The Supreme Court May Finally Do Something Right!

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Radar

The trouble with morons like Merc

The trouble with you is that you support an invasion of the US and think you are always right while you want us to support your spawn. Leave me out of your little rants.

[headsplice]

And this has been another episode of "Libertarian Dick Waving." Have a nice night, and keep packin' that heat!

[Radar]

Originally Posted by headsplice

And this has been another episode of "Libertarian Dick Waving." Have a nice night, and keep packin' that heat!

I wasn't dick waving. I was setting the record straight. If I were dick waving, you'd be a lot more impressed. And don't worry about packing heat. I never leave home without it.

[Urbane Guerrilla]

Actually, what you're doing is staying crooked and rigidly xenophobic also, owing to your exceeding narrowness of view.

I don't see where it's libertarian to concern oneself at all with the continued life of the determinedly antilibertarian, id est the communists, the fascists, and other totalitarians usually describable only in terms of personality cults. My point has always been that they can't get in libertarianism's way if they are dead.

And none of us but radar over there really want them in our way. Radar's entire philosophical construct is designed for complete failure. I will have nothing to do with it.

[Radar]

You finally said something right. You said that you will have nothing to do with my philosophical construct...namely libertarian philosophy. You are not a libertarian by any stretch of the rational mind.

It's libertarian to concern ones self with the rights of ALL people, even those who have different beliefs than we do. I even respect the rights of a morally and intellectually inferior dimwit without the slightest concept of what libertarianism actually means.

Those living under a fascist or communist regime have all of the same rights as those living under a capitalist democracy. No more, and no less.

If the people living in North Korea want freedom, all they have to do is overthrow the leadership of that country to win it. The same is true for everyone else on earth. We have enough trouble in America trying to stop our freedoms from violated here to never have to worry about the freedom of others.

But I respect UG's right to volunteer his weapons, his money, and his own body to help oppressed people around the world to win freedom. As long as he doesn't try to use the U.S. military to do it, I have no problem with it. I do have a problem with him killing people who haven't attacked him, and if he did something like that, I'd hope he was caught and punished without any help from America.

[Urbane Guerrilla]

Sorry, radar, but where you missed the bus is that libertarian philosophy is a mighty ideological hammer to smash fascistic mental constructs, and it should be so used -- if you want freedom to spread generally across the globe. If.

This requires a nonpacifist point of view -- and you don't have to be a pacifist to be a libertarian. I am a living example of that. It's really a pretty good way to be, and definitely an improvement over taking your advice.

I concern myself with the rights of the people who do not deprive others their due rights -- which leaves the fascistocommunists out of consideration, as these are quite beyond the libertarian pale. It is also obvious that fascistocommunists or totalitarians (same number of syllables, fewer letters, same idea) necessarily initiate aggressions on their own hook. At that point, countervailing violence is justifiable to everybody, including those who are willing to allow the antilibertarians the first punch.

Which I'm not, on careful consideration. You've already heard why, even if you don't like it much because of the embarrassing light it puts you in. Any time I bring up an idea you don't like, you have real problems answering it intellectually, and you sulk. This prevents you understanding a damned thing, I must say.

So, because they're furriners, they never deserve help, do they? That, my friend, is xenophobia, pure and simple, and I've called you on it before. I am pleased to see you declaring it so explicitly. My mind has never been crippled by it. You could stand to become more like me. I consider that human liberty is of such importance that it is in no way less legitimatized by who may be involved in the liberation. You've never wrestled with this question either. Frankly, local populations trammeled by totalitarianism need external aid to overthrow the villains in charge, and this action is by no means immoral. If it's not immoral for the locals, it's no more immoral for outsiders either. Of course, I'm begging the question of whether it is as generally popular. Revolutions tend to divide the population in thirds anyway: a third loyalist, a third insurrectionist, and a third keeping their heads down waiting for the shooting to die out.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Urbane Guerrilla

Sorry, radar, but where you missed the bus is that libertarian philosophy is a mighty ideological hammer to smash fascistic mental constructs, and it should be so used -- if you want freedom to spread generally across the globe. If.

This requires a nonpacifist point of view -- and you don't have to be a pacifist to be a libertarian. I am a living example of that. It's really a pretty good way to be, and definitely an improvement over taking your advice.

Which I'm not, on careful consideration. You've already heard why, even if you don't like it much because of the embarrassing light it puts you in. Any time I bring up an idea you don't like, you have real problems answering it intellectually, and you sulk. This prevents you understanding a damned thing, I must say.

ZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzinggggggggggg......

[Radar]

UG is so used to lying, he doesn't even know when he's doing it, so once again, I'll shed light on his ridiculous lies and outrageously stupid claims.

Originally Posted by Urbane Guerrilla

Sorry, radar, but where you missed the bus is that libertarian philosophy is a mighty ideological hammer to smash fascistic mental constructs, and it should be so used -- if you want freedom to spread generally across the globe. If.

