CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
You can share this debate in three different ways:
#1
#2
#3
Paste this URL into an email or IM:
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
Hy Ismailia I am a libertarian
Recently Ismalia claimed I'm not a libertarian because of my views on gay marriage and abortion. Now this isn't really what bothers me. What bothers me is right after she did that she banned me from the debate soas to prevent me from defending myself. Well that won't work. Look I am a libertariean I believe the federal government should leave the people and states alone and let the states rule themselves as they were ment to. I also hold some conservative beliefs that other libertarianis may or may not share big deal I'm some where between a libertarian and a conservative but I identify much more with libertarians due to their strong stances regarding states rights, border security, and gun rights.
Can you explain what the difference in the views of the conservatives and the libertarian views on states rights, border security, and gun rights that makes you lean libertarian? You seem conservative in those areas, but I haven't seen much of your thoughts on it.
I really have to agree with Ismalia on this one (for once). Libertarians want you do just do whatever (and destroy everything in the process). You sound like a Neo-Liberal to me. You are against people doing anything they want with their bodies, yet you like no interference in economics.
(This slightly biased argument is 100% accurate... as usual).
Its all good. I like that. There are republicans that don't want to be a democrat but don't really agree with everything a typical republican would. Lots of people do this. You don't have to follow the typical libertarian beliefs. Its all up to you so if you are libertarian the I will address you as a libertarian.
Again, it's great to know you're a Libertarian, but honestly, no need to make a debate about it. If you had a bone to pick with someone, say it to their face, don't make a whole debate about. And then ban them when they comment on it, because they're too stuck up about their own religion and philosophies to give a damn about what other people think. Ismailia!
Shut the &$@% up. . I can vote when I feel it's necessary. You never said a word when I voted in favor of your statements. Stop acting like you own me. Thank you for not harassing me today but don't start now.
I don't hate gay people I just think gay marriage is to controversial to ever be passed I do support the creation of a legal union that provides the same legal protections as a marriage and just calling it something els that way everyone is happy.
Yes sir, I do. I must specify that I am liberal, not a libertarian, but I have researched many views when I was deciding what was right for me. Feel free to ask questions. :)
So what about sex selective abortion, where a fetus is aborted solely because it is a girl. Wouldn't that contradict your beliefs about equality for women.
I was just asking you a good queston. Both sides have a valid point for protecting women's rights. The right to choose vs the right to avoid persecution based solely on there gender.
I never made a statement one way or then other. I just asked a queston. Dispite your attempts to reword your answer you responded more or less that one women's right to choose to abort is greater than another's right to live.
What about the father? Does he get a choice too? Or does he not get one just because he's a man and doesn't 'know the pain of childbirth, pregnancy, etc'.
I mean, it's not like the woman just WILLED the baby into existence, right?
She's probably just mad that she isn't always right. She has to have her own way in any argument and makes invalid assumptions of people based on preconceived ideas she has in her mind about someone. I know because in the debate of "should child pornography be decriminalized" she came to say I was evil, anti-Semitic, a child molester sympathizer and a few other things. When in reality I merely stated my views on imagined works vs. works of reality because in those debates the distinction between the two was seriously lacking. She couldn't handle the truth about orthodox-jewish rabbi's who torture newborn babies by cutting off the foreskin with no numbing agents then proceed to suck the penis of the newborn to draw blood. Blamed me for hate speech and lieing and then wanted me to leave her alone even though there is evidence of babies dieing and contracting herpies out there and easy to find online. saying "If I don't leave her alone I will be sorry." meanwhile she came to bash me and destroy my reputation then proceed to say im guilty of slander because I told her what the real ritual of jewish circumcision meanwhile she was calling me evil, anti-Semitic, ect. I would say not to let her bother you. She is an idealistic type of person anyway.
Also I believe that her treatment of you was just the result of her losing to me and her anger and frustrations were taken out on someone who she believed to be weak. simply to make herself feel better. more simply a control freak.
lol see what I mean, she clearly discredits me when I am referring to ORTHODOX-JEWISH RABBI'S. And I'm sorry to have to define what prochoice actually means. Being prochoice means you are advocating the right to be able to choose. Therefore, while he may not totally agree with gay marriage he isn't infringing on the core belief.
I actually agree re the prochoice thing. I am always saying that prochoice is not proabortion. Thank you for clarifying the Jewish thing. My apologies.
