Once Again Baxter is a fake libertarian

Darla said:
I think all this arguing over who is a "fake" libertarian is so dumb. You guys have fallen into the trap of believing that Libertarians are Republicans too ashamed to admit their party affiliation. Or, that they are Republicans who don't want to take responsibility for their Republican votes. "Don't blame me, I think both parties are fucked, I'm a libertarian, not a sheep like the rest of you."

But there are liberal libertarians, just as there are conservative ones. I knew a definite true blue Libertarian who was more like String once, a long time ago, on the old netscape boards.

Ya'll are just shocked because you visualize all libertarians as being right wing assholes. I hear ya, but just because it's common doesn't make it the only kind.
Click to expand...

True, but this doesn't apply to Stringy, because he had a consistent history on FP, and early on here, before he disappeared, and then resurfaced. When he first returned, he was really weird, and would make bizarre outbursts, and had a completely new outlook.

As for liberal libertarians, look no further than Rune. There's a reason why he can have a decent conversion with STY on matters of police brutality.
 
Threedee said:
True, but this doesn't apply to Stringy, because he had a consistent history on FP, and early on here, before he disappeared, and then resurfaced. When he first returned, he was really weird, and would make bizarre outbursts, and had a completely new outlook.

As for liberal libertarians, look no further than Rune. There's a reason why he can have a decent conversion with STY on matters of police brutality.
Click to expand...

Yes Rune, true. I always think of him as a liberal, but he definitely identifies as a liberal libertarian.

I like String and think he is very smart and hilarious.
 
Superfreak said:
No... they do not. A skin cell does not contain the coding to form a complete unique human being. It will never be anything other than a single cell. Same for a liver cell. A blood cell... etc... Never. Whereas a fertilized egg cell IS a complete unique human life... it will continue to grow and develop. From day one it forms the unique genetic coding and proceeds along the stages of development. At no point is it anything other than a unique human life.

But you believe in a magic baby fairy that comes and turns it into a 'person' (subjective, non scientific definition) at some point near birth.

Then you should be able to point out which part of the genetic process is 'subjective' which all philosophical views are.

Pure comedy. Total irony. Run away little child.
Click to expand...

The only one running away and hiding is you, sissy boy. You wasted my time running away from your errors (and I only listed two of them) because you are too stubborn and intellectually timid to admit you are wrong. BTW, how is your wig?

Yes, a skin cell does have all the genetic code necessary to create a complete human. Unique, who gives a fuck? Are twins not human life? If we clone someone would the resulting life not be human life?

Of course, a skin cell can not and will not become a human outside of the right environment and with a great deal of support. And neither will a zygote.

Your argument is philosophically based and not in any way more objective than mine. You have failed to provide any concrete reason why the zygote is special among human cells. Apparently, it has something to do with your religious beliefs and a possible naturalistic fallacy that makes you think that God or Mother Nature has blessed the union, but it's not science.

My view has absolutely nothing to do with any baby fairy and your dishonest argument proves that you are not capable of discussing this intelligently. I have repeated it several times and it is quite simple and clear. My view is based on the objective criteria of viability as a human. Your skin, sperm, egg, fertilized or not does not possess that trait.
 
Threedee said:
True, but this doesn't apply to Stringy, because he had a consistent history on FP, and early on here, before he disappeared, and then resurfaced. When he first returned, he was really weird, and would make bizarre outbursts, and had a completely new outlook.

As for liberal libertarians, look no further than Rune. There's a reason why he can have a decent conversion with STY on matters of police brutality.
Click to expand...

I have no complete new outlook. What I choose to emphasize and my presentation has certainly shifted a bit but there is very little change in my core views at all.

Since you insist on bringing it up repeatedly I will tell you about it. I was still identifying as an Objectivist in 2000. 9/11 changed a lot of things. Lots of libertarians and Objectivists who had presented themselves as peaceful civil libertarians started showing they were not. Due to that I started moving towards the paleolibs who remained strongly anti war. For a while I was even pretty much identifying as an anarcho-capitalist and even now I think it probably ideal but so unlikely and remote I don't care to waste my breath. But after looking more into the ugly affair with the Ron Paul newsletters I started to question the paleolibs. At first I defended Paul, but with time I came to realize many of the paleolibs were not libertarain at all but just neo confederates who were still expressing butt hurt over the civil rights era and even the civil war. Ron Paul pandered to racist scum and conspiratards way too much for my liking. In Cali, I even went to a Ron Paul meetup which ended being a bunch of Birchers who asshat would have felt at home with. So, I started getting back to the more cosmopolitan libertarians, lapsed Objectivists and the skeptics (real ones not the science deniers like sf).

Republicans completely threw out any claim they had to limited government with the tarp bailouts and it became even more clear than it already was that they only object to welfare when it helps minorities. Even on straight transfer payments, Republicans love to kiss the ass of welfare recipients like Nova and tell him that he is entitled to it, but not those darkies. Republicans are the worst thing for capitalism/free markets because they make people believe that crony capitalism is capitalism. If we have to bail out the banks, farmers, record companies, airlines, auto manufacturers and on and on then we are damn sure going to help the desperately poor.