Libertarianism isn't a hammer. Nor is it a gun, or any other weapon. Libertarianism is the recognition that everyone owns themselves, and they are responsible for themselves and for their own freedom. Libertarianism is about individuality. Libertarianism isn't about "spreading freedom", especially at the point of a gun. Those making claims that libertarian should be enforced through violence are violating libertarian philosophy.

Originally Posted by Urbane Guerrilla

This requires a nonpacifist point of view -- and you don't have to be a pacifist to be a libertarian.

You don't have to be a pacifist to be a libertarian, but you do have to believe that it is NEVER alright to initiate violence, especially for political gain or social engineering, like "liberating oppressed people" or "spreading democracy".

Originally Posted by Urbane Guerrilla

I am a living example of that. It's really a pretty good way to be, and definitely an improvement over taking your advice.

You are a living example that one doesn't need much brain cell activity to be able to make posts online. You aren't an improvement over anything, especially me. My political, social, and philosophical stance dwarfs yours when it comes to intelligence and the ability to work in reality. My stance provides the most freedom at the least cost in human lives and in dollars.

Originally Posted by Urbane Guerrilla

I concern myself with the rights of the people who do not deprive others their due rights -- which leaves the fascistocommunists out of consideration, as these are quite beyond the libertarian pale. It is also obvious that fascistocommunists or totalitarians (same number of syllables, fewer letters, same idea) necessarily initiate aggressions on their own hook. At that point, countervailing violence is justifiable to everybody, including those who are willing to allow the antilibertarians the first punch.

I concern myself with the freedom of all people, and don't try to misuse the American military or violate the Constitution to start unprovoked military action which is a gross violation of all things libertarian. America is the well wisher of freedom and liberty to all and the champion only of our own. This isn't xenophobic and it certainly isn't isolationist. War mongers always love to use these labels on those who would rightly use our military only to defend our own nation.

Originally Posted by Urbane Guerrilla

Which I'm not, on careful consideration. You've already heard why, even if you don't like it much because of the embarrassing light it puts you in. Any time I bring up an idea you don't like, you have real problems answering it intellectually, and you sulk. This prevents you understanding a damned thing, I must say.

Your libertarianism is on a par with that of Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot, Kim Jong Il, etc. They all thought they were "liberating" people, and spreading freedom.

Originally Posted by Urbane Guerrilla

So, because they're furriners, they never deserve help, do they?

Nobody said that. I said you should be free to volunteer your help and I commend you for doing it. Just don't use the U.S. military or the U.S. government to help you do it.

Originally Posted by Urbane Guerrilla

That, my friend, is xenophobia, pure and simple, and I've called you on it before.

Don't call me your friend, and stop lying about xenophobia. You have lied about this and many other things before...like being a libertarian.

Originally Posted by Urbane Guerrilla

I am pleased to see you declaring it so explicitly. My mind has never been crippled by it.

No, your mind is crippled by stupidity, dishonesty, and war mongering attitudes.

Originally Posted by Urbane Guerrilla

You could stand to become more like me.

In order to do that, I'd have to hit myself in the head with a sledge hammer until I was brain dead.

Originally Posted by Urbane Guerrilla

I consider that human liberty is of such importance that it is in no way less legitimatized by who may be involved in the liberation.

Which is why you aren't a libertarian. I consider human liberty the most important thing on earth. But before I volunteer to help others get liberty, I will try to earn it for myself at home. America is far from a free country and it's getting less so all the time. How about following the teachings of the bible and take the plank out of our own eye before we start worrying about the speck in the eyes of our brother?

Originally Posted by Urbane Guerrilla

You've never wrestled with this question either. Frankly, local populations trammeled by totalitarianism need external aid to overthrow the villains in charge, and this action is by no means immoral.

It most certainly is if you use the U.S. military to carry it out, and if you invade a country that has posed no threat to ours. America has neither the moral, nor legal authority to police the world and enforce what war mongers have determined to be liberty. As I've said, democracy isn't freedom, and even if it were, America has overthrown democracies before and propped up dictators and armed them to the teeth.

Originally Posted by Urbane Guerrilla

If it's not immoral for the locals, it's no more immoral for outsiders either.

False. It is moral for all people to fight for their own freedom. It is immoral for outsiders to intervene in the internal affairs of other nations.

Originally Posted by Urbane Guerrilla

Of course, I'm begging the question of whether it is as generally popular. Revolutions tend to divide the population in thirds anyway: a third loyalist, a third insurrectionist, and a third keeping their heads down waiting for the shooting to die out.

You are hardly a revolutionary. You are an anti-libertarian, war mongering, loudmouthed idiot who is dumb enough to think he's got the moral high ground when he advocates wholesale murder.

[DanaC]

You could stand to become more like me.

Could he? Really? I fucking couldn't.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by DanaC

Could he? Really? I fucking couldn't.

Oooww, such language, from an intelligent, educated, worldly, genteel, Englishwomen.

[Urbane Guerrilla]

Originally Posted by DanaC

Could he? Really? I fucking couldn't.

He could if he had an open mind, I must say that. Rusted shut is bad for anyone, regardless of IQ number actual or claimed, or of maturity stunted or in flower.

