en.wikipedia.org — I often hear a libertarian’s opinion on something and end up agreeing. However, I’m still clueless about a lot of libertarian positions, so I’ve posted 13 questions in the first comment. I’m posting this on Digg because it seems a lot of members lean libertarian. The link just takes you to Wikipedia. Thanks for helping me understand.
Feb 1, 2007 View in Crawl 4
bonedaddy64Feb 2, 2007
Hey Zack....let me know what you think after you have read my response.
zackscottFeb 2, 2007Submitter
I just posted something on your post's comments. It took me awhile to write. Anyway, thanks so much for doing this.
bonedaddy64Feb 5, 2007
"Well, I have nothing to do with the Libertarian Party."I am grateful for that."Libertarian centralists like BoneHead64 :), who are happy to betray the very essence of libertarianism to get a favored "libertarian" outcome, are a part of the problem, not the solution"Hmmmm....and just what the hell makes YOU an authority on libertarianism. I am top dead center on the Nolan Chart....hardly a centrest. As usual, the purity police on parade.
miseseanFeb 5, 2007
"Libertarian centralist" is not a position on the Nolan chart; it's a "libertarian" who supports centralized government. E.g., you said you want a constitutional amendment against the use of eminent domain for commercial purposes - that's a "centralist" position: wanting the central (federal) government to tell the states what to do (you're also implying that eminent domain is just fine for some other purposes!). If you were consistent, you'd call for a World Government to enforce "libertarian" outcomes worldwide.
freemenowFeb 16, 2007
I republished my answers (and your questions) at: <a class="user" href="http://digg.com/political_opinion/Libertarian_Questions_and_Answers">http://digg.com/political_opinion/Libertarian_Questions_and_Answers</a>Can you diggit?
bonedaddy64Feb 16, 2007
Misesean said: "wanting the central (federal) government to tell the states what to do (you're also implying that eminent domain is just fine for some other purposes!). If you were consistent, you'd call for a World Government to enforce "libertarian" outcomes worldwide."***********************************************My desire is for a "state" amendment to protect property owners from developers as a result of the Kelo v New London decision. It is a realistic and obtainable goal. This differs from your position of desiring "libertopia" which is unattainable, unrealistic and anarchistic. If I am "part of the problem," then our election returns would indicate such. We are now witnessing results in my state that makes us competitive. Your disdain for our Constitutional form of government I find repugnant if not seditious.Your position reminds me of that of Brig. Gen. Jack D. Ripper in Dr. Strangelove. So obsessed was he with "purity of essence" that he was willing to watch his world destroyed in the process of protecting himself against a perceived, yet imagined, threat. There is no "magic button" to push and create libertopia. However, I do at least recognize your right to secede from our political process......The Rio Grande is but a days drive south...