Bob Barr announces Libertarian bid

LOL. You are a cartoon, aren't you, guerilla?

 

Who is talking about aggressive violence? We're talking about "consent," which excuses child porn, pedophilia, whatever. Though such "consent" may yield hell on earth - relax, the market will cure it. Forget so soon?

Yeah, yeah, I know, I know - "Straw Man," "Ad Hominem," and all the other terms borrowed from middle-school rhetoric handbooks, whenever one's points are exposed to light. Guerilla's views, available for review. Enough said.

I have no idea. Investigation continues - it's called "due process." The scope of this tragedy foisted on these kids has not been seen in American history, and it will take the time it takes to adjudicate preliminary findings and hearings derived from them.

'Kaaay.

Ya think? Man, I wish to hell I'd said something like this.

Yep, on his drug-czar mentality, that's for sure - he found god when he became a Libertarian convert, and has completely reversed his stance on normalizing marijuana use for medical purposes. Presto! Amazing!

And has not reversed his stand on the private sex lives of individuals, nor his belief that there are only some legitimate religions in our country, and that only some people should be free to practice their faith in our country. Unless I've missed something here? Is it now cool for folks who bleed and die for their country to also worship a nature goddess, or still a big nyet? The feds should still be defining marriage as between a man and a woman, that kind of thing?

Yep, with respect to the points at the heart of this thread, I've seen the public service education plenty, thanks.

 

A cartoon or an upset stomach.

You have heard of "Libertarian Republicans" like Eric Dondero? The Kochtopus?

I mean, forget anarcho-capitalism/communism/socialism, left libertarianism, agorism, etc.

The LP {T}Reason crowd aren't even Misesian minarchists.

Ron Paul is more libertarian than most of the people in the Libertarian Party.

What are you btw? Do you accept the non-aggression principle?

 

It has nothing to do with the market, AGAIN. It's amazing that you can't grasp such a simple concept.

Yep, you outed me again.

This has been covered in the thread, gworld and I have owned you repeatedly on it. You can't arrest 400 people and hold them for a month, breaking up families, and still call it "due process". Perhaps your childhood experience is distorting your perspective on this.

Uhm, yeah. Whatever. lol

Apparently you don't know the difference between BIG L libertarian and SMALL L libertarian. I try pretty hard to keep them straight.

I don't really know. Why don't you do the research on it, and report back to us. I'm not a Bob Barr voter, or a registered member of the LP.

On the contrary, all you've done is create strawmen. Which is a typical tactic. But as seen in the polygamy thread, you get taken apart quite easily for being a statist.

 

We're talking Bob Barr and "Dr. Ruwart," in this thread. Far too often, the boogeyman is all government, and the savior is a market cure:

Solution? Take the economic incentive away, and parents won't send their kids off to be employed in child porn. Not sure how "nothing to do with the market" morphs into prices and markets; must be a Guerilla alchemy.

Yes, you and Gworld did a number on myself, Kaethy, Rebecca, Earl, Stox. Really made your case, cogency personified. After 20 pages, something along the lines of:

About where I was, as well. Gets tiring to see such ridiculous nonsense as:

When this the very heart of movement in statutory rape law:

-And on and on, ad infinitum. If "owned" means bored to exhaustion by the meaningless tactics, or exasperated by gutter baiting, then, yep, you and Gworld "owned" the hell out of me.

Yes, yes, Gworld played this disgusting baiting tactic as well, as you know. Really helps to show your "stand on principle" doesn't amount to a crock of fetid crap.

No, apparently just a fan, until the inconsistency problems come down the pike, then it's "not a fan."

Yes, yes, again, strawmen, ad hominem, all the other useful words from Rhetoric for Dummies. Can I offer to buy you more than the rudimentary version you've been reading?


Good lord, I'll just toss it up to the universe. Should child porn be outlawed? Systematic impregnation of underage girls by middle aged men, in a closed system where authoritarian indoctrination is the strict rule? Universe?

 

Yuck, I'm still trying to get that thread out of my head.

 

Yeah, well, I've succeeded, Rebecca, as you can see.

Something about legalizing child porn being argued touched down again, I guess.

 

Deja vu, it's like the other thread. How can anyone argue that sex with children should be legal or child porn should be legal, as long as the kid thinks it's ok? Ruwart said later that child porn should be legal as long as the child is not pre-pubescent and consents. Girls go into puberty between 10-14 yrs old. How is it right to make porn of a 10 to 14 yr. old, no matter if they consent or not?

 

I would really like to see a libertarian elected president. I'm over the whole concept of ideological purity, I'm ready to settle for someone more libertarian than Bush or Obama or McCain.

