A conservative, a defender of traditional moral values, denouncing the idea that consent is required for sexual activity.

Because liberal Clinton rape, followed by Clinton destruction of the victim, is so much less concerning than unwanted conservative sexual activity involving touching and kissing.

executive vice president of the Cato Institute and has played a key role in the development of the Cato Institute and the libertarian movement

A Glenn Beck authoritarian neocon, FAKE libertarian!

Any a$$hole can claim to be a libertarian. Bill Weld, the Mitt Romney clone is now pretending to be a libertarian, and running in the Libertarian Party for the VP position on the Gary Johnson ticket.

He's a stinking REPUBLICAN hate America globalist big government progressive, like Mittens and Trump!

Cato Institute

But it's Cato...

Any a$$hole can claim to be a libertarian.

Many of them post here... hate on everything but (D)'s... and love drugs, hate war, protect fags and never posts negative about welfare.

Sound familiar?

Any a$$hole can claim to be a libertarian.

Furthermore....anyone who claims to be a libertarian is an asshole!

anyone who claims to be a libertarian is an asshole!

You have performed this majiick trick piles of tymes on LF. Are you singling yourself as an admission of failure?

Sound familiar?

Yes. You have suggested that you are a libertarian.

I have to say I've read Ayn Rand, does that make me a libertarian? but in the words of that great libertarian, Abraham Lincoln " I never said I believed black and white would be equal socially" and his words have proved prophetic

"More libertarian than thou"

That's our agenda assholes to a T

Karl Rove, and those like him, are as full of shit as a Christmas goose. You walk through Sears, and you see isle after isle of durable goods made in foreign countries. GE was the world leader in X-ray machines. The president/CEO of GE didn't want to be bothered with making them so he sold the X-ray operation to China. In return for that, the president of GE was offered a prestigious spot as an economic administrator/advisor in the Obama administration. A phenominal number of our automobiles bear the name Toyota, Mitsubishi, Honda, and now Korean names. Ford is now building a 1.6 billion dollar auto manufacturing plant in Mexico. Detroit is now a bankrupt wasteland. Bethleham steel is now out of business. The steel we use in this country for infrastucture comes from China. For my money one of the best calculaters ever made was the TI30 solar. It would take you through calculus. I can't find one any more. I just bought a simple calculator for balancing checkbooks and an advanced one for advanced calculation. Total cost, $15. They were made in Dongguan China.

How do we pay for what we're getting?

How do we pay for what we're getting?

That's easy. We start up the printing presses and pay for it with worthless dollar bills. That's going to come to a stop also when foreigners learn we don't make anything they can buy with it except cell phones, temporarily.

Immigration? Obama and Hillary are bringing in 3,000,000 islamic jihadists under immigration reform. They are nothing but future guerilla fighters intent on establishing sharia law. They are nothing but subversive cultural incompatables.

DAVID BOAZ is an asshole.

I've wasted too much time on this.

I have to say I've read Ayn Rand, does that make me a libertarian? but in the words of that great libertarian, Abraham Lincoln " I never said I believed black and white would be equal socially" and his words have proved prophetic

Only you can decide what makes, or will make, you a libertarian.

As to the second sentence in your post, let’s review what Abraham Lincoln said in a speech at Columbus, Ohio, on 9/16/1859:

I cannot fail to remember that I appear for the first time before an audience in this now great State–an audience that is accustomed to hear such speakers as Corwin, and Chase, and Wade, and many other renowned men; and remembering this, I feel that it will be well for you, as for me, that you should not raise your expectations to that standard to which you would have been justified in raising them had one of these distinguished men appeared before you. You would perhaps be only preparing a disappointment for yourselves, and, as a consequence of your disappointment, mortification to me. I hope, therefore, you will commence with very moderate expectations; and perhaps, if you will give me your attention, I shall be able to interest you to a moderate degree.

Appearing here for the first time in my life, I have been somewhat embarrassed for a topic by way of introduction to my speech; but I have been relieved from that embarrassment by an introduction which the Ohio Statesman newspaper gave me this morning. In this paper I have read an article, in which, among other statements, I find the following:

In debating with Senator Douglas during the memorable contest of last fall, Mr. Lincoln declared in favor of negro suffrage, and attempted to defend that vile conception against the little Giant.

