Libertarians and your 'Liberty'

[Accountable]

Sorry....can't find it.

John frequently uses the term, and I do understand the context as he implies.
If it upsets you, I'll make you a deal.
Stop trying to derail this thread and I'll retract it

Doesn't upset me at all. Seems to be par for the course in dealing with you.
It's interesting that you deny your own responsibility for "derailing" (your term) the thread and lay all the blame on me, When you have exercised your free choice to respond each and every time. That also is pretty standard.

I do not control your fingers.

 

[Stone]

Doesn't upset me at all. Seems to be par for the course in dealing with you.
It's interesting that you deny your own responsibility for "derailing" (your term) the thread and lay all the blame on me, When you have exercised your free choice to respond each and every time. That also is pretty standard.

I do not control your fingers.

It's interesting that you deny your own responsibility for "derailing" (your term) the thread and lay all the blame on me

Me?
It's my fault you entered this thread with the intention to divert the discussion?

LOL!

No wonder Libertarians are generally regarded as kooks

When you have exercised your free choice to respond each and every time.

That makes absolutely no sense and is contrary to the concept of owning one's responsibility.
You are responsible for your actions that you initiate, not me for responding to them.
Can you give any good argument that prohibits me from responding?
( this will be good....an advocate of 'Liberty' complaining about my using my own free will to respond :smiley24: )

Actually...this is in alignment with the topic of this thread.

Your position on 'Liberty' obviously becomes arbitrary with a bias toward yourself.....and in alignment with the contradictions first presented in this thread.
Your argument now is....I share responsibility for your actions which you initiated of your own free will.

But:

I do not control your fingers.

Libertarians

 

[Accountable]

Me?
It's my fault you entered this thread with the intention to divert the discussion?

Of course not, don't be obtuse. But it's certainly not my fault that you didn't ignore me.

That makes absolutely no sense and is contrary to the concept of owning one's responsibility.
You are responsible for your actions that you initiate, not me for responding to them.

Half correct. I am responsible for my actions that I initiate. YOU are responsible for the actions YOU initiate. Responding to me is an action that you initiate, and as such is your responsibility. You really should own it.

Can you give any good argument that prohibits me from responding?

No, of course not. Why would I? You are free to participate in what you call derailing your thread. You're also free in denying responsibility for your own actions, as evidenced by you making the choice to deny. Of course, that doesn't mean you're not really responsible for your actions, only that you deny it.

... Stop trying to derail this thread ....

Actually...this is in alignment with the topic of this thread.

It's certainly your right to flip flop.

Your position on 'Liberty' obviously becomes arbitrary with a bias toward yourself.....and in alignment with the contradictions first presented in this thread.
Your argument now is....I share responsibility for your actions which you initiated of your own free will.

Nope, not arbitrary. My actions are mine and not your responsibility. Your actions are yours and not my responsibility. I'm choosing to participate here just as you are. Either of us can choose to stop, and the other holds no responsibility for that choice, either.

 

[Johnfromokc]

I think you have me mixed up with John.

John frequently uses the term, and I do understand the context as he implies.

Yes - I completely claim that term. It is sooooo perfectly descriptive.

I actually considered it might have been an original tought until I saw this - different spelling, but same concept, so alas, no original claim to fame for me:

 

[Stone]

Of course not, don't be obtuse. But it's certainly not my fault that you didn't ignore me.

Half correct. I am responsible for my actions that I initiate. YOU are responsible for the actions YOU initiate. Responding to me is an action that you initiate, and as such is your responsibility. You really should own it.

No, of course not. Why would I? You are free to participate in what you call derailing your thread. You're also free in denying responsibility for your own actions, as evidenced by you making the choice to deny. Of course, that doesn't mean you're not really responsible for your actions, only that you deny it.

It's certainly your right to flip flop.

Nope, not arbitrary. My actions are mine and not your responsibility. Your actions are yours and not my responsibility. I'm choosing to participate here just as you are. Either of us can choose to stop, and the other holds no responsibility for that choice, either.

Of course not, don't be obtuse.

Obtuse?
You're the individual that's refusing an intellectual discussion :eek

You are free to participate in what you call derailing your thread.

Thank you for allowing me the 'liberty'

I am responsible for my actions that I initiate.

