Only just enough to give you a flimsy excuse to get snarky, glatt. Sure, I'll try my best, but wouldn't model rocketry make a more rewarding hobby? :p The windbag chartbuster is known by his lowercase initials and Blame America First attitude.

Radar, that remark puts you into the bizarro world, I'm afraid. I'm libertarian whether you want me to be one or not. Where is your understanding that libertarianism's three main philosophical streams were or are left-libertarian, right-libertarian, and anarcho-libertarian? It perhaps now languishes in the place you left your willingness to permit other libertarians freedom of thought.

Until you recover that capacity, radar, you'd do well to shut the hell up. You, buster, ain't free-minded enough, not for me. I'm never particularly worried about anyone's ideological purity, as this seems to be the hobby of third parties who are never in power (and thus never compromised or corrupted by any actual responsibility), and is pretty conspicuously absent from the Big Two parties who stay in power in this Republic so perennially. Reckon they might know something? I'm persuaded they do. Talent trumps ideological certification in the parties that win.

No. Money trumps ideological certification in the parties that win.:eyebrow:

Radar can thank the mislabeled ideology of UG for my small donation to the cause. I'm not huge on ideological purity but when faced with the threat of anti-freedom folks destroying the brand name we've got to show our support.

There are libertarians and there is everyone else. There are no right-libertarians, or left-libertarians, etc. You either support the non-aggression principle (the cornerstone of libertarianism) or you don't, and you're not a libertarian.

No matter how much you CLAIM to be a libertarian, it's a lie. You're nothing but a liar, a moron, and a wannabe.

You're free to think whatever you want....not that you actually do much thinking. But if you think you're a libertarian, you're only fooling yourself. All of the rest of us know you're not a libertarian, you're just an asshole.

Thanks for the donation Griff, and for recognizing UG as the non-libertarian he is.

Radar, I am a libertarian; you cannot stop me nor slow me down; and what part of "Free Minds and Free Markets" did you just forget?

Libertarianism shall contend, and bloodily, with totalitarianism -- for this is in the nature of totalitarianism. It shall aggress against us. I shall see to it libertarianism is ready for the struggle.

P.S.: And where does shouting "asshole" fit into a "non-agression principle?" Really, radar, for a wannabe politician, you are most impolitic.

Only to those who richly deserve it. And your not a libertarian. Nor is anyone else who promotes or supports the war in Iraq.

I didn't see any shouting. He just called it like we see it.

Sorry, guys, check Political Compass II. The numbers say I'm libertarian, your opinions fly directly into the face of the evidence, and I say Radar is a hothead, and that until he quits it, he cannot win an election.

Leaving ultra-statist dictatorships alone is not a pro-libertarian action, Radar. Overthrowing them and installing a more-libertarian social order is both libertarian, and inherently morally right. You cannot bring me to your view on this, because it is not well to leave antidemocracy/antilibertarianism in the flower of its strength. Quite the opposite: it is well to cripple it or kill it outright. In the case of the Iraq campaign, the Afghan campaign, and all other campaigns (each but a fraction of the actual war), democracy's foes initiated the aggression, and we therefore undertake countervailing violence to end it. About time, too: they initiated the aggression about five times over a 17-year span, starting with the Beirut Marine barracks truckbomb in 1983, and counting the east African embassies as just one time.

It is the Libertarians' responsibility to cause and make libertarianism, even over the objections of any slavemaker, however violent. Be prepared to use violence to smash the ultra-statists -- for the Non-Aggression Principle does not forbid this. See discussion on the Non-Aggression principle for that -- there's rather a lot of it on the net, I see.

V, "asshole" isn't a term of endearment, nor is it quiet. He's shouting, and he screams at me every time I show independent thought.

UG, you can be a Libertarian and still be an asshole.

He's not a libertarian, and he is an asshole. The Nolan chart has never been what determines who is or isn't a libertarian. It is only used to find those who have libertarian leanings. The Non-Aggression Principle alone determines who is or isn't a libertarian.

You know who told me that? David Nolan, the creator of the chart you keep falsely claiming makes you a libertarian.

You can't shout using text on a screen. Perhaps it's the voices in your head. I didn't even type in all caps, so you have absolutely nothing to back up your "shouting" claims, just as you have nothing to back up your claims of being a libertarian.

Let's see what the Libertarian Party's platform says about military interventionism...


Foreign Intervention

The Issue: Intervention in the affairs of other countries has provoked resentment and hatred of the United States among many groups and nations throughout the world. In addition, legal barriers to private and personal aid (both military and economic) have fostered internal discord.

The Principle: The United States should not inject itself into the internal matters of other nations, unless they have declared war upon or attacked the United States, or the U.S. is already in a constitutionally declared war with them.

Solutions: End the current U.S. government policy of foreign intervention, including military and economic aid, guarantees, and diplomatic meddling. Individuals should be free to provide any aid they wish that does not directly threaten the United States.

Transitional Action: Voluntary cooperation with any economic boycott should not be treated as a crime. End all limitation of private foreign aid, both military and economic. Repeal the Neutrality Act of 1794, and all other U.S. neutrality laws, which restrict the efforts of Americans to aid overseas organizations fighting to overthrow or change governments. End the incorporation of foreign nations into the U.S. defense perimeter. Cease the creation and maintenance of U.S. bases and sites for the pre-positioning of military material in other countries. End the practice of stationing American military troops overseas. We make no exceptions to the above.

Radar, I'm going to trust the numbers over you, and I'll say the same to David Nolan whenever I see him. For somebody who's supposed to be in a free-minded organization, Paul, you are damned reluctant to allow me any freedom to differ from you -- which is purely unlibertarian, and a major personality flaw. This is why I ignore your arguments about this, and why I always will ignore your arguments: I conceive them to be wrong ab initio. I am supported in this by among other things the very first search result on "non-aggression principle" -- what do I find in the first paragraphs of the Wiki entry on "non-aggression principle" but the remark that there is quite a range of interpretation of the idea among libertarians. And that same googling shows a fair bit of discussion over what, exactly, it means or should mean.

Human politics. You should not take differing views as either an oversetting of the laws of nature, nor as a personal betrayal to be avenged with fire and sword, Paul. Until you have this much common sense, you have no hope of winning office. Once you do, your chances should be far better.

Or have somebody call me one, regardless of the actuality. Doesn't change things much. I'm the temperate one here, as anyone who reads what has passed between Radar and me will agree. I can still be a Libertarian and annoy the fuck out of Paul Ireland. Literally -- he gets such a rush of blood to the head there's nothing left for an erection.

This dispute will be all the more intense for the fact that there is really so little at actual stake: theoretical formulations, 'trons, internet provider subscriptions and composition time.

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. 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.

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

Nobody who supports the war in Iraq is a libertarian. That's a fact. I know it bothers the shit out of you, but that's too fucking bad. Get over it, you're not a libertarian.

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. 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.

Do you mean anyone who supports the war on principle or anyone who thinks we haven't completely f^&*ed it up beyond all reason?

Non-aggression means not picking fights, whether we do a great job or not... So I assume not.