Yet another Libertarian loony

[The Central Scrutinizer]

You're a f*cking liar and a troll. Nothing more. No one even halfway reasonable will read this thread and conclude otherwise. If you hadn't blown all of your credibility already, any modicum of it you had left was just blown away.

You still haven't told us why he doesn't call the police if his kids were kidnapped?

If your kids were kidnapped, would you call the police or put up a website?

 

[shanek]

You still haven't told us why he doesn't call the police if his kids were kidnapped?

Duh, they already know about it! HE'S BEEN IN COURT TRYING TO GET THEM BACK FOR YEARS!!! DON'T YOU EVEN F*CKING LISTEN????

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Duh, they already know about it! HE'S BEEN IN COURT TRYING TO GET THEM BACK FOR YEARS!!! DON'T YOU EVEN F*CKING LISTEN????

So then they weren't kidnapped, were they?


Did you stomp your feet when you wrote that?

 

[HarryKeogh]

I fail to see what is so loony about this website. It's ugly sure...but what's so loony about it?

Plus it's a fact that children have been taken away from parents for false reasons (sexual abuse or remember in the 80's when satanism was the big imaginary problem). It seems possible this guy and his family may not be getting a fair shake.

I'd look into it further but I cannot solve any more cases this week, schedule is full.

 

[hgc]

So then they weren't kidnapped, were they?


Did you stomp your feet when you wrote that?

It was a federal reserve kidnapping, not a real kidnapping.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

It was a federal reserve kidnapping, not a real kidnapping.

Well played.

 

[shanek]

So then they weren't kidnapped, were they?

As far as I'm concerned, they were. They took his kids on trumped-up charges that have been shown and even admitted to be baseless. And yet, they're still refusing to return them. Kidnapping can be considered to be depriving the children and the parents of liberty; since our Constitution says that the government cannot deprive someone of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, and due process has been abrogated here, we're left with concluding that DSS are criminal kidnappers.

 

[shanek]

I fail to see what is so loony about this website.

Because he's a Libertarian. That's all these bigots need.

 

[Skeptic]

From the website:

We intend to file federal criminal complaints against Curren and her co-conspirators in the kidnapping and continuous felonious restraint of our 18 year-old son.

Curren is the judge who, apparently, ordered the child to be taken from the home, which seems to be the essence of the "kidnapping". You cannot file a criminal (or civil) complaint against someone due to actions they do in their official government capacity. Obviously, STratton knows this--which is why he only "intends" to file a criminal complaint, in the same way there are always a dozen or so people "intending" to win JREF's million dollars.

Another one if his kids turned 18 earlier this year, but DSS is refusing to turn him over. They claim that he's mentally unfit, although they refuse to turn over their evidence or let him be examined by Stratton's lawyer's psychiatrist.

...or so Stratton says. Looking at his links, he is supportive, among other things, of a certain MD who is a "surgeon and expert on vaccination-induced diseases", i.e., an anti-vaccination nut. If the psychiatrist his lawyer hired is of the same level of competence, I'm not surprised the DSS is objecting to them.

 

[Skeptic]

Why are Libertarians considered loony? I mean, I'm libertarian and my reason is because I would like the government to keep out of my business. Since when is wanting freedom a bad thing?

The Libertaians (or, more precisely, some of them) are considered loony since they "want freedom" in the same way that creationists or flat-earthers "want to teach the truth".

The first point of similarity is that, like in all cults, the real motivation is quite different from the stated motivation. They are driven not a desire for "freedom", but a visceral hatered of the government--just like creationists aren't really for "truth", but are obsessed with hatered of "godless Darwinism". Hence, deception becomes essential.

The second point of similarity is that they also, like creationists and other cults, are absolutely certain they have THE REVELAED TRUTH(tm). They, and they alone, know how things REALLY are. In the creationists' case, it's the truth of the bible; in the libertarians' case, the truth about how government should work, what the constitution "really means", etc., etc., etc. Of course deception is necessary here too--like all cults, they pretend they reached their "perfectly reasonable conclusions" based on "rational reasoning" and that, therefore, everybody else is irrational, not them.

This leads to the third point of similarity: while sometimes slightly hiding it, they have unending contempt for all those who disagree with them; they consider all those who disagree with them as either brainwashed, stupid, or part of the conspiracy to hide "the truth". They are the elect because they have THE TRUTH(tm).

