My Ascent From the Tar Pit of Amoral Libertarianism

[JimBowie1958]

Thanks for that OP, JB.

Yes, the Whitaker Chambers piece on Atlas Shrugged is one of the best takedowns of Libertarianism ever written.

I read Atlas Shrugged many years ago, and found it could have been written in 50 pages or less. The reason it is such a massive tome is to pound its propaganda into the heads of the malleable through unrelenting repetition. It is literary brainwashing of the dullest kind.

I think Ayn Rand's true nature is revealed in the train tunnel scene where she justifies the death of every living soul on board, right down to the tiniest child. She was one sick bitch. I completely understand her venomous reaction to her native Soviet Union, but she let her emotions run away from her while pretending "objectivism".

Nevertheless, I have a bit of a libertarian (small "l") streak myself. It can't be helped if you are a natural born conservative who was a member of the Young Americans for Freedom who met Ronald Reagan in 1977 like myself. Reagan had his own libertarian streak. After all, he was a great friend of Bill Buckley (who I also met that same year).

But I have found hardcore Libertarians to have no sense of human nature whatsoever. Their naivete knows no bounds.

There are Libertarians who are practically indistinguishable from Green party members. These must be the ones you encountered. But there are also Libertarians who are practically indistinguishable from White Nationalists (Nazis).

Most, though, are the kind who want to End the Fed™, legalize all drugs, end all federal regulation of business, and isolationists who want to shrink our military down to the size of a cub scout troop.

I've always admired the steadfastness of principle Ron Paul demonstrated. Right or wrong (and he was frequently right), he did not bend.

Yup, what he said.

But Ron Paul did bend when he decided to engage in delegate fraud by putting up his supporters as stealth delegates for other candidates.

 

[SwimExpert]

How can you call it an "ascent" when you're now backing Bernie Sanders?

 

[kaz]

Just wanted to share my personal experiences here. These personal experiences do not empirically prove anything, but some readers might find some resonance with their own experiences with ideological libertarianism and might share theirs as well.

I read Atlas Shrugged way back in high school, 9th grade. I was truly enamored with the story and the characters and I was outraged that such things could happen to a person at the hands of indifferent bureaucrats. I knew that the story was fiction, but that it was deemed believable by enough people that the novel sold well was itself damning.

My union officer grandfather, who had passed away in 68, had been my political mentor for years. And I tried to grasp the books events and themes with his voice and guidance in mind. He would have pointed out the great harms that the government had prevented would have far outweighed the harm it caused less frequently in regulating industry and that corruption was inevitable in any system. He would have told me that the Founding Fathers had a libertarian streak to their philosophy and statecraft, but that the demands of the urban modern age made much of that obsolete. But still it couldnt salve the outrage I felt, an outrage I had not felt since I read 'Uncle Toms Cabin'.

I spoke with the librarian at my high school about what I could read that would be a rhetorical response to Rands libertarian philosophy, and she mentioned a number of articles and books, which I read. Most of them were using arguments I was already familiar with. But I read one from National Review, by Whitacker Chambers who said that Rands philosophy was Godless, amoral and silly. He tempered my slow slide into Libertarianism and allowed me to pull myself out of its moral quick sand years later.

Most of my friends were libertarians of one variety or another. The Great Deracination of White Southerners was ongoing at the time and most of them felt a need to latch on to something that could replace the values of their Southern upbringing, and Rand made a very compelling and glib alternative to anything that hinted of conservatism and its familiarity with the racism of Jim Crow. We discussed Rand quite a bit though I can only remember bits and pieces of it all now.

But one thing I do remember was the insistence of my friends that one can have a moral philosophy even if an atheist, even if one had no religious institutions to guide ones moral formation. I would counter that while it is possible that children abandoned to grow up in the wild could survive and end up as civilized as the next man, but feral children have never done so without the help of their fellow man. We are a social creature, not a mere collection of independent Philosopher Kings.

Well that went on for decades with different people I would meet. From discussions with the Libertarian Party booth 'venders' at country fairs to young programmers fresh out of college spitting out the same old slogans as if no one had ever heard them before, I really enjoyed these conversations. "Everything should be allowed unless it is violent or fraudulent" was the most frequently heard Libertarian bumper sticker slogan I heard during all that time. But close to that was "The common good is no excuse for stealing a persons property to give it to those who did not earn it and do not deserve it." was another. Those are not direct quotes but a composite of the many times I have heard this from enthusiastic freshly scrubbed Libertarian acolytes.

