What is Libertarian?

[JakeStarkey]

I like the original poster's definition of libertarian (though it doesn't describe me). It seems like today, people's definition of libertarian is very different. Alot of people seem to equate libertarianism with small government, rather than a government that is willing to actively protect personal liberties. Similarly, there's an association of libertarianism with laissez-faire economics without protecting individual noneconomic liberties such as reproductive rights, vices (drugs, gambling, etc.) and the rights of criminal defendants. Libertarianism, like Constitutionalism, is something that some people like to throw around when it supports their point of view and ignore the rest of the time.

Well we know that small governments are much less likely to infringe on somebody's liberties than a large government, and that if they do it's easier to rectify. We focus on economic liberty because it's just as important as any other liberty. As for the social issues you mention, not all libertarians agree on those things. Contrary to popular belief there is no libertarian consensus on abortion.

As Rothbard saw matters, libertarians are committed only to defining the permissible use of force. They are free to adopt whatever attitudes they wish towards people’s lifestyles, so long as they respect rights. They are emphatically not required to be "social liberals".

What Is Libertarianism? by David Gordon

Kevin, tell that to a war lord in China in 1000BC or a Mississippi county sheriff in the 1930s.

Government of any size can be coercive as anything in the history of mankind.

 

[editec]

What is Libertarian?

A future liberal or conservative who hasn't been mugged yet.

 

[FA_Q2]

One politically popular myth, that free market economics and government non-intervention provide the basis for true democracy, flies in the face of history. The first democrats, the classical Athenians, had a word for the ideal free marketer, the homo economicus, working for his own economic gain but unconcerned with the community. It was not particularly complimentary, the ancestor of our word “idiot.” Pericles expressed the sentiment underlying this: “We regard the citizen who takes no part in these [public] duties not as unambitious but as useless…”

Democracy, or a republic as we have, thrives on a free market because it is exactly that - FREE. I do not understand what it is that has you liberals hating freedom. No one is asking for a market that is completely unregulated. No one is asking for a system that is devoid of protections. What people are asking for, and what democ5racy is based on in the first place, is a market that is free and allows the people within it to be as free as possible. Democracy itself may not be based on capitalism per say but it is based upon the exact same core value: freedom and rule of the people. All systems need protections in the same way that our republic requires the constitution and the bill of rights. That does not mean it needs to be replaced with a government controlled economy. That is rather asinine.

Where we stand today is in a place where business is regulated to the point of extinction and the vast majority of those regulations do not protect the consumer. We need to rework the system so that they do and still allow business to thrive.

I object to your appropriating the word FREE. Since you don't want a completely unregulated market, we're both whores, just dickering over the price!

Not at all. I understand that anarchy, far from being free, is extremely oppressive. That is the purpose of forming a government. To protect our rights.

 

[FA_Q2]

FA_Q2 asks

How can you say that and then disagree with the last 2 statements. If we do not have too many regulations AND those regulations are not killing business then why do we need to rework the system.

Let us stop speaking in vague generalities and start being specific, shall we?

What regulations do you think are killing businesses?

Be specific.

I might agree with you and not even know it because you have not explained your specific complaints.

There are far, far too many to list but I can speak within my own carrier field.

For maintenance on an aircraft, many of the practices that we do every day are redundant and cost dollars that do not need to be spent. For a basic job, such as removing and replacing a leaking single point refueling receptacle, I am required to complete approximately 2 hours of preparatory work and paperwork. I am required to remove batteries off the aircraft that create no hazard because we are working with a fuel component even though no fuel is involved and complete several forms that go along with doing so. The entire job takes less than 5 minute and consists of removing four, that's right a grand total of 4 screws. In order to complete that job I require 2 hours of prep? How about OSHA fall restraint requirements? Another area that eats several hours of an aircraft maintenance time as there are examples where I need to tow an aircraft into a hangar (a job that requires several people an hour of their time as well as MORE paperwork requirements) in order to comply with some of those requirements. On that same note, we are required to wear that same protection when inside the basket of a cherry picker. In order to fall off that I would need to climb out and jump but the requirement is a blanket 'if your this height then you will...' which fails to take the current situation into account. The fall restraint system that we have costs 80,000 dollars per unit. That does not include the 10,000 PER YEAR that we spend to have the system tested, also a requirement placed there by OSHA. Perhaps the requirement for the CARPET placed in an aircraft being approved by the FAA is a little over the top considering that process cost large amounts of cash and completely removes competition and drives up the cost of aircraft as well as maintenance. That requirement is another blanket requirement by the way. All things placed in an aircraft need to be approved by the FAA even though some things have zero effect on the flight capability/safety. If you want a cup holder in your Cessna, forget it. The FAA has to approve it. That reasonable?

