Why is the left afraid of Glen Beck?

[chequita guevara]

One of the big problems of discussing with libertyrants is that the very first thing you have to do in a conversation with them is define terms. After having carried on a discussion for two decades, I don't bother to argue over definitions. You just waste your time and annoy the pig. I'll just use their definition when engaging in discussions with them. It gets painful when third parties get involved, because then you have to speak English and libertyrant at the same time.

The same thing happens with commies, though. I've learned to try and drop the specialized language where I can, and just speak English. When I can't, I'll define what I mean by the term I use. Avoids a lot of pointless confusion. Course, on Poly, those posts can get missed sometimes.

[RGBVideo]

Lolbertarians
libertyrants
the pig

see, it's the libertarians which the left is actually afraid of. they could break down a voting coalition which is fundamentally based on funneling money towards narrow special interests and government agencies

this is also why ron paul got smeared to a nazi and a loonie before most people even heard about him. being against iraq war and for less goverment spending, he would've eventually started leeching votes off from the more idealistic democrats.

[Berzerker]

Killing somebody is intruding upon them, as far as I can tell.

Then try a dictionary, it will tell you further

1. Intrude - to thrust or bring in without invitation, permission, or welcome.

The attacker intrudes, the victim doesn't.

I like how you're now trying to turn the conversation from self-defence to flight from danger, by the way.

You didn't answer the question, chief. You said self defense meant killing the attacker, thats not true, its a possible outcome. If you are attacked and you run away, aren't you imposing your will on the attacker by preventing his attack? Thats yer logic, not mine.

Lolbertarians are so sad.

They claim that they are against all forceful imposition, then define forceful imposition to mean whatever they want.

The dictionary supports their definition of forceful imposition. How do you explain that?

[Dinner]

[Berzerker]

One of the big problems of discussing with libertyrants is that the very first thing you have to do in a conversation with them is define terms. After having carried on a discussion for two decades, I don't bother to argue over definitions. You just waste your time and annoy the pig. I'll just use their definition when engaging in discussions with them. It gets painful when third parties get involved, because then you have to speak English and libertyrant at the same time.

The same thing happens with commies, though. I've learned to try and drop the specialized language where I can, and just speak English. When I can't, I'll define what I mean by the term I use. Avoids a lot of pointless confusion. Course, on Poly, those posts can get missed sometimes.

Then can we agree the word "impose" does not apply to the victims of attempted murder because they didn't die?

[Berzerker]

one small correction regarding Elok's GF's version of libertarianism. The "motto" I've heard is Libertarians oppose the initiation of force (the LP platform says this I think). I dont see a difference between that and the imposition of force, to impose is to initiate. She makes more sense that you, chief

[chequita guevara]

Then can we agree the word "impose" does not apply to the victims of attempted murder because they didn't die?

I'm not the one arguing with you.

[Berzerker]

Is that a yes? Does that mean KH's use of the word "impose" is wrong? If so, why are you jumping in to smear me and libertarians with that BS rather than correct KH?

[Aeson]

They claim that they are against all forceful imposition, then define forceful imposition to mean whatever they want.

You might want to phrase that differently...

It is perfectly fine to use "imposition" as to mean an unfair or unjustified intrusion or burden upon a person. Using that definition of the term means that the phrase "I am against forceful imposition but in favor of allowing self-defense" is not necessarily contradictory, even if it can be misread given the ambiguity of the term "imposition".

That said I don't think "forceful imposition" is very commonly used... what terms are generally used may or may not be contradictory...

[chequita guevara]

Is that a yes? Does that mean KH's use of the word "impose" is wrong? If so, why are you jumping in to smear me and libertarians with that BS rather than correct KH?

I'm not smearing you with anything. I'm gave the libertyrant view of force as has been beaten over my head for two decades. I don't think it is correct, but neither do I think it's worth arguing over in a debate. Kitty just looks at it and says, "No, they really can't be that stupid." And then you proved me correct.

BTW, Kitty is correct that when you defend yourself and kill someone attempting to use force on you, you are engaging in an imposition, as they are not agreeing to be killed or harmed simply because they are trying to (or succeeding in) harming you. I think most of us (not those who believe in non-violence) would agree that the right to self-defense trumps another person's right to be free of harm, i.e., if I attack you, you have the right to kill me if necessary to keep yourself from harm. But it's still an imposition.

Really the complaint here is that you're redefining terms to suit your politics.

[Berzerker]

I'm not smearing you with anything. I'm gave the libertyrant view of force as has been beaten over my head for two decades. I don't think it is correct, but neither do I think it's worth arguing over in a debate. Kitty just looks at it and says, "No, they really can't be that stupid." And then you proved me correct.

I'm debating KH about the meaning of a word and you chime in to criticize libertarians for pointing out what words mean and it aint directed at me? Then whats yer point? You do have a point, right? Or do you just wander around various threads posting rants about how you dont like arguing over the meaning of words with libertarians?

BTW, Kitty is correct that when you defend yourself and kill someone attempting to use force on you, you are engaging in an imposition, as they are not agreeing to be killed or harmed simply because they are trying to (or succeeding in) harming you. I think most of us (not those who believe in non-violence) would agree that the right to self-defense trumps another person's right to be free of harm, i.e., if I attack you, you have the right to kill me if necessary to keep yourself from harm. But it's still an imposition.

Really the complaint here is that you're redefining terms to suit your politics.

Impose - to thrust oneself offensively upon others; intrude.

Take that complaint to the people at dictionary com

if someone attacks you and you run away, are you imposing upon them because they didn't want you to run away?

[Berzerker]

Then can we agree the word "impose" does not apply to the victims of attempted murder because they didn't die?

I'd still like an answer

[KrazyHorse]

The attacker intrudes, the victim doesn't.

The attacker intrudes, then the victim defends himself by intruding on the attacker. This is so simple that any 5 year-old could understand it.

[KrazyHorse]

You didn't answer the question, chief. You said self defense meant killing the attacker, thats not true, its a possible outcome.

Firstly, flight without even attempted bodily harm to the attacker is not generally considered self-defence as far as I know. Secondly, I was referring to a certain type and result of self-defence where the (attempted) victim kills the attacker. This action is an imposition on the attacker. The attacker did not ask the victim to be killed. The fact that normal people recognize the legal and moral right of the victim to defend himself in this way has nothing to with whether or not the victim imposed his will on another.

You're seriously like a petulant little child. "Look, when I define terms whatever way I want to then my moral principles sound really simple!"

Idiocy like this is the reason more people don't self-identify as libertarian. It's puritanical and dogmatic. You're no better than the commies in this sense.

[KrazyHorse]

You might want to phrase that differently...

It is perfectly fine to use "imposition" as to mean an unfair or unjustified intrusion or burden upon a person.

Which turns the statement of moral principle into a tautology. No ****, that's what I was laughing about.

I'm not claiming that they're inconsistent. Just that they spend their time playing games with definitions, twisting them slightly to fit into their preconceived moral principles.

It's a word game, as far as I'm concerned. It appeals to a certain, very small, very dorky, very verbal segment of the population. And since they're so verbal people like Berz and DF are exactly the type I think of when I think of lolbertarians. Why would you want to identify with this type of individual?

The other thing they tend to do is spend their time listing all the ways that modern governments break the letter/spirit of the US Constitution as originally conceived. Yet another fruitless exercise in "intellectual" masturbation.

This is why I generally think of (especially online) libertarianism as some sort of mild mental defect.