Indeed....and I'm not in any way responsible for those actions because I reply to them , or is that over your head?

Of course, that doesn't mean you're not really responsible for your actions, only that you deny it.

That's a non sequitur.
Pure nonsense.

But it does draw out your mental processes concerning logic and how it likely applies to your concept of 'Liberty'.......twisted, to say the least.


"Can you give any good argument that prohibits me from responding?"

No, of course not.

Indeed.

Why would I?

Part of your process to disrupt the thread is to challenge my responses to your disruption.
To further continue a diversion.
But it is helping me to better understand your logic and avoidance to the topic at the same time.
You seem desperate to avoid discussing that which you claim to hold most 'holy'.....'Liberty'.
You are actually making my argument for me in a demonstration of avoidance.
And quite rude at the same time......

It's certainly your right to flip flop.

Claiming the right to flip flop in the middle of a debate sounds intellectually dishonest if it's done out of convenience.
And it appears it's not convenient for you to address the thread topic
Let me guess....it's a Libertarian/libertarian right to have the 'Liberty' to be disingenuous and intellectually dishonest out of convenience?

Looks like I'm bringing more out of you than you expected.


""Your position on 'Liberty' obviously becomes arbitrary with a bias toward yourself. "

My actions are mine and not your responsibility.

That's non-responsive to my comment.
Your bias has presented itself as the attempt to disrupt what you don't want to see posted.
But I am gradually pulling out the imagery of a Libertarian/libertarian view on 'Liberty' the more you post.

So far in this thread, you've presented your version as a personal right that supersedes all others as long as you own up to your responsibility of committing those actions.
As I mentioned before.....what is Liberty with out equality?
In a minor way, you are demonstrating what I've suspected for some time.......in the libertarian sense, 'Liberty' is not equality. It's dependent upon ability ....and restriction of ability is a loss of Liberty......but a contradiction, as I've shown before, when actions are used to impinge upon others.
Right here, right now......you are the best example I could have wished for......you demand 'Liberty' while impinging your will upon this thread in a negative sense with out any intended attempt to discuss the topic.
A point with Heartland......to disrupt the sciences, to disrupt education....for the purpose of impressing it's will.......because it has the ability.

I'm choosing to participate here just as you are

Hardly
I just burned you big time

Either of us can choose to stop, and the other holds no responsibility for that choice, either.

Now you are suggesting I stop?
Hell......I'm just getting started


So.....how do you rationalize 'Liberty' if the concept isn't applied equally?

 

[Accountable]

Yes - I completely claim that term. It is sooooo perfectly descriptive.

I actually considered it might have been an original tought until I saw this - different spelling, but same concept, so alas, no original claim to fame for me:

It's still original. You thought of it before you saw the comic, right? The wheel was invented by several different civilizations. That doesn't make each invention less original. Conservobot is yours. It's original.

Just don't try to copyright it.

 

[Accountable]

Indeed....and I'm not in any way responsible for those actions because I reply to them , or is that over your head?

It's not over my head. It's what I said.

Part of your process to disrupt the thread is to challenge my responses to your disruption.
To further continue a diversion.

I don't give a shit about your thread. It's fun dangling a string and watching you dance to catch it.

So.....how do you rationalize 'Liberty' if the concept isn't applied equally?

I have the liberty to dangle the string, and to stop. I am responsible for whichever action I choose.
You seem to be unaware that you have the same liberty and responsibility.

Watch. You'll prove it.

 

[Stone]

It's not over my head. It's what I said.

I don't give a shit about your thread. It's fun dangling a string and watching you dance to catch it.


I have the liberty to dangle the string, and to stop. I am responsible for whichever action I choose.
You seem to be unaware that you have the same liberty and responsibility.

Watch. You'll prove it.

It's not over my head. It's what I said.

No wonder you hate the Department of Education

I don't give a shit about your thread.

You obviously do since you've been so intent on derailing the topic.

Obviously not working out very well for you

It's fun dangling a string and watching you dance to catch it.

Again, you prove your intent to derail the topic.
Why....because you can....it's apparently seen as a right to stop a discussion that's embarrassing for you.

I certainly wouldn't want a President, or any elected official, working on those principles you've been displaying.

