Question for W*GS

[Spider]

Do you really believe you are fooling people about not being a republican ?

[W*GS]

Show me that I am.

I'm not a left-winger. That does not mean I'm a Republican.

[Rohirrim]

Show me that I am.

I'm not a left-winger. That does not mean I'm a Republican.

And yet you spend so much time and energy deflecting for them.

[W*GS]

You label so many of my comments "deflection" that the term has become meaningless coming from your keyboard.

[Spider]

LOL W*GS the gig is up , you are the only one that doesnt see it

[W*GS]

You're hallucinating.

Show me one instance in which I've supported a Republican, a Republican political view, or any such thing.

Criticising left-wingers isn't the same thing. These are not either-or discussions.

[alkemical]

No wags isn't a republican - nor is he a libertarian by means of politics.

W*gs is a marketarian. He adopts the libertarian philosophy/party/Whatever you want to call it - due to it fits, with his market-driven-ideology. It took me a while to figure out his B.S. (Belief System).

He doesn't really have faith in people, to have a true libertarian society work (well, not without killing a large # of them anyway). But, that's where he and I do agree - that lots of you have to die. ;)

[W*GS]

No wags isn't a republican - nor is he a libertarian by means of politics.

Well, yes, I am a libertarian by means of politics. My stance on the market is driven by the fact that individuals interacting freely with each other, so long as no unreasonable harm is done, is the best way to have a just society. That applies to all forms of interchange, economic and otherwise.

He doesn't really have faith in people, to have a true libertarian society work (well, not without killing a large # of them anyway). But, that's where he and I do agree - that lots of you have to die. ;)

I don't have faith in people given arbitrary power by State edict.

And no, I don't think lots of people "have to die".

[alkemical]

Well, yes, I am a libertarian by means of politics. My stance on the market is driven by the fact that individuals interacting freely with each other, so long as no unreasonable harm is done, is the best way to have a just society. That applies to all forms of interchange, economic and otherwise.



I don't have faith in people given arbitrary power by State edict.

And no, I don't think lots of people "have to die".

Dude, i was half playing with you - but it did take me a while to realize that the politics of the libertarian philosophy were far less as were the actual #'s of being a market guy. (It's just in your nature, i mean from the work you do for a living to your hobbies). For you, "the market" is a bigger issue than most others (only due to the fact that aspects of an "idealistic free market" do apply in other areas of life). I'm not saying there aren't tenants you agree with as well - but i am pretty sure you follow what i mean. :thanku:

Now, for the people that need to die - you can deny it publically - but look at your face when someone mentions "LABF" ;)

[BroncoBuff]

You label so many of my comments "deflection" that the term has become meaningless coming from your keyboard.
You are the KING of deflection W*GS ... you just called me a "Saddam apologist" because I simply said Iraqi society ran better before we invaded. A simple statement of fact, and you deflect, insult and question my patriotism all with one line. You are an utter waste of time in matters of factual discourse.

[BroncoBuff]

W*GS, here is an example of your brand of deflection:

_________________________________________________


Well, yes, I am a libertarian by means of politics.
By means of politics, eh? We saw how that worked out with Nixon and Watergate.

[W*GS]

You are the KING of deflection W*GS ... you just called me a "Saddam apologist" because I simply said Iraqi society ran better before we invaded.

A clearer statement of what it means to be an apologist cannot be made.

A simple statement of fact, and you deflect, insult and question my patriotism all with one line.

What's the deflection? The insult? And how did I question your patriotism?

Pointing out that you're a Saddam apologist means only that. Period.

You are an utter waste of time in matters of factual discourse.

I'm not the one saying Iraq under Saddam was better.

[BroncoBuff]

Got me, sheriff.

[W*GS]

By means of politics, eh? We saw how that worked out with Nixon and Watergate.

Hunh? I was merely pointing out to amesj that I'm a libertarian not because I start with the market, but that the market is the natural and logical outcome of my libertarian beliefs.

[alkemical]

Hunh? I was merely pointing out to amesj that I'm a libertarian not because I start with the market, but that the market is the natural and logical outcome of my libertarian beliefs.