I'm libertarian because I believe that the governments only role is to defend our borders and mediate between the states but not rule them. I also don't think we need a federal income tax property tax pays for everything people need, the Feds don't need that kind of funding because they aren't supposed to have law enforcement or a military because the constitution doesn't say they can and as the 10th amendment states any powers not specifically given to the federal government by this document shall be relegated to the states. The federal government should have to get its army from by the states giving them theirs (national guards) and states have law enforcement FBI not needed. And I see no reason why weed should be illegal its not harmful.
As do I property tax I'm okay with because it helps the tax payers directly. but federal income tax is useless and robbery the constitution doesn't even give the government the power to have the things they support with our taxes anyway.
There are different perspectives yeah I would like to keep more of my own money but governments need taxes to carry out their roles and the appropriate amount of government is needed.
I once had someone try to troll me by saying that because I wasn't a liberal, then there was absolutely no way that I could be gay. Because to be gay you have to be liberal.
So yeah. Same mindset here. Except they probably aren't trolling you.
Like I said I'm a little more conservative in some areas. but the Republican Party is just as bad as the democrats and the libertarian party is the only one big enough to challenge them (maybe not now but they are getting their) so they are our only hope that's why I support them.
Yeah. The role of the state and government in legislating ones theology.
Abortion and gay marriage being theological arguments.
A libertarian who believes a state has the right to legislate concerning abortion and gay marriage then necessarily not only supports government's right to tell people what to do,
they support government's right to tell people who may or may not be religious that they must act as religion dictates.
The state and government? I am refrering to the state as a whole. A libertarian regards the state as the supreme, the eternal, the best organized aggressor against the persons and property of the mass of the public.
A libertarian who believes a state has the right to legislate concerning abortion and gay marriage then necessarily not only supports government's right to tell people what to do,they support government's right to tell people who may or may not be religious that they must act as religion dictates.
These opinions vary between libertarian to libertarian. Which I never mentioned in my argument.
The state and government? I am refrering to the state as a whole. A libertarian regards the state as the supreme, the eternal, the best organized aggressor against the persons and property of the mass of the public.
That's cartoonish, and ridiculous. Governments have made many things possible and many things better.
These opinions vary between libertarian to libertarian. Which I never mentioned in my argument.
Ah, so it's not always an evil aggressor with a handlebar mustachio tying damsels to railroad tracks. If libertarians think someone should be forced to do or believe something then government is okay. It's only when a libertarian doesn't want to do something that it's evil.
That's not nearly as childish and odd as I've always thought the libertarian world view was ._.
For centuries, the State (or more strictly, individuals acting in their roles as “members of the government”) has cloaked its criminal activity in high-sounding rhetoric. For centuries the State has committed mass murder and called it “war”; then ennobled the mass slaughter that “war” involves. For centuries the State has enslaved people into its armed battalions and called it “conscription” in the “national service.” For centuries the State has robbed people at bayonet point and called it “taxation.”
This is your government. The simple formation of a state automatically forms two distinctive classes. The ones who carry the burden of taxation and the ones who recieve the money from those who were affected by taxation. The government only responds to the mass of the public when the populace discovers a problem. The multitude of ideas is then reduced to typically two major conflicting ideas split between the parties of the state. These ideas are presented to the public and they must decide on the ideas formed by the state which still benefits the state and not the population as a whole.
Ah, so it's not always an evil aggressor with a handlebar mustachio tying damsels to railroad tracks. If libertarians think someone should be forced to do or believe something then government is okay. It's only when a libertarian doesn't want to do something that it's evil.That's not nearly as childish and odd as I've always thought the libertarian world view was ._.
This is far irrelevant to my initial argument and you seem to be using this as a ploy. These statements you are presenting are no where near the nature of my initial response in this debate.
For centuries, the State (or more strictly, individuals acting in their roles as “members of the government”) has cloaked its criminal activity in high-sounding rhetoric.
Well sure. And centuries before that monarchs did, before that tribal leaders, before that clan chiefs, before that we just hit each other over the heads with clubs and didn't bother with rhetoric. But is there more corruption when more people have a say in how and what force is used, and who's will this force is meant to carry out? Clearly humans are better off today, at least those in states where people have a say in who leads them, then in the past. I find most libertarians are really really good at complaining about how horrid the world is, but when one truly looks at the effects their theories would have as a whole on society if carried to their conclusion, is backwards. It's trading slow improvement of societies as a whole because they are sad it's slow, for a giant step backwards where only those with power and money have any influence.
