It's official

[xoxoxoBruce]

So.....you've sold your soul to the devil.

Hope it brings in some money, Man.

[Radar]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

So.....you've sold your soul to the devil.

Hope it brings in some money, Man.

I didn't get very much for my soul either. Sheese, inflation sucks.

Seriously though they endorsed me without me even contacting them. One of their people contacted me.

[MaggieL]

Originally Posted by Radar

Bye the way, I have been officially endorsed by the Republican Liberty Caucus.

http://www.republicanliberty.org/can...6&cID=00004250

I may also be endorsed by the NRA, the NFIB (National Federation of Independent Business), and I'm talking to tax groups, police associations, etc.

Check in with the California Pink Pistols chapters too.

[Radar]

I know a couple of the members. I'll give 'em a call

[Urbane Guerrilla]

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.

[Radar]

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

[BigV]

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

[Urbane Guerrilla]

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.

[Clodfobble]

Originally Posted by Urbane Guerilla

P.S.: And where does shouting "asshole" fit into a "non-agression principle?"

Originally Posted by BigV

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

Originally Posted by Urbane Guerilla

Sorry, guys, check Political Compass II. The numbers say I'm libertarian, your opinions fly directly into the face of the evidence,

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

[Radar]

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.

[Urbane Guerrilla]

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.

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.

[Radar]

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.

[9th Engineer]

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?

[Urbane Guerrilla]

Well. I confess to a considerable degree of excitement. Here goes.

Originally Posted by Radar

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.

And do you not see a logical contradiction between the beginning and the ending of this statement? I do. There is more than one understanding of the non-aggression principle, varying mainly in the initial consideration: how much aggression is enough before you may rightly countervail even by violent opposition? There is further the point I raised and you've never given thought to: is it wise or well to permit an antilibertarian enemy the first blow? I don't think it is. He may get it in, but we don't as a matter of principle have to give it to him. That you won't acknowledge that adult libertarians are going to have more than just one reading of the NA principle isn't a matter of Libertarian philosophy, but a product of your own habit of mind, which is "my way or the highway."

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.

It would be more accurate to say of me that I mix a lot of neocon philosophy into my libertarianism. Particularly prominent is the neocon commonplace that a democracy prospers best in a world completely full of other democracies, who also prosper themselves in like manner. I think the more libertarian the democracy (or republic), the better a democracy it is. It is really the things I agree with that make me a libertarian, and not some quibble over exactly how to approach and actualize some principle. The neocon finding about democracies applies with equal force to libertarian societies: they too should prosper best in the company of other libertarian societies. There will be others, you know: for better or for worse the nation-state is not going to wither away altogether. There will always be some need for the coercive elements of a social order to deal with the unsocializable. The problem presented by the sociopathic and the would-be overlords is a bit more glossed over than I would like.

It is also true that the places that would benefit most greatly from a libertarian society are precisely those places which have it the least: the tyrannies. The tyrants do not sit idly by once aware of something that may threaten their power, which libertarianism can hardly avoid doing. I say we must be prepared to prevent tyrants from doing anything effectual to forestall their overthrow -- which among other things means being better at fighting than they are.

Something I haven't studied very hard yet is exactly who takes care of the public roads.

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.

That is indeed evident in yet another hotheaded try at hurting my feelings. Namecalling again, Paul? It's something you resort to much too easily, especially for a would-be holder of political office. You just lost this argument. See above for my prediction about the intensity of this debate.

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

My views are about expanding the Libertarian Party base, as I think libertarian ideas are well worth trying. Your determined efforts to purge this Party, to kick just about all and sundry out of the treehouse because they're not quite your sort, make the party weak. This is a strategic mistake which must be righted if we are to succeed. What kind of dummy forms a political party with the intent of losing?? Don't blame party failures on the boneheadedness of an electorate that didn't take up your study hobby. And don't rely on the electorate being boneheaded either. That's what the socialist Democrats are doing.

Nobody who supports the war in Iraq is a libertarian. That's a fact.

And somebody willing to countenance the continuation of an ultrastatist dictatorship IS? Really. I have something for you, Paul: the people who support Iraq going to a freer, more libertarian social order ARE the libertarians here.

I know it bothers the shit out of you, but that's too fucking bad. Get over it, you're not a libertarian.

You'll be nearer serenity if you get over it yourself. I spent the nine years of my military service within a totalitarian social order. Military services are not in themselves very conducive to innovation because in these rigidly structured, command societies, it is all too easy to become stultified, to think, "It's not my job, man." Yes, it stultified me, and I don't want that sort of thing around me ever again. This same thing colors all the unfree societies -- initiative isn't let to grow, bloom, and take the whole joint over, yet without doing that, an economy, blighted by its social order, permanently underperforms. Militaries have other goals than creation -- they are designed as organizations that function even under severe damage. That is the true characteristic of successful militaries. A side effect of this is the stultification I spoke of. It's unfortunate, but I also don't see how it may be avoided -- and a libertarian nation cannot dispense with its army, because there will ALWAYS, in every generation, be outsiders who would try coercion on this nation. Insiders, too; societies are never perfectly functioning machines. Absolutely never. Radical-politics people tend never to understand this.

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.

It also shows I cannot very well be anything else. Thinking of this kind, Paul, is why the Libertarian Party remains a tiny, politically ineffectual group. A nice social club, but where is the libertarian ideal nationwide? And how can we make it greater? There has been no thought in your end of the LP on this, and certainly none in your head, or you'd be sounding rather more like me.

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.

I tell the people the truth. I am a libertarian. You, in opposing this, are condemned to permanent falsehood with every utterance on this point. You shall not prevail in this. Not yesterday. Not now. Not ever. Never. You must not, can not, and shall not prevail over me, not if the Libertarian Party is to grow to both greatness and effectiveness. Brawling with you will no doubt make me a stronger libertarian through the stimulus: me bodybuilder, you barbell.

[Ibby]

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