I mention this now, at the opening of my remarks, for the purpose of making three comments upon it. The first I have already announced – it furnishes me an introductory topic; the second is to show that the gentleman is mistaken; thirdly, to give him an opportunity to correct it. (A voice – ‘That he won’t do.’)

In the first place, in regard to this matter being a mistake. I have found that it is not entirely safe, when one is misrepresented under his very nose, to allow the misrepresentation to go uncontradicted. I therefore purpose, here at the outset, not only to say that this is a misrepresentation, but to show conclusively that it is so; and you will bear with me while I read a couple of extracts from that very ‘memorable’ debate with Judge Douglas, last year, to which this newspaper refers. In the first pitched battle which Senator Douglas and myself had, at the town of Ottawa, I used the language which I will now read. Having been previously reading an extract, I continued as follows:

Now gentlemen, I don’t want to read at any greater length, but this is the true complexion of all I have ever said in regard to the institution of slavery and the black race. This is the whole of it, and anything that argues me into his idea of perfect social and political equality with the negro, is but a specious and fantastic arrangement of words, by which a man can prove a horse chestnut to be a chestnut horse. [Laughter.] I will say here, while upon this subject, that I have no purpose directly indirectly to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so. I have no purpose to introduce political and social equality between the white and the black races. There is a physical difference between the two, which in my judgement will probably forever forbid their living together upon the footing of perfect equality, and inasmuch as it becomes a necessity that there must be a difference, I, as well as Judge Douglas, am in favor of the race to which I belong, having the superior position. I have never said anything to contrary , but I hold that notwithstanding all this, there is no reason in the world why the negro is not entitled to these as the white man. I agree with judge Douglas he is not my equal in many respects – certainly not in color, perhaps not in moral or intellectual endowment. But in the right to eat the bread, without leave of anybody else, which his own hand earns, he is my equal and the equal of Judge Douglas, and the equal of every living man.

Upon a subsequent occasion, when the reason for making a statement like this recurred, I said: While I was at the hotel to-day an elderly gentleman called upon me to know whether I was really in favor of producing perfect equality between the negroes and white people. White I had not proposed to myself on this occasion to say much on that subject, yet as the question was asked me I thought I would occupy perhaps five minutes in saying something in regard to it. I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races – that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, or intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position, the negro should be denied everything. I do not understand that because I do not want a negro woman for a slave, I must necessarily want her for a wife. My understanding is that I can just let her alone. I am now in my fiftieth year, and I certainly never have had a black woman for either a slave or a wife. So it seems to me quite possible for us to get along without making either slaves or wives of negroes. I will add to this that I have never seen to my knowledge a man, woman or child, who was in favor of producing a perfect equality, social and political, between negroes and white men. I recollect of but one distinguished instance that I ever heard of frequently as to be satisfied of its correctness – and that is the case of Judge Douglas’ old friend Col Richard M. Johnson. I will also add to the remarks I have made (for I am not going to enter at large upon this subject,) that I have never had the least apprehension that I or my friends would marry negroes, if there were no law to keep them from it; but as Judge Douglas and his friends seem to be in great apprehension that they might, if there were no law to keep them from it, I give him the most solemn pledge that I will to the very last stand by the law of the State, which forbids the marrying of white people with negroes.

There, my friends, you have briefly what I have, upon former occasions, said upon the subject […]

http://www.mrlincolnandfreedom.org/pre-civil- war/1859-1860/speech-columbus-ohio-september-16-1859/.

Having read this by Abraham Lincoln, does that make you a racist?

… that great libertarian, Abraham Lincoln.

Why was Abraham Lincoln a “great libertarian?”

Are you a libertarian?

Spit....Spit....spit!!!

HELL NO!!!

he was no more a republican than Dump is

he was no more a republican than Dump is

I did not ask you that.
You called Abraham Lincoln a "great libertarian."

Perhaps you did not understand my question.
I realize that can happen.
Therefore I will repeat my question to you:
Why was Abraham Lincoln a “great libertarian?”