I have the liberty to dangle the string, and to stop.

You also have the right to act out the part of a fool.
I think you are succeeding.

I am responsible for whichever action I choose.

You are repeating yourself on an issue I agree with.
You are responsible for trying to derail this thread.

But you are also claiming it's your right to derail it.
And I'm showing how that works against you.

You seem to be unaware that you have the same liberty and responsibility.

You're speaking out your ass.
You attempt to deny me the freedom to pursue a debate on libertarian values in regards to 'liberty'.
That act is an attempted limitation to my my free will.
Up to now, all of your presence has been focused in denying me an element of the concept 'Liberty' that you claim to hold so dear to yourself.

It's your 'Liberty' that you hold dear, not the concept of equal 'Liberty' for all.

You haven't been a willing partner in this demonstration, but in a perverse way, contributed more than I expected. Obviously more than you expected, too

 

[Stone]

..................


..........................

as always.... follow the money

Indeed.

The Koch family isn't the only donor to Heartland, just one of the more recognizable.
A Barre ( Barry ) Seid is another donor that's supposedly dumped about $14 million dollars on Heartland in the last 6 years. Anonymously.

Barre Seid is a far right conservative that promotes far right political agendas by donating large amounts of money to think tanks and universities, almost to the point of effectively owning one....through the Barre Seid Fund.

Salon has made the connection of Barre Seid to one Barry Seid that's a major contributor to the Clarion Fund, whose function seems to be to incite hatred against Islam.
http://www.salon.com/2010/11/16/clarion_fund_obsession_dvds/singleton/
Koch money has also been tied to the Clarion Fund.
http://www.counterpunch.org/2010/10/26/the-far-right-s-secret-slush-fund-to-keep-fear-alive/

(The DVD in question and how it ties politically to Obama:
http://www.theatlantic.com/internat...h-extremists-behind-quot-obsession-quot/9006/ )



It's likely both are involved rather than just one or the other.

Barre Seid is involved in turning a college into a political front as a 'Libertarian/Conservative' propaganda machine.
The college: Shimer.... http://www.chicagoreader.com/chicago/the-conservative-menace/Content?oid=1251260
How it became recognized as tied to Heartland:
http://www.chicagoreader.com/chicag...s-marsha-familaro-enright/Content?oid=1467327
http://www.chicagoreader.com/gyroba...ilaro-enright/Content?oid=1467327&storyPage=2
excerpt:

According to Merchán, no one he spoke with in the Shimer administration, faculty, or student body was aware of the ad. Looking into Heartland's funding, he found through the Web site of the Media Matters Action Network that the Barbara and Barre Seid Foundation is one of Heartland's principal donors, and something else: "I discovered [that the Seid Foundation gave] Shimer College $650,000 in 2007," Merchán notes.

That's 'Liberty' being bought.
And it's being facilitated by Libertarians and Libertarian think tanks.

Barre Seid has ties to Cato....another Libertarian think tank.
From the Koch family to George Soros, the wealthy move money to their causes through mechanisms often hard to follow and as such, hide their involvement....intentionally or otherwise.
Barry Seid has fronted at least $427K to Cato, a libertarian think tank that Charles Koch is credited in starting.
Here's a list of known Seid donations through the Seid Foundation:
http://old.mediatransparency.org/recipientsoffunder.php?funderID=26
Even that is a lot of influence.

Cato also takes the same stands on eliminating the Department of Education and presenting arguments that go against both the recognized science of climatology and climate history.....that Heartland takes.
This would be consistent with the financial donors, naturally....


While some cry for 'Liberty'......they hand theirs off freely with out a second thought of their allegiance to a movement they probably don't know nor understand..
The neocon movement manipulated the public in much the same manner.

It's looking like a nation of sheeple following imagery that's more intended illusion than fact.
From neocons to libertarians.....the followers don't seem to think for themselves and are easily led.

I suspect the above is just the 'tip of the iceberg'.
Follow the money.

