Einstein,

You meant "you're."

By refusing to respond to all kinds of points on the topic, you concede you're wrong. This is obviously why Libertarianism makes you so angry.

A lot of what fuels the Tea Party movement is Libertarian ideals. The taxed enough already crowd is not fueled by big-government war-mongering or bedroom police. Their focus is restricting government overreach into the economy, which is necessarily a Libertarian but not necessarily a conservative idea.

"Your last substantive post was to complain that I could not really challenge libertarianism by alluding to facts, because libertarianism is not anchored in reality."

The pyramids exist. Rome conquered a lot of territory. Oooo I just challenged you by alluding to facts, because your positions are not anchored in reality!

"For some time, your answer to my posts was that I was beating a strawman and making false comparisons.  Of course this is completely incompatible with random, unconnected and unclear posts of irrelevant facts."

You occasionally made silly claims which weren't bizarre, pointless references. I argued against these silly positions. Of the bizarre references I asked questions, all of which you ignored.

"Go back and read the thread."

You're just being an angry douchebag. You won't answer legitimate questions about your inane rambling, and now you're mad that I called you on being stupid and incoherent. This isn't about a system or philosophy, this is about you acting like a childish douchebag who doesn't want to discuss anything, only cry that I called you on this fact. My direction was coherence and explaining your pointless rambling. My direction was discussion. But you're too good to make any sense or participate in an exchange.

Lying about the Klan is a poor attempt to make a point, and you gave up on it. I asked for what you were talking about with a specific reference at least twice. You declined to respond. Point conceded.

Arguing as if Libertarians support no laws is attacking a straw man. This was just stupid. Point conceded.

Mentioning abortion is not a point in and of itself. You've been given plenty of chances to tell us your supposed point. Point conceded.

I look forward to your crying about it.

You're not a baby. When you post "WELL ABORTION," we both know you haven't made a point. You haven't challenged anything: You've referenced unrelated topics and made no point by referencing them. I've pointed this out repeatedly and still you refuse to explain what you think you meant. You didn't make any points with your various irrelevant references. I've challenged you to tell us what point(s) you think you've made, but you've declined to enlighten us.

I additionally inquired what "repression of social consensus" you claim was responsible for the downfall of the Klan's popularity. You've again declined to enlighten us.

"Apparently you're spouting high-falutin ideas to which history is "irrelevant" and complaining about that is "incoherent"."

The pyramids exist and Rome conquered a lot of territory too. But referencing these facts is not a point.

"I admit that squatting behind a tree and bitching that everybody is out to get you, nobody understands you, and you're bummed about it is an acceptable debate style -- check the career of Michel Foucault -- but it isn't widely used online."

Which is exactly what you're doing here.

I've repeatedly asked you what point you sought to make with your random references of other topics. You made no points with them at all, let alone clear ones. I've asked you to explain another reference as well, but again you're not interested in telling us.

You're not a baby. If you choose not to participate in a discussion, don't cry when I point out that you're rambling incoherently. I've asked you specifically what you were trying to get at with various pointless references. You've declined to explain/clarify/enlighten us. I've asked you what you were referring to with a vague reference. You again declined to explain/clarify/enlighten us.

I was specific in what I asked about. Repeatedly. You've refused to clarify/explain a single statement/reference. Refusing to address questions does not win debates or further discussion.

Any time you want to abandon incoherence and attempt to make a point, we'll be here.

Examples of what? They were pointless rambling. I gave you the chance to explain what you thought your point was. You declined.

You're just spamming.

What Justinian I thinks of "established morality" is irrelevant insofar as Libertarian principles/ideals don't necessarily require a basis in reality. You can believe them ideal because of a view of morality and justice. Or you can value their merits philosophically as an ideal social contract. Or simply pragmatic and realistic.

The Klan is legal. Everybody knows it. You're not a baby; I'm not going to link you a hundred websites. If you google it you won't have to hunt down the answer the question of its legality. Its membership is private for other _extremely_ obvious reasons. They get permits and hold rallies. It's not a secret. That you keep posting falsehoods and even try to correct me is just disturbing.

What "repression of social consensus" are you speaking of being responsible for the fall in enrollment in the Klan? Could you please be more specific? That's rather vague and hard to substantiate.

"You aren't really explaining anything, you're just attacking me for not understanding you or bringing up things you don't want to talk about ("Irrelevant")."

I'm pointing out that you're bringing up things which have absolutely nothing to do with the topic. I'm pointing out that you're not making any point about the topic by bringing up these other topics and rambling about them. You're completely incoherent and have no point. It's embarrassing. Given the chance to explain how in the world you think these other topics are relevant to this conversation, you're just rambling more. What do you need explained to you? This isn't complicated stuff.

Regarding Einstein's "+1 Chris," I have to wonder if you're both out of your minds. Yell is making absolutely false claims about the Klan and rambling about subjects with absolutely no relevance to the topic. He's not even making any claim of relevance, claiming any parallel or even attempting to make any point. Einstein supports these ignorant claims which everybody knows are false? Einstein supports pointless rambling on other topics? How childish.

"Abortion is bad, just like communism!" in a thread on states' vs federal rights is just retarded, no matter where you come down on any of these issues.

