Quote:
|
Spice your words well lest you be forced to eat them.
|
You've made it clear that you are either ignorant of the basic philosophical workings of libertarianism (ie the Non-Aggression Principle, Individualism vs Collectivism, etc), and are therefore talking out of your hat, or you are aware of them and are choosing to ignore them, and are therefore talking out of your ass. Spicy enough for you?
Quote:
|
Show me a libertarian that believes in a large federal government propped up by a lot of taxes where collective rights are protected and the military is expanding and I'll gladly admit I was wrong. Until then, I invite you to read the issues pages of the Libertarian Party:
|
None of which has jackshit to do with Timothy McVeigh's ignorance of, and non-adherance to, the Non-Aggression Principle. Whatever someone -calls- themselves is of no matter when they not only don't fit the label but act in ways which are diametrically opposed to that label. The Non-Aggression Principle defines what it means to be libertarian, not the issues page of the Libertarian Party, and until you're aware of what it says and means on a philosophical level this discussion is fairly pointless.
Quote:
|
After I've read that, will you actually respond to what I posted or will you go off on another tangent?
|
If you're both able and willing to debate honestly, rather than using convenient strawmen unrelated to the facts of the philosophical debate at hand, yes. If you are unwilling or unable to do so, then I see no reason to engage you any further.