Then there was my political involvement in the LP. I ran into many of the neo confederates and conspiratards in the LP which has far less of them than the Ron Paul crowd but suffers in the south a bit. They were obstructionist douchebags waiting for the shooting to start. The only liberty they really seemed to care about was there precious precious guns and they would squash activism on the two issues that I KNEW the libertarian position was going to eventually win.

There was lots of other shit going on too. But I won't go into personal stuff here anymore. I will just say I was going through some shit when I first came back. There was no meth. I was smoking lots and lots of chronic but that was neither the cause nor the cure.

There is nothing that has changed. I have no tolerance for social conservatives, which you might consider yourself as, but I don't really think of you in that crowd.

I am still party line Libertarian. I supported and was part of the softening of the platform but sometimes I regret it. I am not and never have been a gun nut. But I fully support the second amendment. I just understand and respect constitutional law and why and how the courts have sought a balance between protecting our rights and letting the will of the people be represented by its legislators. It's not perfect but it works pretty well and the alarmists crap is not of much value. The court has been weakest not on the second but on the fourth.

STY is a nut. He does not seem to offer any real world solutions. He's just a crank.
 
I would agree with all of those observations, but it seems to me a bit reactionary of you to abandon the libertarian movement post 9/11 just because you viewed people as sell-outs. The ideology should be more compelling to you than those people. If you identify with the LP, then you have been betrayed countless times, such as when they ran Bob Barr.

LOLZ at STY, but you have to given him props for his consistency. Do Birchers even consider themselves libertarian? Also, Ayn Rand used to fight with libertarians all of the time, accusing them of selling out and whatnot, so if you considered yourself an objectivist, perhaps you still are?
 
Threedee said:
I would agree with all of those observations, but it seems to me a bit reactionary of you to abandon the libertarian movement post 9/11 just because you viewed people as sell-outs. The ideology should be more compelling to you than those people. If you identify with the LP, then you have been betrayed countless times, such as when they ran Bob Barr.

LOLZ at STY, but you have to given him props for his consistency. Do Birchers even consider themselves libertarian? Also, Ayn Rand used to fight with libertarians all of the time, accusing them of selling out and whatnot, so if you considered yourself an objectivist, perhaps you still are?
Click to expand...

Huh? And you accuse me of not being able to read. I did not abandon the libertarian movement post 9/11 or at any point. You are confused. Many of the sellouts did.

Rand's beef with libertarians was that they did not argue that her philosophical premises were the only way to libertarianism.

No, I don't give sty props on consistency. He is inconsistent.
 
Threedee said:
You said you drifted toward the paleolibs. Do you view them as another route to libertarianism?
Click to expand...

Paleolibertarians (like those at lewrockwell.com) are mostly libertarian, though like I said, I think many of them are more neo confederates than they are libertarian. I gravitated towards them for strictly libertarian reasons, i.e., their strong antiwar stance and defense of civil liberties.
 
Yeah, I've never heard good things about Lew Rockwell. Then again, I've probably gotten most of my info about him from Michael Medved...
 
On-line "libertarians" are only concerned about drugs, debaucheries, and gay sex. Their position on other issues are based upon advancing these foundations.
 
The important thing to take away from all this is that libertarians are the new big tent party, with acceptable views ranging from SF all the way to Grind.
 
Bonestorm said:
The important thing to take away from all this is that libertarians are the new big tent party, with acceptable views ranging from SF all the way to Grind.
Click to expand...

A big empty tent, having garnered less than 1% of the national vote in the 2012 presidential election.
 
Hasa Diga Eebowai said:
The only one running away and hiding is you, sissy boy. You wasted my time running away from your errors (and I only listed two of them) because you are too stubborn and intellectually timid to admit you are wrong. BTW, how is your wig?

Yes, a skin cell does have all the genetic code necessary to create a complete human. Unique, who gives a fuck? Are twins not human life? If we clone someone would the resulting life not be human life?

Of course, a skin cell can not and will not become a human outside of the right environment and with a great deal of support. And neither will a zygote.

Your argument is philosophically based and not in any way more objective than mine. You have failed to provide any concrete reason why the zygote is special among human cells. Apparently, it has something to do with your religious beliefs and a possible naturalistic fallacy that makes you think that God or Mother Nature has blessed the union, but it's not science.

My view has absolutely nothing to do with any baby fairy and your dishonest argument proves that you are not capable of discussing this intelligently. I have repeated it several times and it is quite simple and clear. My view is based on the objective criteria of viability as a human. Your skin, sperm, egg, fertilized or not does not possess that trait.
Click to expand...

The bolded above shows how intellectually dishonest you are.

Viability does not determine whether it is human or alive. Viability is an argument for legal purposes... it has nothing to do with genetics.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top