Yoni's thread detour

[101A]

In Yoni's "Olive Branch" thread the following discussion began:

]You're a walking contradiction, Yoni. Social Conservativism is diametrically opposed to, and in direct conflict with individual liberty, unless you are strictly referring to your own. SC is about telling people what is fair and what is foul, what is good and what is bad, what they can and can't do.

There's a whole range of socially conservative ideas. Exactly which ones do you think I hold that would deny anyone a personal liberty?

I would love to hear exstatic's answer; I think this could be a good discussion - but it shouldn't hijack Yoni's original

[Winehole23]

Yoni dons the austere ideological garb of the 19th century liberal, but his out and out defense of figures like GWB and his unrepentant worship of LE and state power muddies the water. He pretends to be libertarian, but has a very strong authoritarian streak. Just check the caption under his avatar.

FWIW, I don't think exstatic has the diagnosis exactly right. Yoni doesn't seem to be a social conservative in the sense that most self avowed Christian conservatives mean it. But he's not a pure libertarian either.

Maybe Yoni could throw a little more light on the subject himself.

[Bender]

Inquiring minds want to know

his out and out defense of figures like GWB and his unrepentant worship of LE

that's where I differ with yoni-ism

[LnGrrrR]

Yoni, WC and Viva like most of the fiscal aspects of libertarianism, but not a great deal of the civil aspects.

[NoOptionB]

The way I see it, Gay Rights and The right to kill your own babies having nothing to do with the Country's prosperity or National Security. Do what you want to do as long as it does not directly interfere with others.

I wish people would stfu about these "issues" and focus on the more pressing matters. Like how fiscally ed up we are.

[Winehole23]

I wish people would stfu about these "issues" and focus on the more pressing matters. Like how fiscally ed up it is.

Then go ahead and start a thread on that, Yoni.

[NoOptionB]

Not stfu on this forum, but generally in this country.

People put into office others on the basis of their stance on ABORTION & Gay "Rights", meanwhile that person they have put into office is looking at hundreds of millions of tax-payer $$$ at their disposal for completely unrelated issues.

Who is getting gamed.

[clambake]

Not stfu on this forum, but generally in this country.

People put into office others on the basis of their stance on ABORTION & Gay "Rights", meanwhile that person they have put into office is looking at hundreds of millions of tax-payer $$$ at their disposal for completely unrelated issues.

Who is getting gamed.

uh oh.

[101A]

Then go ahead and start a thread on that, Yoni.

How do you know?

[jack sommerset]

The way I see it, Gay Rights and The right to kill your own babies having nothing to do with the Country's prosperity or National Security. Do what you want to do as long as it does not directly interfere with others.

I wish people would stfu about these "issues" and focus on the more pressing matters. Like how fiscally ed up we are.

I don't get why any dude would want to stick his thingy in another dudes butthole. It has to be a mental problem. But I agree there are more things to fix. We can address this problem at a later date.

[Winehole23]

Just a guess. I could easily be wrong. It could be LockBeard, who we haven't seen in awhile. It could be any number of people.

Yoni openly played with the idea of a new handle yesterday, and I thought his long and very tedious tete-a-tete with Chumpy D last night just might have swayed him to do it. NoOptionB is posting in the same threads as Yoni and has very similar views, from what I can see.

But I could be wrong.

[101A]

Just a guess. I could easily be wrong. It could be LockBeard, who we haven't seen in awhile. It could be any number of people.

Yoni openly played with the idea of a new handle yesterday, and I thought his long and very tedious tete-a-tete with Chumpy D last night just might have swayed him to do it. NoOptionB is posting in the same threads as Yoni and has very similar views, from what I can see.

But I could be wrong.

Fair enough.

Thanks.

[Wild Cobra]

Yoni, WC and Viva like most of the fiscal aspects of libertarianism, but not a great deal of the civil aspects.

How do you mean?

I have no problem with people living their lives as they please. I may disagree with a lifestyle and speak out against it, but I would never be an authoritarian in changing it. Now unless you include not allowing anarchy to the point of violating other peoples rights...

Just how far does someone think libertarianism goes? The extreme is anarchy. I do not agree with allowing someone to be free to the extreme of violating other people. Nobody in their right mind advocates that. As long as you do not infringe on others, I say do as you please.

Now before you point out the "marriage" issue which seems to be a hypocrisy, let me remind you, marriage is an ins ution that we an grant equal benefits by law through. marriage itself is historically between opposite sexes, and should not be changed for reasons of benefits. These benefits can be given without a formal marriage, and marriage should not be recognized by government anyway.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion

Anyone know where that comes from?

