libertarian candidates

[Mahatma Kane Jeeves]

Re: Wait

It simply consists of a commitment NOT TO RAISE ARMS against the US government. What other party makes such a commitment. Your comment about the oath is dishonest. So you, for example, wouldn't be willing to take an oath not to raise arms agains your government?

The "Non-Initiation of Force Principle" simply requires that you do not initiate force. Retaliatory force, against a corrupt, liberty-usurping govt for example, is perfectly acceptable. See here for more info. I have never seen anyone claim this as a promise not to take arms against the government. If it is, then that is very commendable. On the other hand, I have often seen the claim that government initiates force. In which case, retaliation would be acceptable.

I have also seen it defined this way:

http://rpuchalsky.home.att.net/libfaq.html

Initiation of force means any use of force that a Libertarian doesn't like, as opposed to "retaliatory force", which Libertarians do like. Libertarians reject initiation of force, but think that retaliatory force is OK. Any use of force can conveniently be defined as either "initiating" or "retaliatory" by restricting the time or other scope of the problem under consideration.

 

[varwoche]

Re: yes, yes!!!

Let's all relish this and revel in the glory of trashing the only political party that actually has your interests and the interests of the rest of the American people at heart.

I'm not trashing the party, though it's not past me. I am trashing Badnarik.

If I were someone who cared about the LP, I would be pissed at the fanatics who nominated nutcase Badnarik, not at the people aptly observing that Badnarik is a nutcase.

As to reveling... guilty as charged, more to come.

 

[shanek]

Re: Re: Wait

On the other hand, I have often seen the claim that government initiates force. In which case, retaliation would be acceptable.

Only directly against those who initiated the force, to physically stop them from continuing the use of force. That's "defensive" force. Otherwise, its "retributive" force and ya gotta use due process.

You try and kill my sister so I kill you to stop you: defensive force on my part.

You try to kill my sister, and later on I hunt you down and kill you: vengeance on my part, which is an initiation of force.

You try to kill my sister, so I have the cops come and arrest you and put you on trial: retributive force consistent with the concept of due process.

 

[shanek]

Re: Re: yes, yes!!!

As to reveling... guilty as charged, more to come.

Are the answers to my questions coming?

 

[Kerberos]

As is the decision whether or not the application of certain laws is justified, again according to English Common Law.

Yes the executive power interprets law, but this interpretation can be overruled by the courts.

"Traditionally"??? Ours was the FIRST Constitution to have such separation of powers! What "traditionally" are you talking about???

I forgot about that.

Uh, the Constitution IS the law. It is the SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND. That's in Article VI. The Constitution is the law, superior to, and thererfore trumping, any other law.

I was referring to the specific law passed by Congress, if the President chooses not to implement a law, then obviously he isn't executing it faithfully.

You don't see that as a massive contradiction? How can he choose not to implement unconstitutional laws without being able to determine if it's unconstitutional or not?

If you're saying he has to wait for the Supreme Court to decide, that's just bogus, since he can't enforce a law that the Supreme Court overturns anyway.

No, I'm don't see any massive contradiction, and no I'm not saying he has to wait for the Supreme Court to decide, but if he claims a law is unconstitutional, then he can be overruled by the SC.
Edited to add: What you don't seem to understand, is that you're not just giving him the power to block unconstitutional laws, he can block any law he chooses, because there's no one who can overrule him, whether the law actually is unconstitutional is utterly irrelevant (as you examples, if accurate and complete, illustrate).

They DID. I QUOTED it. SEVERAL times.

You quoted something you think says that, I don't agree and it certainly doesn't say it clearly and unambiguously.

FYI, the word "interpret" does not appear anywhere in the Constitution.

Where does it give the Supreme Court "in absolutely unabiguous terms" the sole power to decide the Constitutionality of laws?

I know the word interpret doesn't appear, but since it's impossible to write a Constitution that is 100% unambiguous in all cases, interpretation is called for. As for where it says so, you'll have to explain which part of "The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution" it is you don't understand

Article III only gives them the power to do so in court cases, when there's some kind of dispute about it.

Like a dispute between Congress and the President? Thank you for proving my point.

Um, that sentence makes no sense.

