Originally Posted by Anti Federalist
Reply With Quote
Site Information
About Us
- RonPaulForums.com is an independent grassroots outfit not officially connected to Ron Paul but dedicated to his mission. For more information see our Mission Statement.
All modern revolutions have ended in a reinforcement of the power of the State.
-Albert Camus
The last time a Libertarian ran was in 2004.
No one here wanted to be the Billionaire.
He's an authoritarian piece of $#@!, like way too many people on this forum.
I am the spoon.
Spilling your drink is alcohol abuse.
I am the spoon.
Reported for reporting.You just admitted to being anti-social. Reported.
I am the spoon.
In the Libertarian Party?
I am the spoon.
Yes the Libertarian Party nominated a Libertarian twelve years ago.
No one here wanted to be the Billionaire.
God bless Texass.
I am the spoon.
In his book Good to Be King Badnarik suggests that it is unnecessary to have a driver's license to drive,[26] that the IRS has no Constitutional authority to collect taxes,[27] and that common law marriages are valid in all 50 states. ~Wiki
No one here wanted to be the Billionaire.
Some of them are. But full blown agorists aren't. It all depends on what need they see in some formal government. If as an agorist you see a need in having a formal government structure then you are a libertarian. If you reject the need for formal government altogether then you're an anarchist.
eric peters wrote: "...So, what defines a Libertarian? Fundamentally, a Libertarian is a person who rejects as a moral indecency the use of force in social/political interactions with others..."
...i like peters' clear thinking/writing but he screwed up a little here...maybe jesus the pacifist 'rejected as a moral indecency the use of force is social/political interactions with others...but the libertarian panqui certainly doesn't 'reject the use of force' in any/all circumstances...
...for example, if force is INITIATED upon me, or anyone i favor, i reserve the self-evident right to use even deadly force upon any initiator...
...peters should have written 'a libertarian is a person who rejects the INITIATION of 'force' 'violence' 'coercion' etc..
[...sadly and sickeningly, i believe you'll find the minions of uncle shame are the perennial world-champion initiators of force...]
Last edited by H. E. Panqui; 10-21-2016 at 02:28 PM.
//
Last edited by cajuncocoa; 10-23-2016 at 04:34 PM.
Well, I think he was making the case for purely social/political interactions.
Although I guess he could have been more clear.
Then again a vote for more taxes is nothing but legitimizing armed robbery
eric peters wrote: "...So, what defines a Libertarian? Fundamentally, a Libertarian is a person who rejects as a moral indecency the use of force in social/political interactions with others..."
...i like peters' clear thinking/writing but he screwed up a little here...maybe jesus the pacifist 'rejected as a moral indecency the use of force is social/political interactions with others...but the libertarian panqui certainly doesn't 'reject the use of force' in any/all circumstances...
...for example, if force is INITIATED upon me, or anyone i favor, i reserve the self-evident right to use even deadly force upon any initiator...
...peters should have written 'a libertarian is a person who rejects the INITIATION of 'force' 'violence' 'coercion' etc..
[...sadly and sickeningly, i believe you'll find the minions of uncle shame are the perennial world-champion initiators of force...]
Posting Permissions
Connect With Us