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.
No, you are. 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.
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.
No that wasn't the point. The point was that government was required to do the job and the question was rhetorical. The argument is valid, and as for what behavioir constitutes childish, I'll vote for sarcasm over rhetoric any day.
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.
Who said you did?
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]
These conversations would be easier if you would stop assuming that by making a general point about libertarianism I wasn't personally attacking you. As to you "having to be sarcastic all the time" that's a personal choice. It has nothing to do with me or BT. And as to my long rants, well, that's MY choice. I'd do that no matter what I thought you thought.
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.
And you'd be wrong, for the reasons I have already pointed out in my post about common law.
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.
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 and liberals have the same basic problem but on different sides of the scale. They both want to live in a dream world. Liberals want to live in a dream world where government eliminates the need for moral behavior and libertarians want to llive in a dream world where moral behavior eliminates the need for government. The government exists to fill in where moral behavior and personal responsibility fail, not to force the former or supplant the latter.
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.
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 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.
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 (hmmm, could that be a code? Two letter word - GO? 8 letter word "YOURSELF" - damn, too many four letter words out there for me to figure this one out.) I know you are seldom the type to resort to gratuitous profanity but your patience does not seem to extend to the point of civil behavior. Sarcasm and ridicule are bound to come up sometimes around here. To some it is SOP. 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.
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.
Not all Klansmen are racists. Not all feminists are man-haters. So who said they were? I am not talking about the motives of libertarianism - I am talking about the results of the philosophy.
Second, 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.
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.
That's your choice. I find the argument that you lack time to lack credibility, as there is no time constraint on this forum. I find your complaint that I "righteously and indignantly shut my mind" to be specious. I accuse you of exactly the same thing, and I reject the accusation against myself. 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 - which is why Ron Paul really is insignificant. I think libertarianism, like liberalism, has great ideas that bear adaptation and adoption by sensible thinkers. But I think that, like liberalism, those ideals are deeply flawed. Because I disagree with something you feel so strongly about you accuse me of shutting my mind. I haven't shut anything, I've simply reached a conclusion.
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]
I see that point, but it only supports what I said that prompted it. It was NOT a stupid question, nor was it intended as a "gotcha." It was a rhetorical question aimed at making a point about the importance of government. I can see, from your counterargument above, why you responded as you did, but it again points out that you only ridiculed it because it goes against your concept of what the debate was.
Whatever helps you sleep at night.
The only time I lose sleep over historical facts is when I am up debating them at night.
They do? Have you some examples? I'm fairly certain I never said such a thing.
I don't have a specific source, however I think if you listen to any libertarian thinker for very long you will hear something like it. Neal Boortz explicitly states it several times a week. Your comment I quoted about the "big, cruel government" is an implication of the same. 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 you insist on a specific source, I'm far too lazy to look for one. But that doesn't make the accusation any less accurate. I'll make another unsupported statement. Some liberals compare George W, Bush with Hitler. I'm too lazy to google that one, either, but I stand by it.
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.
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. Your debate style in this entire thread, after a point at least, has been to heap sarcasm, ridicule and deflection on the points made against you. 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?
Gee, thanks. You're so (I'm being sarcastic again) fair.
Yes, I got the sarcasm part. I have raised five teenagers. Trust me NOBODY can out-sarcasm that record. It was, however, not necessary since I am in fact being both fair and rational. That acknowlegement (the one you quoted, I mean) was not gratuitous. You made an argument a few paragraphs ago that libertarians fought to save the environment by protecting property rights (as one example). Not having a specific point to rebut, I would say generally that many libertarians might well fight to protect personal property rights in order to somehow help the planet (that's not intended sarcastically, I just don't have a specific instance to list as an example). 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.
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?
Yes, and it's an excellent example of your point. Incidentally, if you are looking for a good bank, try Branch Bank and Trust (BBT) if it is available in your area. They have stated publicly that they will NOT lend money to those who obtain land through eminant domain. I like to remind people about that everytime the subject comes up in the hope that any lost business they experience as a result of that stance is offset by people switching their accounts over to them. We are in agreement on that particular issue, and frankly, I have a real tough time figuring how anyone wouldn't feel the same, except (if you'll pardon the rhetoric) greedy developers.
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 know plenty about it. I just happen to view it differently from your perspective. I made the point that people are sincere in their motives (which you ridiculed) is for just that reason. I do not believe that libertarians (or Libertarians, which are not the same thing) want all of the evils you just cited. I also do not think that liberals want the evils that come about as a result of their programs. I am only talking about the flaws in the respective philosophies - not the practitioners thereof. You are accusing me of taking the same stance toward libertarians as some of the liberal posters on this forum do toward Bush. (He is nothing but an evil, lying, Hitler clone who caused 9-11 and lied to get us into war.) I don't do that. I don't assume that flawed philosophies indicate flawed people or bad intentions. I certainly have no desire or interest in insulting you, or libertarians in general. An awful lot of highly intelligent people on this forum are, or profess to be, libertarian whether capital or lower-case "L." But I will certainly state, and not back down, that libertarian philosophy is fatally flawed because it fails to truly understand the role of government and that the arguments I have seen specific libertarians make concerning the nature of our Constitution and the interpretation of that document have been flawed as well.
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?
If all I know about libertarianism is lies and distortion then libertarians are lying to me. I am not aware of (though I am sure they exist) books or web sites that claim to promote the "truth" about libertarianism (as in "the TRUTH about Hillary Clinton") - and I wouldn't be interested in them anyway. (Pooch's Law of Inverse Verity: Any book with "Truth" in the title probably has it nowhere else in the book.) All I know about libertarians I have learned from libertarians themselves. Your citation of my faith is not a low-blow, because it is a perfectly legitimate point, but it is not a valid comparison because the "lies and distortions" about my faith are not coming (at least for the most part) from members of my faith. (It is true that some members are inadvertantly passing along their own misunderstandings, but that is true of any large organization.) 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."
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.
If this, sir, is your idea of patience, I would not like to see you when you lack it.