The President has IIRC a regular veto which can be overruled by 2/3 of Congress. You seem to argue he also has some kind of super veto that cannot be overruled by either Congress or SC, no matter how lame his arguments for the unconstitutionality of a law is.

The founders were certainly worried about the government using the law to keep down people who were speaking out against it or openly rebelling against its tyranny. There is case after case after case of the founders writing about the importance of the President to be able to stop tyrannical acts of Congress; in fact, this is one of the things the Federalists and anti-Federalists agreed on!

Being worried is one thing, granting a blanket permission to veto any legislation is another. Did any of them clearly state that the president had such power?

I believe it was James Madison who eliminated Jefferson's Embargo Act (which Madison was initially for, but ended up being a dismal failure).

What was his argument for doing so? He certainly cannot have claimed it was unconstitutional since: Congress has the power to "To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations"
Edited to add: Jefferson was a President. Was the Jefferson Embargo Act, passed by Congress? Obviously a president can counterman another presidents executive order.

Andrew Jackson tried to stem the tide of inflation and the boom/bust banking cycle by ordering that land be purchased with hard money (gold and silver) (that didn't work either, BTW).

How is this ignoring a law passed by Congress?

He also blocked the annexation of Texas since it would add to the number of slaveholding territories.

Again what was his argument for doing this, it sounds blatantly unconstitutional since "New states may be admitted by the Congress into this union"

Polk ignored a Congressional Declaration of War in order to get the Oregon territory without fighting with Britain (which he did by offering to extend the Canadian border to the 49th parellel).

Well the President is CIC of the armed forces, I'm not sure if he's obligated to fight a war just because Congress tells him to, it could be argued that it is only unconstitutional if he fights wars without Congress approval (though IIRC this happens pretty often regardless of whether it's Constitutional)

And one could certainly argue that Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation was just such an instance, going against both state and Federal laws (although it, by design, was ineffectual).

Did this go against a law passed by Congress?

Good enough?

I don't know, it seems odd that 2 of the vetoes you say has been used by the president to block unconstitutional laws, have been used to deprive Congress of powers explicitly granted to them by the Constitution. Also in 200 years of history president5s might block some laws even if they weren’t technically allowed to. You don't have some SC ruling or similar that explicitly states that the President can do this? Also what happened to make this power go away?

The Supreme Court doesn't even come anywhere close to interpreting every single law, and the ones it does takes usually years after the passage of the law. So again, this doesn't pass the bogosity test.

SC doesn't have to rule on every law, only on laws that somebody claims are unconstitutional. That somebody could be the President.

 

[Thanz]

What are you talking about? They didn't want judge-made law at all. And that's not what Common Law is.

You really are confused. What do you think common law is based on? If you wanted to know what the principles are, where do you go? You go to previously decided cases. Decisions written by judges. That is how the common law develops - case by case. And it is the only way it develops.

Show me where the Constituion says that. And then explain why the Constitution specifies specific areas in which laws may be passed.

It doesn't have to say that. Did you think that in the areas of legislative authority carved out in the constitution there is no common law? Of course there is. And when the legislature enacts a statute in those areas, to the extent that it contradicts the common law, it overrules it. Sometimes, the law is writtten precisely because the legislature disagrees with the state of the common law in that area.

That's just not true. Common Law is law defined in the minds of the people, not the courts or the judges. Murder is a Common Law crime because the people, not judges or courts, pretty much universally consider it to be a crime. Are you saying that the legislature should be able to pass a law legalizing murder?

You are hopelessly confused. Hopelessly. To answer your question, yes the gov't could pass a law making murder legal (provided it had the constitutional authority to do so. In the US, I believe that criminal law is in the jusrisdiction of the State. So, New Jersey could declare murder legal in their penal code if they want.)

How, exactly, is the law in the mind of the people put into practical effect? You don't survey "the people". Common law is based on the decisions of courts and judges in the past.

Oh, in case you want a cite for my definition of Common Law:

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Common law
"That which derives its force and authority from the universal consent and immemorial practice of the people."

What a wonderfully vague definition. How exactly does the common law get enforced? By the court. And where do they look for the principles of common law? Other court cases. It is very simple. That is how the system works.