[Wild Cobra]

I would love to hear exstatic's answer; I think this could be a good discussion - but it shouldn't hijack Yoni's original

True.

I consider myself mostly libertarian, but on the conservative side of the party splits. I am a firm believer in what the cons ution was meant to be as well.

Estatic's comment makes no sense to me. As I pointed out in the other threads, promoting an idea is not the same as forcing an idea. His assumption that there is force, i.e. authoritarianism, is flat out wrong in my opinion.

[Yonivore]

I would love to hear exstatic's answer; I think this could be a good discussion - but it shouldn't hijack Yoni's original

I appreciate the opportunity to continue this discussion and, I also thank you for your consideration in not hijacking the “olive branch” thread.

I notice Exstatic hasn’t responded to your (or my) challenge but, others have. So, until we hear from Ex, I’ll address some of the comments made thus far.

Yoni dons the austere ideological garb of the 19th century liberal, but his out and out defense of figures like GWB and his unrepentant worship of LE and state power muddies the water. He pretends to be libertarian, but has a very strong authoritarian streak. Just check the caption under his avatar.

FWIW, I don't think exstatic has the diagnosis exactly right. Yoni doesn't seem to be a social conservative in the sense that most self avowed Christian conservatives mean it. But he's not a pure libertarian either.

Maybe Yoni could throw a little more light on the subject himself.

I will try, thanks for the interest.

First, I really need to challenge and refute this impression I am, was, and continue to be a blind supporter of “figures like GWB.” In speaking of President George W. Bush, alone, there are at least two of his initiatives over which I vehemently disagree with him. And, I’ve stated so.

First, and most recent, are the financial sector bailouts and TARP. I think both were disastrous ideas and I think he bears partial responsibility for the financial mess in which we now find ourselves. My free market principles tell me government should have stayed out of it and allowed the markets to do what they do. Real assets would have been reallocated to other companies as the market saw fit and these imaginary assets would have evaporated. It would have been painful to watch and there would still be this Monday morning quarterbacking

That doesn’t mean I shouldn’t recognize the demons that got us to that point to begin with. The Community Reinvestment Act amendments signed into law by President Clinton; the exploitation of those amendments, by ACORN and other groups, to extort lenders into making loans they shouldn’t have; the congressional protection provided by Barney Frank and Christopher Dodd (among others) of the racketeers in Freddie and Fannie that allowed the problem to fester to near apocalyptic proportions; and the desperate financial sector mad men that developed wild-assed derivatives and financial instruments (albeit in an effort to counter the effects of government-induced catastrophy).

Second, is his continued support of the so-called “War on Drugs.” It’s a money pit that’s accomplishing nothing. It always has been. But, so has every other social war in which the government has engaged, from the “War on Poverty,” to the “War on…,” well, whatever (I can’t think of another off the top of my head. Possibly, the only “Wars” on anything social that has ever achieved anything resembling a modi of success would be the “War on Illiteracy.” I think there was one of those. But, I digress.

I disagree with President Bush’s spending initiatives at the end of his presidency and I disagree with his continuation of the so-called “War on Drugs.”

I’m sure there are other issues over which I disagree with the former President but, they apparently never came up in this forum and, I can’t call to mind what they are at the moment.

I’m certain my reputation as an unabashed, uncritical support of President Bush’s came from a two or three impressions I’ve left in here. One is that I completely supported (and still do) his decision to invade Iraq. Another is my support and admiration of his steadfast commitment to that endeavor. And, finally, is my personal admiration and respect in his integrity and character, based on some limited, but inconsequential, exposure to him personally and professionally, in a variety of settings over a number of years.

And, yes, I still think history will eventually vindicate and lionize President Bush on his response to our being attacked on September 11, 2001. That will be the legacy of his presidency.


You’re going to have to explain the statement about my “unrepentant worship of LE and state power.” I’m not sure I get your meaning. I can say, however, I have no control over the quote under my Avatar. In fact, I’ve asked Kori on a number of occasions to change it. Most recently to, “He Lied.” And, before that, “I Hope He Fails.” I’ve never understood why she put there what she did but, it’s her forum and all I can do is appeal to her to change it.

I don’t think I have a strong authoritarian streak…except, maybe, with my children.

Yoni, WC and Viva like most of the fiscal aspects of libertarianism, but not a great deal of the civil aspects.

I think this goes to the heart of my confusion and the impetus of my question to Exstatic.

