[Urbane Guerrilla]

Well. I confess to a considerable degree of excitement. Here goes.

Originally Posted by Radar

We can have opposing opinions, and still both be libertarians. We don't have to walk lockstep and agree on everything to be libertarians, but we do have to agree on one thing, and that is the non-aggression principle.

And do you not see a logical contradiction between the beginning and the ending of this statement? I do. There is more than one understanding of the non-aggression principle, varying mainly in the initial consideration: how much aggression is enough before you may rightly countervail even by violent opposition? There is further the point I raised and you've never given thought to: is it wise or well to permit an antilibertarian enemy the first blow? I don't think it is. He may get it in, but we don't as a matter of principle have to give it to him. That you won't acknowledge that adult libertarians are going to have more than just one reading of the NA principle isn't a matter of Libertarian philosophy, but a product of your own habit of mind, which is "my way or the highway."

This is the core belief of libertarianism. It defines who is or isn't a libertarian, and you are not one. David Nolan made the chart you cling to as a means of outreach to find those who happen to lean toward libertarianism. Then they could be approached to see if they were really libertarians...which you are not.

It would be more accurate to say of me that I mix a lot of neocon philosophy into my libertarianism. Particularly prominent is the neocon commonplace that a democracy prospers best in a world completely full of other democracies, who also prosper themselves in like manner. I think the more libertarian the democracy (or republic), the better a democracy it is. It is really the things I agree with that make me a libertarian, and not some quibble over exactly how to approach and actualize some principle. The neocon finding about democracies applies with equal force to libertarian societies: they too should prosper best in the company of other libertarian societies. There will be others, you know: for better or for worse the nation-state is not going to wither away altogether. There will always be some need for the coercive elements of a social order to deal with the unsocializable. The problem presented by the sociopathic and the would-be overlords is a bit more glossed over than I would like.

It is also true that the places that would benefit most greatly from a libertarian society are precisely those places which have it the least: the tyrannies. The tyrants do not sit idly by once aware of something that may threaten their power, which libertarianism can hardly avoid doing. I say we must be prepared to prevent tyrants from doing anything effectual to forestall their overthrow -- which among other things means being better at fighting than they are.

Something I haven't studied very hard yet is exactly who takes care of the public roads.

You can disagree with me all you want, and you can lie about being a libertarian all you want, but I will continue to correct you everytime you do it because you are a filthy liar, and an asshole.

I could care less how you feel about it.

That is indeed evident in yet another hotheaded try at hurting my feelings. Namecalling again, Paul? It's something you resort to much too easily, especially for a would-be holder of political office. You just lost this argument. See above for my prediction about the intensity of this debate.

It's the truth. It's not merely my opinion. Your views, directly violate the philosophy of libertarianism, and the Libertarian Party platform.

My views are about expanding the Libertarian Party base, as I think libertarian ideas are well worth trying. Your determined efforts to purge this Party, to kick just about all and sundry out of the treehouse because they're not quite your sort, make the party weak. This is a strategic mistake which must be righted if we are to succeed. What kind of dummy forms a political party with the intent of losing?? Don't blame party failures on the boneheadedness of an electorate that didn't take up your study hobby. And don't rely on the electorate being boneheaded either. That's what the socialist Democrats are doing.

Nobody who supports the war in Iraq is a libertarian. That's a fact.

And somebody willing to countenance the continuation of an ultrastatist dictatorship IS? Really. I have something for you, Paul: the people who support Iraq going to a freer, more libertarian social order ARE the libertarians here.

I know it bothers the shit out of you, but that's too fucking bad. Get over it, you're not a libertarian.

You'll be nearer serenity if you get over it yourself. I spent the nine years of my military service within a totalitarian social order. Military services are not in themselves very conducive to innovation because in these rigidly structured, command societies, it is all too easy to become stultified, to think, "It's not my job, man." Yes, it stultified me, and I don't want that sort of thing around me ever again. This same thing colors all the unfree societies -- initiative isn't let to grow, bloom, and take the whole joint over, yet without doing that, an economy, blighted by its social order, permanently underperforms. Militaries have other goals than creation -- they are designed as organizations that function even under severe damage. That is the true characteristic of successful militaries. A side effect of this is the stultification I spoke of. It's unfortunate, but I also don't see how it may be avoided -- and a libertarian nation cannot dispense with its army, because there will ALWAYS, in every generation, be outsiders who would try coercion on this nation. Insiders, too; societies are never perfectly functioning machines. Absolutely never. Radical-politics people tend never to understand this.

There are no "numbers" that will make you a libertarian. Being in the libertarian quadrant of the Nolan chart does not make you a libertarian, and it never will.

It also shows I cannot very well be anything else. Thinking of this kind, Paul, is why the Libertarian Party remains a tiny, politically ineffectual group. A nice social club, but where is the libertarian ideal nationwide? And how can we make it greater? There has been no thought in your end of the LP on this, and certainly none in your head, or you'd be sounding rather more like me.

Every single time you lie to people and say you're a libertarian, I'll let them know you are not one, and that I'm speaking from a position of authority within the party, and I can back all of it up with books, websites, and other verifiable sources while you are just talking out of your ass.

I realize you can't help talking out of your ass, because that's where your head is, but this doesn't lend you any credibility.

I tell the people the truth. I am a libertarian. You, in opposing this, are condemned to permanent falsehood with every utterance on this point. You shall not prevail in this. Not yesterday. Not now. Not ever. Never. You must not, can not, and shall not prevail over me, not if the Libertarian Party is to grow to both greatness and effectiveness. Brawling with you will no doubt make me a stronger libertarian through the stimulus: me bodybuilder, you barbell.