I considered myself to be a Constitutional Christian Libertarian, by and large from the time I left the Army till this year. It was all about hypothetical utopian dreaming while Libertarians had no chance of ever getting any real political power which made it fun, but it still rubbed off on my thinking. Libertarianism was too 'pure' for actually winning an election for many reasons, from the legalization of drugs and prostitution to the deregulation of commerce. But that was OK, it only made it more fun as we would build these fantasy castles out of Dreamers Sand.


That all changed with Ron Paul's run for the Presidency in 2012. For the first time, Dr Paul was having real impact on the Republican Party, though not at the voting booth. Dr Paul was slipping in his people as delegates in states across the country, with the intention of having them vote for him on subsequent rounds if the convention turned into an open convention.

"But wait, isnt that fraud to pose as a Romney supporter while your full intent is to vote for Paul instead?" I would ask them.

"Well, yes, but it is what we have to do to change things for the better." They would respond in utterly unRandian terms.

"Isnt that what every ideological despotism justified itself with?" I would counter to silence or a change in subject.

And so I began to see that Libertarianism is as morphable as any other ideological system and Libertarians along with it all. Its principles are only as good as the next election and the needs of its promoters to win.

Then this election was the double knock out Death Punch Spinning Roundhouse Kick of Doom. Libertarians have actually welded themselves to the Preachers Kid Ted Cruz. Growing up, 'PK' was a dismissive way of referring to a preachers child that was unruly, contemptuous and a bit of a hooligan. And Ted Cruz is a PK, in spades, as he has all the ear marks to include smooth rhetorical delivery while espousing things that are just blatant lies or irrational nonsense.

Cruz can calmly sit in front of a camera interview and say that Trump has little chance of getting the nomination since 60% of the GOP has been voting against Trump and Trump still has to win 65% of the remaining delegates...even though the same logic, if applied to Cruz means that Cruz has even less chance of winning. But no, somehow the previous logic does not apply to Cruz and he has the inside track to win. The Baghdad Bob school of political rhetoric is now the reigning spin method used by all 'Die Standing Never Trump' zealots.

But the current fraud that Cruz's libertarian supporters is using to pose as Trump supporters to get on a slate of delegates while fully intending to vote for Cruz on the first open ballot is just irredeemable fully knowing that we are likely to have a brokered convention. Fraud is one of only two prohibitions for people in Libertarian philosophy, and this is fraud that not only do these people admit to, but they gleefully wallow in. They are proud that they are defrauding Trump supporters, because these people DESERVE it for not being as smart as the Cruz people and thus fraud has become a competitive tool, somehow OK if it is to beat the bad guys.

But this is not the only nonsense that I have encountered in this election from Libertarians. Most of the younger ones have completely absorbed all the Establishment anti-white racism that colleges today spew out. I have heard these morons repeat the biggest bunch of nonsense, everything from 'White privilege' to 'immigration restrictions are racism' to 'everything white people have was stolen from someone else'. And no, they wont discuss it, unlike everything else. A libertarian friend I have known for 12 years now, just told me a few weeks ago that there is no basis for wanting secure borders other than racism. Nothing more than purely racism. He tells me this even though he and I both know he has been posing as a conservative for the whole time I have known him. These 'Conservative Libertarians' are closet amoral Ends Justifies The Means slime, just like the Nazis, the Stalinists, the Maoists and every other totalitarian group that I and other Libertarians have condemned with complete moral superiority for decades. Today's Libertarians are not Conservative Libertarians, they are Marxist Libertarians; culturally Marxist with Libertarian politics.

Again, Principle does not outweigh need, and the need to avoid correcting racist ideological nonsense among today's youth is a trade off that Libertarians are making.

It is all for the common good, you see?

STFU, liar, you were never a libertarian. You're a socialist. And your arrogant pontification shows that as you just personally attack us and give us zero content of an understanding of what libertarian even is.

Here you go:

What is a small government libertarian?

Specifically, which part did you reject in favor of being a servant to government?

Lol, no, I am not a socialist and yes I used to consider myself a Christian Constitutional Libertarian, but I dont any more.

Libertarianism is a lie, a fraud to cover the dissolution of the United States of America by attacking those social bonds that bind us together as a nation.