Further, your simplistic view could be used to support the idea that income taxes are payable according to the common law. Everyone knows you have to pay income taxes, right? It now has the universal consent and immemorial practice of the people backing it up.

Here are a whole bunch of other definitions:
http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oi=defmore&q=define:common+law

Some of my favourites:

The legal system that originated in England and is now in use in the United States. It is based on judicial decisions rather than legislative action.

Judge-made law and precedent, as opposed to statutory law. Common law systems (as in the UK, Ireland, the United States, and Commonwealth Countries) are distinguished from the civil law systems found in Continental Europe and much of the rest of the world. In terms of legal practice, the expression is used in distinction to equity and refers in particular to contract disputes, personal injury claims and the like.

The unwritten law developed primarily from judicial case decisions based on custom and precedent. It developed in England and constitutes the basis for the legal systems of most of the states in the United States.

Derived from British legal traditions, common law relies on judicial precedents set by prior court decisions to determine the development of legal principles, rather than on legal enactments. Common law derives its authority from rules of the court, custom, judicial reasoning, prior court decisions, and principles of equity. Canada and the United States (with exceptions noted in the above definition), England, New Zealand, and Australia are common-law countries.

1. originally, the common law of England, ie the general rules made applicable to the whole country, as distinct from local customs. 2. subsequently, the body of legal principles, offences, remedies, etc, which evolved through the practice of English courts. Hence, in comparative law, a common law system is one derived from the English legal system, as opposed to a civil law system. 3. the unwritten law based on court decisions and custom, as distinct from statute law. 4. law excluding and contrasted with equity.

And here is one that I think incorporates what you are talking about and what I am talking about:

American, Canadian and British law derives its force and authority from the universal consent and practice of the people over the years. Certain aspects of the law are written into statutes. The underlying principles and usages and rules of action which do not rest for their authority on this statutory or legislative law are to be found in principles set forth by decisions of the Courts over the years.

The first part is what you are talking about. The second part is what I am talking about. The actual principles are put into effect by the decisions of the Courts.

 

[shanek]

Yes the executive power interprets law, but this interpretation can be overruled by the courts.

Yes, again, checks and balances.

I was referring to the specific law passed by Congress, if the President chooses not to implement a law, then obviously he isn't executing it faithfully.

Even if that law is contradicted by a higher law (the Constitution)?

No, I'm don't see any massive contradiction, and no I'm not saying he has to wait for the Supreme Court to decide, but if he claims a law is unconstitutional, then he can be overruled by the SC.

Since I never said otherwise, I'm wondering what the point is here. Of course he could easily be put in the position of having to defend his actions. Checks and balances, again.

You quoted something you think says that, I don't agree and it certainly doesn't say it clearly and unambiguously.

Then what's the point of the freakin' oath?

I know the word interpret doesn't appear, but since it's impossible to write a Constitution that is 100% unambiguous in all cases, interpretation is called for.

That doesn't mean you get to "interpret" it any way you want. You have to interpret it in a way consistent with the text and what it says.

As for where it says so, you'll have to explain which part of "The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution" it is you don't understand

I want you to explain how that passage gives the Supreme Court the SOLE authority to decide what laws are unconstitutional.

Like a dispute between Congress and the President? Thank you for proving my point.

What point?

The President has IIRC a regular veto which can be overruled by 2/3 of Congress.

That's blocking the passage of a bill. But since the President has to "faithfully" execute the law, how can he execute a law when a higher law (the Constitution) says he can't do it?

What was his argument for doing so?

That it tanked the economy and threatened war with Britain and France.

He certainly cannot have claimed it was unconstitutional since: Congress has the power to "To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations"

Not the point.

Edited to add: Jefferson was a President. Was the Jefferson Embargo Act, passed by Congress?

Yes.

How is this ignoring a law passed by Congress?

Because it was in direct contradiction to the Banking Act, which allowed the use of promissory notes in the purchase of land. This also contradicted the Treasury Act.

Again what was his argument for doing this, it sounds blatantly unconstitutional since "New states may be admitted by the Congress into this union"

Texas wasn't coming in as a state at this time. It was just the US attempting to claim it as a territory.