Unfortunately, Barr doesn't even show a voting record to indicate that and Ruwart sounds like the type of minarchist that would put ideology above practical, electable solutions! It is politics after all, and part of getting elected is fitting ideology into popular solutions. There's also an incredible irony of imposing libertarian ideals against what a majority Americans consider morally necessary laws. (in this case protecting children).

While there is room to move toward a libertarian ideal, ie: not charging a 14 year old girl with a felony because she took a photo of herself, or not arresting a 19 year old for dating a 17 year old... the logical way to proceed is to scale back the harshest, least logical parts of the law in a case-by-case basis.

 

This is commonsense, Korr, and you've articulated many ideas beautifully, in my opinion.

No, he doesn't. I must say, I found it interesting, given Guerilla's many statements on the importance of voting record, that Guerilla gives a pass to his man here.

I agree. A person or two, apparently, won't be in agreement, calling "compromise" a word that is anathema, but I agree - it's how things are accomplished in the real world; everywhere.

I agree. It is the very heart of society - the acceptance that we have laws, which are nothing more than rules between us, arrived at by an agreed upon process, in order to live in civilization. An ideologue's approach - "no law I disagree with should I be made to follow" - is really nothing more than a state of nature, outside civilization.

Again, agreed. As with the polygamy thread, the case of 14 year olds, systematically indoctrinated and made to "marry" (and be impregnated by) middle aged men in a position of authority over them, is a far cry different from the case of two teens having sex. And precisely why the statement:

Just doesn't make sense, as shown. Age gap is precisely the concern.

Excellent post, Korr.

 

Maybe you can fill it up with some visions of killing innocent people to (sic) protect your family.

Because to say it is illegal to give consent, implies that someone has control of consent. Mentioned numerous times in the other thread, it's not simple to answer. If the child cannot give his/her consent, than can the parent give consent in their place? Or do neither the child or the parent have the ability to consent or dissent? Is government (and NPT's abstract mob mentality society) the sole arbiters of what a parent and child may or may not do?

We're chasing the dog's tail again. Where do you get the authority to take away consent? Because you're female? Because you're older? Because it grosses you out? Do you have more authority over say, my child, than I do? Or is it that 50 people can get together and say what my child can do or not do, but as a parent I have no say?

And what about the child in the first place? Can a 14 year old give consent to anything?

You in particular, created some very contradictory positions, which you're entitled to, but it really doesn't lend a lot of merit to your argument. You claim the law is the authority, but your own state law contradicts Texas law. And in South Carolina, a 14 year old can have sex.

I don't remember if it was you or Kaethy, but one of you had an issue with the age difference. But again, that ignores the issue of consent for the younger person having sex. If a 15 year old is capable of providing consent to have sex with a 17 year old, why is the 15 year old not capable of providing consent to a 30 or 40 year old?

And because you and Paul will try again, to paint me as pro-rape, I will reiterate, that I am not pro-rape, nor do I think it's a particularly good idea to have sex out of wedlock. However, just because I may be a bit more puritanical than others, doesn't mean everyone should conform to my sense of morality by force of law. That's where Paul's opinion fails. Because there is always someone who believes the laws should be stricter, that more things should be prohibited.

Again, who decides?

A complex issue, and one which it seems many on the other side (yourself, Paul) were wrong in the FLDS thread, as the originating phone call has been found to be crank, and after a month, none of the 400 people arrested have been charged.

 

Uh, yeah. My "abstract mentality society" is called, uh, democracy. Guerilla's ideologue society is a society of one, in a cave, and I'm the one preaching "abstract mentality society."

I think we all get that. Another reason, by the way, that Korr's excellent post:

Has always made me leery of something like Guerilla's vision for our country. He preaches libertarianism, unless you disagree - then it's too hell with democracy. I conclude:

Yes, we all know, since you and Gworld attempted this throughout the thread. But as myself, and many others tried to help you with, crank phone call or not, it was right for the police to investigate, under probable cause. The investigation turned up credible evidence, and credible evidence ushered in judicial review. It's all due process, yet your "democracy's a drag" can't accept this. We all know. "Guerilla's society" is an oxymoron.

 

I wish I could turn lead into gold.

The boogeyman is all coercive government. Unless of course you approve of coercive government?

It's a lack of libertarian understanding, just as W.A.R. had when he tried to call her out on it. libertarians don't necessarily confuse law and morality. Law is an absolute standard, morality changes from person to person. Ruwart is detailing the consequences of pushing child porn underground by law. Like pushing drugs or prostitution underground, a tremendous economic incentive to produce it, has been proven to bring in criminal elements with a profit motive. That exacerbates the problem.

Actually, I think gworld owned you when he brought up South Carolina law being the age of 14, the ACLU's position supporting both mine and his, and both of our cries repeating the fact, that your supposed crime, remains a non-crime, one month later. But you continue to endorse mass arrests based on a crank phone call, and forced separation of children from their parents.

I wouldn't want you to exhaust your welfare check in the middle of the month.