In the writings of your posts and your...zest for the open market lead me to believe it's otherwise. (Not that it's a bad thing - and actually they aren't mutually exclusive) - I think if it came down to a libertarian political philosophy that would compromise or..contradict a "free-market-ideal" - you'd side on the side of the latter.

It's not a bad thing wags, if anything - it makes you consistent.


I just want equal rules for all. I don't think one should have any rules set, to enable someone a head start. So while i may side with instances of protectionisms - it's due to my vision of what i see as imbalanced.

Hell - I side with the libertarian side - just because i feel that most people would need to die in order to live in "my utopia" - so that's my compromise. :)

[W*GS]

In the writings of your posts and your...zest for the open market lead me to believe it's otherwise. (Not that it's a bad thing - and actually they aren't mutually exclusive) - I think if it came down to a libertarian political philosophy that would compromise or..contradict a "free-market-ideal" - you'd side on the side of the latter.

I'm all for a carbon tax, to correct for the fact that we're generating damaging externalities with our use of fossil fuels. It's more important that the libertarian ideal of living as free as practical from the damage caused by others than it is for folks to dump crap into the air and not have to bear the costs they're imposing on all of us for having done so.

It's not a bad thing wags, if anything - it makes you consistent.

It's not a foolish consistency, either.

What I don't get is that so many folks advocate some level of liberty in some narrow aspect of existence but come down with near-totalitarian restrictions on other aspects of existence. That applies to both lefties and righties. The doublethink is stunning to me.

[Rohirrim]

We have left the old world's (or Miltonian) concept of religion defining our sense of what liberty means, although there are zealots in this nation who would like to reapply that yoke. And so we must establish what liberty means using reason, not belief. Given the inherent flaws of mankind, reason can only envision liberty existing where there is a force to establish and protect it. That force must be law (the Constitution). And what establishes, maintains and enforces that law is the state. And what must control and rule that state is the will of the people. The stateless theory is only a euphemism for anarchy.

[alkemical]

I'm all for a carbon tax, to correct for the fact that we're generating damaging externalities with our use of fossil fuels. It's more important that the libertarian ideal of living as free as practical from the damage caused by others than it is for folks to dump crap into the air and not have to bear the costs they're imposing on all of us for having done so.



It's not a foolish consistency, either.

What I don't get is that so many folks advocate some level of liberty in some narrow aspect of existence but come down with near-totalitarian restrictions on other aspects of existence. That applies to both lefties and righties. The doublethink is stunning to me.


I always love that quote by R. A. Wilson - the "what the left thinks of corporations, and the right thinks of government are the same" - (paraphrased) -

It's true - it's why i stopped talking politics with mainstream americans - most of the time it's a stupid "they said/they said" game - and it gets no where.

So i decided to make a magazine with a DIY type philosophy and just bypass the politics. (Although, i am planning on seeing if i can re-publish Jack Parson's Freedom essay as well as some others).

So W*gs, if you got any good original content for climate stuff, etc - (Or if you just want to write an op-ed piece) lemme know ;)

[W*GS]

We have left the old world's (or Miltonian) concept of religion defining our sense of what liberty means, although there are zealots in this nation who would like to reapply that yoke. And so we must establish what liberty means using reason, not belief. Given the inherent flaws of mankind, reason can only envision liberty existing where there is a force to establish and protect it. That force must be law (the Constitution). And what establishes, maintains and enforces that law is the state. And what must control and rule that state is the will of the people. The stateless theory is only a euphemism for anarchy.

So what's the greatest threat to liberty today?

The State.

Why?

Because it's grown far beyond its correct (and LIMITED) original role.

[BroncoBuff]

I'm all for a carbon tax, to correct for the fact that we're generating damaging externalities with our use of fossil fuels.
Agreed ... with an exception for CNG/LNG.

[BroncoBuff]

Hunh? I was merely pointing out to amesj that I'm a libertarian not because I start with the market, but that the market is the natural and logical outcome of my libertarian beliefs.
"Hunh?" is right .... that was my example of a W*GS deflection. No wonder you didn't get it :~ohyah!: