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.

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

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.

Yell,

Are you saying that I am confused about the intentions of social conservatives, or are you saying you affirm the opinion that the government ought to praise and impose the Christian standard of life on the population?

"or are you saying you affirm the opinion that the government ought to praise and impose the Christian standard of life on the population?"

This has been the way of it for 200 years and there is NOTHING in the Constitution preventing it.

"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."

What's this WE business?  Justinian DOES want anarchy. Explain how you diverge from his views, since you claim you don't want that.

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?  Are you that silly? They had the same source: the popular will of millions of Americans.

""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."

Go back and figure out whether Justinian, who has for YEARS argued against any established morality, is a fan of anarchy, and then figure out whether you meant to include him in your notion of Libertarianism.  I kind of think, when you hop on my response to a Justinian quote with "You clearly have no idea what we're talking about" that you did mean to include him.

"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."

False.  It is an organization dedicated to rendering the 14th Amendment guarantee of equal protection impractical through illegal and violent acts.  It is an open conspiracy to violence and that is why its membership is secret.

"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."

And that's just false.  The repression of social consensus was responsible for its destruction as a national organization.  Actual, targeted repression.

"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."

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").

Yell,

I have argued in favor of moral anti-realism for years, but I have never argued in favor of anarchy. I only stated I would rather be born in an anarchy under Flint's contrived scenario. Entirely a hypothetical question. Had you read the thread in its entirety, it would have been obvious to you that I would have selected the country based on GDP had Flint allowed it.

Moral anti-realism does not mean "pillage, rape, murder." All that's required is to believe that our moral convictions are extraneous from the facts. For example, John Locke correctly understood human behavior as, for example, generally cooperative. His error was concluding that those facts about human behavior proved there was a natural moral law. In fact, he only supported a hypothesis about human behavior, not morality.

The scientific fact is that humans are equipped to cooperate because cooperative strategies help our species have more babies. Although there are scientists who claim this proves morality, they are making the same error Locke did. Even the recent "The Moral Landscape" by Sam Harris received heavy criticism from secular academics.

Finally, your belief that America was founded as a Theocracy, or that the constitution forbids Theocracy, is bizarre and contrary to the historical facts.

+2 Chris

We dont have Theocracy. We didn't have Theocracy since before 1787.  Saying that passing the same laws that we passed in the 18th, 19th and 20th century for the same reasons, is somehow Theocracy, is silly.

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.

"What Justinian I thinks of "established morality" is irrelevant insofar as Libertarian principles/ideals don't necessarily require a basis in reality."

GAME OVER

There's no argument here. Yell is spamming nonsense. Einstein openly won't discuss anything.

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.

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