Finally, since they have THE TRUTH and everybody else is wrong, they simply cannot understand why on earth anybody would oppose their goals or views. They do not have the slightest idea why Dr. Duane Gish, the young-earth creationists, or Badnarik, the libertarian presidential candidate, are considered nothing more than bizzare clowns by the mainstram scientific or political community. It's all part of the conspiracy, you see.

It's not the libertarian ideas, or freedom, or the formal goals of the organization that is the problem. It is that in fact, the "libertarian activist" community is a cult.

 

[Suddenly]

Why are Libertarians considered loony? I mean, I'm libertarian and my reason is because I would like the government to keep out of my business. Since when is wanting freedom a bad thing?

Nothing. Skeptic has the main point down, so let me pick a real-life example of the difference between libertarianism and loony Libertarianism:

A libertarian might say: I think an income tax is a bad idea because we should keep the fruits of our labor and government has no business taking them from us.

This is a simplified version of a reasonable libertarian viewpoint, whether one agrees with it or not.

On the other hand, with Loony Libertarianism we get claims like that at present there really is no income tax and the IRS is nothing but a giant illegal conspiracy because the word "liable" does not appear in the tax laws.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

From the website:

We intend to file federal criminal complaints against Curren and her co-conspirators in the kidnapping and continuous felonious restraint of our 18 year-old son.

Curren is the judge who, apparently, ordered the child to be taken from the home, which seems to be the essence of the "kidnapping". You cannot file a criminal (or civil) complaint against someone due to actions they do in their official government capacity. Obviously, STratton knows this--which is why he only "intends" to file a criminal complaint, in the same way there are always a dozen or so people "intending" to win JREF's million dollars.

Another one if his kids turned 18 earlier this year, but DSS is refusing to turn him over. They claim that he's mentally unfit, although they refuse to turn over their evidence or let him be examined by Stratton's lawyer's psychiatrist.

...or so Stratton says. Looking at his links, he is supportive, among other things, of a certain MD who is a "surgeon and expert on vaccination-induced diseases", i.e., an anti-vaccination nut. If the psychiatrist his lawyer hired is of the same level of competence, I'm not surprised the DSS is objecting to them.

How dare you question Shanek?

/Start Shanek mode

YOU ARE A F*CKING LIAR AND A TROLL AND A BIGOT.

/End Shanek mode

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

The Libertaians (or, more precisely, some of them) are considered loony since they "want freedom" in the same way that creationists or flat-earthers "want to teach the truth".

The first point of similarity is that, like in all cults, the real motivation is quite different from the stated motivation. They are driven not a desire for "freedom", but a visceral hatered of the government--just like creationists aren't really for "truth", but are obsessed with hatered of "godless Darwinism". Hence, deception becomes essential.

The second point of similarity is that they also, like creationists and other cults, are absolutely certain they have THE REVELAED TRUTH(tm). They, and they alone, know how things REALLY are. In the creationists' case, it's the truth of the bible; in the libertarians' case, the truth about how government should work, what the constitution "really means", etc., etc., etc. Of course deception is necessary here too--like all cults, they pretend they reached their "perfectly reasonable conclusions" based on "rational reasoning" and that, therefore, everybody else is irrational, not them.

This leads to the third point of similarity: while sometimes slightly hiding it, they have unending contempt for all those who disagree with them; they consider all those who disagree with them as either brainwashed, stupid, or part of the conspiracy to hide "the truth". They are the elect because they have THE TRUTH(tm).

Finally, since they have THE TRUTH and everybody else is wrong, they simply cannot understand why on earth anybody would oppose their goals or views. They do not have the slightest idea why Dr. Duane Gish, the young-earth creationists, or Badnarik, the libertarian presidential candidate, are considered nothing more than bizzare clowns by the mainstram scientific or political community. It's all part of the conspiracy, you see.

It's not the libertarian ideas, or freedom, or the formal goals of the organization that is the problem. It is that in fact, the "libertarian activist" community is a cult.

Nice summarization. Well said.

/Start Shanek

YOU ARE A F*CKING LIAR AND A BIGOT. YOU ARE WRONG! DR. BEDNARIK NEVER SAID THAT (even though it was on his website) AND YOU KNOW IT!! YOU ARE NOT INTERESTED IN A DEBATE, YOU ARE A TROLL.

/End Shanek

 

[shanek]

On the other hand, with Loony Libertarianism we get claims like that at present there really is no income tax and the IRS is nothing but a giant illegal conspiracy because the word "liable" does not appear in the tax laws.