For centuries the State has committed mass murder and called it “war”; then ennobled the mass slaughter that “war” involves. For centuries the State has enslaved people into its armed battalions and called it “conscription” in the “national service.” For centuries the State has robbed people at bayonet point and called it “taxation.”
You have a say in all of these things though, is the point. Without government you would not. These things would still happen. Someone would still take your money, and probably more of it and you'd not get benefit like schools and roads from it, there would be war, and probably more of it, the difference is you have a say. Sometimes you get what you want, sometimes you don't, but the point is that today the majority of people get most of what they want most of the time. It has not been this way through most of human history, and will cease to be this way if people give up their source of power, which is government in a democratic society.
This is your government.
Well, our government. Ours. We share it... wait, am I interrupting some kind of speech? Wait, did you? Hold on...
You complain against control, and your freedom, and blah blah blah, but you won't even use the freedom you have to come up with your own argument.
So I guess I'll argue with Murray Rothbard, which I'll do happily. I find him to be a whiny douche with no concept of human behavior.
The simple formation of a state automatically forms two distinctive classes.
This is incorrect. Human nature automatically forms classes, several of them in between those with, those without and based on ability. Government does not inherently do this but it does tend to reflect our nature. The difference is that government can when done correctly, give more power and more opportunity to those who otherwise would have none.
The ones who carry the burden of taxation and the ones who recieve the money from those who were affected by taxation.
And in his whiny way what Rothbard fails to realize is that 1. everyone pays taxes. 2. everyone who pays taxes actually gets more back for their money than they invest. Roads, schools, a military to protect us, no billionaire in the world is able to afford all of this all by themselves, much less the people Rothbard is trying to inflame with is "rhetoric." Rothbard may take issue with how some is spent, he can say some should be spent more efficiently, everyone agrees with that, but the idea that he or we are getting nothing for this, or that we are paying more than we are getting out, is not correct.
The government only responds to the mass of the public when the populace discovers a problem. The multitude of ideas is then reduced to typically two major conflicting ideas split between the parties of the state. These ideas are presented to the public and they must decide on the ideas formed by the state which still benefits the state and not the population as a whole.
I do agree with this to an extent. We simplify problems and too often present problems as "either/or,"
But Rothbard is not the first to notice nor are libertarians even more likely to complain about this. If anything looking at the nuance of problems and multiple solutions is the realm of the progressive branch of liberalism, not libertarians, and certainly not the conservatives most libertarian leaders are a front for.
This is far irrelevant to my initial argument and you seem to be using this as a ploy. These statements you are presenting are no where near the nature of my initial response in this debate.
Your original statements or Rothbards? Was that first argument yours? Are we back to your thoughts now?
It is. As above Rothbard complains that "there's only two solutions and things are more complex" more or less, or that there are multiple solutions. Granted he offers no solutions but whatever. You painted a very complex thing, a democratic government, into a very simple thing, a cartoon villain. You are guilty of the very thing the guy you are quoting is complaining about. I point this out with a colorful description involving mustachios and damsels tied to railroad tracks, sure, but it was relevant none the less.
Well yeah. I was simply stating what the man says and by his achievements I would assume he understands more about the state than you do. I just simply used his argument to show you what your government is like. So yes I came up with my own argument. You however understand little to nothing about the nature of libertaians and their view of the state. Also government does make two classes but your attempt to cut my argument into pieces lacks ethos. You surely didnt want to post the rest of it. Also everything else besides murrays words which were just about the centuries came from my mouth so center your mind back to the discussion. Everything I said is true. That is your government.
My debate or actually my response was given. You must not understand libertarian ideology. The state forms two classes of people. Tax payers and recievers. These recievers, usually mass corporations or government officials are not held by all the rules of taxation. This should be common logic for you.
You must not understand libertarian ideology. The state forms two classes of people.
Despite pyg's insistence to the contrary, I do understand this theory very well.
I understand it so well I know it to be incorrect.
Again, humans naturally create a number of classes and governments as a necessary extension of humanity reflect this to a degree.
But government potentially also offers the only means to power for those who are not born powerful. It is the only tool to allow people to "be free" as you libertarians love to say.
Without this power dispersed more evenly, humans naturally form classes and consolidate power for the few.
Libertarian ideology is not freedom, it is taking away that hard-won power from the people, and putting it back in the hands of the few.