Perhaps construction is more reasonable? That's a joke. The number of screws placed in a metal stud at the base is regulated even though they have nothing to do with the strength of the wall. You will have 4 screws in each stud per 4 feet for drywall whether or not it is a double hung firewall or not. An inspector will come out after the framing and after the hanging to inspect your screws and see if he likes it. Some instances, you need something like that yet in others (like the double hung firewall) you do not until the job is complete. But the regulations don't make those distinctions. As such, jobs are delayed for inspections, delays that cost money. Do you ever wonder why it takes a decade to build a damn road when it should not take more than a month - that's right. REGULATIONS and inspections. Time consummating money pits. The height of your outlets is regulated. For what purpose? The number of outlets per foot of wall is regulated. For what purpose? The location of your light switches is regulated. FOR WHAT PURPOSE? All of that costs money because you need inspectors to ensure compliance, fines for non-compliance, and people to put those requirements on paper.


Then there are things like daycares. I already pointed out there is a regulation for WIPING A KIDS ASS. It not only exists but you need to post flyers and compliance notices in the place of work. Someone must come up with those and distribute them. A total waste of resources. Then , they change the damn notices each year. Not major changes but minor like the color of the paper or one sentence just so the person that oversees that program can say they are needed and keep their job. The type of toys are regulated too. If you take a specific age group then you need VERY specific toys even if the children on your care have no interest in such a toy of if they crowd out the ones that actually matter. Medications have to be locked in a case.... that is locked in another case... that the key is locked in a third fucking case. That is asinine. On top of that, NEOSPORIN is a medication and cannot be administered unless you have a doctor's note. Same goes with rash ointment and SUN BLOCK!!! Here is an example of the regulations directly causing harm to those they should be protecting. How about prescription meds being the only thing that requires regulation. Now that would actually be reasonable so no.. not going to happen. In order to start a home daycare the state here suggests that you have 10,000 dollars in startup cash! 10K to watch a few kids, what the fuck!! Not to mention that you are required to take education courses that are 100% controlled by the state. Guess what, they don't educate you at all. It is a money racket. You pay your fee and they give you some handouts with worthless info on them. This costs hundreds of dollars each year PER employee.

The basic jist of it is that the regulatory environment is so huge and regulations so vast in number and scope that there is no talking about then in specifics. There are just too damn many of them. The ENTIRE system needs to be redone. There is no reason that the FAA needs to approve every single piece that goes into an aircraft. They just need a basic regulation for weight/lift ratio. There is no reason that the government tells us how to wipe a kids ass or specific toys in a daycare. Parents are completely capable of looking at a daycare and deciding if it is right for their children. The only thing the government needs to get involved in is the safety of the children (like no locking the door or no knives in the toys). Construction needs to be regulated just to the direct safety and strength of the building and it is far from that. This problem permeates ALL levels of government and is getting out of control. We need to reign it in.

 

[kaz]

What is Libertarian?

A future liberal or conservative who hasn't been mugged yet.

Ignorance is bliss, but silence is golden. Silence would have hidden your ignorance...

If you knew what you were talking about, it's the other way around.

 

[Full-Auto]

What is Libertarian?

A future liberal or conservative who hasn't been mugged yet.

I would argue they have been mugged and have seen the light.

Establishment repubs and democrats are having fits they are being held to account for spending.

 

[editec]

Democracy, or a republic as we have, thrives on a free market because it is exactly that - FREE. I do not understand what it is that has you liberals hating freedom. No one is asking for a market that is completely unregulated. No one is asking for a system that is devoid of protections. What people are asking for, and what democ5racy is based on in the first place, is a market that is free and allows the people within it to be as free as possible. Democracy itself may not be based on capitalism per say but it is based upon the exact same core value: freedom and rule of the people. All systems need protections in the same way that our republic requires the constitution and the bill of rights. That does not mean it needs to be replaced with a government controlled economy. That is rather asinine.