That is why the corporate owned media has been just dandy with you morons becoming so popular, you make it even easier for them to auction off our last factory and all the jobs that go with it while you debate yourselves about the true meaning of the word 'sovereignty'.

You guys are useful tools, fellow idiot travelers they need to distract and confuse the simple.

The lie is that you're not a socialist. Your advocacy of Bernie Sanders and justification for it make that clear.

As for libertarianism, you have shown zero understanding of what it is. You just keep making ridiculous, judgmental sweeping statements that have frankly nothing to do with libertarianism. I gave you specifics and you declined to specify which part of government you want to have ubiquitous power over your life

 

[JimBowie1958]

How can you call it an "ascent" when you're now backing Bernie Sanders?

Because I am no longer subscribing to the false dichotomy of Republican vrs Democrat. I am now only looking for candidates based on one criteria of one topic; will they do what needs to be done to end the corporate crony networks control of Washington DC?

I think Sanders and Trump, but Sanders most of all, will break this network up.

 

[JimBowie1958]

The lie is that you're not a socialist. Your advocacy of Bernie Sanders and justification for it make that clear.

Lol, no, I am simply an indepoendent minded person who refuses to eject his own free will and give it to ideologues to mold as they wish.

As for libertarianism, you have shown zero understanding of what it is. You just keep making ridiculous, judgmental sweeping statements that have frankly nothing to do with libertarianism. I gave you specifics and you declined to specify which part of government you want to have ubiquitous power over your life

I dont want any part of the government to have 'ubiquitous' power over my life, dude. Your question is asinine in and of itself, I only answer it to assert my main point; not everyone who opposes a strong central state is a Libertarian, and not all Libertarians oppose a strong central state.

And you dont define what is libertarian and what isnt, so I really dont care if you think I was a libertarian.

But as I answered your question, now why dont you answer mine? How many Americans have to starve before you think it is justifiable for the Americana government to provide humanitarian relief?

 

[Stephanie]

And so your problem with Kasich is.....? That he balanced the federal budge under Clinton for a surplus? That he has experience pulling his own state out of the financial mud and into productivity? That he gets crap done? That he isn't a malignant narcissist or a smooth-talking preacher-puppet, or over 70 years old and a shrieking LGBT-puppet liberal?

My 'problem' with Kasich is his support for Open Borders and the TPP.

He is also delusional since he thinks the GOP Establishment will pick him for the nomination in an open convention.

What "open borders "?

The kid that said that the wall is about racism is true. Why aren't we building a wall wh Canada ? That border is much more open than the south .

good grief, talking points from a lib/dem: a wall is about Racism. So, I bet you don't have DOORS on your homes, right? wouldn't that make you Racist if you do?

 

[kaz]

How can you call it an "ascent" when you're now backing Bernie Sanders?

Because I am no longer subscribing to the false dichotomy of Republican vrs Democrat. I am now only looking for candidates based on one criteria of one topic; will they do what needs to be done to end the corporate crony networks control of Washington DC?

I think Sanders and Trump, but Sanders most of all, will break this network up.

Yes, Sanders will by subscribing to the false belief that destroying corporations and instituting government control will increase our freedom. Face it, you're a socialist.

 

[kaz]

The lie is that you're not a socialist. Your advocacy of Bernie Sanders and justification for it make that clear.

Lol, no, I am simply an indepoendent minded person who refuses to eject his own free will and give it to ideologues to mold as they wish.

As for libertarianism, you have shown zero understanding of what it is. You just keep making ridiculous, judgmental sweeping statements that have frankly nothing to do with libertarianism. I gave you specifics and you declined to specify which part of government you want to have ubiquitous power over your life

I dont want any part of the government to have 'ubiquitous' power over my life, dude. Your question is asinine in and of itself, I only answer it to assert my main point; not everyone who opposes a strong central state is a Libertarian, and not all Libertarians oppose a strong central state.

And you dont define what is libertarian and what isnt, so I really dont care if you think I was a libertarian.

But as I answered your question, now why dont you answer mine? How many Americans have to starve before you think it is justifiable for the Americana government to provide humanitarian relief?

Right, you're an open minded person who thinks that socialism will fix all our problems, you're not a socialist. You've been Berned, but not in a socialist way, even though you back a socialist. Got it.

