I looked it up at dictionary.com and the definition came back http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/members/322728/

So your argument is that libertarians shouldnt abandon states rights nutbags is because in liberal states weed and gay marriage is being legalised by people who arent states rights nutbags?

Interesting theory, I guess.

The concept that states took it upon themselves to legalize weed & gay marriage in spite of an overreaching federal government, but states rights is bad because something something neo-confederates

This was already explained before you started posting itt

"He [paul] didn't get anything rolling. Even stuff like marijuana legalization isn't get passed because of his "states can do anything they want from banning sodomy to legalizing pot" logic. It's from liberals and middle of the road people who don't think the federal government is evil but just think pot isn't either."

Libertarians are against the federal government putting people in jail for marijuana and they are against states doing so for the exact same reasons. States rights nutbags think it's fine when state governments arrest people for drug use.

A pedophile would be hard pressed to find anything worse than a society where they'd pretty much just be killed.

Find some other excuse to accuse other people of being racist to make it look like he's not?

As usual, you are oversimplifying complicated positions that you clearly don't understand in the slightest.

Pedo-Vegas though - with well-funded DROs. Visit anytime! Spend plenty while you're here.

Also doesn't vigilantism violate the NAP?

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/voluntaryism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voluntaryism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statism
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/statism

I think you should look up the meaning of "making up words". It certainly doesn't refer to using words that already exist, it's the exact opposite.

No, false. Many people take certain Youtube videos seriously, because smart people decide to take something seriously based on its content, not based on the source.

Not to mention that Youtube itself is a quite serious source, as it has many serious channels with millions of subscribers. Your simplistic generalizations and factually untrue statements is what *you* should drop.

Okay, I should have perhaps said "more consistent". I agree that on certain issues the Left is also hypocritical (like the issue of anti-war). However, I the left is still consistently pro-gay marriage, anti-WOD, pro-choice, etc. And last, but not least, the Right has a much higher percentage of both politicians AND voters who are simply insane (compared to the Left). I don't think anybody can seriously disagree with that.

But, in case I wasn't clear, I'm an anti-statist and find both parts of the spectrum ridiculous. I'm just making the point that you can't really say they are equally bad but opposite because they are not. I usually try to be fair in my characterizations.

No, the source matters alot also. Tons of smart people are not going to take the time to judge something based on it's content if it comes from a ludicrous source.

And countries like Thailand have laws that "stop" child abuse too...

The paedophile wouldnt live in a society that would infringe on his voluntaryistic transaction buying children from poor people. He would live in a community specifically built for child abuse by child abusers which would be guarded by a security company who dont mind what is going on voluntarily inside the community because their payment is prompt and quite large.

Holy **** at the irony.

I would never wanna live in a society where a pedophile would "just be killed". Sounds extremely barbaric to me.

And now, we have a 2nd guy lauding LirvA's ACtopia plan of just murdering pedos.

Haha, exactly. **** is a family business. In 4 years I'm sure NeBlis will be lecturing people on the internet about how Rand Paul's "states rights" views mean that he supports gay marriage or whatever even as he promises far right churchs he's the first line of defense against the secular assault on traditional marriage. It's all about those "money bombs". They've really done so much for LIBERTY, right?

I mean, Tom Collins is in this thread. Man I'd love to go see the new Lincoln movie with him. From the trailer it appears to be about the fight to pass the 13th amendment. Tom has read his DiLorenzo and his Woods. He knows that's all some vile trick by Spielberg, right?

Aaaanddd weeeerrrreee off the rails!!!



As an aside, I would appreciate it if out of respect to guys like me, will1530 etc, nothing LirvA has ever said be used as a rebuttal of "libertarianism" since he's an ACist, not a member of the LP, and his fantasies don't reflect actual adult Libertarian Party positions.

Thank you.

sweeping generalisations are fun tho

There will always be a superficial yet just convincing enough ideological alliance between the libertarians and the right. The libertarians think small to no government will result in true freedom and meritocracy. The right thinks small to no government means freedom to exploit the disadvantaged. Of course the mainstream right wing's goal of exploitation is more flexible ideologically and in implementation so they will opportunistically use the people's money to that end. They will never stop doing that but their rhetoric will always include lip service to small government which to them means "leave business alone to exploit people". Libertarians hear "reduce government" and get excited but ultimately are too heavily indoctrinated with the standard propaganda to realize the real goals of the mainstream right ultimately have nothing to do with small government, ideologically speaking.

Mainstream repubs will never take their snouts out of the trough and libertarians will never realize how different they are from repubs or be willing to have no voice by themselves. On and on this will go.

Actually need to apologize for putting Wookie up there, since he did label it correctly as "ACtopia".

ACism is Libertarianism

I don't know who "we guys" are supposed to be, but I'm not responsible for what other Ron Paul supporters have said.

It's true that his voting history shows no evidence of any sort of racism. This whole made up scandal was brought up to kill his momentum in the race and stupid people fell for it. He was the only person to threaten the establishment (both the Left and the Right) who had a legitimate chance to win the race and both sides united against him quite successfully.

In any case, EVEN IF he really turned out to be a racist or not a racist but appealing to racists 40 years ago to make money, I honestly couldn't care less in the context of today's politics. The person you support is responsible for the deliberate deaths of hundreds of civilians and the indirect deaths of thousands of others. You have no problem voting for a murderer but otherwise are the most self-righteous bigot - "LOL how can you support a racist?!"

I'd pick a racist over a murderer any day.

Oh, you've gotta be pretty ignorant to say that. His political history shows no evidence of volyntarism? He hasn't voted to raise taxes a single time, he's always been pro-choice on 99% of the issues. No evidence? Do you even know what the **** you're talking about?

Just let them lose in general prison population, it will be handled accordingly.

Only dumb people would reject good content only because of the source. There are several logical fallacies associated with this type of "reasoning" (as well as with its inverse).

Can you get any more ignorant, seriously? Who told you that according to voluntarism it's allowed to buy/sell children?