🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <uIadnZqZBewfRczRnZ2dnUVZ_jydnZ2d@giganews.com>,
 mrmcafee <"(mrmcafee)nospam"@cox.net> wrote:

> Billy wrote:
> > In article <ucydnQi5l5yDoc3RnZ2dnUVZ_v2dnZ2d@giganews.com>,
> >  mrmcafee <"(mrmcafee)nospam"@cox.net> wrote:
> > 
> >> Billy wrote:
> >>> In article <RJKdnQNnjc9LbdPRnZ2dnUVZ_vudnZ2d@giganews.com>,
> >>>  mrmcafee <"(mrmcafee)nospam"@cox.net> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Billy wrote:
> >>>>> In article <0MCdnV4aebO2A9DRnZ2dnUVZ_s2dnZ2d@giganews.com>,
> >>>>>  mrmcafee <"(mrmcafee)nospam"@cox.net> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> Jim wrote:
> >>>>>>> Billy wrote:
> >>>>>>> [....]
> >>>>>>>> Misdirection again, away from the real criminals who are 
> >>>>>>>> concentrated 
> >>>>>>>> in
> >>>>>>>> Washington D.C. and Wall Street, to the bread crumb sin variety, 
> >>>>>>>> trying
> >>>>>>>> to feed their families. Immigrants aren't $tealing trillion$ of 
> >>>>>>>> dollar$,
> >>>>>>>> folks. The people $tealing trillionS of dollar$ are investment 
> >>>>>>>> bankers,
> >>>>>>>> the military-industrial complex, and their "bought and paid" for
> >>>>>>>> politicians in both parties, the Kleptocrats. Ain't nothin gonna 
> >>>>>>>> change
> >>>>>>>> without campaign-finance reform, re-installment of Glass-Steagall 
> >>>>>>>> act,
> >>>>>>>> and the sheep get off their asses and demand change. Otherwise,
> >>>>>>>> --
> >>>>>>>> - Billy
> >>>>>>> but but but the sheepeople love their gubberment. 
> >>>>>> We do. We much prefer it to the libertarian system employed in 
> >>>>>> Somalia.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> lol
> >>>>> Somalia has no central government, it is partitioned among warlord. 
> >>>>> Whereas here, the central government is unified in its support for 
> >>>>> corporations, and those who own stock in them.
> >>>> As well as support for unions and for Grandmas. Our government is the 
> >>>> reason we can progress as a civilization. If you want to see the results 
> >>>> of libertarian 
> >>> Funny, my dictionary describes a libertarian as : a person who advocates 
> >>> civil liberty
> >>
> >> The way I used the term and the way we have been using it in these 
> >> forums is as defined by the Libertarian Party of the USA. Their defining 
> >> characteristic is (from their "Statement of Principles)
> >>
> >> "We hold that all individuals have the right to exercise sole dominion 
> >> over their own lives, and have the right to live in whatever manner they 
> >> choose, so long as they do not forcibly interfere with the equal right 
> >> of others to live in whatever manner they choose."
> >> http://tinyurl.com/2ahk5a2
> >>
> >> They believe that each individual is sovereign. Anarchy.
> >>
> >>
> >>> You don't support civil liberty? Hmmm.
> >> Of course I do. I'm a Democrat.
> >>
> >>
> >>> Odd. I don't remember ever 
> >>> hearing tell of a libertarian government.
> >> An impossibility.
> >>
> >>
> >>> Bolivia under Evo Morales, 
> >>> maybe.
> >> I see you are very confused.
> >>
> > I'm trying to communicate with you. What does that tell ya?
> > 
> > If you want an example of a nurturing government, Bolivia is it. No, not 
> > nurturing to the rich and powerful, but to the common citizen.
> > Viva Evo.
> 
> 
> You offered the Bolivian government as an example a of libertarian 
> government. You were confused. Perhaps even dazed.
> 
> 
> 
> >>>> style political philosphy, look to Somalia. 
> >>> Somalia, of course is an area, like Afghanistan that is ruled by 
> >>> competing warlords. There almost an unity of government (Islamic Courts 
> >>> Union), but it was one that was unacceptable to western powers, and it 
> >>> wasn't allowed to unify the country because of the introduction of US 
> >>> supported Kenyan and Ethiopian troops (land grabs don'cha' know)
> >>
> >> Just more libertarian style rule. There is no government to restrain the 
> >> powerful and protect the weak.
> > Uh, but you said "the defining characteristic Libertarian Party of the 
> > USA is (from their "Statement of Principles)". "We hold that all 
> > individuals have the right to exercise sole dominion over their own 
> > lives, and have the right to live in whatever manner they choose, so 
> > long as they do not forcibly interfere with the equal right of others to 
> > live in whatever manner they choose."
> > http://tinyurl.com/2ahk5a2
> > 
> > It's a contradiction in terms to have a libertarian tyranny, duuuuh.
> 
> 
> Is it? Weakling "A" thinks that the village water supply belongs to 
> everybody in common. Strongman "B" thinks that the well should belong to 
> him, and has the power to deny water to everybody else. There is no 
> government to judge who is right and to force the outcome of their 
> decision. Both are operating under the libertarian concept.
> 
> It is rule of the strongest, anarchy.

You said that libertarians "hold that all individuals have the right to 
exercise sole dominion over their own lives, and have the right to live 
in whatever manner they choose, so long as they do not forcibly 
interfere with the equal right of others to live in whatever manner they 
choose."

That would include "A", but exclude "B".

Are you still drunk?
-- 
- Billy
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the 
merger of state and corporate power." - Benito Mussolini.
http://www.democracynow.org/2010/7/2/maude
http://english.aljazeera.net/video/middleeast/2010/07/201072816515308172.html