Does Libertarianism Allow For Jerks?

[shanek]

Presumably the governement also has a function in writing new legislation, since (also presumably) the current laws are not all perfect. I personally am worried about the "human nature" of the (hypothetically very small) number of people involved in that malleable process.

Which is why that government should be limited by a Constitution, which should be very difficult to change.

 

[Tez]

Which is why that government should be limited by a Constitution, which should be very difficult to change.

I'm not concerned about the members of government who respect the constitution, or any other set of mores. I'm concerned about those who do not.

 

[shanek]

I'm not concerned about the members of government who respect the constitution, or any other set of mores. I'm concerned about those who do not.

Which brings up the issue of enforcement of said Constitution, something that really isn't being done today.

 

[EvilYeti]

This is a libelous comment. Please retract it or I may consider action.

So are your dozens of unwarrented claims that I'm a liar.

I'll make you a deal, I'll retract my comments if you go through this thread and remove EVERY SINGLE adhom calling me, or anyone else, a liar.

 

[EvilYeti]

EvilYeti, the rules do not specifically proscribe libel, but your allegations about Shanek present a danger to his welfare. I strongly suggest that you retract your statements.

You are correct, the rules do not specifically proscribe libel. Hence the ability for folks like shanek to habitually libel his critics by calling them liars. It only seems fair that in absense of any moderation, others may libel him in return.
Or is there a rule that says only certain posters are allowed to libel, or only certain types of libel are allowed?
Could you clarify please?

 

[shanek]

So are your dozens of unwarrented claims that I'm a liar.

Truth is a complete defense to libel. I have shown your lies to be lies. Suddenly even confirmed my side. And those lies were attacks against me which I had to defend myself against.

You say it's libel? Fine; then sue me. I'll countersue, showing your UNFOUNDED claims that I'm a child molestor. We'll see who a jury sides with.

If you want a fight, then go for it.

 

[Jet Grind]

Diezel,

While I often identify myself with the libertarians, I would like to contest some of the points you made about human nature.

Originally posted by Diezel
I1) People want to live free, with as much choice in their own matters as possible - you do this by involving governement in as little as possible, with their only purpose to enforce criminal penalties, facilitate commerece and mediate contractual disagreements.

True, people do want to live free. However, everyone has their own biased interpretation of freedom. Libertarians say that freedom means freedom from the "intiation of force" and socialists (of the left-libertarian or anarchist stripe) believe that freedom means freedom from authority or hierarchy. Not everyone can have all the freedom they want. The purpous of government is to maximize freedom but also to ensure safety from actions that Thomas Jefferson would say were "injurious to others". However, to do so, it must perform more tasks than you designate (thought I agree that the goal is to minimize it).

Originally posted by Diezel
2) People are selfish and will maximize their own benefits - See above. The government is there to make sure anyone that breaks the law is punished.

Do parents of children steal food off their plates when they're hungry? They would if they were naturally selfish. If this were entirely true, then projects like Linux and Wikipedia (and the OED) would never have even gotten off the ground. I agree that the fundamental nature of human's is egoistic, but it can't be genrealized so easily.

 

[Suddenly]

Truth is a complete defense to libel. I have shown your lies to be lies. Suddenly even confirmed my side. And those lies were attacks against me which I had to defend myself against.

Don't get plural on me Shane. I can point out the one instance where you did make a distinction between insider trading and other forms of fraud. However, that is not the only time you have made such an accusation that another poster has lied. Plus, screaming "liar" is not a defense. Supplying evidence of a lie is a defense.

There just actually is a wolf there this time, so to speak. To avoid these kinds of p*ss*ng matches I suggest supplying documentation (similar to that I provided on your behalf) to back up any claims regarding another poster being mistaken, or if you must be uncivil, that another poster has lied.

To be precise, Yeti called you a "registered sex offender," which does not necessarily mean child molester. Slight difference, but if you are going to push this I would suggest you be precise about it.

 

[EvilYeti]

Truth is a complete defense to libel. I have shown your lies to be lies.

You have done nothing of the sort. For example, you yourself said police protection would be paid for in part by "usage fees". A usage fee is a FEE someone pays to USE a service.

It's not a lie for me to say that if one has to pay for police protection then those that cannot afford to will not recieve any. That's called "logic".

If you have a different understanding of "usage fees", then please explain it. The definition I am using is the common one. There is absolutely no need to call anyone a liar.

 

[shanek]

To be precise, Yeti called you a "registered sex offender," which does not necessarily mean child molester.

He said my campaign was funded by NAMBLA. The allegation was clear.

 

[shanek]

You have done nothing of the sort. For example, you yourself said police protection would be paid for in part by "usage fees".

AND excises. Later on, Diezel showed to you how, say, gas taxes could be used to pay for police, and you replied, "That would be an excise tax." Clearly stating that it wouldn't be included in the funding for my hypothetical police force, since the whole point of your rebuttal was defending your absurd claim that I don't want police protection for the poor. That was a LIE, since from the start I mentioned excises along with user fees.

It's not a lie for me to say that if one has to pay for police protection then those that cannot afford to will not recieve any. That's called "logic".

But that doesn't change the fact that I never said that everyone should have to pay directly for police protection. That's called "lying."

Also, as I pointed out, there are people today who pay little or nothing towards police protection. So your "logic" is invalid anyway, since the police force does NOT have exclude its protections to those who pay for it directly.