"There is no difference between arguing human beings flock to form common ideas of society, and, arguing the existence of a natural moral law."

Yes, there is. It's funny how you're trying to philosophically parallel your thoughts on human behavior to physics when you're such a novice in both fields. Correct me if I'm wrong. Human beings flock to get their [cluck] on and horde everything they can for themselves at a cost to their neighbors, given the chance, as well. That doesn't make it a moral law that banging everything you can and taking everything you can get away with is moral law.

Human behavior as a result of evolution does not equate that behavior with any sort of natural moral law. That's a downright silly proposal.

There are no laws against the Klan. There are laws against criminal activities it engaged in, and those criminal activities were fought and prosecuted. The Klan exists today. It's not illegal. This is not a hard fact to understand.

"We" meaning generally people arguing for Libertarian principles here. Anarchy is not a Libertarian position, so presumably Justinian I was either not part of the "we" I mentioned or wasn't actually arguing for anarchy. Considering that some adults are now posting like angry 14 year old children, I'm going to presume the latter. This isn't hard to understand either.

"Are you guys trying to pretend that the Klan's views are of course naturally and self-evidently wrong, but, the laws against abortion and drug use were based on prejudice?"

This is just stupid and based on ignorance. For one, the Klan isn't illegal. Its free speech isn't illegal. Its ideas and thoughts are not illegal. Certain actions they engaged in were illegal and were fought and prosecuted, just as they would be under Libertarian ideals. Conservative/"liberal" tyranny did not save us from the evil of the Klan. Law enforcement (which Libertarians support) and a free people combated the Klan's crimes all by themselves without a nanny state telling them the Klan's ideas are bad. People figured that part out on their own. The government simply enforced the law, which Libertarians too support it doing.

Laws against abortion and drug use are irrelevant to this discussion. Those things are [partially] illegal. The Klan and its ideas aren't. This has nothing to do with Libertarian ideals. You're incoherent.

Hey guyz. I has idea. Letz motivate more creation and innovation by removing all reward for those who create and innovate! We'll get moar creation and innovation if we allow theft and don't reward it!

Imagine if you thought about the crappy trolling you post before you posted it. Imagine if you considered, for an instant, that you're not a genius, you're not wise, you're not knowledgeable of the world, and maybe--just maybe--you could learn something from the people who disagree with your INSANE, and STUPID positions.

"No, I'm presenting an inarguable case -- that given the opportunity to form whatever associations they want, the American public will produce something like the KKK or the Vigilance Committees, and therefore the Libertarian cause is built on wishful thinking and dangerous naivete."

The KKK exists now as a protest group. The KKK as a criminal organization would be combated under Libertarian principles just as it is under liberal/conservative principles. What part of this is too hard for you to understand?

"You can't argue that, because IT ALREADY HAPPENED."

And it was combated. Which it would be with Libertarians in charge. This has been pointed out to you repeatedly, but you ignore it. It appears that you have no case aside from beating that straw-man.

"Instead you're promoting a straw man -- you're trying to claim I'm arguing you're the KKK.  Nope, not what I'm saying."

...Nobody has said that. You seem really, really confused.

"Why is that so hard for you to get, that we understand your POV and don't give a rat's ass?"

You very clearly have absolutely no idea what we're talking about. You're repeatedly ignoring the positions of Libertarians and arguing against what you pretend they are: anarchy. It's just stupid and bizarre.

The Klan still exists. It's not illegal. There's this First Amendment thing that protects their right to exist as a protest group. You're entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts.

It's not taken seriously as a protest group because, when they hold public rallies (tiny), hundreds of times their number show up to protest them. This was accomplished through freedom and time, not government force.

Libertarians support laws against murder, kidnapping, torture, etc. None of the things you've referenced would be legal under Libertarian values/principles or leadership/legislators.

You're making vague generalizations on topics Libertarians do not necessarily agree on. You can't argue against Libertarian ideals because you clearly have no idea what they are.

You're asserting that conservatives/liberals are some sort of alternatives which aren't a bunch of corrupt corporate-whores who war-monger on command, which they are.

You're ignoring the people killed and otherwise oppressed by your war-monger corporate-whore masters, as if they do not incur costs to be weighed against those you accuse libertarianism of here.

I would love to respond more thoughtfully, but you're just trolling. You've made it explicitly clear that you will absolutely not respond to posts made on this topic.

What argument? You haven't made one. You've never told us why it's supposedly a negative that Ron Paul never saw combat.

You're arguing now that Perry, Santorum, Gingrich, and Romney are all good guys? They're all supporters of our massive deficit spending--easily the biggest problem America faces--while Paul speaks out against it regularly.

What are you asking for? Santorum was a big spending senator. It's a fact. Gingrich balanced the budget--I respect that--but he's a juvenile little man. He runs whatever ads and says whatever his advisors and focus groups tell him will poll, and even says stupid, ignorant things they'd surely tell him not to, given the chance. OMFG ROMNEY MADE MONEY OHNOES CAPITALISM IS BAD! OH WAIT I <3 CAPITALISM! He's not serious. You must be joking.

If you think those 4 aren't clowns, you must think our debt is imaginary and what we're doing is sustainable and responsible.