: Enough said.Indeed.
: OK you are the final word in what Libertarian is? When I looked up Libertarian in the Dictionary it said that it was one who agreed with freedom of action and thought which is entirely consistant with what I consider to be my views.
Except some actions should be less free than others? And some actions are disgusting, and thus should not be done, nor tolerated? Even if they effect no-one other than the participants?
Surely for a libertarian 'so long as ye hurt non, do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law.'? If not, then what?
: RD if havent realised you do have a slavish following, I've seen it remarked in unrelated posts, if RD could intervene or something to that effect, therefore when you have got people willing to adopt your views as Gospel you must understand then that, probubly without approval, political sectarianism follows.
Well, my aim here is to persuade people of my opinions, if they accept them through logical argument, then I have no complaints. Otherwise, I would be wasting a whole lot of time here.
: I couldnt logically justify? Surely inaccordance with your logic that atomic bombs etc. are natural, that if it can be done it is natural, then my views are also natural, however that is for another debate, I was to abandon calling myself a libertarian if it meant something I found abhorant, abandoning the principles of libertarianism and the label are to different matters.
No, your views are natural, but the whole point of my definition is that it explodes naturalness as a supreme good by which actions and objects must be examined, i.e. to make it utterly beside teh point. If you beleive that your views are consistant with a Libertarian standpoint, then I am yet to here you make a logical case for that stance. please, go to anything else and give me more proof beyond your personal subjective disgust. I will listen.
None.