You're missing the point completely. Has outlawing anything ever stopped it completely? In the case of prostitution, drugs, slavery and other black market activities, has it not just been driven underground, and become an even larger activity economically than it was in the wild?



Systematic impregnation by your standard was FLDS marriage. And if it was done in South Carolina, it would have been legal. They wouldn't even have had needed a closed system. Age of consent laws are inconsistent and irrational.

I wonder if you and Rebecca have ever considered that the parent bears some responsibility for the child gaining opportunity to consent to sex? Rebecca's argument about 10 year olds misses the fact that most parents do not allow their 10 year olds the opportunity have sex with middle aged adults. Regardless of consent, such a thing generally falls under the duty of the parent.

Mary Ruwart's position, that challenging the economic incentive to enslave and photograph children, in my opinion is the right one.

Laws don't make people moral and laws don't stop a determined criminal. Parents can stop child porn by safeguarding their children. You don't need a law as a parent to act in the best interest of your offspring, nor do the police monitor your child 24/7 to make sure no one is abusing them.

 

Democracy made blacks slaves. Democracy prevented women from voting. Democracy sent us into illegal and unjust wars. Democracy created the Jim Crow laws. Democracy brought Hitler to power. The mob mentality against Jews in Germany created the holocaust.

Democracy is not ideal. It's merely a reflection of the mob in government. If I can get a majority who believe that you and yours deserve to be strong up in the town square and tortured to death, that would be democracy in action. Sounds great, doesn't it?

How about if a majority take drug use from being punishable by incarceration, to punishable by lethal injection. Good idea? What is there to stop this from happening in a "democracy"?

I disagree with Korr's position, as likely he does with mine. Perhaps he hasn't really looked into libertarianism as a philosophy. It is radically different from the statist paradigm we have now.

What does libertarianism have to do with democracy? A fair society doesn't subject a minority to the rule of the majority, with no recourse against mob rule if the laws are unjust.

Libertarianism defends every individual, young or old, black or white equally, without prejudice and doesn't allow 4 people to infringe on the rights of one person (democracy) just because they are greater in number or create a popular consensus.

Due process is not arresting 400 people, breaking up families, telling mother's they have been raped, telling children they are rape babies, subjecting everyone to DNA testing, and still not having a crime to lay charges against.

Only in your f**ked up mind, would mass arrests without charges, and lengthy incarceration without charges that violates the spirit of civil rights going back to the Magna Carta, be in some way justified. As mentioned before, perhaps your personal experiences with abuse are coloring your perspective.

 

Fair enough, but I'm not sure that is progress.

Which is why the Radical Caucus of the LP was about understanding that power is not the objective. Education about libertarian ideals was. It's obviously subjective and politicking does involve tailoring a message, but surrendering principles makes you an Obama. A cosmopolitan squeeze toy for his lobbyists and enablers.

As far as "protecting children", libertarianism does that. It protects not only their right to be free from abuse, violence etc. but it also protects their right to sovereignty. And it does it on principle, instead of arbitrarily creating a law trying to imagine each and every scenario that could potentially be a problem.

But "what a majority" thinks is morally necessary is largely irrelevant. As I posted earlier, there was a time when it was (sic) morally necessary to prevent women from voting. Or to treat blacks as slaves. Or to round up Jews and take them to the gas chamber. In these situations, the preference for majority rule, subjected the minority to mistreatment, discrimination and genocide. Libertarianism doesn't recognize a majority. It recognizes the sovereignty of each individual.

Now that doesn't mean people can't choose to co-operate under the principle of a freedom to associate and make personal contracts, but you have no right to tell me I can't drink/smoke drugs/have sex for money, if I am not doing you or your property harm.

That's not a libertarian ideal. If you're interested in libertarianism, I can point you to a bunch of free ebooks and resources for more information. I seem to be the defacto forum expert, but I don't consider myself an expert, as I am still learning.

The key idea is, no one has a right to do another harm. And no one has a right to someone else's property. These fall under the concept of natural rights, which Adam Smith based his work on.

And yeah, child sex scenarios are pretty challenging, but then I'd say, that conventional approaches don't eliminate or completely resolve the issue either.

 

and

I'll take ad hominem for $50, Alex.

Yes, I know, my "fucked up mind"; or, as you earlier referred me to as, psychotic, Class A Nutjob, etc., etc., blah blah. The child speaks. I am glad to keep the company on this issue of cientifico, Rebecca, Earlpearl, Korr, Kaethy, Stox, many others, I'm sure, and leave you and Gworld to whatever world the two of you wish to fantasize about.

And though you believe you're needling me by deliberately repeating the tactic attempted there by both yourself and Gworld, namely, my admission of my own past with abuse, and my empathy with these abused children; as you know, as I said then, and will say again now, while it brings empathy to the situation, it doesn't becloud the issue, as the facts are the facts.

