Republidertarianazi shows off his thinking skills

[reverendjeremiah]

I couldn't give a flying fuck if you disagree with me on political or any other issues but I will no longer tolerate being called a Nazi, it's nothing more than a personal attack.

Can you find where I personally called YOU a Nazi?

[Tiberius]

Personal attacks don't necessarily have to be aimed directly at someone. If you are debating a creationist and make the generalization "creationists are idiots" then you are knowingly making a comparison between that person's beliefs and being an idiot. The same applies here; you are well aware that some people on this forum are Republicans, or Libertarians, and yet you continually make reference to both groups as somehow connected to Nazism.

In my book, that isn't just rude and childish; it's wholly irresponsible.

I've been to your websites Rev, I know you're probably a smart guy, so I don't believe for one minute that you actually think that the political theories of the Republican and Libertarian parties come even close to Nazism. The only reason you would make the comparison then, is for effect; to try and scare your opponent into submission. You honestly have to step back, calm down, and take a good look at the sorts of things you are posting. When you open thread after thread with an immediate example of Godwin's law, and get the negative response you've been getting (even from non-Republicans and non-Libertarians), you have to stand back and think that maybe, just maybe, it is you who is wrong about the politics here.

Forgive me if I'm wrong, but have you ever actually raised a single argument for why Republican party politics and Libertarianism can be so closely related to Nazism? I certainly haven't seen them if you have. Hence why I don't think you actually have any reason (other than for effect) to use such a comparison. Go ahead, and prove me wrong.

[reverendjeremiah]

Personal attacks don't necessarily have to be aimed directly at someone. If you are debating a creationist and make the generalization "creationists are idiots" then you are knowingly making a comparison between that person's beliefs and being an idiot. The same applies here; you are well aware that some people on this forum are Republicans, or Libertarians, and yet you continually make reference to both groups as somehow connected to Nazism.

Is that where we are going now? So I cant point out how Libertarians and fascists are grouped up (using proof after proof) because its considered a personal attack on you and Void? Then you say that its exactly like "creationists are idiots" is an example of a personal attack... thats fucking brilliant... now you have to warn damn near every single atheist on this site for personally attacking every christian on this forum. Or is this a special case, where all the jabs the atheists did on this site towards christianity is ignored, but any jab I make at libertarianism is a stab directly in your heart?

If thats true..if you HONESTLY stand by this double standard, then dont even warn me..just ban me now and be done with it and let everyone on the forum see exactly how you work with things like this.

In my book, that isn't just rude and childish; it's wholly irresponsible.

..and I dont know a single atheist on this forum who hasnt once said "creationists are idiots". In fact I will bluntly say it right now..if you are a member of this forum, and a creationist, then you are freaking idiot. Its a fact. The believe fairy tales over science..that is a classifier for an idiot.

I've been to your websites Rev, I know you're probably a smart guy, so I don't believe for one minute that you actually think that the political theories of the Republican and Libertarian parties come even close to Nazism.

..and Im also fully aware that you have to get behind someone before you can stab them in the back.

The only reason you would make the comparison then, is for effect; to try and scare your opponent into submission.

..because it isnt like I have, you know, posted countless times showing the connection between the three. Ive always just made shit up about it. I suppose I have to tell you that I was just being sarcastic as well?

You honestly have to step back, calm down, and take a good look at the sorts of things you are posting.

This coming from a man who is ready to ban me for political speech. What makes you think I wasnt calm the entire time I was posting the facts? I have taken a good look at the sort of things I have posted. I just recently posted an article from a site called "The American Fascist Movement" that specifically says that all Fascists, and all Americans, should read all of Ron Paul's books, and consider nominating and voting for him as the REPUBLICAN presidential candidate. That is CLEARLY a Fascist suggesting to other fascists that they should vote a Libertarian into the Republican party for president. Its point blank, its clear, it shows what I have been posting about all this time...

...but, as usual, I dont expect you or void to acknowledge the evidence for what it is. You will over rationalize it. You will "no true scottsman" it, and you will even find a way to blame me for it.