You posted: “I have to say I've read Ayn Rand, does that make me a libertarian?“
I replied by posting the text from a speech by Abraham Lincoln for you to read.
I then asked you a very simple and understandable question which I will repeat.
“Having read this by Abraham Lincoln, does that make you a racist?”
Well….does it?

he [Lincoln] was no more a republican than Dump is

Lincoln was a Republican. However, it must be noted that the parties were basically switched in their philosophies at that time. IOW, what was Republican then is Democratic now.

Trump’s campaign is a “populist insurgency” within the Republican ranks, consisting of an anti-Washington movement designed to stoke working-class anxieties and lead a path to the White House.

a “populist insurgency” within the Republican ranks

a “populist insurgency” within the Republican ranks

Nah, that's four stone carvings of the same libertarian asshole on the side of a mountain.

“Having read this by Abraham Lincoln, does that make you a racist?” Well….does it?

what if I said to you that I agree with him does that make me racist. If you take his words at face value Abe was racist, yet he fought against an even more racist ideology, but he had the view that everyone should be free, isn't that what libertarian means?

If you take his words at face value Abe was racist, yet he fought against an even more racist ideology

What do you imagine that ideoloy to be? The smallest collection of books in the world is comprised of glowing biographies of Lincoln by black authors for a reason. Lincoln was a racist. His "ideology" was colonization.

Abraham Lincoln

Address at Cooper Institute, New York City

February 27, 1860

In the language of Mr. Jefferson, uttered many years ago, "It is still in our power to direct the process of emancipation, and deportation, peaceably, and in such slow degrees, as that the evil will wear off insensibly; and their places be, pari passu, filled up by free white laborers. If, on the contrary, it is left to force itself on, human nature must shudder at the prospect held up.''

The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln, Vol 3, page 541.

Annual Message to Congress

December 1, 1862

Heretofore colored people, to some extent, have fled north from bondage; and now, perhaps, from both bondage and destitution. But if gradual emancipation and deportation be adopted, they will have neither to flee from. Their old masters will give them wages at least until new laborers can be procured; and the freed men, in turn, will gladly give their labor for the wages, till new homes can be found for them, in congenial climes, and with people of their own blood and race. This proposition can be trusted on the mutual interests involved. And, in any event, cannot the north decide for itself, whether to receive them?

The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln, Vol 5, page 535-6.

December 1, 1862

I cannot make it better known than it already is, that I strongly favor colonization.

In April 1865, Lincoln to General Butler.

But what shall we do with the negroes after they are free? I can hardly believe that the South and North can live in peace, unless we can get rid of the negroes. Certainly they cannot if we don’t get rid of the negroes whom we have armed and disciplined and who have fought with us.... I believe that it would be better to export them all to some fertile country with a good climate, which they could have to themselves.

Benjamin F. Butler, Autobiography and Personal Reminiscences of Major-General Benjamin F. Butler: A Review of His Legal, Political, and Military Career (or, Butler’s Book) (Boston: A. M. Thayer & Co. Book Publishers, 1892), p. 903.

Scores of historians have spent countless hours trying to discredit Butler and his story. But since it is impossible to prove a negative, and since, as other historians have pointed out, Butler's account is "full and circumstantial" and there was no reason for him to lie, these efforts have proved fruitless. More to the point, Lincoln said the same thing about colonization and his fear of Black violence to others (see page 615). Based on these and other factors, some scholars, Ludwell H. Johnson (68) and Herman Belz (282) among them, have concluded that there is no reason to doubt the Butler account. "If Butler's recollection is substantially correct, as it appears to be," George Frederickson said, "then one can only conclude that Lincoln continued to his dying day to deny the possibility of racial harmony and equality in the United States and persisted in regarding colonization as the only real alternative to perpetual race conflict" (57)

Forced Into Glory, Lerone Bennett, Jr., p. 167

Lincoln continued to his dying day to deny the possibility of racial harmony and equality in the United States

So you can call Dumps idea of deporting illegal hispanics as the Lincoln solution.

Lincoln thought a mosquito ridden swamp as suitable for blacks (Belize) and no doubt Dump thinks the same suitable for hispanics.

