What's the next guilt stick?

[Mr.Canada]

They have their tax payer funded abortions on demand and homosexual marriage.

What's the next big push going to be for?

[Riverwind]

They have their tax payer funded abortions on demand and homosexual marriage.

Both are policies favoured by libertarians. I can never figure out why people who believe in free markets don't believe in free choice.

[capricorn]

I can never figure out why people who believe in free markets don't believe in free choice.

Neither can I, Riverwind. I like to think that the silent majority has more common sense than those who constantly beat the drum with inconsistent messages.

[M.Dancer]

Both are policies favoured by libertarians. I can never figure out why people who believe in free markets don't believe in free choice.

So you mean that abortion clinics should be private, client funded and competitively priced?

Okay!

[Progressive Tory]

They have their tax payer funded abortions on demand and homosexual marriage.

What's the next big push going to be for?

Free beer. I don't drink but what the heck.

[Cameron]

Mr. Canada! You're not being very Canadian, according to the CBC. ;-)

I'm not anti-choice, but I think some boundaries should be in place for abortions. Such as the length of time the fetus has developed.

If you are gay and want to get married...fine. (But I dislike "Gay Pride Day" where I get to see men and women perform near exhibitionist acts on one another in public. If you want to be gay and proud, do it in your home, I don't want to see an extreme display of it).

Just Google the Folsom Street Fair for what I'm referring to when I talk about extreme displays of "affection".

[Peter F]

They have their tax payer funded abortions on demand and homosexual marriage.

What's the next big push going to be for?

Six weeks vacation every year for everyone!

[moderateamericain]

the next guilt stick is in full swing, firearms.

[jdobbin]

What's the next big push going to be for?

To have your actual name published for all to see?

[Mr.Canada]

To have your actual name published for all to see?

I'm not afraid at all. I've offered a few times to meet in a public place for lunch with anyone from MLW so we can discuss things in person but so far no takers. I even offer to meet up in a restaurant someplace, it would be fun.

Are they afraid of me seeing them for what they are? The embellishment of themselves.

I am exactly as I say I am.

[AngusThermopyle]

I am exactly as I say I am.

Sounds like Popeye, I yam what I yam.

[Drea]

I'm not afraid at all. I've offered a few times to meet in a public place for lunch with anyone from MLW so we can discuss things in person but so far no takers. I even offer to meet up in a restaurant someplace, it would be fun.

Are they afraid of me seeing them for what they are? The embellishment of themselves.

I am exactly as I say I am.

You're too far away!

I'd go for coffee with yah... and even buy

[Mr.Canada]

You're too far away!

I'd go for coffee with yah... and even buy

You're the only one many others are afraid of me seeing them for what they are, liars.

[Yorkness]

Both are policies favoured by libertarians. I can never figure out why people who believe in free markets don't believe in free choice.

I believe you dont take into account the fact that though one can be libertarian in economic terms yet also perfectly be conservative morally.

The next guilt stick could possibly be the legitimacy of minority governments.

[Mr.Canada]

I believe you dont take into account the fact that though one can be libertarian in economic terms yet also perfectly be conservative morally.

The next guilt stick could possibly be the legitimacy of minority governments.

LOL, I like that one York.

[Melanie_]

Free beer. I don't drink but what the heck.

Beer??? Everyone knows that socialists drink wine. Free Pinot Grigio for all!

[Renegade]

I believe you dont take into account the fact that though one can be libertarian in economic terms yet also perfectly be conservative morally.

It is fine to be conservative morally, however libertarian principles would not impose one's conservative morality on others. I believe Riverwind to be correct. You cannot be consistent in libertarian philosophy if you favour economic choice but not choice on other more personal fronts.

[eyeball]

Can you be consistent in libertarian philosophy if you deny the public should have the right to make demoractic decisions regarding the environment and ecosystems it depends on?

I place most of the guilt for our present inability to meaningfully address environmental issues on conservatives. I acknowledge that some of the worst environmental offenders on the planet are or were so-called socialist countries, ie China and the old USSR, places also well known for denying democracy its due.

So what is it about the environment and democracy that makes communists and libertarians so similar?

[Renegade]

Can you be consistent in libertarian philosophy if you deny the public should have the right to make demoractic decisions regarding the environment and ecosystems it depends on?

I don't. Damage to the environment is a form of assault which affects each of us individally. It is consistent with a libertarian philosophy that government prevent such an assault.