When you open thread after thread with an immediate example of Godwin's law, and get the negative response you've been getting (even from non-Republicans and non-Libertarians), you have to stand back and think that maybe, just maybe, it is you who is wrong about the politics here.

When did I godwin? I guess you are going to say that my last post of the American Fascist Movement suggesting that all American fascists vote a libertarian into the Republican party for president is ALSO a godwin...huh? Im going to get negative response from some people anyways..there are hundreds of members on this forum, cant make all the ass-hats happy. Besides, the positive comments and support and thumbs up I have gotten have far has outweighed the negative responses. Im sure if you were paying so close attention to notice the negative, that you also just happened to notice the positives as wel? Didnt you? ..or am I allowed to point that out?

Forgive me if I'm wrong, but have you ever actually raised a single argument for why Republican party politics and Libertarianism can be so closely related to Nazism?

Countless times..me and Min both have posted evidence after evidence and it has brushed of and re-interpreted or ignored every single time by you and void. Here look at this most recent one..its point blank blunt

http://atheistforums.org/thread-8384.html

I certainly haven't seen them if you have. Hence why I don't think you actually have any reason (other than for effect) to use such a comparison. Go ahead, and prove me wrong.

You see that Min? He hasnt noticed the countless times we have tag teamed left and right just slamming article and web site, after quote of the evidence of the alliance between American Fascists (whom I call "nazi's" for short), Republicans, and Libertarians...or the times when other members chipped in and brought their own searches to the table.

He wants me to prove him wrong? I just posted an article for the American Fascist Movement asking all fascists and all Americans alike to vote a libertarian (Ron Paul) as President for the Republican ticket.

...now I await the status of the Scottsman.... is he true or not?

[Tiberius]

Is that where we are going now? So I cant point out how Libertarians and fascists are grouped up (using proof after proof) because its considered a personal attack on you and Void? Then you say that its exactly like "creationists are idiots" is an example of a personal attack... thats fucking brilliant... now you have to warn damn near every single atheist on this site for personally attacking every christian on this forum. Or is this a special case, where all the jabs the atheists did on this site towards christianity is ignored, but any jab I make at libertarianism is a stab directly in your heart?

If you want to point it out, then actually provide a reasonable proof. So far, I have not seen any valid or sound arguments that Libertarianism and Fascism can be seen to be anything other than polar opposites. I've said it time and time again, the very definitions of Libertarianism and Fascism make them completely incompatible. It would be like saying someone was a right-wing leftist. Words have meanings; not all of them can be placed together in the same sentence and still make sense. You can't have vegetarian meat-eaters, you can't have theistic atheists, and you can't have Libertarian fascists (or any form of statist).

Most atheists on these forums don't call creationists idiots. They may refer to their arguments as "idiotic", but this is entirely different. We've long had rules in place that prevent people from personally attacking people; I suggest you go have a read of them. This isn't some kind of preferential treatment; we tell people off all the time for resulting to mindless insults rather than attacking someone's actual argument. If your "republicolibertarianazi" reference had been a one time thing, it would have probably been ignored. What is pissing people off now is that you make the reference as often as you possibly can. It's become more than an off-hand remark; it's a very nasty insult towards some of the more respected members of the community.

If thats true..if you HONESTLY stand by this double standard, then dont even warn me..just ban me now and be done with it and let everyone on the forum see exactly how you work with things like this.

Like I said, it isn't a double standard. You aren't going to goad me into banning you; I don't work like that. If you don't like how things are done here, you are free to leave. If you keep up the level of personal attacks made simply because other people have different political beliefs to you, then the staff will make a decision on what is done with you.

..and I dont know a single atheist on this forum who hasnt once said "creationists are idiots". In fact I will bluntly say it right now..if you are a member of this forum, and a creationist, then you are freaking idiot. Its a fact. The believe fairy tales over science..that is a classifier for an idiot.

An if they have, we've called them on it, just as we are calling you on your behaviour. I also have to question your classifier; please provide a cited definition of the word "idiot" that contains the description "someone who believes fairy tales over science".

..and Im also fully aware that you have to get behind someone before you can stab them in the back.

What is that supposed to mean?