 

[shanek]

All right; I'm going to make it easy for EvilYeti. If it is true that I'm a sex offender, and associated with NABLA, surely that is something the electorate should want to know, right? People don't want a County Commissioner like that, right?

Okay, EY: Here's the contact information for all of the papers local to my area. Feel free to contact them and submit your information to them. Also feel free to post their reply here if they do anything other than laugh in your face.

News@Norman
PO Box 434
407 N. Pilot Knob Rd.
Denver, NC 28037
704-489-NEWS
newsatnorman@charter.net

Lincoln Times-News
P.O. Box 40
119 W. Water Street
Lincolnton, NC 28092
704-735-3031
editor@ltnews.com

The Gaston Gazette
1893 Remount Road
Gastonia, NC 28054
704-869-1700
gastongazette@link.freedom.com

The Charlotte Observer
600 S. Tryon St.
Charlotte NC 28202
704-358-5000
localnews@charlotteobserver.com

And hey, while we're at it, we can't have me around my kids, now, can we? Not if I'm associated with an organization dedicated to sexual abuse, right? So feel free to notify my local Department of Social Services:

Lincoln County Department of Social Services
PO Box 130
Lincolnton, NC 28093
704-736-8678

That phone number is their child abuse and neglect line.

I'm sure they'll be coming by to arrest me any day now...

 

[gnome]

You are correct, the rules do not specifically proscribe libel. Hence the ability for folks like shanek to habitually libel his critics by calling them liars. It only seems fair that in absense of any moderation, others may libel him in return.
Or is there a rule that says only certain posters are allowed to libel, or only certain types of libel are allowed?
Could you clarify please?

Do you not see that calling someone a liar in an argument is, at worst, rude... and referring to someone as a sex offender is a statement that can do actual harm?

I can't believe you consider this equivalent.

 

[EvilYeti]

AND excises. Later on, Diezel showed to you how, say, gas taxes could be used to pay for police, and you replied, "That would be an excise tax." Clearly stating that it wouldn't be included in the funding for my hypothetical police force, since the whole point of your rebuttal was defending your absurd claim that I don't want police protection for the poor. That was a LIE, since from the start I mentioned excises along with user fees.

If you only meant excise taxes, then you should have left it as that. It was your decision to include "usage fees", which delegates some form of service only to those that can afford it.

But that doesn't change the fact that I never said that everyone should have to pay directly for police protection. That's called "lying."

You said "usage fees", not me. That means people whould have to pay FEES to USE the service of the Police. There is absolutely no other way to interpret that other then as having to pay directly for police protection.
Feel free to retract or clarify your statement, there is no need to call me a liar.

Also, as I pointed out, there are people today who pay little or nothing towards police protection. So your "logic" is invalid anyway, since the police force does NOT have exclude its protections to those who pay for it directly.

That is because there are no "usage fees" for police protection in our society! If there were, like you are avocating, then some law enforcement services would only be available to those that pay for them.

 

[EvilYeti]

Do you not see that calling someone a liar in an argument is, at worst, rude... and referring to someone as a sex offender is a statement that can do actual harm?

I can't believe you consider this equivalent.

Thats your opinion, I feel otherwise. I am just as offended at being called a liar as I would be being called a sex offender (and I've been called that here as well).

Anyways, I've very clearly edited my post demonstrating that the claims are ficticious and were leveled to prove a point.

 

[EvilYeti]

All right; I'm going to make it easy for EvilYeti. If it is true that I'm a sex offender, and associated with NABLA, surely that is something the electorate should want to know, right? People don't want a County Commissioner like that, right?

Apparently not, considering you only got 3% of the vote last time you ran.

 

[shanek]

You said "usage fees", not me.

That wasn't the lie. The lie was twofold: 1) the omission of excises as another method of payment; and 2) the denial that usage fees do not necessitate the service being exclusive to those who pay the fees.

That means people whould have to pay FEES to USE the service of the Police. There is absolutely no other way to interpret that other then as having to pay directly for police protection.

That is absolutely untrue. Let's say you go to your county office and get a building permit. You pay $X in exchange for the permit. Do you really think that the $X you gave them is the exact amount of the expenses of giving you the permit and no more?

That is because there are no "usage fees" for police protection in our society!

That isn't the same thing as saying that none of the money from user fees go to the police. It all, from every source—property taxes, income taxes, sales taxes, excise taxes, user fees, whatever—all goes into a big pot from which all of this funding comes. Permit offices, for example, generally run a surplus and that surplus is used to fund other items in the budget.

And then, of course, there are the excises you keep ignoring and pretending I never said.

 

[shanek]

Thats your opinion, I feel otherwise. I am just as offended at being called a liar as I would be being called a sex offender (and I've been called that here as well).

Not by me, so all of this is your malfunction, not mine. And the only "point" that you made with all of this is how insecure and immature you are, and how nobody at all should ever take you seriously. One need only look at your sig to see your motivations.

 

[EvilYeti]

Not by me, so all of this is your malfunction, not mine. And the only "point" that you made with all of this is how insecure and immature you are, and how nobody at all should ever take you seriously.

This is coming from the 30+ year old man whose entire rhetorical toolbox consists of calling anyone who disagrees with him a liar?

I stopped with the "liar, liar pants on fire" thing in Kindergarten. Why don't you do the same?

 

[shanek]

This is coming from the 30+ year old man whose entire rhetorical toolbox consists of calling anyone who disagrees with him a liar?

No, I call people who LIE a liar. All you have to do is stop with your lying. But it appears to be compulsive with you...