The Supreme Court May Finally Do Something Right!

[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.