I found 6 threads, 5 of which fit the the criteria pretty well. But I was not satisfied with my previous performance. Shall we?
"He takes extreme pleasure calling me the same as a Liberal."
You support the mugging of the American people by the Federal Reserve banking system. This is the single biggest factor which makes Democrats and Republicans and Socialists and Communists whores under the control of the NWO and international banks. On this topic you have never voiced disagreement with any of these groups. That's pretty "Liberal" of you, in the new and redefined usage it sees today. (Not "Liberal" as in free thinking or challenging the status quo)
I take no pleasure in grouping you with Liberals in American politics. But you agree with Liberals on most of the topics which I judge most important, such as the Fed, wars of foreign aggression against nations which are absolutely no threat to us whatsoever, and expansion of federal power. In the past few days you advocated your own version of the individual mandate in the Affordable Care Act. Yes, I believe that's pretty liberal.
That you don't want gay people to "marry" doesn't negate all of these much-more-important topics that you agree with Liberals are. I can respect that you think homosexuality is more important than these things, but I don't. I can respect that you think a tiny difference in preferred government size is significant, but I don't.
"The communist of 1910 couldn't point to a single real-world instance of his utopia; neither can the present-day libertarian."
America. The Founders' ideas were Libertarian, not "Conservative" as you define it today. Where do I even start? Have you read my signature? Jefferson would be disgusted by your support of the Fed. He's in my corner, not yours. So where most of the rest of the Founders. On wars of foreign aggression, again they leaned my way. While they weren't above force, they didn't wage war for NWO and international banking interests. And I'm pretty sure they wouldn't approve.
What are you claiming, that laws against Marijuana made America great? Sorry, a majority of Americans have smoked it. That federal policy recognizing marriage made America great? Maybe you're right. Maybe federal involvement in Americans' lives enhanced the nation and if what made it work. I somehow doubt it, though. THAT's what you can't point to a single real-world instance of.
"Yet they're unshakeable in their conviction that it can and must happen. An untested political system unfortunately has great rhetorical appeal. Since we can't see it in action, we can't point out its obvious faults, while the ideologue can be caustic about everything that has actually been tried, and which has inevitably fallen short of perfection. "
You want to paint Libertarians as ideologues because you have no response to their ideas, nor the pragmatism inherent in putting them into practice. America was founded on very Libertarian ideas. Government wasn't nearly the size it is today when America was founded or when America had its massive influxes of immigrants.
Libertarian ideas are just returning to America's law--the Constitution. Libertarian ideas are just that government is a necessary evil, like Washington himself believed: "Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master." You think there's something extreme about the US Constitution? Which part? Limitations on government authority? You support racist nanny-state drug prohibition which isn't effective. That's not Constitutional. You support mandating that individuals designate a portion of their incomes for medical purchases. That's not Constitutional.
You take issue with the Constitution, not Libertarians. It is extreme, in your eyes. Libertarians respectfully disagree. They think it's done America pretty well over the years.
"Libertarians believe regulations about safety in cars aren't needed because over time car companies would be forced to make safer cars or they'd go out of business."
False. Libertarians aren't delusional and are aware of the fact that government has never resulted in a single significant advance in any field of human knowledge or development in the history of mankind. Libertarians don't take issue with common-sense safety requirement laws. Libertarians take issue with unconstitutional agencies wasting hundreds of billions of dollars, as if they drive improvements and development. You speak as if an inherent Libertarian ideological position is that automobile manufacturers should not be required by law to include seatbelts in their products. While some might argue that such a law is not necessary (they're capable of buying a car with seatbelts and putting one on without your help), this position is certainly not a fundamental Libertarian belief.
How specific some niche of safety regulations should be is peripheral--and, for this reason, there's a range of Libertarian views on it--not a matter of Libertarian core beliefs. I have a feeling your post is going to be filled with similar focus not only on specifics, but false claims about Libertarian specific views. As you just demonstrated, as if Libertarians are against all safety laws. They're not.
"Libertarians attach great value to the outcome of process: it defines the ideal libertarian world."
