[Radar]

Originally Posted by Urbane Guerrilla

Radar's elaborate disguises of his tyrannical nature behind a cloak of social acceptability and moral pretense fool no one, and show the dimness of his own bulb.

Paul, you continue in your daily abdication of any moral standing. Quit digging yourself deeper before the hole caves in on your head.

If we were to compare our moral standings on earth, yours would be at the deepest part of the Mariana's Trench and mine on the top of Mount Everest. You have no moral standing whatsoever. You are trying to rationalize invading other nations and killing people, and I am saying that killing people is wrong, and they have a right and a duty to determine their own destiny. I've never even hinted that the tyranny others suffer through is socially acceptable. I've said that it is horrible, and I hope that they will find a way to shed the chains of their oppressors for themselves in the same way America did for ourselves.

Originally Posted by Urbane Guerrilla

You have long ceased to argue the actual merits of your own case, and absurdly enough concentrate on attacking a homemade caricature of what you would like my argument to really be, or which you think it is. Strawman tactics when you try them may impress you. Why do you think they'd impress me?

As usual, you accuse me of doing the very thing you are doing. You used a strawman in the last paragraph of this same post. I am willing to bet I could find 20 strawmen you have created and attacked in this thread alone.

I have provided concrete proof that your positions are not only unconstitutional, but violate the teachings of every single historically significant libertarian. I've proven that you don't know the meaning of the word libertarian or its origins.

Originally Posted by Urbane Guerrilla

Your situation, quite in keeping with the likes of Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot, is in essence that you set some consideration over the worth of human liberty. Yet as a libertarian, you need to understand that without liberty, life just ain't worth living, and that this is true not merely for Americans, but for all of humanity. This idea you will note does not stop at America's borders.

It is not up to you to decide what priority others should place on liberty or whether their lives aren't worth living. That decision belongs to each of us. In every country where people are living under the thumb of a tyrannical government, the people of that country have placed life above liberty. In even the harshest and most restrictive countries on earth, the people could take over the government if they chose to. If they really believed that liberty was worth more than life, they could beat the forces of that government. They can do this in North Korea, Russia, China, Vietnam, or anywhere else. No government has the power or desire to kill everyone in their country. They would have nobody to rule. If the people stand together, they will win. Liberty is to be won by those who would have it.

I agree that freedom and liberty are for all people. But America has no moral, ethical, or legal authority or obligation to take part in winning freedom of liberty for anyone but ourselves. I am the well-wisher of freedom and liberty to all, but the champion only of my own. This is one of the principles upon which America was built.

Originally Posted by Urbane Guerrilla

Humanity's troubles come from the places that are unfree -- as even you do not dispute.

Humanities troubles come from humanity. When humans learn not to invade other countries or kill people simply because they live under different laws, or have a different view of what freedom or liberty mean, the world will be a better place.

Originally Posted by Urbane Guerrilla

When unfree places are blessed with freedom, wealth and contentment ensue, because the greatest human obstacles to wealth are swept aside. Hence, liberty is the most important thing. I recognize this.

You are entitled to your opinion, but not entitled to force it upon others.

Originally Posted by Urbane Guerrilla

I want to get it for the peoples who don't have it, and I see no moral tinge supplied by who does the getting. Fighting for it brings two things: death for the slavemongers, and a consequent inability to keep anyone enslaved.

You see no moral problems with invading and murdering thousands or millions of people because you are insane. You are a tyrant at heart and you think you have some god given right to kill people and to enforce whatever YOUR vision of freedom happens to be (which in this case is an unlibertarian nightmare). What you want to do is on a moral par with a scenario where China invaded America and "liberated" us from the oppression of democracy and capitalism. Their view of freedom and liberation is different from ours. They have absolutely zero moral or legal authority to invade, murder Americans, or to enforce what they believe to be freedom; nor does America have the legal or moral authority to do this to anyone else.

Originally Posted by Urbane Guerrilla

You are half right: the people who get killed don't get democracy forced on them. Instead, it forces them out of the oppression game, and permanently. Those who survive are the ones that get the democracy, and it isn't forced. It is what they want, and if they get it, we get much less in the way of trouble.

Stop using the term democracy and freedom interchangeably. They are not the same thing. Democracy isn't what those people want, or they would already have it. They don't need your help or that of the U.S. military to get it. The role of the U.S. military doesn't include spreading or diminishing democracy or to "liberate" people of other nations. You are mentally damaged enough to suggest that murdering people (and yes, it is murder) because you want them to live in a way that they haven't chosen for themselves is okey dokey and indicative of libertarianism. This is like saying you want to promote abstinence through rape. No part of what you believe is even close to being a billionth of libertarianism. The only thing you know about libertarianism is how to spell the word, and you probably have to look that up.

Originally Posted by Urbane Guerrilla

Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot as well as Mugabe etcetera all thought something else should be set above human liberty, and all acted on this belief.

Wrong. Hitler, Stalin, etc. believed that THEIR VERSION of human liberty could best be spread by killing what they believed to be the enemies of liberty, like Jews. In short, they shared your exact philosophy. They wanted to "obliterate tyranny" by killing those they saw as enemies of it... in their insane and twisted little brains....like yours...only yours is smaller.

Originally Posted by Urbane Guerrilla

You too set something above obliterating tyranny (clear enough from your vehement opposition to it) and above human liberty, which is something I do not do.

This is because, unlike you, I am a sane person with a grasp on reality and a comprehension of the world around me. I set protecting my own freedom and liberty and those of my countrymen above misusing the military to murder people and enforce so-called "freedom" at the point of a gun. Freedom is under constant attack right here in America. It's something you don't seem to grasp...a little something called personal responsibility. I am responsibile for my freedom and making sure my government doesn't infringe on my freedoms or those of my family or countrymen. People in other countries are responsible for their freedom and for making sure their government best represents them. I have no authority beyond my own borders to enforce what I believe to be freedom onto others who may have a different viewpoint. They have no authority to do that to us. The U.S. Government has no authority beyond the borders of the U.S.A., especially to practice nation building or democracy spreading.

Originally Posted by Urbane Guerrilla

You, my friend, are keeping some very unsavory philosophical company.

Yes, the company I'm keeping is very unsavory. Characters like Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, John Locke, Harry Browne, every libertarian author in history, Jesus of Nazareth, etc...

Originally Posted by Urbane Guerrilla

It's a symptom of a narcissistically disordered personality -- examine Mao in particular for pathological narcissism, and the light may dawn.

You seem to know a lot about that mental disorder. Perhaps because you have this and many others. My self-esteem is well placed and has nothing at all to do with narcisissm. I'd say claiming that YOUR vision of freedom and liberty supercede those of millions of other people across the world and that this empowers you to muder people to force it on them is pretty damned narcisisstic.

Originally Posted by Urbane Guerrilla

Well, it'll dawn for a man capable of thinking rationally for real, and not just simulating the ability.

Says the guy who supports wholesale murder and thinks his personal vision of freedom or liberty empower him to slaughter innocent others so he can force it on the people of other nations.

Originally Posted by Urbane Guerrilla

The argument against the idea that America practices international tyranny is easily and convincingly made to sane readers:

Sanity is something you know nothing about; nor is making a convincing argument.