Oh yes. Let me apply your brilliance to America. How many parties does America have? A lot. How many actually have won presidency? Generally 2. The governmemt does too much. Hard won? The state is composed of elites. They make America run the way they want it to.
No, I'm talking about the inevitable result of libertarian theories of role of government.
If a business for example makes the calculation that 1% of people who take this drug will definitely die from it, but the other 99% will pay X amount which is more than they would make if that 1% lived to buy more.
The libertarian ideology says, "oh no, that could never happen because people will just not buy it." Or the real anti-government ones say really dumb stuff like, "yeah! they do that because government made them! They'd be magically more moral if only government weren't there."
I am saying this premise is incorrect. Not only will that company go through with selling that drug, this and similar things will happen in every part of society. In the libertarian world that company is rewarded for killing that 1%, and they will become more powerful.
The good business that on their own makes the decision to not sell that drug will have less money. They will eventually be swallowed by those that are greedier. This is the necessary result on a large scale, and it would happen everywhere on a smaller scale to of course.
Amidst all of the shifting libertarians do between what is and is not libertarian, when they do or do not want government,
The constant is don't spend any taxes (since there are none or next to none) "interfering" with business. That this fact falls in line with a lot of current conservative thinking in no way diminishes this.
Do you think that Exxon would have cleaned up the gulf if government did not make them?
Do you think people would stop buying oil in protest to that disaster, until they did clean it up?
Explain to me, if people cannot collectively decide what is and is not acceptable for a business, when a business needs to stop doing something, when a business can or cannot stor combustible fertilizer in unsafe conditions, etc
who can? If you have money and power, who can stop you from doing whatever you want?
Vigilantes? Well that business can hire 10 thugs for ever vigilante that wants justice.
What power do people have over business that does bad things and then covers up, or lies about it, or has a monopoly so you can't go elsewhere?
When you realize that today, power is no longer how big and strong you are or how many followers you have or how big a clan you are from, that power is money,
then you realize that democracy is that group of villagers protesting with pitchfork in hand a tyrant lord or duke.
Libertarians think that government is that lord or duke. They are wrong. That was government and is in dictatorships and monarchies, but in a democracy, this government is the people.
Maybe you're pissed off about Government legislation against personal autonomy,
but libertarians aren't. Libertarians love it from what I've seen. Any time one of them gets the least bit of power they immediately begin casting votes against personal autonomy all over the place. Where are these libertarians who think like you?
Maybe you're pissed off about Government legislation against personal autonomy,
but libertarians aren't
By definition they would be.
Where are these libertarians who think like you?
GuitarDog
PrayerFails
ChadOnSunday
Murray Rothbard
Milton Friedman
FA Hayek
Lew Rockwell
The entire staff of Reason Magazine
John Stossel
Thomas Sowell
Frederick Dougless
Walter E. Williams
Adam Smith
Thomas Hobbes
John Locke
George Orwell (Opposition to Statism and Hierarchies, and even how Altruistic Socialist communities are ONLY possible with elimination of government is far more consistent with my specific ideology)
Ron Swanson
Trey Parker and Matt Stone (creators of South Park)
Penn and Teller
Clint Eastwood
Doug Stanhope
Gary Johnson
Matt Bellamy
My best friend from High School
But I suppose the Libertarians you were thinking of was the Tea Party... right, they're just Conservatives whom think its trendy. Bill Maher represented the Liberals who once thought it was trendy a decade ago.
However, Liberals and Conservatives fail to prove to be Libertarians when they support legislation that regulates what we do with our own lives and property. It's one thing to have SOME views that lean towards Authoritarianism, but to have the amount of desire for Big government as Liberals and Conservatives do is far from the Libertarian mindset.
By definition, libertarians pick and choose when they want government just like every party, they are just more hypocritical in their criticism of others when they do the same thing.
Case in point:
It's one thing to have SOME views that lean towards Authoritarianism, but to have the amount of desire for Big government as Liberals and Conservatives do is far from the Libertarian mindset.
libertarians pick and choose when they want government just like every party
You really must explain more. You do realize that there are definitions of ideologies that would help point out who is a libertarian and who is not, yes?
For example, someone who believes in an emphasis on Constitution and States' rights would be a Paleo-Conservative. The Libertarian leaning faction of the Republican Party (Ron Paul).
However, the list I made was an example as to the people who are dead center within the Libertarian ideology.
Some are complete Anarchists, others believe in policing against murder, rape, and thievery.
