unrealistic.
But there is no circumstance wherein human beings will ever evolve into billions of organisms who all think the same, all have the same motivations, all have strong social bonds and all become concerned about making sure that we all progress together. It just isn't going to happen.
So long as the possibility of misinterpretation of someone else's meanings, desire for gain, intolerance of differences, or need for resources exists, we will have a need for strong, moral governments.
You insist that BT HAD to mean what you think he did. That is arrogance.
You insist that "words have meaning" by which you practically mean "Words mean what I think they mean and not what you think they mean." That is arrogance.
I assume your comments about low self-esteem are sarcastic.
In fact, it is not stupid for you to not understand the meaning of the argument. It is simply normal human communications difficulties. Your apparent assumption that misunderstanding an argument makes you stupid (or that pointing out that you misunderstand an argument means I am accusing you of stupidity) is incorrect. When I say you do not understand the meaning of something I have said, I am not calling you stupid. I am not even assigning a blame for where the misunderstanding lies, since I have no problem seeing where some of the misunderstandings you have had in this thread come from based on my wording. I am simply clarifying the argument. You seem to be very sensitive to the perception that you might be wrong about something. I am not as sensitive about such things, since I have a well-earned (if not well-deserved) huge ego when it comes to debate. As such, perhaps I am missing an important point about how my arguments are offensive to you.
You have mentioned my faith, as a perfectly good analogy, several times in this thread. It might interest you to know that I am not offended by people who disagree with my faith. I expect that.
No, "ever-changing meaning" does NOT mean "no meaning." By definition "ever changing meaning" has to mean "meaning." You are the one insisting that words have "meaning." Well if "meaning" doesn't have meaning then I words cannot, by definition have any meaning at all. (I think I just broke something).
Our language is, in fact, ever changing. As one of thousands of examples, the word "Silly" originally meant "Blessed" - as in the "Silly Virgin Mary." Over centuries that meaning evolved into "innocent" and then "Child-like" and then "Childish" which led to its present usage. Does that mean that "silly" has no meaning? No. It simply means that interpretations and notions change.
That doesn't mean that if the SCOTUS rules that the right to bear arms does not exist it mirrors the original intent of the amendment. It simply means that society - for better or worse - has evolved to the point that a specific set of justices believe gun control is (somehow) within the intended meaning of that amendment.
You are taking it at what YOU think is face value.
Why did you choose to point out that people who rely on government are showing fear? If it is obvious that they are doing so, it is unnecessary to point it out. What was your specific intent in making that point? Was it just that people are afraid. Because if that's all it was, why point out the obvious?
If relying on the government to solve such problems is a bad thing, then what specific character trait does that mean, in your judgment, such people have?
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.
| As the U.S. Department of Homeland Security marches down the Texas border serving condemnation lawsuits to frightened landowners, Brownsville resident Eloisa Tamez, 72, has one simple question. She would like to know why her land is being targeted for destruction by a border wall, while a nearby golf course and resort remain untouched. Tamez, a nursing director at the University of Texas at Brownsville, is one of the last of the Spanish land grant heirs in Cameron County. Her ancestors once owned 12,000 acres. In the 1930s, the federal government took more than half of her inherited land, without paying a cent, to build flood levees. Now Homeland Security wants to put an 18-foot steel and concrete wall through what remains. |
SP <<When did I ever say libertarians wanted to do away with government now?>>
UP <<Perhaps never, but I believe one of your complaints was that "libertarians want to llive in a dream world where moral behavior eliminates the need for government.">>
But that's OK, my words have no meaning except what you take them to mean.
Apparently the "face value" of complaining about the utopian vision of some unrealistic future world somehow equates to a desire for the immediate elimination of government.
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.)
I DO however, take great exception to your implication that I "cheat" by changing the meaning of my words when you have made a counter-argument.
How many times (and they have been far more frequent) have I stood up to the finest debaters on this site (even those on my side of the fence) in defense of my opinion? I don't have any need to change my meaning.
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."
Finally, you provide examples of government abuse. So what?
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. |
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.
You have stated all through this thread that I have insulted you. Nonsense. I have made observations and critiques with which you disagree. You cannot take criticism. Too bad.
I apologize for offending you but to do so was not my intent. I have tried to explain our differences out of my great respect for you, but you cannot open your mind to my viewpoint enough to accept that you might be taking my points incorrectly, or at least too personally.
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.
Was the "perhaps never" not enough?
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 take exception to being told I cheat by suggesting words have meanings.[/color]
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.
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.
Heh. Since you missed it, I'll repeat it:
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.
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?
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.
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.
| 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. |
QuoteBut 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
First of all, I specified that this HYPOTHETICAL event happened in 1930.
You are a libertarian and you believe in that philosophy because you do not understand the real world.
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.
You think I don't understand the Constitution.
QuoteI'm no genius, but, whatever else my many faults might be, I'm not that stupid.
Oh yes, you most certainly are.
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.
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:QuoteBy 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."
| 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. |
Now, YOU bring it on. I asked you for EXACT examples. You started whining. Give the SPECIFIC examples or shut up.
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.
| 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) |
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.
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.
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.
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 have stated my positions. If any of those positions offend you, 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.
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!
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."?
But when I say "No, you misunderstood me. I meant (see statements in bold above)" you accuse me of deliberately changing the meaning.
You, however, do not have the common decency to admit that you simply misunderstood my meaning. Instead, you resort to calling me a cheater.
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.
Man, it was a masterpiece of sarcasm, but the moment, alas, has passed.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Seems to me you could have done that without the anti-libertarian rant.
QuoteEven 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
That is not much of a grammatical stretch at all.
You are questioning my integrity.
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.
Hey UP, wanna split the proceeds from the popcorn stand?
Obviously, I disagree.
You are questioning my ability to comprehend the practicality and reality of my political philosophy.
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.
Sure, so long as someone else sweeps up.
So to call me a dumbass I can stand, but to call me a liar just makes me get all growly-like inside.
You STILL be WRONG!!!!
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!