Where we stand today is in a place where business is regulated to the point of extinction and the vast majority of those regulations do not protect the consumer. We need to rework the system so that they do and still allow business to thrive.

I object to your appropriating the word FREE. Since you don't want a completely unregulated market, we're both whores, just dickering over the price!

Not at all. I understand that anarchy, far from being free, is extremely oppressive. That is the purpose of forming a government. To protect our rights.

I would submit that government's don't protect our rights so much as they DEFINE what those rights will be.

To protect our rights would imply that those rights exist outside of the societies in which we exist.

Philosophically one might be able to make that case if one could prove the existence of a higher authority than man, but thus far no such evidence is available to us.

We do not have in (or UN)alienable rights.

We would LIKE to have them, of course, but look around you.

Do you see anything at all that you have that cannot be taken away from you?

Life and liberty are NOT inalienable, they are obviously easily taken from you.

 

[PeteEU]

A libertarian is a Republican who found out how badly the GOP under Bush screwed over the country and are now trying to avoid being linked with them. Much like the communist like parties of Europe who suddenly became "Green" parties after the wall fell.

Libertarians are also those that are in most denial of over who was responsible for the crisis. They exclusively blame the left and supposedly left wing policies, and try to push the same failed policies that actually lead to the crisis in the first place. This is very evident since they keep trying to promote Reagan and Reaganomics as some sort of saviour when in fact it is those attitudes that ultimately lead to the crisis.

While many of the core ideas of a Libertarian/Conservative are in my own view quite good, the utter denial of responsibility and lack of accountability by the US libertarian/conservative has really soured the brand of being a "Conservative". When even European Conservatives try to distance themselves from the GOP these days, then you know you have strayed too far.

The day that Libertarians/Conservatives stand up and admit they screwed up on selective policies from Reagan and onwards is the day many people will start to respect the political movement. But right now, they are nothing but an ostridge with its head in the ground hoping no one will notice him and the large piece of crap he has laid on the food supply.

 

[Full-Auto]

A libertarian is a Republican who found out how badly the GOP under Bush screwed over the country and are now trying to avoid being linked with them. Much like the communist like parties of Europe who suddenly became "Green" parties after the wall fell.

Libertarians are also those that are in most denial of over who was responsible for the crisis. They exclusively blame the left and supposedly left wing policies, and try to push the same failed policies that actually lead to the crisis in the first place. This is very evident since they keep trying to promote Reagan and Reaganomics as some sort of saviour when in fact it is those attitudes that ultimately lead to the crisis.

While many of the core ideas of a Libertarian/Conservative are in my own view quite good, the utter denial of responsibility and lack of accountability by the US libertarian/conservative has really soured the brand of being a "Conservative". When even European Conservatives try to distance themselves from the GOP these days, then you know you have strayed too far.

The day that Libertarians/Conservatives stand up and admit they screwed up on selective policies from Reagan and onwards is the day many people will start to respect the political movement. But right now, they are nothing but an ostridge with its head in the ground hoping no one will notice him and the large piece of crap he has laid on the food supply.

Confusion runs rampant in your post.

 

[kaz]

A libertarian is a Republican who found out how badly the GOP under Bush screwed over the country

Yep, for me it was HW not W, but same idea

 

[Bfgrn]

A libertarian is a Republican who found out how badly the GOP under Bush screwed over the country and are now trying to avoid being linked with them. Much like the communist like parties of Europe who suddenly became "Green" parties after the wall fell.

Libertarians are also those that are in most denial of over who was responsible for the crisis. They exclusively blame the left and supposedly left wing policies, and try to push the same failed policies that actually lead to the crisis in the first place. This is very evident since they keep trying to promote Reagan and Reaganomics as some sort of saviour when in fact it is those attitudes that ultimately lead to the crisis.

While many of the core ideas of a Libertarian/Conservative are in my own view quite good, the utter denial of responsibility and lack of accountability by the US libertarian/conservative has really soured the brand of being a "Conservative". When even European Conservatives try to distance themselves from the GOP these days, then you know you have strayed too far.

The day that Libertarians/Conservatives stand up and admit they screwed up on selective policies from Reagan and onwards is the day many people will start to respect the political movement. But right now, they are nothing but an ostridge with its head in the ground hoping no one will notice him and the large piece of crap he has laid on the food supply.