But I'm glad that your rhetoric personifies your insecurities in your own argument. You asked for examples, I gave you a list. Not happy with it? How unfortunate. Please rebuttal instead of acting like a child, though.
Truly, are you not interested in the view points of others? Do you not wish to know how these ideologies work? How bored could you be to not have such a passion for debate yet try and debate anyway?
A step forward in your analysis, though. You are quite a great representation of the American Democrat.
For example, someone who believes in an emphasis on Constitution and States' rights would be a Paleo-Conservative. The Libertarian leaning faction of the Republican Party (Ron Paul).
I believe in an emphasis on the Constitution and State's rights too. This means nothing and libertarians insistence that they have a monopoly on these things is insulting.
However, the list I made was an example as to the people who are dead center within the Libertarian ideology.
1. This is a country of over 300,000,000. You could have a list 1,000 times that length and my comment would still be valid.
2. I don't think your list is entirely accurate. Hardly fair claiming dead people would agree with the libertarian philosophies you claim to be central.
Some are complete Anarchists, others believe in policing against murder, rape, and thievery.
I don't think a complete anarchist would necessarily agree to be categorized within this group either.
But I'm glad that your rhetoric personifies your insecurities in your own argument. You asked for examples, I gave you a list. Not happy with it? How unfortunate. Please rebuttal instead of acting like a child, though.
That's a bit harsh. It seemed the perfect time to act childish since the argument replied to seemed so simple.
I'm very secure in my arguments. Libertarians in power are just as guilty of the "force" they claim they are against, the only difference is where this is applied. You can't force an employer to provide safe working conditions, you can force an individual to carry a baby to term. You can't force a business to not discriminate, but you can bar individuals from occupying those businesses. Then should one "libertarian" disagree with some thing another libertarian claims to be central to their belief, swiftly change the subject to the debt or taxes or whatever.
Claiming that those libertarians which have achieved some form of power fit your description of what you believe libertarians to be, is lunacy, because no two follow a platform of any sort that can be nailed down beyond generic descriptions that could apply to anyone "we believe in the constitution, we believe in states rights."
Claiming libertarians are any more interested in individual freedom than any other popular political philosophy utter rubbish. They are concerned with freedom for those with power from what I see, and I've never seen a single issue in which the result of a libertarian philosophy is not more power for the few and less for the masses, more money for the few less for the masses, more freedom for the few and less for the masses. Always under the guise of individual freedom. Everyone else is "free" sure, as in free to fend for themselves.
As for providing a rebuttal, rebuttal to what? A list? I did. My original point? You've made no counter argument, just the "rhetoric" you accuse me of.
Truly, are you not interested in the view points of others? Do you not wish to know how these ideologies work? How bored could you be to not have such a passion for debate yet try and debate anyway?
I'm very interested in the view points of others, and you'll notice the spectrum of subjects I debate is much wider than yours. I debate just about everything, from different angles, often multiple people at the same time. I'll enter a debate where I am the only opposing view against 3, 4, 5 hardcore idealogues who absolutely despise my opinion and not blink.
You seem to only have a single issue on the other hand, and you seem to only bother to defend that issue, predictably, never ever veering from that. If you ever do have a complaint about any labeled (or that you've labeled) libertarian, you conveniently ignore it for the "greater good" of defending this catch-all of a philosophy. I don't do this. I argue with liberals, conservatives, atheists, theists, gamers, rap fans, rock fans, you name it.
If I am bored, then you are boring.
A step forward in your analysis, though. You are quite a great representation of the American Democrat.
I am. And my arguments, include reasoning, possible solutions to problems, and I look at multiple sides of the issues. I do not sit back and complain whilst refusing to define my own stance or offer any specific ideas of my own for fear of argument.
To be fair however American Progressive Liberal would be the more accurate label.
I believe in an emphasis on the Constitution and State's rights too. This means nothing and libertarians insistence that they have a monopoly on these things is insulting.
Completely ignoring what I say...
Paleo-Conservatives, not Libertarians. They just happen to be Libertarian leaning Conservatives, but they're main concern is the Constitution. Since the Constitution preserves liberty, many Libertarians support it. Many Conservatives who have also flocked to defending the merits of the Constitution identify with Libertarians, but an emphasis of States' rights OVER individual rights is the problem.
You could have a list 1,000 times that length and my comment would still be valid.
At this point it's more that you just wouldn't get it...
Hardly fair claiming dead people would agree with the libertarian philosophies you claim to be central.