 

[Stone]

It's been 2 days since anyone has tried to seal my 'Liberty'.......you libertarians given up already? ( )

 

[Stone]

More on that lying/scheming libertarian think tank ( ) and now it's in the mainstream media.

http://www.usatoday.com/money/economy/story/2012-02-25/think-tank-leaks/53235836/1

excerpt:

"Scientifically there is no controversy. Politically, there is a controversy because there are political interest groups making it a controversy," Lambright said. "It's not about science. It's about politics. To some extent they are winning the battle."

Ron Paul and global warming:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/skepticquotes.php?s=107

 

[Accountable]

I take it that you disagree - that there is still a controversy?

 

[Stone]

I take it that you disagree - that there is still a controversy?

Do I disagree that a controversy still exists?

I wouldn't be posting about the libertarian position on it if there weren't.

Have you read any of the links I posted?

 

[Stone]

Soooooo....what other 'Libertarian' think tanks also line up on the side of anti-science in the field of climatology?


------->Mercatus Center at George Mason University
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercatus_Center

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=George_Mason_University
Looks like the Koch family involvement again.
They also help fund Heartland.

And look at their involvement with climate denial and politics:
http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/en/ca...olluterwatch/koch-industries/mercatus-center/


hmmmm.......liberty for sale?

The Wegman report in 2008 in the journal Computational Statistics and Data Analysis ( similar to his Congressional report in 2006 ) on global warming has been withdrawn.

http://www.usatoday.com/weather/cli...1-05-15-climate-study-plagiarism-Wegman_n.htm

http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2011/...ocks-cornerstone-of-climate-denial/?mobile=nc

But not the Congressional Report of 2006 which contained much of the same material
http://deepclimate.org/2012/02/22/g...rism-in-csda-but-not-in-congressional-report/

http://deepclimate.files.wordpress.com/2012/02/wegman-social-networks-v-2-1.pdf

Interesting read.

Wegman is a statistician at George Mason and much of the same money that funds the global warming denial at Heartland also winds up at George Mason.

Follow the money.

 

[Accountable]

Do I disagree that a controversy still exists?

I wouldn't be posting about the libertarian position on it if there weren't.

Have you read any of the links I posted?

Sorry. I phrased it poorly, but you answered the question.
No, I haven't read the links. I think the whole argument is silly. The globe is warming. Does it really matter whose fault it is? Is there anything significant we can do about it? That's the conversation that should be held. If there is, then we need to determine if we care enough to do it. If there's nothing we can do, or if we're not willing to do what we can, then we need to talk about making adjustments to live on a warmer globe until it cools again ... which it surely will.

 

[Stone]

Sorry. I phrased it poorly, but you answered the question.
No, I haven't read the links. I think the whole argument is silly. The globe is warming. Does it really matter whose fault it is? Is there anything significant we can do about it? That's the conversation that should be held. If there is, then we need to determine if we care enough to do it. If there's nothing we can do, or if we're not willing to do what we can, then we need to talk about making adjustments to live on a warmer globe until it cools again ... which it surely will.

I think the whole argument is silly.

The oil industry along with much of manufacturing and energy producers ( utilities ) seem to disagree with you and so do many on the political left.
So what you think is silly is not generally accepted in the same manner by the participants in the conflict.

Does it really matter whose fault it is?

Fault is a relative term......human activity and it's impact varies according to the activity in question.
Essentially, most of human activity contributes to climate change to some degree.
If you deny 'fault', you're merely part of the problem.

Is there anything significant we can do about it?

About human impact, sure. About the majority of natural influences, no.
But if nothing is done as the deniers argue for, the situation merely gets worse that much quicker leaving technology a more difficult task to address the future.

That's the conversation that should be held.

Indeed......but denial seems written in the libertarian/conservative 'playbook' just as exaggeration seems written in many of the leftist's arguments.

If there is, then we need to determine if we care enough to do it.

There is no 'if we care enough to do it argument'.
The arguments are....GW exists, doesn't exist, there is nothing that can be done at this time....and variations of intensity.....but not even the deniers are so crass as to present an argument of 'if we care' as a rationalization to do nothing.

If there's nothing we can do

If you are arguing for a quick fix.....that isn't going to happen. The problem is of a global nature and sensitive in geologic terms.....meaning centuries, not decades or years.

, or if we're not willing to do what we can, then we need to talk about making adjustments to live on a warmer globe until it cools again

Indeed......and that leads to the neoconservative 'lifeboat' argument.
All those too weak to fight for their seat on the 'lifeboat' go over the side.
That argument was proposed by the neocon Garrett Hardin.

