Fascinating.

Apparently it's the standard dogma among the anti-freedom posters here that only libertarians hate taxes and regulations and love guns.

The most notable point of ignorance is that libertarians want no government whatsoever.

You obviously don't know the difference between an anarchist and a libertarian.

You obviously don't know the difference between an anarchist and a libertarian.

Looks like you had a posting fubar.

The most notable point of ignorance is that libertarians want no government whatsoever.

The ignorance continues when they claim that libertarians are both liberals and anarchists.

They can't seem to gasp the concept that the two are polar opposites - modern liberals are in favor of MORE government, anarchists - none.

If anything, the current crop of self-described conservatives here have more in common with liberals than libertarians do.

If anything, the current crop of self-described conservatives here have more in common with liberals than libertarians do.

True. Both want big government control of life.

How does that saying go?

A conservative doesn't know the difference between a sin and a crime, and a liberal doesn't know the difference between charity and robbery.

Looks like you had a posting fubar.

Nope.

"You obviously don't know the difference between an anarchist and a libertarian."

You obviously don't know the difference between Gatlin's post and Roscoe's post.

You obviously don't know the difference between Gatlin's post and Roscoe's post.

You obviously have zero reading comprehension.

Roscoe posted an image that reads:

No taxes. No Government. No Regulation. Libertarian Paradise.

Those 3 elements are not libertarian. They are anarchist.

Libertarians DO recognize the need for taxes, government and regulation.

Ergo, Roscoe has echoed the same ignorance about the difference between L's and A's as the author of the image.

You obviously don't know the difference between an anarchist and a libertarian.

Some Libertarians express their beliefs in extremes. It is their expressions which largely form the public image.

Surely there must be some way to express being Small Government, Economic Conservative, Social Liberal. The Libertarian party has done a poor job of controlling its message to project a less extreme image. This from Gary Johnson and Bill Weld is a good start -- if people get to see it.

Surely there must be some way to express being Small Government, Economic Conservative, Social Liberal. The Libertarian party has done a poor job of controlling its message to project a less extreme image.

I remember when I was a teenager and I first heard about libertarianism, for whatever reason the impression I got was that it advocated no government and no taxes whatsoever. Essentially confusing it with anarchism, which I came to understand much later in my life was an active philosophy. So yes, the difference does need to be publicized. I agree the confusion is likely still a widespread problem, as evidenced here on LF.

Those 3 elements are not libertarian.

I suspect you're too dishonest to retract your ignorant falsehood.

Libertarian Party Statement of Principles, adopted June 17, 1972

[N]o individual, group, or government may initiate force against any other individual, group, or government...

Specifically, we support the eventual repeal of all taxation...

In those areas where individual rights or voluntary relations are not involved, we support an immediate reduction of government's present role, and ultimately, a total withdrawal of government intervention

You obviously don't know the difference between Gatlin's post and Roscoe's post.

His mix of ignorance and dishonesty resists separation.

Libertarian Party Statement of Principles, adopted June 17, 1972

Shall we also post evidence of how the Democrat party supports the right to own slaves?

Fact: The Republican Party was founded primarily to oppose slavery, and Republicans eventually abolished slavery. The Democratic Party fought them and tried to maintain and expand slavery.

russp.us/racism.htm

1972 was, I believe, the birth date of the official Libertarian party, and the philosophy codified was certainly done by only a few people with very minimal review for catching things like excluding minors from the text you quote (assuming the quote is accurate). Certainly the intent was that the passage referring to relationships pertain only to adults, not children. As much as paedophilia is despised today, I think it could only be more so in 1972. But if YOU are honest, you'll reference the current Libertarian party platform instead of citing something that his 44 years old. In fact, I already have in the quote that limits such relationships to adults. The objection to the initiation of force does carry through today. Libertarians are opposed to it. I suppose wantonly attacking other countries as has been the ongoing practice of both R's and D's over the past 30 years is seen by you as very pro-American. Whatever floats your boat.

I knew you wouldn't man up and retract, even after being thrashed. So Libertarian principles are not those established by the party's founders, but rather anything you happen to pull out of your backside at any given moment. So much for John Hospers.

BTW, what's with all the paedophilia crap you're posting? I didn't mention it. Is it just something that you think about a lot?

It's a misconception that libertarians smoke pot?

William F. Buckley smoked weed, proving that you're one of those pothead Republicans, and a heroin addict!

Pothead Republicans

There are some doozies in the 1972 platform. Always good for a laugh.

It's like the Libertarian Constitution.

"William F. Buckley smoked weed ..."

Yeah, that wacky Republican journalist. Hey! Wait a minute ...

Any attempt to demonstrate equivocation is pure idiocy. Roscoe is a pure idiot, therefore.

You [Roscoe] obviously don't know the difference between an anarchist and a libertarian.

Here, let me help.

Can you see the difference now, Roscoe?

What a loser!

No wonder the sane people here laugh at you and your ignorant ilk.

Stop. You'll make Deckard cry again.

That seems to be the limits of your debating "skills".

When did the Libertarians repudiate their principles and their founders? [crickets]

Did the Democrats ever formally do that with slavery?

I knew you wouldn't man up and retract, even after being thrashed.

That was a thrashing? I didn't realize that.

So Libertarian principles are not those established by the party's founders, but rather anything you happen to pull out of your backside at any given moment.

Actually, no. Unlike the R's and D's who seem to base their platform on whatever the other party isn't supporting -- kind of like how neigborhood kids choose teamates when about to play baseball -- the L platform is generally based on the principles of what positions allow everyone an equal amount of maximum freedom. As with any ideology, the works of the originators are revised over time by better minds, and/or lessons learned from practical application.