But Lincoln was right racial harmony has not been achieved in 150 years and it won't be enhanced by importing arabs

Gatlin: “Having read this by Abraham Lincoln, does that make you a racist?” Well….does it?

paraclete: what if I said to you that I agree with him does that make me racist.

Well….does it? Are you a racist?

Are you a racist?

Is it racist to recognise that some cultures don't fit together? to recognise that certain peoples don't play nicely together? it is childish to think we should all be thrown into a melting pot and be happy there. Does this upset your ideology? Lincoln opposed slavery, this doesn't mean he expected integration, he was realistic, knowing the mind of his people

What I reject is a culture that has the death of others outside the culture at its centre, is this racist or common sense? What I reject is a culture that expects others to support them without any contribution. Is this racist or common sense?

Is it racist to recognise that some cultures don't fit together? to recognise that certain peoples don't play nicely together? it is childish to think we should all be thrown into a melting pot and be happy there. Does this upset your ideology? Lincoln opposed slavery, this doesn't mean he expected integration, he was realistic, knowing the mind of his people What I reject is a culture that has the death of others outside the culture at its centre, is this racist or common sense? What I reject is a culture that expects others to support them without any contribution. Is this racist or common sense?

From your abstract phraseology, I can only surmise that is neither racist nor common sense.

   Definitions:
     Cultures - Meaning the behaviors and beliefs characteristic of a particular human social or ethnic group.
     Ethnic - Relating to or characteristic of a human group having racial or religious traits in common.

If you refuse to fit together with another culture or you determine that certain peoples should never associate together because you believe your culture (ethnic or racial group) is superior….then you may be a segregationist.

Segregation is the separation of humans into ethnic or racial groups in daily life. It may apply to activities such as eating in a restaurant, drinking from a water fountain, using a public toilet, attending school, going to the movies, riding on a bus, or in the rental or purchase of a home or of hotel rooms. Segregation itself is defined by the European Commission against Racism and Intolerance as "the act by which a (natural or legal) person separates other persons on the basis of one of the enumerated grounds without an objective and reasonable justification, in conformity with the proposed definition of discrimination. As a result, the voluntary act of separating oneself from other persons on the basis of one of the enumerated grounds does not constitute segregation". According to the UN Forum on Minority Issues, "The creation and development of classes and schools providing education in minority languages should not be considered impermissible segregation, if the assignment to such classes and schools is of a voluntary nature".

Are you a segregationist?

“Having read this by Abraham Lincoln, does that make you a racist?” Well….does it?

what if I said to you that I agree with him does that make me racist. If you take his words at face value Abe was racist, yet he fought against an even more racist ideology, but he had the view that everyone should be free, isn't that what libertarian means?

You said that Lincoln “had the view that everyone should be free.” You need to place that back into the proper context.

Lincoln actually said: “I have always thought that all men should be free …” Lincoln then continued his point and went on to say: “… but if any should be slaves, it should be first those who desire it for themselves, and secondly, those who desire it for others. When I hear anyone arguing for slavery, I feel a strong impulse to see it tried on him personally.”

Everyone should “be free” from slavery is what Lincoln meant when he sought to free the slaves.

… isn't that what libertarian means?

Is it?

Libertarians seek to maximize autonomy and freedom of choice, emphasizing political freedom, voluntary association, and the primacy of individual judgment.

Was Lincoln seeking freedom from slavery the same as libertarians seeking to maximize autonomy and freedom of choice, emphasize political freedom, voluntary association, and the primacy of individual judgment?

I don’t think so. If for no other reason, I find no place that Lincoln ever wanted any “voluntary association” with slaves. Have you found that anyplace?

While we rejoice in the notion of being free, discuss about being free, read about being free, dream about being free while others teach ,advocate and hope to be free….we must always place what we mean by “be free” in a context.

So, freedom means many things to many people. Libertarianism means many things to many people. Most importantly, libertarianism means many different things to many libertarians.

I think you widely overreached when you tried to tie libertarianism to Abraham Lincoln….just my opinion.

If someone has the principle to stand for something, then they should have principle to admit what they are….or what they are not. You still have never said if you are a racist, a segregationist or neither. Do you care to do so now?

Are you a segregationist?

I would not separate people without reasonable justification

Are you a segregationist?

I would not separate people without reasonable justification

I understand.