A libertarian who supports what, exactly? The right to free association? Name a libertarian, he or she supports it.
Mozilla CEO resigns after donation to Prop 8
- Thread starter cawacko
- Start date
A libertarian who supports what, exactly? The right to free association? Name a libertarian, he or she supports it.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
I said name a libertarian that supports what happened to Eich.
You are not a libertarian. I am not sure what sort of game you are playing, but I have provided plenty of proof that you are wrong. You have not addressed those points. You can no longer feign ignorance and it is clear that you are lying.
It's fine to disagree, with the premise. I have argued it only advances liberty after many more libertarian reforms and without those reforms such a policy is detrimental to liberty. But, you are just lying about it, which does not help you or the cause.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
I am indeed on most issues. Fiscally conservative, socially moderate and I believe in limited/small government. The only one I really disagree on is abortion as I think it is a right to life issue vs. privacy issue. You on the other hand are a complete fraud.
When did you say that?
You're conflating two distinct concepts: (1) supporting the right to association and (2) supporting the manner in which that right was exercised. As I said previously, you can disagree with Mozilla's decision to push him out, but not on the grounds that forcing him out violated libertarian principles.
Now, let's get back to your claim that libertarians do not support the right of a company to fire an employee for private expression of political opinion. Who should curtain that right?
As usual you are attempting to divert attention from your failed point with personal attacks.
It's fiscally conservative and socially liberal, not moderate. Even that is a bit of a misnomer as conservatives take economic positions designed only to allow them to conserve or now regain the cultural hegemony. Your twist shows you are really just a conservative. Even on economics you tend towards a more conservative stance than a libertarian one. You are a socially moderate Republican.
You apparently disagree with the position on freedom of association, as well.
You call me a complete fraud naming your diversions and fail to name one of mine. You are not only a fraud you seem to be an unabashed liar, which returns us to your failed point. Libertarians, do in fact, argue that freedom of association implies a right to discriminate.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
Try improving your reading comprehension skills.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
Nonsense. We all know you are a fake. It is evident in what you continue to spew forth on this board.
LOL... depends on what definition of liberal you are referring to. If you are talking classic liberal, then yes. I was also speaking of myself... I use 'moderate' because of the abortion issue. The one where you deny science and pretend the unborn aren't human progeny. Where you pretend skin cells and fertilized egg cells have the same properties.
Oh, the poor little Fake Libertarian string... you really should pay attention. As someone who is more Libertarian than you will ever pretend to be, fiscally conservative is a Libertarian position.
You apparently disagree with the position on freedom of association, as well.
LOL. What actually happened was that you said:
To which I replied:
To which you replied:
To which I responded:
And then you refused to answer the question. So I tried again:
You declined to respond again. So I tried a third time:
I tried again today, again to no avail.
In the midst of your refusal to answer my question, you said the following:
Now you've changed it from "
And LOLers all around.
That isn’t what this debate is about; yes we are not free from “criticism”, but when you destroy jobs, someone’s livelihood or destroy their property because of their beliefs and speech, that’s just Fascism.
You are not a libertarian.
No, I would argue that libertarians are more supportive of free markets than conservatives. Conservatives toss out free market economics unless they support the cultural hegemony they wish to maintain or regain. Obvious examples are their position on drugs or sex trades. But they also are more likely to support trade barriers, farm subsidies, bailouts for corporations, etc., than libertarians are. Economics for them is just a means to gain cultural control and true free markets are too unwieldy and disruptive for their liking.
I don't disagree with the position on freedom of association. There is just too much government interference in the market to make it feasible. For instance, the Montgomery Bus Boycott was against a private company, National City Lines. However, they enjoyed a monopoly on bus services granted by the government and that was used to control them. The government is far too involved in the economy, blurs the line between public/private and both sides shape the other. Once the government is whittled down to size to where it can no longer be used by the left or right to control culture, freedom of association might be feasible and the market could effectively deal with bigots.
My caveat is based on libertarian premises while yours is just partisan nonsense and whim wishing about "group think" and ill defined "fascism."
I certainly don't need to pay attention to you or anyone else here to understand libertarian thought. I have read extensively from libertarian thinkers. You obviously have not or you are lying about what the philosophy is. I have also ran for office as a Libertarian and served in various roles as an official of the party. You are just some "online libertarian" (not a real one) who is ashamed he voted for Bush twice.
Dear dumbass; I didn’t re-write the meaning. I applied it to people who act Fascist.
But alas, I am talking to an unintelligent dullard who gullibly parrots talking points he can’t begin to comprehend like a trained little circus monkey.
Wrong again dumbass; you attempted to define a Liberalism that no longer exists with morons like you and then stupidly attempt to defend the Fascist efforts of a tiny minority to destroy people’s lives, property and livelihood because they don’t happen to agree with them.
You can spin this all you want like the dishonest hyper partisan dimwit that you are; but Fascist behavior is Fascist behavior; you can’t disguise it with lipstick.
I can’t steal YOUR epitaph; after all, you earn it each and every day with the stupidity that constantly erupts from your keyboard.
Even your pathetic attempts at humor look stupid.
Says the dumbass who can't comprehend what the debate is about.
And btw, are you now acknowledging that you were wrong.
I know it is difficult for you.
cawacko
Well-known member
Had a few minutes to listen to one of my favorite talk radio guys in the Bay Area. He's a Democrat and he's pro gay marriage but what I like about him is he's (I think) a reasonable dude and not an ideologue or a shill. (His name is Ronn Owens).
He said he fully supports gay marriage and spoke out against Prop 8 but the whole idea of firing this CEO over this just feels wrong. It had nothing to do with work and there was no evidence he mistreated anyone at the company based on their sexuality or had fostered a hostile work environment.
I agree with that. I'm trying to think of other examples of this type of scenario to see if my belief would be consistent and I'm open if someone can come up with others.
He said he fully supports gay marriage and spoke out against Prop 8 but the whole idea of firing this CEO over this just feels wrong. It had nothing to do with work and there was no evidence he mistreated anyone at the company based on their sexuality or had fostered a hostile work environment.
I agree with that. I'm trying to think of other examples of this type of scenario to see if my belief would be consistent and I'm open if someone can come up with others.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
You are an idiot.
Thank you for proving you are an ignorant buffoon. You list the above and yet just prior to that you proclaim I am not Libertarian. You have just proven that you have no clue what my positions are and are instead just ranting because you know yourself as a fake and wish to project that onto someone else.
No, it is not. Your position is indeed based upon group think. You have no clue what it is to be a Libertarian.
Clearly you have comprehended your 'reading' just as well as you have comprehended my positions that I have stated for over a decade on the various boards that many of us have been on.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
Not in the least you buffoon... those were your words. I simply didn't use the quote boxes when I should have. But then, I know that is hard for an idiot like you to notice.
You are an embarrassed Republican.
You don't even know what libertarians believe.
I had no problem understanding Rothbard, Rand or any of the others you have not bothered to read.