..because it isnt like I have, you know, posted countless times showing the connection between the three. Ive always just made shit up about it. I suppose I have to tell you that I was just being sarcastic as well?

You've posted numerous times attempting to show a connection, and you've been shot down every single time. Your "examples" are usually of the form:

1) Person A claims to be a Libertarian.
2) Person A has some undesirable beliefs that are fascist in nature.
3) Therefore Libertarianism is fascist.

or:

1) Person A is a Libertarian.
2) Group B is fascist and supports Person A.
3) Therefore Person A is a fascist.

These arguments are not valid, let alone sound. People can claim to be whatever they want, but that doesn't make them so. If I claimed to be a socialist, and then said "I believe that we should get rid of the public sector", would it suddenly mean that socialism espouses the idea that we should get rid of the public sector? No. It would mean that I'm claiming to be a socialist, yet espousing completely non-socialist ideas.

Sometimes, people will claim to be something and simply not fit the bill. If a person claims to be a Libertarian and then espouses fascist ideas, they can't be a Libertarian. As theVOID succinctly showed the other day, Libertarianism not only has nothing in common with fascism, but in many cases is the polar opposite of it.

This coming from a man who is ready to ban me for political speech. What makes you think I wasnt calm the entire time I was posting the facts? I have taken a good look at the sort of things I have posted. I just recently posted an article from a site called "The American Fascist Movement" that specifically says that all Fascists, and all Americans, should read all of Ron Paul's books, and consider nominating and voting for him as the REPUBLICAN presidential candidate. That is CLEARLY a Fascist suggesting to other fascists that they should vote a Libertarian into the Republican party for president. Its point blank, its clear, it shows what I have been posting about all this time...

I'm not ready to ban you for political speech; I'm retiring from the staff team. It's up to them if they want to ban you, but so far all they've done is issue you a couple of verbal warnings. If you keep on going the way you've been going, you'll get actual warnings.

I commented on the thread you made. It follows the second argument style I outlined above. Just because a fascist group supports a candidate, it does not necessarily mean that the candidate is a fascist. Candidates align themselves with political parties, not the other way around.

Case in point, the American Communist Party officially endorsed Barack Obama for the 2012 election. Does this mean Barack Obama and the Democrats are now communists? No, of course not. So don't use the same argument against Libertarians...

...but, as usual, I dont expect you or void to acknowledge the evidence for what it is. You will over rationalize it. You will "no true scottsman" it, and you will even find a way to blame me for it.

Pardon me for "over rationalizing". If you want me to accept your arguments and evidence, I demand that they are based in rationality. I'm sorry if that's not the way you want things, but most people on these forums are rationalists in some way, and we don't believe things unless they are firmly supported in reason.

When did I godwin? I guess you are going to say that my last post of the American Fascist Movement suggesting that all American fascists vote a libertarian into the Republican party for president is ALSO a godwin...huh? Im going to get negative response from some people anyways..there are hundreds of members on this forum, cant make all the ass-hats happy. Besides, the positive comments and support and thumbs up I have gotten have far has outweighed the negative responses. Im sure if you were paying so close attention to notice the negative, that you also just happened to notice the positives as wel? Didnt you? ..or am I allowed to point that out?

Godwin's law states "As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1 (100%)." You open your threads (usually in the subject line) with the term "Republicolibertarianazi", a direct comparison of Republicans / Libertarians and Nazis.

No, your post about the American Fascist Movement isn't a strict Godwin, but it's not exactly a valid comparison either, as I've previously demonstrated.

I'm well aware that there are people who give you positive comments, however I doubt very much they outweigh all the negative responses. You tend to have only two big supporters; Minimalist and bozo. The rest of the forum either don't care or disagree with your style of debate. If there are more people who think what you are doing is "right", then I implore them to actually look at the facts; read about fascism, read about Nazism, and then do a direct comparison with Libertarianism. Stop assuming that every person who claims they are a Libertarian is a Libertarian, and start looking at what they say, what they believe, and (more importantly), what they do. Then you can decide if their actions and words are compatible with Libertarianism or not.