Exactly what civil liberties have my positions, here in SpursTalk, proposed to restrict or abolish?

The way I see it, Gay Rights and The right to kill your own babies having nothing to do with the Country's prosperity or National Security. Do what you want to do as long as it does not directly interfere with others.

I wish people would stfu about these "issues" and focus on the more pressing matters. Like how fiscally ed up we are.

First of all, Winehole23, this isn’t me. Secondly, I disagree that ”Gay Rights” do not impact our country’s prosperity and that ”the right to kill your own babies,” doesn’t directly interfere with others’ [rights]. More on both of these in a minute.

But, as far as “STFU” on these issues, there is plenty of conversation going on about the fiscal issues and I don’t think the occasional diversion into these topics is distracting from them. They are important – as important, I think – as the government malfeasance. Plus, this is a multi-threaded forum, if you don’t want to talk about an issue, don’t step in that thread…stick to the ones you deem most important. If the issue you think is most important doesn’t have a thread. Start one. That’s what I do. That’s the beauty of this place – indeed; it’s the beauty of the interweb tubicles. Everyone has equal standing upon which they can build a reputation.

Now, allow me to clarify my “Gay Rights” affects prosperity inference. I personally believe every individual should have the right to do whatever they wish so long as it does not interfere with another individual’s rights. From that perspective, I disagree with whole idea of marriage being in any way associated with government. Giving sexuals the “right to marry” is just as ludicrous, to me, as traditional marriage enjoying government preference – most notably with regard to federal taxes. I’m opposed to the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) and I’m opposed to defining marriage in the law or in the cons ution. I’m equally opposed to forcing religious organizations to recognize marriage in any other context other than that in which they choose to view it.

My other objections over “Gay Rights” have to do with forcing employers to treat them as traditionally married couples. This is a fiscal objection and not a moral one. Employers cannot afford to extend the same benefits to everyone they do to traditional married couples. For this reason, I object to forcing employers to expand health insurance and other benefits to domestic partners. But, I also think this demonstrates the folly of employer-involved/sponsored benefits. Personally, I think employers should only be required to pay a wage which is agreed upon between them and their employees. The employee should be responsible for providing retirement and health insurance benefits themselves.

Now, about “the right to kill your own babies.” I’m opposed to abortion not on conservative religious grounds but, on cons utional grounds. I think it is a violation of the unborn child’s right to life. Obviously, this is one of the two areas (mentioned I my “olive branch” thread) of libertarianism where we diverge. To me, it’s not a matter of the woman’s rights but one of the unborn child’s.

Over the years the point at which a fetus becomes viable has varied and increasing become earlier and earlier in the gestational period of the pregnancy. Additionally, there are legal arguments made and won for declaring a fetus an person for the purpose of murder prosecutions. Finally, there is no small amount of disagreement over when life begins or when a person becomes an individual deserving of cons utional protections. For that reason, vehemently opposed the “right” of a woman to “choose” to terminate a pregnancy.

I have, in many a thread in here, allowed there are certain cir stances – health of the mother, rape, and incest – where there can be reasonable debate over the merits of abortion. I’ve even allowed I don’t know what I would do or say in the case of having a close relative faced with that cir stance. I’ve only ever advocated that we could all agree to end the practice of convenience abortions – accounting for the vast majority of abortions – and then, have a reasonable thoughtful conversation about how to approach those instances where the pregnancy results from forced sexual intercourse or where the mother’s health is endangered. And, still, I think those conversations should be had in the context of appreciating the rights of the unborn child.

And, don’t start in on me with Roe v. Wade and how I just have to accept it’s the law of the land, etc… Slavery was legal once. And, frankly, I think this issue will someday be viewed in that context. We will be appalled that we could ever countenance such a barbaric practice.

The only place my religion even enters into it is where my belief of when life begins is concerned. I believe life begins at conception and that it is morally wrong, after that point, to take that life. I believe that until society definitively knows when life begins, it is wrong to allow abortion. But, not just on my own moral grounds but on the grounds that it violates the cons utional protection afforded individuals living in this country.

The other issue over which I diverge from libertarianism is my position on the War on Terror and, particularly, the war in Iraq. I think libertarianism is too isolationist, in that respect, and that it does not appreciate the danger of global terrorism. There was a time when our geographic position on the globe afforded us a pretty secure place in the world. That’s no longer true and I think all the isolationists that think we can just withdraw to within our borders and everything will be okay are wrong.

Just a guess. I could easily be wrong. It could be LockBeard, who we haven't seen in awhile. It could be any number of people.