As for why you "fucking couldn't," I simply cannot find a reason -- nothing real, nothing substantial, nothing substantive, nothing anything. But what I emphatically NEVER try for is a mental clone. Uh uh. No way. Exact replication is by no means called for: I am not Radar, and not quite so impressed as he with my own individual genius..

I'm not left of center -- there's the aphorism that has quite a lengthy history, reaching back in one version or another to England in the early nineteenth century and evolving in France before coming back to England again: "If a man is not a ________ at twenty, he has no heart; if he is not a _________ at forty, no brains." The earliest English version had it Liberal and Conservative. It spent time in France being updated with every revision. DanaC and I are both over the age of, say, twenty-two. One of us is a Socialist. Is this, then, the why "I fucking couldn't?" Shrunken horizons, Dana, shrunken horizons. This American won't tolerate them.

[Urbane Guerrilla]

Here's something impressive from LiveJournal for the Fourth of July that really neatly expresses the view of foreign policy that I hold and radar rejects -- at, I believe, his peril:

. . .so I will just leave you with something to ponder and I hope you do before dismissing it outright. The groundwork is actually IN the philosophy of our founding fathers to support our country's current foreign policy. We believe that ALL men are created equal...that's not just Americans. Kennedy said "We are the watchmen on the walls of world freedom". That is why we fight for other countries independence...because of what our country is founded on.

[emph mine]

And that bit of founding father philosophy will be something radar will predictably deny, reject, or prostitute his intellectual integrity to avoid seeing, because he doesn't think a free people should lift their littlest finger to free other peoples. Thank you, Xenophobia [and bad cess to you, stumblefuck].

The thread is here on LJ.

[Radar]

Here's an article written by Libertarian Author, two time presidential candidate, and giant among libertarians... Mr. Harry Browne. It's barely too big for one post, so I'll break it into two.

Mr. Browne does a good job of explaining why there is no libertarian justification to use the U.S. military to "liberate" those in other nations.

Like myself, Mr. Browne does a great job of shredding the pathetic and poor excuses for such foreign policy frequently put forth by those lying about being libertarians. One can not support the war in Iraq and also be a libertarian. Nor can one be a libertarian while supporting any other "pre-emptive" or unprovoked wars; especially those that do not have a Constitutionally required declaration of war.

========================================

May 6, 2003
Libertarians and War
by Harry Browne

I've been surprised by the number of libertarians who have supported the war against Iraq.

The two principal arguments I've heard from libertarian war-supporters are:

1. Saddam Hussein is a threat to the U.S. We must remove him from power before he attacks us or gives weapons of mass destruction to terrorists.

2. We libertarians should be the first to support the liberation of the Iraqi people from a cruel dictator.

The Threat

With regard to the first argument, supporting a politician's pre-emptive attack violates virtually every principle underlying libertarian thought – the simple truths that are taught in Libertarianism 101.

For example . . .

1. Non-aggression: Most libertarians believe you shouldn't initiate force against someone who has never used force against you. Force is to be used only in self-defense – not used just because you don't happen to like someone, or because someone doesn't like you, or because he might become dangerous in the future, or because some third party has attacked you and you want to prove you're not a wimp. The same principles must apply to our nation – that it shouldn't use force against a nation that hasn't attacked us.

2. Credibility of Politicians: The idea that Hussein posed a substantial threat to America is based entirely on claims made by the Bush administration. When did libertarians start believing anything politicians say? Politicians routinely lie about fictitious budget surpluses, "budget cuts," drug matters, crime statistics, and almost anything else. Remember the old joke?:

"How can you tell when a politician is lying?"

"His lips move."

The Bush administration has already been caught in numerous falsehoods concerning Iraq:

• claiming Iraq was consorting with Al-Qaeda (refuted by the CIA),
  
• saying Iraq was acquiring aluminum tubes to make nuclear bombs (refuted by scientists and UN inspectors)
  
• producing satellite photos of alleged chemical-weapons sites (that on-the-spot investigations proved to have no chemical weapons)
  
• citing mobile chemical-weapons labs (that turned out to have no chemical weapons)
  
• giving worthless leads to UN weapons inspectors
  
• claiming that Iraq was seeking enriched uranium (citing documents that turned out to be crude forgeries)
  
• referring to a British dossier as evidence (a dossier that turned out to have been plagiarized from a 12-year-old thesis written by a college student)

. . . and much more.

[jinx]

Originally Posted by Urbane Guerrilla

And that bit of founding father philosophy...

Kennedy wasn't a Libertarian either. Nor was he a founding father.

This is from Ron Paul's site - it explains the philosophy of liberty, not as colorfully as Radar does, but it gets the job done.

[Radar]

Originally Posted by jinx

Kennedy wasn't a Libertarian either. Nor was he a founding father.

This is from Ron Paul's site - it explains the philosophy of liberty, not as colorfully as Radar does, but it gets the job done.

I used to have this animation as my signature in here. Ron Paul borrowed it from the ISIL (International Society for Individual Liberty)

They offer it in several languages: http://isil.org/resources/philosophy...rty-index.html