Countless times..me and Min both have posted evidence after evidence and it has brushed of and re-interpreted or ignored every single time by you and void. Here look at this most recent one..its point blank blunt

http://atheistforums.org/thread-8384.html

When I said "argument", I meant one that was both valid and sound, not ones which are based on logical fallacies.

You see that Min? He hasnt noticed the countless times we have tag teamed left and right just slamming article and web site, after quote of the evidence of the alliance between American Fascists (whom I call "nazi's" for short), Republicans, and Libertarians...or the times when other members chipped in and brought their own searches to the table.

Firstly, posting an article or a website doesn't make an argument. Secondly, an "alliance" depends on both parties agreeing. Point me to an official statement of the Republican or Libertarian party claiming to acknowledge and accept the support of the American Fascists and we'll have a better discussion. So far, all I've seen is a statement from the American Fascists saying "Hey America, you should vote for this guy". The American Communist party have done the same with Obama, but it doesn't mean there is an "alliance" between Obama and the Communists, or the Democrats and Communists.

He wants me to prove him wrong? I just posted an article for the American Fascist Movement asking all fascists and all Americans alike to vote a libertarian (Ron Paul) as President for the Republican ticket.

...now I await the status of the Scottsman.... is he true or not?

It's not a no true Scotsman you'll be glad to know. It's just that you can't imply a two-way connection by only listening to one side of the story. If Ron Paul accepts the support of the American Fascists, and publicly allies himself to them, then we have something to talk about. Heck, if he does that, I'll admit to you hands down that you were right all along about him.

However, would it make Libertarianism a fascist political movement? No. Like I've said countless times before, you can call yourself a Libertarian, but it doesn't make you a Libertarian unless you follow the political theory behind it. Supporting fascism goes against everything the Libertarian party stands for.

[reverendjeremiah]

I grow tired of saying the same thing over and over again..here it is for the last time.

Libertarians, Fascists, and Republicans are IN COHOOTS WITH EACH OTHER. Thus the "Republibertarianazi" one liner. Min has explained it to you several times before as well.

ARE...IN...COHOOTS...WITH...EACH...OTHER... =/= are the exact same.

OF COURSE I know that fascists and libertarians are seperate species. DUH!!!

Everytime I point out that Libertarians, Republicans and Fascists are in cohoots together..you completely change the topic and say "Fascists arent libertarians" and blah blah blah 3 pages long.

Here it is one more time, just so you can see it again.

In AMERICA, Adrian.... Fascists, republicans, and Libertarians gang up together...and sometimes they blend into each other.

THAT is what all of my posts have been pointing out. Quite well if I say so myself.


but that doesnt matter anymore...you will no true scottsman the entire post anyways.

[Tiberius]

...and I've explained to you time and time again that there is no evidence that Libertarians (or Republicans for that matter) are in cahoots with Nazis or Fascists. You keep making the same generalizations and flawed arguments.

Point out just one statement made by the Libertarian Party in the US that even remotely borders on fascist beliefs. I challenge you. If they are in cahoots with each other so much, you should be able to find just one example.

You won't though, because as I've said time and time again, Libertarianism is the polar opposite of fascism. The two will never mix.

[reverendjeremiah]

...and I've explained to you time and time again that there is no evidence that Libertarians (or Republicans for that matter) are in cahoots with Nazis or Fascists. You keep making the same generalizations and flawed arguments.

Point out just one statement made by the Libertarian Party in the US that even remotely borders on fascist beliefs. I challenge you. If they are in cahoots with each other so much, you should be able to find just one example.

You won't though, because as I've said time and time again, Libertarianism is the polar opposite of fascism. The two will never mix.

I just did..I gave you a BLUNT one and you just brushed it off and started back up with the "wheres your proof?" again. I post proof and you grab the goal posts and back up some more.. keep moving that goal post back further and soon you will convince yourself that you are the only "true" libertarian that exists. Everyone else is just someone "saying" they are a libertarian. I must admit, I like my economic stance, but when it screws up I dont go moving the goal posts back and say "that wasnt 'true' mixed economics..that was something else." Nope, Ill flat out admit that mixed economics fucked up about a decade ago

But to talk to you and void about your "austrian school"? OMG, talk about an idolized economicphilosophy of GOLD!!! It is PERFECT! Scientifically tested with scientificmathematicall formulas that can predict market surges, and predict this, and that. You guys never do any wrong or make any mistakes.