And still the sweeping statements about libertarianism backed up by zero content. I told you what I think small government libertarianism is, you got content at some point?

 

[JimBowie1958]

How can you call it an "ascent" when you're now backing Bernie Sanders?

Because I am no longer subscribing to the false dichotomy of Republican vrs Democrat. I am now only looking for candidates based on one criteria of one topic; will they do what needs to be done to end the corporate crony networks control of Washington DC?

I think Sanders and Trump, but Sanders most of all, will break this network up.

Yes, Sanders will by subscribing to the false belief that destroying corporations and instituting government control will increase our freedom. Face it, you're a socialist.

Lol, nowhere have I nor Sanders proposed destroying corporations.

We simply realize that they must be put on a leash and a starvation diet for a while.

Face it, you are a moron.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Right, you're an open minded person who thinks that socialism will fix all our problems, you're not a socialist. You've been Berned, but not in a socialist way, even though you back a socialist. Got it.

And still the sweeping statements about libertarianism backed up by zero content. I told you what I think small government libertarianism is, you got content at some point?

It is a common feature of Libertarians that they can no longer distinguish between various Marxist Socialisms and democratic Socialism. Most Christians recognize the socialist nature of the early church, and in fact it was based on the First Century Church that the earliest forms of socialist communal societies were patterned after.

Of course, most atheistic Libertarians dont grasp that either.

 

[SwimExpert]

Because I am no longer subscribing to the false dichotomy of Republican vrs Democrat.

So you went from one false dichotomy to another. That's like curing heroin addiction by smoking crack.

 

[kaz]

How can you call it an "ascent" when you're now backing Bernie Sanders?

Because I am no longer subscribing to the false dichotomy of Republican vrs Democrat. I am now only looking for candidates based on one criteria of one topic; will they do what needs to be done to end the corporate crony networks control of Washington DC?

I think Sanders and Trump, but Sanders most of all, will break this network up.

Yes, Sanders will by subscribing to the false belief that destroying corporations and instituting government control will increase our freedom. Face it, you're a socialist.

Lol, nowhere have I nor Sanders proposed destroying corporations.

We simply realize that they must be put on a leash and a starvation diet for a while.

Face it, you are a moron.

So I think when Bernie says he's a socialist, I think he means that he's a socialist. You think that he isn't and you support him. So if you think he's lying, then why do you support him?

You: Um..Bernie's not a socialist, he's lying, I know what his real policies are, and I support those, even though he's saying that's not what he thinks, he's saying he's a socialist

And you call anyone a "moron?"

And at some point are you going to be able to list the policies that you supported when you were a "libertarian (sic)" and don't now? Or you just staying with the sweeping accusations you keep making and can't back up?

 

[kaz]

Right, you're an open minded person who thinks that socialism will fix all our problems, you're not a socialist. You've been Berned, but not in a socialist way, even though you back a socialist. Got it.

And still the sweeping statements about libertarianism backed up by zero content. I told you what I think small government libertarianism is, you got content at some point?

It is a common feature of Libertarians that they can no longer distinguish between various Marxist Socialisms and democratic Socialism. Most Christians recognize the socialist nature of the early church, and in fact it was based on the First Century Church that the earliest forms of socialist communal societies were patterned after.

Of course, most atheistic Libertarians dont grasp that either.

The only difference between Marxist socialism and democratic socialism is the path, not the end result.

And seriously, so you went from libertarian and the protection of individual rights to the right of the majority to oppress the minority? That isn't a change in heart, that's a severe brain trauma

 

[JimBowie1958]

Because I am no longer subscribing to the false dichotomy of Republican vrs Democrat.

So you went from one false dichotomy to another. That's like curing heroin addiction by smoking crack.

So what is my new dichotomy?

I want to see the political duopoly that runs this country for the corporations destroyed. I want to see the destruction of the American Middle Class halted and prosperity returned.

Where is this false dichotomy you speak of that I now subscribe to?

 

[daws101]

 

[flacaltenn]

Just wanted to share my personal experiences here. These personal experiences do not empirically prove anything, but some readers might find some resonance with their own experiences with ideological libertarianism and might share theirs as well.

I read Atlas Shrugged way back in high school, 9th grade. I was truly enamored with the story and the characters and I was outraged that such things could happen to a person at the hands of indifferent bureaucrats. I knew that the story was fiction, but that it was deemed believable by enough people that the novel sold well was itself damning.