Please read this by Hardin:
http://www.google.com/url?q=http://web.ntpu.edu.tw/~ckliu/course/research/lifeboat.pdf&sa=U&ei=DXdKT8_dGsHg0QGWtsmCDg&ved=0CBkQFjAD&usg=AFQjCNEudytbGFf_xsnwXKSyYzS_Q3zQyg


Now you've just taken your libertarian values into the realm of genocide as a possible solution as climate change over the next century or so as climate change is projected to generate severe competition for natural resources ( water and food for instance ) in highly populated areas of the world....many already under stress.

I suspect those times in the future will be unduly stressful even with GW being addressed in a responsible fashion....but considerably worse in the future, if not.


So....it's quite interesting to consider Libertarian/libertarian values as they relate to 'Liberty'......and see how mankind's liberty is bought and sold by those pulling the political/economic strings, with wads of money....money from Libertarian sources. Wealthy Libertarian sources. Very wealthy sources at that.

 

[Minor Axis]

No, it just means that all the idiots out there who said you can't trust the Democrats or Republicans so they became a Libertarian (because they love liberty) are just as fucked as the rest of the idiots...

Real Libertarians think their personal liberty trumps group liberty and they think that if government was reduced back to 1776 levels and ways of thinking, everything would correct itself...

 

[Stone]

Real Libertarians think their personal liberty trumps group liberty and they think that if government was reduced back to 1776 levels and ways of thinking, everything would correct itself...

personal liberty trumps group liberty

What is 'group liberty'?

they think that if government was reduced back to 1776 levels and ways of thinking, everything would correct itself

Well......they'd certainly get a chance to rewrite the Constitution

everything would correct itself

Good one!

 

[Stone]

http://www.desmogblog.com/fake-science-fakexperts-funny-finances-free-tax

Fake science, fakexperts, funny finances, free of tax

Yep the focus is again the Libertarian thinktank, Heartland.

.....SEPP ( edit: S. Fred Singer is President of the Science and Environmental Policy Project (SEPP) ) paid no salaries, even for Singer’s 60-hour workweeks. Money flowed oddly. Asset trades often exceeded normal income and they accumulated to $1.5M, tax-free. Then one money trail led to Heartland.
........
Heartland Institute’s Joseph Bast staunchly defended “Joe Camel,” the infamous campaign to addict younger children. Heartland got tobacco funding for many years, along with a Philip Morris Board member.

Whitney Ball’s DONORS TRUST funded a major expansion of Heartland climate anti-science. Singer collected old associates to help write “NonGovernmental International Panel on Climate Change“ (NIPCC) reports, filled with unsupported claims and long-refuted anti-science.
[FONT=&amp]He was helped by Craig Idso, of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change (CDCDGC), whose money flows also seem unusual. Robert Ferguson’s Science and Public Policy Institute (SPPI) was a website and a PO Box in a UPS store and he was actually a CSCDGC employee.

[/FONT][FONT=&amp]Under Jay Lehr and James Taylor, anti-science permeated Heartland’s Environment and Climate News (E&CN) sent mostly to elected officials. Heartland incessantly touted its access and influence with such officials, but its tax forms claimed no lobbying. It ran “fake science” conferences, paying for government staff attendance. It sent money to foreign non-charity advocacy groups, sent anti-science handbooks to school boards and urged parents to complain. It has been criticized in Nature and Science.[/FONT]

[FONT=&amp]Free speech allows people to express opinions, even lie about facts, but tax-free operation is a revocable privilege. Spreading factual untruths and confusion about smoking or climate science is neither research nor education in the public interest.[/FONT]

The blog's author is John Mashey, PhD.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Mashey

 

[Stone]

Now's a good time to mention Singer's connection to Cato.

He's an Editorial Advisory Board Member at Cato.

http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/personfactsheet.php?id=1


And has taken money from Exxon.....among other oil and energy concerns.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=S._Fred_Singer


Looks like some Libertarians ( probably the wealthiest of them ) are in bed with corporations with bad reputations.
Interesting.
I wonder whose 'Liberty' they are funding?