Watch this..Im an indep Progressive, and I decided to vote for Obama because he convinced me he was the most progressive on the ticket...turned out he fooled me. Obama is no Progressive. He's just another right winger. So I screwed up. The early Progressives made the BIG mistake of Prohibition. We learned from our mistakes, but not after the cost of many a citizens freedoms. Of course those were REAL Progressives who made that mistake. Yes, I ADMIT that Progressive have made mistakes, and will probably continue to make mistakes.

...now...

I put Glenn Beck in front of you guys and you are like "NO, NO, NO, He's not a Libertarian..he only says he's one! No 'true' libertarian would say some of the things he does say."

So, in the end, we have a group of "true" libertarians (Void and Adrian OBVIOUSLY being members) who hold economic policies that cannot fail, and one would only be a fool to vote other wise, and the goal post is successfully out of reach of anyone or anything possibly scoring against us 'true' libertarians.


I wash my hands of it... Im tired of dicking around with it. Put your Superman cape around your political ideology all you want. Twice the pride, double the fall...and hopefully you dont take anyone with you when it happens.

[theVOID]

Is that where we are going now? So I cant point out how Libertarians and fascists are grouped up (using proof after proof)

Libertarianism calls for a small-state with individual autonomy, Fascism calls for a large authoritative state.

This alone makes the two completely incompatible, a "little big government with both limited and unlimited power" is about as logically possible as a "square circle".

because its considered a personal attack on you and Void?

When you say libertarians and republicans are Nazis you are doing no different than if someone was to post thread after thread claiming that jews eat and rape babies, If someone did that and Summer or other people of Jewish descent on this forum felt personally offended would would you object? Also, would you deny that the act of posting thread after thread about Jews raping babies was flame baiting and intentionally confrontational and disrputive? Comparing libertarians and republicans to mass murdering xenophobes is entirely the same thing.

I don't agree with Adrian that "creationists are idiots" is a good example though it certainly has elements of offence to it, someone being a creationist means they believe things to be true about the world which are demonstrably false and while the beliefs can be idiotic calling someone an idiot unequivocally is almost always both factually wrong and offensive though it's hardly hate speech to the same extent, a somewhat a more analogous example would be calling all creationists paedophiles.

I just did..I gave you a BLUNT one and you just brushed it off and started back up with the "wheres your proof?" again.

So, a fascist organisation supporting Ron Paul makes libertarians fascists?

Awesome! Obama is a communist, Democrats are part of the Phelps family, Al Gore is an environmental extremist/terrorist, Castro is a 'worker' etc etc...

But to talk to you and void about your "austrian school"? OMG, talk about an idolized economicphilosophy of GOLD!!! It is PERFECT! Scientifically tested with scientificmathematicall formulas that can predict market surges, and predict this, and that. You guys never do any wrong or make any mistakes.

Uuuuh.... wow... We already knew you barely understood what Austrian Economics is about but "economicphilosophy of GOLD" shows you are entirely ignorant of it.

AE is no more an economic philosophy of gold than keynesianism is an economic philosophy of digging ditches, it is true for both that many proponents from each 'school' advocate those specific or similar ideas, a "gold standard" (or more specifically 'sound money') in the former and "digging ditches and filling them back up" (when there is sparse economic activity) in the latter but each idea is in no way a necessary part of the ideology, let alone it's defining element - They are conclusions reached by some of the proponents in response to various economic problems, 'sound money' (either tied to material wealth or as a function of economic growth) is a proposed solution (or more astutely a preventer) to the boom/bust cycle and "Digging ditches" (increasing government activity through any potential means - the Variable G in Y = C + I + G.) is a solution to falling consumption and the 'liquidity trap' and overall output in Keynesianism.

I challenge you to an Ideological Turing Test in regards to Keynesian vs Austrian economics, I guarantee you I understand Keynesian economics far better than you understand Austrian Economics. Actually, I guarantee you I understand Keynesian economics better than you do.

