pull down to refresh

Well said and it is telling that very few Libertarians appear capable of responding in such a calm and reasoned manner where they will defend and represent their viewpoint in a manner that welcomes alternative viewpoints - because they provide a golden opportunity to engage in a contest of ideas.
Much more often Libertarians out themselves as fragile emotional ideologically rigid 'believers' in a creed, and that they cannot convincingly respond in a calm and reasoned manner that convincingly refutes alternative viewpoints.
When a respondent seeks to shoot the messenger they concede defeat, by default, in the contest of ideas. They lose the opportunity to respond in a manner that demonstrates to a neutral observer the logic and strength of their beliefs.
a sane individual simply doesn't drink tea with stalin.
reply
Comparing me and what I have said with Stalin is as absurd and is failure to respond logically and with any convincing argument to what I have actually said. It is a crude and blatantly dishonest attempt at shooting the messenger instead of engaging in a reasoned contest of ideas. BTW Churchill and Roosevelt did! If your ability to present your ideology cannot cope with the real world and challenges to your viewpoint directly then your grasp of your ideology is not strong. When others present an alternative viewpoint this is the golden opportunity to advance your position and refute theirs in a reasoned manner. If you fail to take that opportunity then you fail in the contest of ideas. Those who are confident and secure in their beliefs are not frightened of different ideas. They welcome the opportunity to engage and compare logic. Very few Libertarians appear capable of this. It makes them look more like a cult than a philosophy.
reply
You don't believe in the NAP (non aggression principle), it's the same thing only with a different scale. I don't care what my lack of engagement with declared socialists and communists may look like.
reply