Random, baseless speculation. You have no more basis for that claim than a similar claim about literally any other ideology. That anything can be described as an ideology does not make everyone an ideologue. This awkwardly vague claim can be explained by your next baseless musing...
"This society is usually seen as the result of libertarian process, not the process itself. For example, the libertarian utopia is not simply 'less government', it is what emerges after 25 years of less government."
Simply false. Randomly imagined Einstein straw-man at its finest. You just made up a belief, ascribed it to Libertarians, and claimed it's an "example." There are no examples of Libertarians espousing such a belief, because nobody would call them a Libertarian. I literally have no idea where you think you're getting an understanding of Libertarian belief, because what you're describing isn't it.
"And if the absolute free-market had totally unexpected effects...."
Here you try to ascribe some extremist position to Libertarians that they do not hold, as if they're against literally all law. You're doing this to avoid actually engaging them on ideas where yours fail and theirs succeed.
"In other words the libertarian utopia is not a prediction of the effects of libertarian politics, it is a stand-alone utopian vision. "
Continued rambling. You have no basis for your claims regarding Libertarian beliefs, so there's no reason to respond. You're just spamming. Libertarians know that people prosper when their freedom is left in tact. The freedom and the prosperity are both part of Libertarian beliefs. There's no ideological rigidity which demands they pick between form vs function. Both are connected. They celebrate both. Your claims regarding Libertarian ideas are baseless fiction.
You go on to ramble about "the emergent = the good," which is, not surprisingly, more baseless rambling. Libertarians belief free people in free markets will tend to take care of themselves just fine. You're rambling about supposed intellectual preferences they have when their fundamental preference is to let free people and markets sort things out on their own. They don't seek to control humanity and enforce preferences upon them, so your rambling about the preferences they supposedly have just shows how much you miss the point and don't understand Libertarian ideology at all.
"And therefore, it "must" come to existence, and it "must" exclude other existence. Libertarianism can not be understood without understanding this preference, and its emotional depth."
Continuing in the same vein, more baseless rambling. Libertarians belief people prosper the most when mostly left alone. I'm not sure where you're reading the "must" in that statement, nor where you're finding supposed emotional depth. Your rambling is all fiction of your own creation. You're literally just making things up and rambling about them, as if they mean anything to anyone, let alone Libertarians.
"A standard stance of Libertarians is "my rights end where your face starts" as well as "we do not coerce". The Oklahoma City Bomber, a Libertarian did not follow the first...."
Yes, logical and legitimate point! Because the Oklahoma city bomber violated the freedom of others, the ideal of not violating others' freedom is inherently flawed!
Oh, wait. That's completely irrational and nonsensical. Wanna try again?
"nor does anyone advocating legalization of drugs fit the second. Typically when cornered behind a wall a Libertarian will concede some must suffer for the greater good. Irony is lost upon them for it was the Libertarian style drug policy we had prior to the FDA that gave society a reason to hate drugs but do not dare remind them of this!"
Education, media, and technology at the time of the FDA's creation weren't quite what they are today. Allowing those of us with the educations and wills to make our own decisions regarding medicine is a boon to society. The FDA sucks; it kills people every year. Your ignorance of this fact doesn't change it nor save the lives that the FDA prevents the saving of. Libertarians don't seek to prevent you from following the orders and restrictions of any overlord, slave-master, or cult that you might choose.
Libertarians have no problem with the FDA existing to lead around all the good little sheep, they just have a problem being forced to abide by the rules set for sheep. They're enlightened human beings, and they do not trust you nor your representatives to make decisions for them. For good reason. You could still wait for FDA approval, or that of some parallel nonprofit to rate services for uneducated and lazy people, even if everyone wasn't forced to abide by their slow and usually purchased rulings. I don't know why this terrifies you so much. Libertarians are just tired of Monsanto & Friends being in charge of safety. And for good reasons. You could still voluntarily give your money to Monsanto and our chemical mega-industry if you wanted, even under Libertarian governance.
"Libertarians argue that radical permissiveness, like legalizing drugs, would not shred a libertarian society because drug users who caused trouble would be disciplined by the threat of losing their jobs or homes if current laws that make it difficult to fire or evict people were abolished. They claim a