My union officer grandfather, who had passed away in 68, had been my political mentor for years. And I tried to grasp the books events and themes with his voice and guidance in mind. He would have pointed out the great harms that the government had prevented would have far outweighed the harm it caused less frequently in regulating industry and that corruption was inevitable in any system. He would have told me that the Founding Fathers had a libertarian streak to their philosophy and statecraft, but that the demands of the urban modern age made much of that obsolete. But still it couldnt salve the outrage I felt, an outrage I had not felt since I read 'Uncle Toms Cabin'.

I spoke with the librarian at my high school about what I could read that would be a rhetorical response to Rands libertarian philosophy, and she mentioned a number of articles and books, which I read. Most of them were using arguments I was already familiar with. But I read one from National Review, by Whitacker Chambers who said that Rands philosophy was Godless, amoral and silly. He tempered my slow slide into Libertarianism and allowed me to pull myself out of its moral quick sand years later.

Most of my friends were libertarians of one variety or another. The Great Deracination of White Southerners was ongoing at the time and most of them felt a need to latch on to something that could replace the values of their Southern upbringing, and Rand made a very compelling and glib alternative to anything that hinted of conservatism and its familiarity with the racism of Jim Crow. We discussed Rand quite a bit though I can only remember bits and pieces of it all now.

But one thing I do remember was the insistence of my friends that one can have a moral philosophy even if an atheist, even if one had no religious institutions to guide ones moral formation. I would counter that while it is possible that children abandoned to grow up in the wild could survive and end up as civilized as the next man, but feral children have never done so without the help of their fellow man. We are a social creature, not a mere collection of independent Philosopher Kings.

Well that went on for decades with different people I would meet. From discussions with the Libertarian Party booth 'venders' at country fairs to young programmers fresh out of college spitting out the same old slogans as if no one had ever heard them before, I really enjoyed these conversations. "Everything should be allowed unless it is violent or fraudulent" was the most frequently heard Libertarian bumper sticker slogan I heard during all that time. But close to that was "The common good is no excuse for stealing a persons property to give it to those who did not earn it and do not deserve it." was another. Those are not direct quotes but a composite of the many times I have heard this from enthusiastic freshly scrubbed Libertarian acolytes.

I considered myself to be a Constitutional Christian Libertarian, by and large from the time I left the Army till this year. It was all about hypothetical utopian dreaming while Libertarians had no chance of ever getting any real political power which made it fun, but it still rubbed off on my thinking. Libertarianism was too 'pure' for actually winning an election for many reasons, from the legalization of drugs and prostitution to the deregulation of commerce. But that was OK, it only made it more fun as we would build these fantasy castles out of Dreamers Sand.


That all changed with Ron Paul's run for the Presidency in 2012. For the first time, Dr Paul was having real impact on the Republican Party, though not at the voting booth. Dr Paul was slipping in his people as delegates in states across the country, with the intention of having them vote for him on subsequent rounds if the convention turned into an open convention.

"But wait, isnt that fraud to pose as a Romney supporter while your full intent is to vote for Paul instead?" I would ask them.

"Well, yes, but it is what we have to do to change things for the better." They would respond in utterly unRandian terms.

"Isnt that what every ideological despotism justified itself with?" I would counter to silence or a change in subject.

And so I began to see that Libertarianism is as morphable as any other ideological system and Libertarians along with it all. Its principles are only as good as the next election and the needs of its promoters to win.

Then this election was the double knock out Death Punch Spinning Roundhouse Kick of Doom. Libertarians have actually welded themselves to the Preachers Kid Ted Cruz. Growing up, 'PK' was a dismissive way of referring to a preachers child that was unruly, contemptuous and a bit of a hooligan. And Ted Cruz is a PK, in spades, as he has all the ear marks to include smooth rhetorical delivery while espousing things that are just blatant lies or irrational nonsense.

Cruz can calmly sit in front of a camera interview and say that Trump has little chance of getting the nomination since 60% of the GOP has been voting against Trump and Trump still has to win 65% of the remaining delegates...even though the same logic, if applied to Cruz means that Cruz has even less chance of winning. But no, somehow the previous logic does not apply to Cruz and he has the inside track to win. The Baghdad Bob school of political rhetoric is now the reigning spin method used by all 'Die Standing Never Trump' zealots.