Well the President is CIC of the armed forces, I'm not sure if he's obligated to fight a war just because Congress tells him to,

The Constitution gives Congress (and Congress alone) the power to declare war, but doesn't say what the President must do in response. But again, that's not what we're talking about. We're talking about a President acting against what Congress has legislated.

Did this go against a law passed by Congress?

Yes, the Fugitive Slave Act.

Also in 200 years of history president5s might block some laws even if they weren’t technically allowed to. You don't have some SC ruling or similar that explicitly states that the President can do this?

Don't need it. Do you have one saying they can't?

Also what happened to make this power go away?

Who says it went away?

SC doesn't have to rule on every law, only on laws that somebody claims are unconstitutional. That somebody could be the President.

Only if he goes through the same procedure as everyone else and files a lawsuit.

 

[shanek]

You really are confused. What do you think common law is based on?

The will of the people. If the people universally believe something to be against the law, then it is.

If you wanted to know what the principles are, where do you go?

It's called a "jury." Trial by jury was actually the birth of Common Law.

You go to previously decided cases. Decisions written by judges.

No, decisions determined by JURIES. And when you argue a Common Law case, you don't go by precedent nearly as much as you do when you argue a statutory case. You just appeal to what people believe and leave it to the jury.

How, exactly, is the law in the mind of the people put into practical effect?

Through trial by jury.

What a wonderfully vague definition. How exactly does the common law get enforced?

Through trial by jury. Why do you keep ignoring the jury?

And where do they look for the principles of common law?

To the jury. That's what the jury is. They represent the people.

Further, your simplistic view could be used to support the idea that income taxes are payable according to the common law. Everyone knows you have to pay income taxes, right?

And that does appear to be the case now. In fact, that's how most tax cases are tried. They tell the jury, "You have to pay taxes, everyone else has to pay taxes, why not this guy?" That's a Common Law argument.

 

[Thanz]

No, decisions determined by JURIES. And when you argue a Common Law case, you don't go by precedent nearly as much as you do when you argue a statutory case. You just appeal to what people believe and leave it to the jury.

Are you serious? Common law is all about precedent. That is what distinguishes it from a civil law system, which is all about statute codes.

Through trial by jury. Why do you keep ignoring the jury?

Why do you keep harping on it? What about cases that are decided by judge alone? Do they not follow the common law? Of course they do. Common law does not equal jury. You do not need juries to enforce common law. Here in Ontario most civil cases are non-jury, and they all follow common law. Every day.

To the jury. That's what the jury is. They represent the people.

If you and the Libertarians are so high on the jury, why are you taking the decision regarding lawsuits against gun manufacturers out of the jury's hands? What if the will of the people is to hold the manufacturer of guns like the TEC9 responsible? Why are you subverting that?

And that does appear to be the case now. In fact, that's how most tax cases are tried. They tell the jury, "You have to pay taxes, everyone else has to pay taxes, why not this guy?" That's a Common Law argument.

Then why does Badnarik want to charge IRS dudes with fraud if there is no specific statute?

 

[shanek]

What about cases that are decided by judge alone?

That's judicial law, not common law.

What if the will of the people is to hold the manufacturer of guns like the TEC9 responsible? Why are you subverting that?

Not even the Common Law can restrict rights. The "will of the people" could be to reinstitute slavery; that doesn't mean it should be allowed to happen.

Then why does Badnarik want to charge IRS dudes with fraud if there is no specific statute?

He wants to charge them with fraud IF THE HEARING DETERMINES that the committed fraud! Geez...

 

[Thanz]

That's judicial law, not common law.

Sorry, but you are 100% wrong on this. Judges apply the common law in cases every day without juries, and no amount of vague definitions or jury worship on your part can change that. Look at all of the other definitions that I posted and you ignored. There is no difference between what you are calling "judicial law" and common law. None.

Not even the Common Law can restrict rights. The "will of the people" could be to reinstitute slavery; that doesn't mean it should be allowed to happen.

What rights would the jury be restricting? The "right" not to get sued? If you make a dangerous product, you might get sued. If the jury thinks that the company that made the TEC9 did something wrong, then they have to pay for that. Very simple principle that I thought the libertarians agreed with. Suing Navegar does not in any way restrict rights.