So if you're interested I suggest we find third parties to administer the test.

Watch this..Im an indep Progressive, and I decided to vote for Obama

Oh, a progressive voted for Obama... Not only that but progressives are still recommending that people vote for Obama in the next presidential election over any of the potential other candidates... Wait, Just like you argued that;

1) Fascist x supported Ron Paul for president in 2012
2) Therefore, Ron Paul is a fascist

That makes Obama a progressive! We can replace the words Fascist with Progressive and Ron Paul with Obama and your argument works just as well (or just as poorly to be specific).

I put Glenn Beck in front of you guys and you are like "NO, NO, NO, He's not a Libertarian..he only says he's one! No 'true' libertarian would say some of the things he does say."

I acknowledged that Glenn Beck has said he is becoming more and more libertarian. I haven't seen any evidence of him describing himself as a libertarian beyond that, he could well be a "conservative libertarian" by his own admission, he's still nuts. I also noticed the changes in Beck's positions post libertarian-influence, namely he is no longer against gay marriage. I'm quite pleased that Beck is becoming more libertarian, as you should be, as someone who is extremely influential amongst conservatives a voice like his calling to end restrictions on same-sex marriage, scaling back the military and not punishing people for drug use would do a hell of a lot of good.

Don't get me wrong, he's still more than anything a rambling loon.

So, in the end, we have a group of "true" libertarians (Void and Adrian OBVIOUSLY being members) who hold economic policies that cannot fail, and one would only be a fool to vote other wise, and the goal post is successfully out of reach of anyone or anything possibly scoring against us 'true' libertarians.

There is a distinct difference there; libertarianism has a fairly robust set of principles attached to it and as such claims can be evaluated against said principles, progressivism only has loose connotations about objectives and values. Someone can be said to be libertarian (or not) based on a consideration of these principles, progressivism is a far more esoteric term and someone being a progressive (or not) is much more subjective.

It's roughly analogous to the following; Asking if someone is a libertarian is more like asking if a given system is an engine, while there are different engines the general concept is well defined and things can be definitively said to be engines or non-engines. Progressivism is more contextual or subjective which in general advocates little more than "change" - In a far-right nation that is liberalisation, regulation and social security, in a far-left society that is more economic freedom, decentralisation and individual responsibility, each are progressive depending on the context - there is no such dependence on context with libertarianism.

[reverendjeremiah]

Libertarianism calls for a small-state with individual autonomy, Fascism calls for a large authoritative state.

This alone makes the two completely incompatible, a "little big government with both limited and unlimited power" is about as logically possible as a "square circle".

Yet everytime I read about Fascism I cant tell where the state ends and corporations begin. They blend so well into each other. It also fits with the Libertarian method in the states "vote economic freedom first, then YOU will get social freedom". You see, the Libertarians in the state only care for economic freedom. Once they are rich, they can AFFORD their social freedom. Do they want to give up their cushy lawyer job prosecuting drug offenders? FUCK NO! They will bump their cocaine lines and prosecute coke users at the same time. THAT, is the libertarian idea in the states. Freedom for ME! I havent seen a single libertarian choose ranks with social Progressives. Not a single one..and I tell you that I am VERY politically active. Because social freedom isnt profitable.

When you say libertarians and republicans are Nazis you are doing no different than if someone was to post thread after thread claiming that jews eat and rape babies, If someone did that and Summer or other people of Jewish descent on this forum felt personally offended would would you object?

Reach for them straws..reach and reach and reach for them..just a bit closer..
Jews eat and "rape" babies? Me? No.

Anyone who is everyone knows that Jews sacrifice christian babies to satan.

I don't agree with Adrian that "creationists are idiots" is a good example though it certainly has elements of offence to it, someone being a creationist means they believe things to be true about the world which are demonstrably false and while the beliefs can be idiotic calling someone an idiot unequivocally is almost always both factually wrong and offensive though it's hardly hate speech to the same extent, a somewhat a more analogous example would be calling all creationists paedophiles.

Watch Void as his libertarian "social liberties" melt down from "everyone deserves social freedom" to "I have power and you are offending me".