I place most of the guilt for our present inability to meaningfully address environmental issues on conservatives. I acknowledge that some of the worst environmental offenders on the planet are or were so-called socialist countries, ie China and the old USSR, places also well known for denying democracy its due.

"conservatives" is a blunt and inaccurate term. Political parties and the general public itself placed very little value on environmental policies until recently.

So what is it about the environment and democracy that makes communists and libertarians so similar?

I don't see the similarity you refer to.

[LesterDC]

Can you be consistent in libertarian philosophy if you deny the public should have the right to make demoractic decisions regarding the environment and ecosystems it depends on?

It is libertarian for the decisions to be objective in such subjective matters. Mob rule is not libertarian, what if one person believes in something else? What if somebody decides to believe in something else? Where's the libertarianism for those people?

[eyeball]

I don't. Damage to the environment is a form of assault which affects each of us individally. It is consistent with a libertarian philosophy that government prevent such an assault.

I'll take your word for it on the philosophy but the actions of most libertarians I've met, to otherwise vote or support conservative politicians and parties, says something else.

"conservatives" is a blunt and inaccurate term. Political parties and the general public itself placed very little value on environmental policies until recently.

And its conservatives that are kicking and screaming the hardest to avoid placing any more.

I think the term conservative very accurately describe the sort of people that have been running China's government for decades too.

I don't see the similarity you refer to.

Everywhere you go on this planet conservatives embrace an incrementalist approach to embracing virtually everything including democracy and transparency. The environment also gets the same short shrift from both conservative socialists and social conservatives. Correlation sometimes does imply causation, amongst other things.

[Yorkness]

It is fine to be conservative morally, however libertarian principles would not impose one's conservative morality on others. I believe Riverwind to be correct. You cannot be consistent in libertarian philosophy if you favour economic choice but not choice on other more personal fronts.

Yes but I believe a phrase used commonly with libertarians is "free will". Which could mean that a libertarian would not condescend conservative belief or try to promote his own libertarian belief in detriment to it's opposite. They would, rather, being libertarian, accept the free thinking of his conservative friend and try to relate it into his own doctrine effectively creating a more liberal movement, having accepted yet another idea to move along to the next.

This is why I believe pure ideology in moral issues cannot be used to compare to something as calculable as economics. An economy has the ability to be calculated to quite an acceptable degree while human morality is ever changing and unpredictable. The very definition of morality is very disputable itself. I can say that I am free market or not free market and be perfectly understood. I could'nt say very firmly at all though, that I am a moral person as there are so many ways to interpret even morality's true definition.

[Riverwind]

And its conservatives that are kicking and screaming the hardest to avoid placing any more.

It is a mistake to confuse the rehash of communism that goes under the name "global warming" with real environmental problems. Conservative governments in Canada and elsewhere have acted to protect the environment (e.g. Regan and Mulroney passed the acid rain treaty).

[Renegade]

I could'nt say very firmly at all though, that I am a moral person as there are so many ways to interpret even morality's true definition.

You also cannot say that someone else is moral or immoral for the same reason. Again libertarianism doesn't restrict you personal beliefs in morality, it simply doesn't allow you to impose them on anyone else.

[Renegade]

I'll take your word for it on the philosophy but the actions of most libertarians I've met, to otherwise vote or support conservative politicians and parties, says something else.

Unfortunately libertarians are given very little choice in politicians which align exactly with their beliefs. In many cases conservative politicians allign with a libertarian's free market philosophy but do not align with tthe view of imposing moral standards on others. More then likely libertarians pick conservatives as a best fit even if all policies don't align.

And its conservatives that are kicking and screaming the hardest to avoid placing any more.

I think the term conservative very accurately describe the sort of people that have been running China's government for decades too.

Perhaps you should define what you mean by "conservative". At its very root definition "convservative" means perserving the status quo, so if you go by that definition then not surprisingly conservatives would be against any change including change to environmental policies.

Everywhere you go on this planet conservatives embrace an incrementalist approach to embracing virtually everything including democracy and transparency. The environment also gets the same short shrift from both conservative socialists and social conservatives. Correlation sometimes does imply causation, amongst other things.

Somehow you seem to lump libertarians with conservatives. I think that this is wrong. Libertarians have some policies in common with typical conservatives and other policies with typical liberals. I suggest that by lumping them all together you are not getting a true picture of what motivates either group.