He wants to charge them with fraud IF THE HEARING DETERMINES that the committed fraud! Geez...

He wants to charge them with fraud if the hearing reveals that there is no statute that requires the payment of taxes. Why can't they rely on the common law?

For that matter, has Badnarik put his money where his mouth is and refused to file his 1040 and pay his taxes?

 

[crimresearch]

BTW, isn't Badnarik also claiming to be a sovereign citizen of the Republic of Texas, and *not* a US citizen, therefor not subject to US law or taxes?

If so, how can a non-citizen even run for president?

Or has the LP now decided to reject *this* insignificant document?
" No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty five years, and been fourteen Years a resident within the United States. "
http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.articleii.html#section1

 

[shanek]

Sorry, but you are 100% wrong on this. Judges apply the common law in cases every day without juries, and no amount of vague definitions or jury worship on your part can change that. Look at all of the other definitions that I posted and you ignored. There is no difference between what you are calling "judicial law" and common law. None.

Take it up with Alexander Hamilton. He vociferously supported Trial by Jury in the Federalist papers and all but rejected judicial law, saying that by design the Constitution made the judiciary "the weakest of the three departments of power, that it can never attack with success either of the others, and that all possible care is requisite to enable it to defend itself against their attacks." That's also why the Constituion says very clearly, "The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury."

What rights would the jury be restricting? The "right" not to get sued? If you make a dangerous product, you might get sued.

But we aren't talking about a dangerous product. We're talking about a product that works perfectly but has been misused. I submit that any rational person would say that that is frivolous, and so would not be supported under Common Law.

If the jury thinks that the company that made the TEC9 did something wrong, then they have to pay for that.

No, if the jury thinks that the company broke the (statutory) law then they have to pay for that. They aren't being allowed any more to determine whether or not what they did was "wrong." Hence, Common Law has been excised from the equation, with judicial law in its place. Juries just aren't allowed (or so they're being told) to judge the merits of the law.

EDITED TO ADD: Oh, and let's not forget the words of the 7th Amendment: "In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law." That seems to make it plain. The word of the jury, in common law, is paramount.

 

[shanek]

BTW, isn't Badnarik also claiming to be a sovereign citizen of the Republic of Texas, and *not* a US citizen, therefor not subject to US law or taxes?

If so, how can a non-citizen even run for president?

We were ALL citizens of our sovereign states before the passage of the 14th Amendment, and we still managed to elect Presidents somehow. You were only a citizen of the US by being a citizen of one of the sovereign states. The 14th Amendment changed that.

 

[Thanz]

Take it up with Alexander Hamilton. He vociferously supported Trial by Jury in the Federalist papers and all but rejected judicial law, saying that by design the Constitution made the judiciary "the weakest of the three departments of power, that it can never attack with success either of the others, and that all possible care is requisite to enable it to defend itself against their attacks." That's also why the Constituion says very clearly, "The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury."

What does that have to do with whether or not judges apply the common law? You are still hopelessly confused. Judges apply the common law every day in the absence of juries. Every Day. So Hamilton liked juries. So what?

But we aren't talking about a dangerous product. We're talking about a product that works perfectly but has been misused. I submit that any rational person would say that that is frivolous, and so would not be supported under Common Law.

A TEC9 isn't dangerous? Are you serious? A handgun design to act like a military submachine gun isn't dangerous?

No, if the jury thinks that the company broke the (statutory) law then they have to pay for that.

What statutory law are you speaking of, specifically?

They aren't being allowed any more to determine whether or not what they did was "wrong." Hence, Common Law has been excised from the equation, with judicial law in its place.

What are you talking about? Juries decide this all the time. Whether the Company had a duty to the plaintiff, whether the defendant breached that duty, whether the breach was a causal factor in the damages suffered by the plaintiff, and what those damages are. What do think juries do in court cases?

Juries just aren't allowed (or so they're being told) to judge the merits of the law.

What are you talking about? Hopefully this will be clearer when you tell me what statute you think applies here that juries are ruling on.

EDITED TO ADD: Oh, and let's not forget the words of the 7th Amendment: "In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law." That seems to make it plain. The word of the jury, in common law, is paramount.