Confusion runs rampant in your post.

It was clear and concise. He nailed it...

 

[Full-Auto]

A libertarian is a Republican who found out how badly the GOP under Bush screwed over the country and are now trying to avoid being linked with them. Much like the communist like parties of Europe who suddenly became "Green" parties after the wall fell.

Libertarians are also those that are in most denial of over who was responsible for the crisis. They exclusively blame the left and supposedly left wing policies, and try to push the same failed policies that actually lead to the crisis in the first place. This is very evident since they keep trying to promote Reagan and Reaganomics as some sort of saviour when in fact it is those attitudes that ultimately lead to the crisis.

While many of the core ideas of a Libertarian/Conservative are in my own view quite good, the utter denial of responsibility and lack of accountability by the US libertarian/conservative has really soured the brand of being a "Conservative". When even European Conservatives try to distance themselves from the GOP these days, then you know you have strayed too far.

The day that Libertarians/Conservatives stand up and admit they screwed up on selective policies from Reagan and onwards is the day many people will start to respect the political movement. But right now, they are nothing but an ostridge with its head in the ground hoping no one will notice him and the large piece of crap he has laid on the food supply.

Confusion runs rampant in your post.

It was clear and concise. He nailed it...

For you and confusion. We just saw one poster state he went back further for him.

But lets go with it............... How many libertarians are in congress, Identify them by party affiliation please.

 

[Foxfyre]

A 1981 Kurt Russell movie "Escape from New York" was set in a futuristic Manhattan Island that had been turned into a maximum security penal colony. Convicted felons receiving life sentences were given a choice. They could receive a lethal injection or they could go to Manhattan. The perimeter was heavily guarded with guards ordered to shoot on sight anybody attempting to leave the Island. Inside there was no law of any kind other than what the people created for themselves. If they beat each other up, tortured each other, starved each other, it was just the way things were. Needless to say, with no rights recognized nor granted, the strong preyed on the weak and the weak had no recourse but to submit or hide in the sewers and underground infrastructure.

I don't know if dblack is looking for Libertarian (capital L) which is a registered political party with a platform and an agenda. Or libertarian (little 'L') which is a ideological point of view.

But I hope somebody's definition that libertarianism as the government guarding the perimeter from attack and leaving everybody inside to do as they please is not what they really meant. That scenario of "Escape from New York" immediately came to mind. When the people's rights are neither recognized nor respected or when they are dictated by an authoritarian government, neither those governed nor anarchists are truly free.

The Founders were liberarian - little "L" or technically classical liberals which were nothing like modern day American liberals. To them the first and foremost role of the Federal government was to recognize and secure the unalienable rights of the people. Only with their rights secured would the Federal government then leave them entirely alone to live their lives and form whatever society they wished to have.

That is the ultimate freedom for humankind.

I dunno. Making a criticism of Libertarianism based on a Kurt Russell movie seems a little weak.
The Founders supported all kinds of repressive legislation that we would find intolerable today. But that was at the state level, not the Federal level.

Ahem. Don't start falling into the Democrat tunnel vision of confusing an illustrative metaphor with the whole thing.

The Founders supported ZERO repressive legislation. They ALLOWED some repressive legislation in the states because they did not want the Federal government to have authority over those things and, while most opposed slavery or the few authoritarian state theocracies, if they had not allowed it, the strong republic they formed would not have been possible. Those who opposed slavery continued to speak out and campaign against it after the Constitution was ratified. And I think they all knew that a free people who recognize and respect unalienable rights will eventually get around to doing the right thing. Which they did.

The theocracies dissolved of their own accord by the end of the Eighteenth Century and before the first eighty years of the Republic had passed, slavery was also ended though the Founders were long gone and that was not voluntary on the part of some citizens.

I think you might not have read my post carefully. I was not criticizing libertarianism as it conforms to classical liberalism. I am one of those almost 100%. I was using the metaphor to illustrate the problem I saw with the anarchy suggested in somebody else's definition of libertarianism.

 

[The Rabbi]

THey supported all kinds of coercive stuff. Madison writes that taxing people to create a public university is good public policy. All the states had restrictions on voting, sometimes on holding public office, etc etc. They objected only to a central government with that kind of authority. Rightly so.