But the current fraud that Cruz's libertarian supporters is using to pose as Trump supporters to get on a slate of delegates while fully intending to vote for Cruz on the first open ballot is just irredeemable fully knowing that we are likely to have a brokered convention. Fraud is one of only two prohibitions for people in Libertarian philosophy, and this is fraud that not only do these people admit to, but they gleefully wallow in. They are proud that they are defrauding Trump supporters, because these people DESERVE it for not being as smart as the Cruz people and thus fraud has become a competitive tool, somehow OK if it is to beat the bad guys.

But this is not the only nonsense that I have encountered in this election from Libertarians. Most of the younger ones have completely absorbed all the Establishment anti-white racism that colleges today spew out. I have heard these morons repeat the biggest bunch of nonsense, everything from 'White privilege' to 'immigration restrictions are racism' to 'everything white people have was stolen from someone else'. And no, they wont discuss it, unlike everything else. A libertarian friend I have known for 12 years now, just told me a few weeks ago that there is no basis for wanting secure borders other than racism. Nothing more than purely racism. He tells me this even though he and I both know he has been posing as a conservative for the whole time I have known him. These 'Conservative Libertarians' are closet amoral Ends Justifies The Means slime, just like the Nazis, the Stalinists, the Maoists and every other totalitarian group that I and other Libertarians have condemned with complete moral superiority for decades. Today's Libertarians are not Conservative Libertarians, they are Marxist Libertarians; culturally Marxist with Libertarian politics.

Again, Principle does not outweigh need, and the need to avoid correcting racist ideological nonsense among today's youth is a trade off that Libertarians are making.

It is all for the common good, you see?

Wow -- that IS a lot angst. And sour grapes and bad judgements.

You never really DID understand the "morality side" of Libertarians.. Because you associated that with the very JUDGEMENTAL philosophy of Randian Objectivism.. SHE had opinions on morality and she REAMED the Libertarian Party for NOT being judgemental..

Fact is -- it's all about TOLERANCE (and liberty).. YOU don't have to LIKE a moral choice. YOU might actually hate it ---- but if it does no harm or coercion to you --- you TOLERATE it..

Repubs are despised because they are seen as morally judgemental and intolerant. AND "the left" would be right about that. Leftists have there own INVENTED morals -- dealing with fairness and social justice and class warfare ---- and they display similar intolerances based on their "manufactured" socio-political moralities..

You're leaving a pretty good deal. You are leaving folks who are socially tolerant WITHOUT the economic socialism of Sanders. And folks who are strict Constitutionalists and Fiscal hawks without the Amens and Cruz Bible lectures. Good luck finding a political homeland OUTSIDE -- where you won't get DEPORTED or publicly shamed for your achievements...

 

[Uncensored2008]

Classic response.

I am talking about the internal validity of a system of thought, and you boil that down to "OK, so vote for the other guy then."

I might end up voting for Cruz, if he is running against Hillary, but Cruz is only marginally better than Hillary in his dishonesty and willingness to lie.

At least he has more pleasant lies.

But I hope to vote for Sanders or Trump in the general election, not Cruz though he will do.

Weren't you talking last week about voting for the Communist? How does that mesh with your philosophy?

 

[JimBowie1958]

The only difference between Marxist socialism and democratic socialism is the path, not the end result.

That is simply and demonstrably false. The democratic socialism that we had and still have to some extent has been enormously successul and we have had no 'Killing Fields' or Death Camps' or Gulags.

You are either a liar or you dont know what the hell you are talking about.

And seriously, so you went from libertarian and the protection of individual rights to the right of the majority to oppress the minority? That isn't a change in heart, that's a severe brain trauma

And the right of the minority to oppress a majority is better?

Every government from the beginning of history to this day makes choices for the common good, only Libertarians pretend it can be anything other than that and still be able to survive in the real world. As if we all could ptich in and share the costs of fighting the war on terrorism and do better than a half assed job of it

You are so sad.

 

[kaz]

And the right of the minority to oppress a majority is better?

Proof you don't even know what a libertarian is. We are about the rights of individuals. That you would say this shows you're either lying to us that you were a libertarian or you're lying to yourself. That is the most basic concept in libertarianism.

And you're still O fer on moving from sweeping statements about libertarians and moving on to issues you changed your view on

 

[daws101]

this thread is like watching high school girls fight over a hair brush.