I thought this was funny because it is true in the minds of people whom do not understand the concept of libertarianism.
It also illustrates the intellectual struggle ethically consistent libertarians must wage if it is to ever be rightly understood.
I believe there exists – at least in the roomy confines of my own imagination – only one kind of libertarian: the kind that commits no aggression against his fellow man and minds his own business.
Wow, that’s really hard to read.
try this instead:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/24-types_of_libertarian.png
“Government should stay OUT of our lives! Except for women’s uteruses, where government belongs.”
Classic.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
I thought this was funny because it is true in the minds of people whom do not understand the concept of libertarianism.
It also illustrates the intellectual struggle ethically consistent libertarians must wage if it is to ever be rightly understood.
I believe there exists – at least in the roomy confines of my own imagination – only one kind of libertarian: the kind that commits no aggression against his fellow man and minds his own business.[/quote]
are you saying that libertarian = pacifist?
It’s funny because it so close to the mark!
[quote]florelius wrote:
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
I thought this was funny because it is true in the minds of people whom do not understand the concept of libertarianism.
It also illustrates the intellectual struggle ethically consistent libertarians must wage if it is to ever be rightly understood.
I believe there exists – at least in the roomy confines of my own imagination – only one kind of libertarian: the kind that commits no aggression against his fellow man and minds his own business.[/quote]
are you saying that libertarian = pacifist?
[/quote]
no
Sounds familiar…
[quote]florelius wrote:
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
I thought this was funny because it is true in the minds of people whom do not understand the concept of libertarianism.
It also illustrates the intellectual struggle ethically consistent libertarians must wage if it is to ever be rightly understood.
I believe there exists – at least in the roomy confines of my own imagination – only one kind of libertarian: the kind that commits no aggression against his fellow man and minds his own business.[/quote]
are you saying that libertarian = pacifist?
[/quote]
No. A pacifist is someone who inherently claims not to have any natural rights.
Not defending oneself means one does not have a life worth defending – most libertarians are hardcore individualists which is a contrary notion to pacifism.
Libertarianism is the idea that people are best left to live their own lives; however, a libertarian also understands that self defense is necessary to maintain natural rights.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Sounds familiar…[/quote]
Yep, like something a dumb liberal or conservative would say.
Like I said, its an intellectual struggle. Some people are sophisticated enough to get it and some people are not.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Sounds familiar…[/quote]
Yep, like something a dumb liberal or conservative would say.
Like I said, its an intellectual struggle. Some people are sophisticated enough to get it and some people are not.[/quote]
It is funny lifty , I can not see how this bolsters your point of veiw , I see it as an assault of a sort
I guess I would be Stoned 
Well if you cannot laugh at yourself then you are doomed…
But, as I pointed out it’s funny because this is definitely how ignoramuses view libertarianism. So, whoever created this cartoon thinks they are making fun of libertarianism but really I am just making fun of the idiots that don’t really know what libertarianism is.
We let the jackasses discredit themselves by speaking about that which they do not know.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Sounds familiar…[/quote]
Yep, like something a dumb liberal or conservative would say.
Like I said, its an intellectual struggle. Some people are sophisticated enough to get it and some people are not.[/quote]
[/quote]
I have every right to be arrogant after reading and responding to any one of your arguments.
Indeed, you are one of the unsophisticated ones.
Hey Lift, how many libertarians does it take to change a light bulb?
It is funny. The way I see it, libertarianism is still in its infancy, and has yet t be truly defined by a set of agreed upon principles. Therefore, you don’t have many people that are for it so much as you have a lot of people who are against other political philosophies. Then they define Libertarian not necessarily by what it actually is intended to be for, but by what they are against.
That is why as a political movement, I see it as doomed.
[quote]SkyzykS wrote:
It is funny. The way I see it, libertarianism is still in its infancy, and has yet t be truly defined by a set of agreed upon principles. Therefore, you don’t have many people that are for it so much as you have a lot of people who are against other political philosophies. Then they define Libertarian not necessarily by what it actually is intended to be for, but by what they are against.
That is why as a political movement, I see it as doomed.
[/quote]
It’s doomed because it tried to argue for economic liberalism while defending social liberalism. The two positions are at odds with one another.
[quote]SkyzykS wrote:
It is funny. The way I see it, libertarianism is still in its infancy, and has yet t be truly defined by a set of agreed upon principles. Therefore, you don’t have many people that are for it so much as you have a lot of people who are against other political philosophies. Then they define Libertarian not necessarily by what it actually is intended to be for, but by what they are against.
That is why as a political movement, I see it as doomed.
[/quote]
Skyzyks:
This is an extremely important…often overlooked… point you’ve made.
And it seems to be especially true for any “movement” to survive. A movement will NEVER survive unless it is “for” something. And if what they are all about necessitates having “boogy-men” or some clear persons and/or individuals to direct their wrath (can you say Pelosi/Reid/Obama?)…the countdown has already begun to their disappearance as a viable force.
Mufasa
[quote]SkyzykS wrote:
The way I see it, libertarianism is still in its infancy, and has yet t be truly defined by a set of agreed upon principles.[/quote]
This is not true.
The principles are derived from the stated objective which have been around since the enlightenment – to maximize liberty.
The only way this happens is when society, to the largest extent possible, understands the principle of nonaggression and acts in accordance with it.
The policy that libertarians argue over is usually about when is it just for government to commit aggression.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Hey Lift, how many libertarians does it take to change a light bulb?[/quote]
I don’t know. Ask my maid.
Lift:
You have to admit, though, that principals can get so “bastardized” over time as to 1) lose their original meaning and 2) be totally replaced by the “bastardized” version.
(One that comes to mind…and we’ve discussed it here before…is the “mixing” in peoples minds of communism/socialism/Nazism/et.al.)
I would guess that the same has happened with “Libertarianism”?
Thoughts?
Mufasa