 

[JakeStarkey]

A 1981 Kurt Russell movie "Escape from New York" was set in a futuristic Manhattan Island that had been turned into a maximum security penal colony. Convicted felons receiving life sentences were given a choice. They could receive a lethal injection or they could go to Manhattan. The perimeter was heavily guarded with guards ordered to shoot on sight anybody attempting to leave the Island. Inside there was no law of any kind other than what the people created for themselves. If they beat each other up, tortured each other, starved each other, it was just the way things were. Needless to say, with no rights recognized nor granted, the strong preyed on the weak and the weak had no recourse but to submit or hide in the sewers and underground infrastructure.

I don't know if dblack is looking for Libertarian (capital L) which is a registered political party with a platform and an agenda. Or libertarian (little 'L') which is a ideological point of view.

But I hope somebody's definition that libertarianism as the government guarding the perimeter from attack and leaving everybody inside to do as they please is not what they really meant. That scenario of "Escape from New York" immediately came to mind. When the people's rights are neither recognized nor respected or when they are dictated by an authoritarian government, neither those governed nor anarchists are truly free.

The Founders were liberarian - little "L" or technically classical liberals which were nothing like modern day American liberals. To them the first and foremost role of the Federal government was to recognize and secure the unalienable rights of the people. Only with their rights secured would the Federal government then leave them entirely alone to live their lives and form whatever society they wished to have.

That is the ultimate freedom for humankind.

I dunno. Making a criticism of Libertarianism based on a Kurt Russell movie seems a little weak.
The Founders supported all kinds of repressive legislation that we would find intolerable today. But that was at the state level, not the Federal level.

Ahem. Don't start falling into the Democrat tunnel vision of confusing an illustrative metaphor with the whole thing.

The Founders supported ZERO repressive legislation. They ALLOWED some repressive legislation in the states because they did not want the Federal government to have authority over those things and, while most opposed slavery or the few authoritarian state theocracies, if they had not allowed it, the strong republic they formed would not have been possible. Those who opposed slavery continued to speak out and campaign against it after the Constitution was ratified. And I think they all knew that a free people who recognize and respect unalienable rights will eventually get around to doing the right thing. Which they did.

The theocracies dissolved of their own accord by the end of the Eighteenth Century and before the first eighty years of the Republic had passed, slavery was also ended though the Founders were long gone and that was not voluntary on the part of some citizens.

I think you might not have read my post carefully. I was not criticizing libertarianism as it conforms to classical liberalism. I am one of those almost 100%. I was using the metaphor to illustrate the problem I saw with the anarchy suggested in somebody else's definition of libertarianism.

Many of them supported slavery, and the Constitution, the ultimate creation of the Founders, did until 1865.

 

[Foxfyre]

Most of them did not. And NONE of them were alive in 1865.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The majority who signed the Constitution certainly did. The date 1865 was inserted to show the strength of effect by the Founders' support of slavery.

 

[Foxfyre]

Jake, you simply don't know what you're talking about. The majority of those attending the constitutional convention were not slave owners and even some who owned slaves opposed slavery. Many would have freed their slaves but feared that in the south unscrupulous slave owners would only re-enslave them and treat them badly.

A large majority of the first signers of the Constitution opposed slavery.

And even among those who owned slaves we have these quotes:

Thomas Jefferson, author of the Declaration of Independence, which, famously, declares that "all men are created equal," wrote. . . .
"There must doubtless be an unhappy influence on the manners of our people produced by the existence of slavery among us. The whole commerce between master and slave is a perpetual exercise of the most boisterous passions, the most unremitting despotism on the one part, and degrading submissions on the other. Our children see this, and learn to imitate it; for man is an imitative animal. This quality is the germ of all education in him."

In a letter to the Marquis de Lafayette, George Washington wrote, "[Y]our late purchase of an estate in the colony of Cayenne, with a view to emancipating the slaves on it, is a generous and noble proof of your humanity. Would to God a like spirit would diffuse itself generally into the minds of the people of this country; but I despair of seeing it."

(Washington and his wife held over 300 slaves. He wrote in his will that he'd wished to free his slaves, but that because of intermarriage between his and Martha's slaves, he feared the break-up of families should only his slaves be freed. He directed that his slaves be freed upon her death. His will provided for the continued care of all slaves, paid for from his estate.)