I realize you can't help it - whenever challenged on your positions on this forum, you draw from the toolbox of a child acting out - but it no longer works, Guerilla. Particularly given my love for children generally, while it was painful for me on the pedophile/pregnant girls thread to be told I am merely using these kids in Texas as a ruse to push my political beliefs, it was painful; but isn't any longer, because I realize this is all you and Gworld have, and must admit you're in need of compassion, more than anything else.

 

Rotflmao

To be fair, I called you psychotic and a class A nutjob before I knew about the abuse.

You can keep company with anyone you like. I've already demonstrated the fallacy of majority thinking as being inherently incorrect. Folks are free to make up their own minds.

I don't think you're willing to deal with facts. The fact that in a civilized society, we don't mass arrest people because they belong to a particular religion. We don't accuse married women of having rape babies if they don't believe they were raped. And we don't hold over 400 people for a month, splitting up families and DNA testing people, to determine if there has or has not been a crime committed, or if there is enough evidence of a crime to pursue prosecution.

These are the tactics of authoritarianism. A throwback to when religious moralists exercised their struggles for power through the state apparatus. The only difference is that secular atheists are running the show when the Abrahamic religious fanatics are not.

I think the guy who posts insult after insult trying to get banned is the one acting out. I think the petty "look at all of my allies" game is pretty childish. I think that creating strawmen and quoting out of context is also pretty childish.

That's hilarious. Painful for you. Didn't you start the inference that gworld and I were condoning rape? Isn't that your entire attack on Mary Ruwart, who is one of the most intelligent and gentle women in politics?

Whatever dude. Like I said in the polygamy thread, you don't have a monopoly on childhood pain, and based on your responses here, I find it irritating that you are claiming a monopoly on compassion as well.

 

I don't care when you called me psychotic, Class A nutjob, or, as now, my "fucked up mind." It's what you have, and we know this.

The actions taken in the pedophile/pregnant girl case are precisely what happens in civilized society. Evidence gathering and adjudication. Ignoring abuse is what happens in uncivilized societies; perhaps you'd find them more to your liking.

Yep, as I said, diving into the well of slime, as you and Gworld did, taking an honest admission of one's past and using it as a disgusting, dishonorable tool to attempt to win one's failed points - I got hot, precisely because I love kids. As I said, I am aware this is what you and Gworld do, and it now leads me to seek a sense of compassion that two, very confused people would behave by such abominable standards.

I started the thread dealing with the fact you and Gworld argued nothing about these girls or their plight, and everything else under the sun, generally under the penumbra of an "individual liberty" based in your idealogue's sophistry and unreality. It wasn't until what, 20 pages, thereabouts, that the both of you decided to start talking about Earl and myself "hiding under the girl's skirts," and many other variants on the same theme.

That I say now, seeing the tactics employed by yourself and Gworld, I have a measure of compassion, and you characteristically twist this into a conspiracy breath - "corner on compassion." I speak for no one but myself on this. Devise a conspiracy theory as you wish.

 

Here's a synopsis of the Libertarian Party candidates (ostensibly the point of this thread?):

Who's Going to Get Your Wasted Vote? A guide to the wildest Libertarian Party nomination fight in decades

 

Then why do you keep bringing it up, thread after thread?

Evidence gathering is supposed to happen before the arrest. Not after. Not one month after someone has been held behind bars. In this case, potentially 400 innocent people deprived of their liberty and right to happiness, while the police clumsily try to construct a case as their original imperative was provided under false pretenses and now it is a matter of saving face, justice be damned.

Causing abuse to prevent abuse is uncivilized. The old concept of two wrongs don't make a right.

Care to source where I used your "honest admission" against you?

You are hiding under the girl's skirts. AFAIK, not one of those girl's has claimed victimhood, yet you have attributed victim status to them, in many cases, resigning their children to rape baby status (deserved or not) in order to pursue your agenda of hyper moralism.

And as much as you disdain personal liberty, I found it refreshing that the ACLU would back up the positions of gworld and myself, while you and Earl are still looking for a crime, a criminal and a victim in your arrest and detention of 400 people for over a month.

A good question for you is, how long should these people be held before they can have their kids back and go home? How long should the police be able to incarcerate 400 people and break up parents from their children in order to check for crime? 1 month? 2 months? 6 months? 1 year? Do you put any limits no this? Should we just lock up everyone who is FLDS indefinitely to prevent them from committing polygamy in advance? How irrational are we prepared to be in the name of "the children" of "compassion". You might call indefinite detention "civilized" but I do not. Citizens disappearing into dungeons is a thing of the past.

Isn't that your point? You refuse to hear or acknowledge my positions, because you have already decided that I lack compassion, morality, and a sense of justice?

Whatever dude.