Promotion of individual liberty and little government involvement? I'm curious who I mentioned that you find disputable.
I don't think a complete anarchist would necessarily agree to be categorized within this group either.
I know the differences within Anarchist philosophy. What I'm saying is that some Libertarians are for complete eradication of government.
It seemed the perfect time to act childish since the argument replied to seemed so simple.
Or that you don't care about the differing views of these philosophies. You just make outrageous statements.
Libertarians in power are just as guilty of the "force" they claim they are against
Which ones? I would contest to them actually being Libertarians and not just some Liberal or Conservative trying to sound like he's different from the rest of the politicians.
You can't force an employer to provide safe working conditions, you can force an individual to carry a baby to term.
That really depends. The Libertarian leaning Conservatives view those babies as individuals. I highly disagree with them and so do many who actually adhere to Libertarian philosophy. However, how do you feel about Libertarians who are against any government force of that nature?
You seem to just try to argue against Libertarianism within your own terms. But I suppose, in the end, you DO believe in government force, just for different things. You are basically just a Democrat... the big government guy who disagrees with Republicans.
You can't force a business to not discriminate, but you can bar individuals from occupying those businesses.
Only if those people are trespassing. Do you believe that you should have a right to who is allowed into your house? I know I know, you think a house is different from a business, regardless, Libertarians are against force whether you personally think businesses should be forced by government or not.
because no two follow a platform of any sort that can be nailed down beyond generic descriptions that could apply to anyone "we believe in the constitution, we believe in states rights."
Except that isn't it at all and you haven't been paying any attention to anything PF, Guitardog, or I have been saying for the past few years that we've all been arguing on this site.
Claiming libertarians are any more interested in individual freedom than any other popular political philosophy utter rubbish.
Well, if you were arguing from an Anarchic/Marxist/Syndicalist point of view, you'd have a point. They also support individual freedom and major lack of government. They just have different philosophies.
Rand Objectivists also disagree with Libertarians but also are for very small government.
These philosophies inter-lap like any philosophies. However, we all highly disagree with you Democrats and Republicans who support the State as is and believe in granting this extreme amount of power to politicians.
I'm very interested in the view points of others, and you'll notice the spectrum of subjects I debate is much wider than yours.
Oh please, I suppose you're going to claim that you answer most to all of my disputes when this is one of the few times you actually respond to me.
I'll enter a debate where I am the only opposing view against 3, 4, 5 hardcore idealogues who absolutely despise my opinion and not blink.
Why would you blink?
You seem to only have a single issue on the other hand, and you seem to only bother to defend that issue
Yes... after the many years I've been here you really have not retained any of my arguments at all... Or you're trying to troll. Not sure.
If you ever do have a complaint about any labeled (or that you've labeled) libertarian, you conveniently ignore it for the "greater good" of defending this catch-all of a philosophy.
Back when Ron Paul was a big deal I've labeled my reasons for disagreeing with him.
I've argued with PrayerFails over the validity of Murray Rothbard's arguments. In the end, I agree with much of what he says, but I like to point out any possible flaw I can be find. I'm actually quite thorough. But I suppose you're either trolling or just don't really care about what I've said over the years.
I argue with liberals, conservatives, atheists, theists, gamers, rap fans, rock fans, you name it.
So have I.
To be fair however American Progressive Liberal would be the more accurate label.
I suppose because you are against the Wars on Terror while the Democrats aren't.
The thing is I am a libertarian and that critical position you take that defines you as a libertarian is your view of the role of the state. Republicans or Democrats do not have to believe everything that your typical democrat or republican would. Values such as abortion or your view on immigration vary from person to person.
Real libertarians are neither prochoice nor prolife. There is no hard and fast rule for what a libertarian is to believe in regards to abortion, with some taking the former under the pretenses of a woman's right to do what she will with her body, while others think that it falls under the same heading as murder, and therefore should be illegal.
You committed the No True Scotsman fallacy. This is all I said. I did not measure the truth of your claim, just responded to the [similar] phrase of "Only true libertarians believe/support" as it was a fallacy.
Yes it is a fallacy, called the No True Scotsman fallacy as I've stated before. You asserted that "only true libertarians" _______. That is all that is needed to commit this fallacy.
The only except to the fallacy is when it comes into conflict with the definition, for instance: No pure gold would have plastic.
This defeats the definition of gold if true, thus is an exception to the fallacy; because it's demonstrable fact.