Either point out ONE instance where I have claimed this or issue an immediate apology. I am getting SICK TO F*CKING DEATH of you liars.

(By the way, weren't you the one awhile back who was trying to convince me that the 10th Amendment didn't really restrict the Federal government from using powers that weren't enumerated in the Constitution because it didn't use the word "expressly"?)

 

[RPG Advocate]

This guy's rhetoric makes him sound like a raving lunatic, but if you peel away the idiocy like calling DSS "criminals" and judges "despots", he does end up making a good point.

The procedure for removing a child from the home should be merged into the criminal justice system, since any abuse or neglect that justifies removing a child is also a criminal offense in its own right. The government should only be permitted to remove children from the home upon securing a conviction for abuse, neglect, molestation, whatever. That would fix the standard of proof at "reasonable doubt", where it ought to be, rather than the ridiculously low standard of proof required now. It also ensures due process.

I may have to start calling myself a "moderate Libertarian" to distance myself from those people who think the government is a criminal conspiracy rather than just the result of the road to hell being paved with good inentions.

 

[Earthborn]

Either point out ONE instance where I have claimed this or issue an immediate apology. I am getting SICK TO F*CKING DEATH of you liars.

Calm down Shanek... Be careful with your blood pressure...

Suddenly attributes the claim to loony libertarians, so unless you think you are one it doesn't apply to you.

 

[Rob Lister]

Calm down Shanek... Be careful with your blood pressure...

Suddenly attributes the claim to loony libertarians, so unless you think you are one it doesn't apply to you.

That was just mean.

 

[Earthborn]

Why is that mean?

 

[Earthborn]

The government should only be permitted to remove children from the home upon securing a conviction for abuse, neglect, molestation, whatever.

There are problems with that of course. If the parents are only suspected of child abuse and the investigation against them is running, it doesn't make much sense to leave the children with them. You can't allow any abuse to continue until the parent is convicted. Also many parents who abuse their children are themselves victims and can't be held fully responsible for the abuse. They are then likely to be found not guilty of any criminal intent. That does however not mean they are good parents and can take care of their children.

Likening Child Protection Agencies to slave traders, organized crime or practices in the Soviet Union is probably a bit over the top and even if accurate probably counterproductive, but there can be no doubt that in many instances they are too Gung-ho in taking away children from their parents. I don't see how this can be avoided entirely, but I would start by not requiring foster parents to pay for a child to remove all suspicion of a financial incentive to take away children. I also think a lot of the hardship of these cases can be avoided if the parents keep some rights with respect to their children, especially visitation rights, even if there has been some abuse. A parent who is unfit to care for a child is not necessarily a parent who must be kept away from the child forever and at all cost.

That would fix the standard of proof at "reasonable doubt", where it ought to be, rather than the ridiculously low standard of proof required now. It also ensures due process.

I'm sure the standard of proof can be much higher and what constitutes as abuse can probably be much better defined. But it will be hard to implement 'proof beyond reasonable doubt'. If there is reasonable doubt that the parents can take care of the child without resorting to abuse, it probably isn't a good idea to return the child to them. It is different from crimes because it is not a one time event: if you have reason to believe that the parents have been abusive, you have reason to believe they will continue to be. So if it has not been proven beyond reasonable doubt that the parents where abusive, you are taking a risk for the child.

Another difference is that the child is not taken away to punish the parents, but to protect the child itself. Apperently it is assumed that parents don't have a right to their children, but children do have a right to be protected. This right trumps all the rights a parent may have, whether that's a good idea or not.

Somehow it should probably be a good idea to define some law that gives children a right to their own parents and parents at least some rights to their children even if they are proven abusive. I don't really know how something like that can be organized.

 

[crimresearch]

Actually, there IS a great deal of corruption, incompetence and abuse in the area of state run programs for children....and that bothers me. It also bothers me when I suspect someone may be making bogus allegations in the face of standard governmental actions.

I don't know the details of this Stratton case (in no small part because many of the linked pages promise forthcoming details, but never deliver), but moving to another county wouldn't invalidate a removal order, and there is nothing to indicate that the Mecklinburg county judge didn't have jurisdiction *at some point*.

I also happened to learn some of the Anna Mae He particulars, and they match in every way the rationale used by the judge to declare her abandoned. But lots of publicity was generated claiming that Anna Mae was 'stolen' by the racist system.

So when Stratton links to the He case as another example of governmental 'kidnapping', and fails to provide details to support his own claims, I'm going to have to remain...skeptical