Yoni openly played with the idea of a new handle yesterday, and I thought his long and very tedious tete-a-tete with Chumpy D last night just might have swayed him to do it. NoOptionB is posting in the same threads as Yoni and has very similar views, from what I can see.

But I could be wrong.

You are wrong and that was tedious, wasn’t it? And, gosh, I hope I don’t sound like NoOptionB.

I hope I cleared some things up…for those who care about such things. And, while you have no reason to believe I wouldn’t create a new handle and come in her as a sock puppet, all I can say is, I never have. Even when I became TRO, I aligned myself with the Yonivore handle, claiming to be a close friend or some such…so you would know I was in agreement with the same views.

I hope that if I ever decide to do a mouse, I have the decency to just quit playing in Kori’s sandbox.

[nuclearfm]

. He pretends to be libertarian, but has a very strong authoritarian streak. Just check the caption under his avatar.

This is a common issue in modern Libertarians, it is a philosophy that holds no measure to the extent of self interest. Being authoritarian is very commonly libertarian. It happens.

[doobs]

This is a common issue in modern Libertarians, it is a philosophy that holds no measure to the extent of self interest. Being authoritarian is very commonly libertarian. It happens.

[nuclearfm]

Libertarianism belligerently rejects the very need for any justification for its belief in something called “liberty.” It repudiates the need for any intellectual foundation to explain why “liberty” is desirable and what “liberty” means. Anyone from a gay-rights activist to a criminal counterfeiter to an overt anarchist can declare that he is merely asserting his “liberty”—and no Libertarian (even those who happen to disagree) can objectively refute his definition. Subjectivism, amoralism and anarchism are not merely present in certain “wings” of the Libertarian movement; they are integral to it. In the absence of any intellectual framework, the zealous advocacy of “liberty” can represent only the mindless quest to eliminate all restraints on human behavior—political, moral, metaphysical. And since reality is the fundamental “restraint” upon men’s actions, it is nihilism—the authoritarian individual desire to obliterate reality—that is the very essence of Libertarianism. If the Libertarian movement were ever to come to power, authoritarianism would be the consequence.

[Yonivore]

Libertarianism belligerently rejects the very need for any justification for its belief in something called “liberty.” It repudiates the need for any intellectual foundation to explain why “liberty” is desirable and what “liberty” means. Anyone from a gay-rights activist to a criminal counterfeiter to an overt anarchist can declare that he is merely asserting his “liberty”—and no Libertarian (even those who happen to disagree) can objectively refute his definition.

I disagree…

Asserting your rights, whether it be gay rights or health care rights or whatever, should not require anyone to give up their rights in order to accommodate you.

Most “rights” activists concentrate one gaining something they perceive someone else has they don’t. Employment benefits, access, whatever. I think this misses the point of equality and liberty.

The only thing in which I’m in favor of ensuring fairness is government. Only the government should be required to be color-blind, non-sexist, and considerate of the handicapped. Period.

If an individual or business owner wants to be racist, sexist, or uncaring of the physically and mentally challenged, it’s there business. To require otherwise is a violation of the individual or business owner’s rights because it requires them to relent power over a fundamental right – the right to the fruits of their labor.

This argument applies to the current debate over health care. No one has a right to health care. Why? Because it necessarily requires someone to give up their right to the fruits of their labor – medical school education, treatment or therapy development, medical equipment manufacturing, and the provision of medical services.

Subjectivism, amoralism and anarchism are not merely present in certain “wings” of the Libertarian movement; they are integral to it. In the absence of any intellectual framework, the zealous advocacy of “liberty” can represent only the mindless quest to eliminate all restraints on human behavior—political, moral, metaphysical.

Again, I disagree. In true libertarianism, as I see it, the restraint is respect for another’s liberty.

And since reality is the fundamental “restraint” upon men’s actions, it is nihilism—the authoritarian individual desire to obliterate reality—that is the very essence of Libertarianism. If the Libertarian movement were ever to come to power, authoritarianism would be the consequence.

Okay, you lost me here.

[nuclearfm]

I disagree…

Asserting your rights, whether it be gay rights or health care rights or whatever, should not require anyone to give up their rights in order to accommodate you.

Most “rights” activists concentrate one gaining something they perceive someone else has they don’t. Employment benefits, access, whatever. I think this misses the point of equality and liberty.

More often than not, people in addition to "right activists" do have to give up their rights for accommodation. Ignoring it doesn't make it false.

The only thing in which I’m in favor of ensuring fairness is government. Only the government should be required to be color-blind, non-sexist, and considerate of the handicapped. Period.