BTW, what's with all the paedophilia crap you're posting? I didn't mention it. Is it just something that you think about a lot?

An excellent question. But one perhaps better directed to Gatlin. He posted an opinion about how statutory rape laws should be repealed:

libertysflame.com/cgi-bin...gi?ArtNum=46901&Disp=3#C3

Granted it's not his opinion, but he brought it up, erroneously promoting a post by a supposed libertarian as official libertarian doctrine.

That was a thrashing? I didn't realize that.

You realize it. Documented Libertarian principles are exactly as I stated, and your unsupported claim of some secret change in Libertarian principles by unnamed "better minds" is thoroughly pathetic. Even for you.

I'll ask again: When did the Libertarians repudiate their principles and their founders?

I suspect your will reply will be just as craven as before.

But one perhaps better directed to Gatlin.

You realize it. Documented Libertarian principles are exactly as I stated, and your unsupported claim of some secret change in Libertarian principles by unnamed "better minds" is thoroughly pathetic. Even for you.

Now you're being totally stupid and asinine.

Secret change? Dude, visit lp.org and you too can down load a copy of the "secret" party platform. You don't even have to be a libertarian to get it. Isn't that incredible?

Periodically, it is updated / changed with additions and such.

You are rapidly proving yourself to be not worth responding to.

"Paging misterwhite..."

mumfff ... huh? Yes? You woke me from a sound sleep. This better be good.

Pinguinite? You can handle him. I'm going back to bed.

Dude, visit lp.org and you too can down load a copy of the "secret" party platform.

And there's no repudiation of the longstanding principles of the Libertarian founders there, which is why you offer craven disingenuous insinuation instead of quotes.

BTW - 2016:

All persons are entitled to keep the fruits of their labor. We call for the repeal of the income tax, the abolishment of the Internal Revenue Service and all federal programs and services not required under the U.S. Constitution. We oppose any legal requirements forcing employers to serve as tax collectors...

Our silence about any other particular government law, regulation, ordinance, directive, edict, control, regulatory agency, activity, or machination should not be construed to imply approval.

Man up and admit you were trounced.

All persons are entitled to keep the fruits of their labor.

Oh, like that's a bad thing?

We call for the repeal of the income tax, the abolishment of the Internal Revenue Service and all federal programs and services not required under the U.S. Constitution.

That's a view that is shared by some Republicans.

Congressional Republicans Are Planning to Abolish the IRS

The income tax is unconstitutional, but you knew that already.

Oh, like that's a bad thing?

Right over your head.

"The income tax is unconstitutional, but you knew that already."

Then I would suggest you not pay it.

"Paging misterwhite..."

mumfff ... huh? Yes? You woke me from a sound sleep. This better be good.

Pinguinite? You can handle him. I'm going back to bed.

He is such a lightweight, Roscoe is handling him triumphantly,

Not to be taken as meaning that Roscoe couldn't handle a heavyweight just as easily. I have confidence is his ability to do just as well.

Just a friendly reminder... Thanks for reading!

Did you see these police state advocates attempt to break the thread? They are beyond all else, foul, illerate back-wood's hicks.

Did you see these police state advocates attempt to break the thread? They are beyond all else, foul, illerate back-wood's hicks.

There was nothing of the kind to see. Your perception is cloudy, stay off that putrid shit. What you will see if you become level headed after you stop puffing the stuff long enough, are a few highly intelligent individuals intervene to energize a drowning and painfully failing exercise of attempted libertarian ego-fluffing where no one was showing sny interest in believing that “libertarians are awesome.” The “Intelligence Squad” actually saved the thread. The thread needed to be made good and spicy, the interveners saved a couple of libertarians playing ditto-heads from being boring.

And there's no repudiation of the longstanding principles of the Libertarian founders there, which is why you offer craven disingenuous insinuation instead of quotes.

Exacty what "longstanding principles" do you think libertarians of today should repudiate?

All persons are entitled to keep the fruits of their labor. We call for the repeal of the income tax, the abolishment of the Internal Revenue Service and all federal programs and services not required under the U.S. Constitution. We oppose any legal requirements forcing employers to serve as tax collectors...

Uh, yes. Repeal of the income tax is in the LP platform. Should I infer from your citation that you think Libertarians want to repeal all taxation? If so....

The personal income tax is only one of an enormous number of federal taxes that the fed gov is the recipient of. Did you know that if personal income taxes were excluded from the federal budget, the fed gov would have the same amount of revenue that it had about 15 years ago? As I recall, the fed gov wasn't exactly living under a bridge 15 years ago.

From Ron Paul. And while not all agree on his philosophies, there's no argument he's knowledgeable about economic facts on the fed gov:

We could eliminate the income tax, replace it with nothing, and still fund the same level of big government we had in the late 1990s.

www.ronpaul.com/taxes/

A slave living on a plantation was allowed to keep some of the efforts of his labor. The rest was "taxed" by the slave owner. Can you articulate the difference between a slave taxed on his labor and a modern worker taxed on his? If so, you'll be the first I've encountered.

Some taxes are required. A personal income tax is not.

Man up and admit you were trounced.

It's more appropriate for you to admit you are clueless about what libertarians stand for. You are really embarrassing yourself.

Exacty what "longstanding principles" do you think libertarians of today should repudiate?

They have NOT repudiated the principles I posted.

Coward.

I have some strong advice for you, as you are showing increasing insanity on a daily basis

Gatslime's megalomania is getting more pathological with each post he makes.

Referring to himself and the other canary cultists as The “Intelligence Squad” only reinforces the fact that he is looney tunes.

He's one short step away from thinking he is Jesus Christ.