The great American scientist and publisher Benjamin Franklin held several slaves during his lifetime. He willed one of them be freed upon his death, but Franklin outlived him. In 1789, he said, "Slavery is such an atrocious debasement of human nature, that its very extirpation, if not performed with solicitous care, may sometimes open a source of serious evils."
Constitutional Topic: Slavery - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net

They were all products of their culture and the evidence is clear that, given the indefensible nature of slavery, they were in conflict with themselves over the slaves they owned. But it was obvious that freeing their slaves was also laced with ethical problems.

And all of that does not in any way diminish their vision of the world's first free people who would have their rights secured by the Federal government and would then be free to govern themselves and form whatever sort of society they wished to have.

And to me THAT is the definition of libertarianism.

 

[Middleoftheroad]

Jake, you simply don't know what you're talking about. The majority of those attending the constitutional convention were not slave owners and even some who owned slaves opposed slavery. Many would have freed their slaves but feared that in the south unscrupulous slave owners would only re-enslave them and treat them badly.

A large majority of the first signers of the Constitution opposed slavery.

And even among those who owned slaves we have these quotes:

Thomas Jefferson, author of the Declaration of Independence, which, famously, declares that "all men are created equal," wrote. . . .
"There must doubtless be an unhappy influence on the manners of our people produced by the existence of slavery among us. The whole commerce between master and slave is a perpetual exercise of the most boisterous passions, the most unremitting despotism on the one part, and degrading submissions on the other. Our children see this, and learn to imitate it; for man is an imitative animal. This quality is the germ of all education in him."

In a letter to the Marquis de Lafayette, George Washington wrote, "[Y]our late purchase of an estate in the colony of Cayenne, with a view to emancipating the slaves on it, is a generous and noble proof of your humanity. Would to God a like spirit would diffuse itself generally into the minds of the people of this country; but I despair of seeing it."

(Washington and his wife held over 300 slaves. He wrote in his will that he'd wished to free his slaves, but that because of intermarriage between his and Martha's slaves, he feared the break-up of families should only his slaves be freed. He directed that his slaves be freed upon her death. His will provided for the continued care of all slaves, paid for from his estate.)

The great American scientist and publisher Benjamin Franklin held several slaves during his lifetime. He willed one of them be freed upon his death, but Franklin outlived him. In 1789, he said, "Slavery is such an atrocious debasement of human nature, that its very extirpation, if not performed with solicitous care, may sometimes open a source of serious evils."
Constitutional Topic: Slavery - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net

They were all products of their culture and the evidence is clear that, given the indefensible nature of slavery, they were in conflict with themselves over the slaves they owned. But it was obvious that freeing their slaves was also laced with ethical problems.

And all of that does not in any way diminish their vision of the world's first free people who would have their rights secured by the Federal government and would then be free to govern themselves and form whatever sort of society they wished to have.

And to me THAT is the definition of libertarianism.

Sooooo... if he was so against owning slaves and thought that it was so bad, why did he wait until after his death to free them? Could he not have decided one day to free both his and Martha's slaves while he was still alive? It sounds more to me like he was saying "Owning slaves is horrible, but its so damn convenient."

 

[bripat9643]

A libertarian is a Republican who found out how badly the GOP under Bush screwed over the country and are now trying to avoid being linked with them. Much like the communist like parties of Europe who suddenly became "Green" parties after the wall fell.

Libertarians are also those that are in most denial of over who was responsible for the crisis. They exclusively blame the left and supposedly left wing policies, and try to push the same failed policies that actually lead to the crisis in the first place. This is very evident since they keep trying to promote Reagan and Reaganomics as some sort of saviour when in fact it is those attitudes that ultimately lead to the crisis.

While many of the core ideas of a Libertarian/Conservative are in my own view quite good, the utter denial of responsibility and lack of accountability by the US libertarian/conservative has really soured the brand of being a "Conservative". When even European Conservatives try to distance themselves from the GOP these days, then you know you have strayed too far.

The day that Libertarians/Conservatives stand up and admit they screwed up on selective policies from Reagan and onwards is the day many people will start to respect the political movement. But right now, they are nothing but an ostridge with its head in the ground hoping no one will notice him and the large piece of crap he has laid on the food supply.

Confusion runs rampant in your post.

It was clear and concise. He nailed it...

Yep, he stated the idiocy of the principle liberal delusions in as few words as possible.