If an individual or business owner wants to be racist, sexist, or uncaring of the physically and mentally challenged, it’s there business. To require otherwise is a violation of the individual or business owner’s rights because it requires them to relent power over a fundamental right – the right to the fruits of their labor.

This is why I said their is no justification for "Liberty" in Libertarianism. In many cases it can be considered an evil doctrine.

Again, I disagree. In true libertarianism, as I see it, the restraint is respect for another’s liberty.

This is ideally what is supposed to happen. But things never happen ideally. Moreover, there is no explicit universal restraint in Libertarianism for another person. For that, you may need to combine in with that of Objectivism. Although, that's like incest.

Okay, you lost me here.

Well, this is good as it strikes yourself as not a complete libertarian idealogue. This was about ignoring all qualifiers and justification in pursuit of personal liberty and the often authoritarian actions it can develop.

[Wild Cobra]

This is a common issue in modern Libertarians, it is a philosophy that holds no measure to the extent of self interest. Being authoritarian is very commonly libertarian. It happens.

You fail.

You obviously don't understand.

[nuclearfm]

You fail.

You obviously don't understand.

No, you're not the one that understands. You have no idea what libertarianism is, along with the majority rest of the crap that you post. (look no further than your bull (white power) interpretation of the 14th amendment). The funny thing is that, most of the instigators of modern libertarianism where hippies. I'm sure you like that association. Crap loads of think tanks tear that philosophical basis and political party up just for fun. Carry on amateur.

[Wild Cobra]

No, you're not the one that understands. You have no idea what libertarianism is, along with the majority rest of the crap that you post. (look no further than your bull (white power) interpretation of the 14th amendment). The funny thing is that, most of the instigators of modern libertarianism where hippies. I'm sure you like that association. Crap loads of think tanks tear that philosophical basis and political party up just for fun. Carry on amateur.

And I'm not a reformed hippie in what way?

[Yonivore]

More often than not, people in addition to "right activists" do have to give up their rights for accommodation. Ignoring it doesn't make it false.

I disagree. Individuals should not be forced to compromise their own liberty to accommodate another’s.

Only governments should be required to accommodate.

This is why I said their is no justification for "Liberty" in Libertarianism. In many cases it can be considered an evil doctrine.

Your assertion presumes libertarians aren’t compassionate and wouldn’t alleviate the suffering of others who required assistance. I reject that.

I think history has shown that people are generally benevolent. Particularly people who are free to be so. In every crisis in recent memory, the individuals of the United States of America have given more to relieve the suffering of others than any other people in the world. That doesn’t mean I agree that the government should have been throwing my money on top of the pile as well. It’s my money to give…not the governments.

In fact, I believe if the government were less free with the fruits of our labor,..Americans would give more to alleviate the suffering of their fellow man.

I also believe the belief that government should be in the business of charity arises from the desire of the benefactor to satisfy themselves they are actually giving to a needy cause. Words such as shame are often invoked when proponents argue for yet another government handout. They want to insure people receive what they’re en led without being shamed.

Personally, I think shame, humility, and the uncertainty of provision are great motivators. What we’ve done, instead, is create a class of en lement dwellers who position themselves and their families to forever be a ward of the state.

This is ideally what is supposed to happen. But things never happen ideally.

That doesn’t justify taking the fruits of my labor and giving them to someone else that did not earn them.

In reality, for instance, the amount of public assistance to which a family the size of mine is en led, in some cases, exceeds the amount of my net salary. From rent/mortgage subsidies, to food subsidies, to free inclusion in community benefits the rest of us pay for (above our taxes) to school lunch, free daycare, subsidized utilities, and on and on and on. If you know how, you can make a pretty decent living off of my taxes.

That’s wrong.

I think people should be forced to seek assistance not have it handed to them.

Well, this is good as it strikes yourself as not a complete libertarian idealogue. This was about ignoring all qualifiers and justification in pursuit of personal liberty and the often authoritarian actions it can develop.

I always view my personal liberty in the context of how it relates to others’.

[nuclearfm]

Your assertion presumes libertarians aren’t compassionate and wouldn’t alleviate the suffering of others who required assistance. I reject that.


Personally, I think shame, humility, and the uncertainty of provision are great motivators. What we’ve done, instead, is create a class of en lement dwellers who position themselves and their families to forever be a ward of the state.






I always view my personal liberty in the context of how it relates to others’.

You're statements should spur you to look into Objectivism. Those are real platforms largely unaddressed by libertarianism.