What that says is that you cannot appeal from the factual findings of the jury, if there is one. So what? Appeals courts are also loath to re-examine the factual findings made by judges. That doesn't mean that you need a jury - just that for cases over 20 bucks, you can have a jury. (I suspect that the 20 buck thing may be ignored - for example, are there juries in small claims courts?) Anyway, it does not require a jury, and it doesn't mean that a trial by judge alone does not apply common law. Your position is erroneous.

 

[shanek]

What does that have to do with whether or not judges apply the common law? You are still hopelessly confused.

Judges might APPLY the Common Law, but they don't MAKE the Common Law.

Judges apply the common law every day in the absence of juries.

Not supposed to, according to the Constitution.

A TEC9 isn't dangerous? Are you serious? A handgun design to act like a military submachine gun isn't dangerous?

Not when used properly. Geez, by your logic a HAMMER is dangerous! Let's sue the hammer makers because I dropped it and broke my foot! Give me a f*cking break...

It's only a case if there's a defect in the weapon that makes it dangerous even when used properly.

What are you talking about? Juries decide this all the time.

Yet again, judges are instructing the juries NOT to determine questions of law.

What that says is that you cannot appeal from the factual findings of the jury, if there is one. So what?

Duh, READ!!!! What do you think the words "the right of trial by jury shall be preserved" means???

Anyway, it does not require a jury,[/b]

"The right of trial by jury shall be preserved." Yes, it does. Unless the defendant specifically waives his right, YES IT DOES.

 

[Thanz]

Judges might APPLY the Common Law, but they don't MAKE the Common Law.

Again, fundamentally wrong. Judges "make" the common law everytime they write a decision - by adding to the set of cases used as precedents. The set of precedents IS the common law.

Not supposed to, according to the Constitution.

Where does it say this? The Supreme Court never has a jury. Are you saying that they don't apply, interpret or develop the common law?

Not when used properly. Geez, by your logic a HAMMER is dangerous! Let's sue the hammer makers because I dropped it and broke my foot! Give me a f*cking break...

No, the TEC9 is designed to be a deadly assault weapon, when used properly. A hammer is designed to drive in nails when used properly.

Yet again, judges are instructing the juries NOT to determine questions of law.

Perhaps that is because the jury's role is to determine the facts of the case based on the evidence, and then apply the law to it. They are not supposed to do whatever they want willy-nilly. You seem to have some whacked-out ideas of the role of a jury in a normal civil case.

Duh, READ!!!! What do you think the words "the right of trial by jury shall be preserved" means???

You have a right to trial by jury. Again, so what? What does that have to do with the role of the jury - which is to hear the evidence and determine the facts?

"The right of trial by jury shall be preserved." Yes, it does. Unless the defendant specifically waives his right, YES IT DOES.

If neither side wants a jury in a civil case, then you don't have one. The common law is still applied. The only difference is that the judge is now the finder of fact instead of the jury.

You have avoided some questions and points here shanek.

Which rights would be violated if the jury were allowed to determine a lawsuit against a gun manufacturer?

What statute were you referring to in your previous reply?

 

[Thanz]

Argh. Double post.

 

[crimresearch]

The specious 'Common Law' argument also conveniently overlooks the fact that without statutory law, and judicial interpretation, the supreme arbiter of legal matters would be what it was when Common Law was developed...the word of the King and the King's representatives.

Hence the language in the US Constitution specifying that the final word on judicial matters be taken AWAY from the executive branch.

The notion that 'common people' sit around and make law is as ludicrous as the notion that 'a jury of one's peers' refers to only being tried by people who are exactly like the defendant.

But Thanz already knows that, and it is only mildly amusing watching the anti-libertarian trolls like Shanek et al, see how much mileage they can get out of making ridiculous non-sequiter arguments based on fabricated interpretations and woo-woo debate tactics.

 

[Valmorian]

But Thanz already knows that, and it is only mildly amusing watching the anti-libertarian trolls like Shanek et al, see how much mileage they can get out of making ridiculous non-sequiter arguments based on fabricated interpretations and woo-woo debate tactics.

I've seen Shanek called a lot of things, some of them I even agree with, but this is the first time I've ever seen anyone call him an "Anti-Libertarian troll".