Shall me and you go through the site and rate up everyones warning meter for calling creationists idiots? Adrian says its equivalent. Are you ready to rate up 90% of the members of this site? So me calling Libertarians "Nazi's" is a "personal attack" on you personally. But the vast major of this site calling creationists idiots is what? A semi-personal attack? Di dI mention that the majority of Nazis were also creationists?

So, a fascist organisation supporting Ron Paul makes libertarians fascists?

Awesome! Obama is a communist, Democrats are part of the Phelps family, Al Gore is an environmental extremist/terrorist, Castro is a 'worker' etc etc...

LOL..I love it! TRUE...TRUE...

AE is no more an economic philosophy of gold than keynesianism is an economic philosophy of digging ditches, it is true for both that many proponents from each 'school' advocate those specific or similar ideas, a "gold standard" (or more specifically 'sound money') in the former and "digging ditches and filling them back up" (when there is sparse economic activity) in the latter but each idea is in no way a necessary part of the ideology, let alone it's defining element - They are conclusions reached by some of the proponents in response to various economic problems, 'sound money' (either tied to material wealth or as a function of economic growth) is a proposed solution (or more astutely a preventer) to the boom/bust cycle and "Digging ditches" (increasing government activity through any potential means - the Variable G in Y = C + I + G.) is a solution to falling consumption and the 'liquidity trap' and overall output in Keynesianism.

WOW...look at all of those bullshit equations. You cant predict economies. Where exactly do you place "human greed and corruption" into that equation?

Yeah..I thought so.

..and you say you are influenced by anarchist ideas.
As far as your test, I dont give a shit about it. What makes you think I place so much faith into Keynesian economics? Because I say I am a mixed economist? LMFAO! They have turned it into a fascist system, as always "privatise the profits, socialise the loses".

The rest of your post is you pointing out the mistakes that I willingly admitted, all the time still brushing the superman cape of your libertarian utopia and not admiting a single mistake of your own..as always.

There is no utopia. there is no inherent economic or social model. Being a fan of anarchy, you should know this.

[Tiberius]

I just did..I gave you a BLUNT one and you just brushed it off and started back up with the "wheres your proof?" again. I post proof and you grab the goal posts and back up some more.. keep moving that goal post back further and soon you will convince yourself that you are the only "true" libertarian that exists.

Your example was a fascist party claiming support for Ron Paul. It was not a statement made by the Libertarian Party in support of fascism, or a fascist policy. It amazes me that I even have to explain how your example is fallacious...it should be obvious to anyone. If you decided to run for office, and I supported you, would that make you a Libertarian? No. Now apply the same logic you used there to the "evidence" you gave me.

I put Glenn Beck in front of you guys and you are like "NO, NO, NO, He's not a Libertarian..he only says he's one! No 'true' libertarian would say some of the things he does say."

So let me get this straight...you are allowed to say "Oh, but Obama isn't a true progressive", but we aren't allowed to say "Oh, but Glenn Beck isn't a Libertarian". Thanks for the double standard. Glenn Beck is as much a Libertarian as Obama is a progressive, that's why we say he's not a "true" Libertarian.

So, in the end, we have a group of "true" libertarians (Void and Adrian OBVIOUSLY being members) who hold economic policies that cannot fail, and one would only be a fool to vote other wise, and the goal post is successfully out of reach of anyone or anything possibly scoring against us 'true' libertarians.

I never said that Libertarians hold economic policies which cannot fail. The success and failure of policies doesn't negate one's Libertarianism. I'm fine with admitting that Libertarianism is an experimental political ideology at best; it hasn't been tried and tested yet. Thus it may be that Libertarianism in practice is the wrong thing to do.

We aren't moving the goal posts here. The goal posts we've already defined pretty well. You can go to any dictionary or to Wikipedia, or a Libertarian party manifesto and read the definition of Libertarianism. That definition is what we base the goalposts on. What has happened is that you have given "evidence" after evidence, and we have judged it based on the definition of Libertarianism, and every time it has fallen short in some way. That isn't us moving the goalposts, it's you failing to even reach them in the first place.