You_Fool, I hope you don't think your argument is made any more legitimate by the personal attacks.  X(

(Refraining judgment on whether I'm enforcing mod action here, but outside my official title, I'm just taking the moment to say you definitely could have made your argument without the jab there... making that attack makes you no better than exactly what you're accusing Flint of doing.) X(

Frankly, I read the couple posts you interjected and can't help but have a couple thoughts of my own.  But that doesn't necessarily mean I have to post said thoughts, does it... particularly when it adds absolutely nothing to the content of the discussion?

Tell me, what value do you think you're adding to this discussion with the above comment?

Kemp, it may be a strawman argument, but whether or not it's a strawman argument is a political debate to be had.  i.e., if I were to enforce the rules, it would be ruling on an issue by deciding a pre-conceived conclusion on the political content of how a debate turned out.  It would be no different than if I were to say posts violated the "must have evidence to back up your claims" rule because a post used only Fox News, or if I called global warming skepticism posts trolling.  Even if I know beyond a doubt that you're right on this, shutting down the discussion because I know what the answer will be would be precedent for some of the worst moderation that could come to this forum.

Additionally, in this case, assuming a strawman fallacy is in effect here, it would just be much more valuable to let the debate evolve and show the fallacy, rather than erasing it, because it would mean you would have the evidence of the prior discussion to help support your argument in the future if/when it reappears (i.e., totally doing you a favor in the long run).

I'll say no more on this, and preemptively remind you about the rule against discussing forum enforcement in chat (though I'm not around in chat now, you can find me in #mod generally).

Note: Though I won't close the whole thread, I'll re-read his post for individual instances of problems.

I Like Trains kid,

It's already been had. He just doesn't respond then starts a thread beating up the same straw-man arguments again a few months later. This is at least the third time in recent memory he's done it with this particular topic.

If he wanted to talk about this topic, he wouldn't have abandoned the previous threads he opened on this exact topic which got responses. Where's common sense's role in all of this? Pointing out all of his inaccurate depictions of Libertarian thought is, of course, legitimate discourse. But it's discourse we've already had repeatedly. Einstein doesn't respond to it; he just waits a few months then posts the same thread again.

Literally every other Libertarian-leaning poster who responded in the past has been trolled off of this forum with precisely this behavior. His intention is not, nor was it ever, to discuss this topic. His obvious intention is to spam and troll Libertarian thinking posters. You've allowed him to be rather successful.

That's why I'm not correcting him on his false statements of Libertarian beliefs, and I know nobody else will either.

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

1: Whether they add value or not is not something you have the right to dictate.  If it is something serious enough to warrant moderator action, it is up to the moderators to make such a call.
2: That being said, there is one person you have 100% control over the actions of.  You.  So regardless of what you see as someone else causing a violation, you are still 100% responsible for your actions.  By your own admission, your posts add absolutely nothing to the forum.  Thus, you've just admitted outright that what you're doing, at best, is no better than the very thing you are criticizing.  TL;DR version: hypocrite.
3: There is something seriously wrong with this forum when the war hawk right-wing nutjob has to tell the left socialist "two wrongs don't make a right." 

Regardless, you admit no additional value in everything but the Paris Commune (If I was to edit your post, I would have definitely left the Paris Commune thing there anyway).  When I asked about the value added, I was asking about the value addition of every comment except that (i.e., you don't get the right to spend 5 pages personally attacking someone just because you also showed them one instance of fact on some issue).

I will respond, with vigor, in due time.

Meanwhile I made a formal complaint on the you_fool messages

Kemp you should expect me to show all your rude attitude back at you... for I shall. Before I dropped fights because your methods were not worth the fight, but you have dragged Conservative Republicans into the Liberal Mud far to much recently and I plan to set you in your place.

You're both wrong.

"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."

Oh? Point on the map the spot of US soil injured or threatened by Barbary pirates

Just to make an incredibly short post about some in-content stuff going on here...

You_Fool, you do realize that the Paris Commune only lasted 2 months, yes?  Sure you want that to be your track record? 

*goes back to dealing with mod crap*

Zarf: I never said I supported the Paris commune as the perfect society, however a 1910 communist would point to it as the ideal communist state.... It was ripped apart not by a failure of ideology but by a failure of human nature (i.e. in fighting) which to be fair is the same as a failure of the system...

Flint: Are you making a point? Also, against my better judgement and knowing Zarf is likely to get all upset and moderate me now, if you don't want me to insult you try and not make posts that are not idiotic (which i know is being subjective on my part, but meh)