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