ALL BLOG POSTS AND COMMENTS COPYRIGHT (C) 2003-2017 VOX DAY. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. REPRODUCTION WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED.

Friday, February 21, 2014

Libertarians are not libertarian

Karl Denninger received a letter:
Dear Karl:

I'll get straight to the point.

Our general fund bank acount is critically low.

Unless we can raise funds immediately, the following may happen:

We may have to withdraw ballot access support from some large states.

We may have to lay off staff.

We may not be able to finance the purchase of our Libertarian Party Headquarters

Wes Benedict
Executive Director 
No wonder the Libertarians nominated presidential candidates who were terrible on the debt issue. They are addicted to credit themselves. Unlike past elections, I didn't vote Libertarian in 2008 or 2012 because the candidates were Republican retreads who were little more genuinely libertarian than Barack Obama.

Like the Republican Party, the Libertarian Party is run by hacks who are more interested in perks than principles, it's a micro-Republican Party. The sooner it goes away, the better. In any event, it should be eminently clear that the problems presently faced by the USA cannot and will not be solved by electoral politics.

Enjoy the crash.

Labels:

112 Comments:

Blogger Laguna Beach Fogey February 21, 2014 7:31 AM  

Electoral politics in the US is a circus, a sideshow, a distraction. Something else is needed.

Anonymous Guy February 21, 2014 7:33 AM  

hate to burst your bubble.... but doesn't EVERY fundraising letter ever written say this?

Anonymous aaaaturkey February 21, 2014 7:38 AM  

Why do you need a physical HQ when you can use the internet?

Anonymous Catan February 21, 2014 7:42 AM  

The morons have it backwards. First you win elections and seize power, THEN you build the ivory tower.

Idiots.

Anonymous Anonymous February 21, 2014 8:06 AM  

Unfortunately I too eventually had to withdraw my support from a party with whom I not only disagreed on the immigration issue, they supported open borders, but also whose main purpose seemed to be to raise funds for itself and those associated with the party..

Aaron Investigates

Anonymous roger u February 21, 2014 8:28 AM  

Does the word "libertarian" actually mean anything?

Anonymous VD February 21, 2014 8:33 AM  

Yes. It is the political ideology based on the principle of maximizing human liberty.

Anonymous kfg February 21, 2014 8:42 AM  

The essential problem with the Libertarian Party to me has always been that if you can't organize a bake sale, you can't organize a country.

Blogger IM2L844 February 21, 2014 8:56 AM  

I happened to stumble across Vox Popoli, circa 2008, as a direct result of becoming frustrated with libertarian forums and blogs where an inordinate number of militant atheists were clearly trying to dominate the discussions with their brand of evangelism. Still, Vox took some getting used to (closer attention to detail) before my blood pressure normalized. ;)

I still waffle back and forth as to why atheists would find libertarianism particularly attractive, but it seems they do.

Anonymous Jimmy February 21, 2014 8:58 AM  

As lame as this is, I don't see how it's un-libertarian.

OpenID cailcorishev February 21, 2014 8:59 AM  

It is the political ideology based on the principle of maximizing human liberty.

Unfortunately, too many people take that to mean "individual human liberty" (more often "my individual liberty"), which translates into pro-abortion, open borders, etc. Taken to that extreme, you should be free to yell "fire" in a crowded theater, and you get a might-makes-right philosophy.

If you take it to mean the maximum amount of liberty that can be had by everyone in aggregate, you get something very different. Things like nation-states, borders, vice laws, and the like, may make humans more free as a whole, but you won't often hear that from your neighborhood libertarian. Too many libertarians are stuck supporting things like open borders because they can't say that the freedom of Americans as a group to control their borders trumps the freedom of Carlos from Mexico City to live and work wherever he wants.

OpenID cailcorishev February 21, 2014 9:01 AM  

I still waffle back and forth as to why atheists would find libertarianism particularly attractive, but it seems they do.

Because their atheism derives from not wanting anyone (including God) to be able to tell them what to do. Libertarianism is the political platform that most promises not to tell people what to do.

Anonymous Jimmy February 21, 2014 9:01 AM  

IM2L844, it's because they reject any authority they don't voluntarily choose. Which is funny to me, because I've run into more than a few libertarians who don't understand how I could believe in some egomaniacal god authority, as if my devotion to liberty could somehow cause Him to not exist.

Blogger Nate February 21, 2014 9:07 AM  

"Taken to that extreme, you should be free to yell "fire" in a crowded theater, and you get a might-makes-right philosophy."

All government philosophies come down to might-makes-right eventually.

Blogger IM2L844 February 21, 2014 9:10 AM  

Yes, calicorishev and Jimmy, but I sometimes think that the individual responsibility that libertarianism also emphasizes on balance would be off-putting for them. I clearly don't fully understand the atheist mindset.

Blogger CarpeOro February 21, 2014 9:18 AM  

"The essential problem with the Libertarian Party to me has always been that if you can't organize a bake sale, you can't organize a country."

Not a fan of the LP any more, but I'm tired of being organized by the bi-factional ruling party. The motto KYFHO* would be a starting point for me.

*see "Enemy of the State". Book, not the movie of that name. I believe it was by Paul Wilson.

Anonymous Feh February 21, 2014 9:23 AM  

Yes. It is the political ideology based on the principle of maximizing human liberty.

An ideology that late 20th century Americans have repeatedly rejected at the polls. Oh well!

the LP any more, but I'm tired of being organized by the bi-factional ruling party.

The LP is merely another faction of that party.

Anonymous RINO February 21, 2014 9:28 AM  

Libertarians are about as effective at social interaction and gaining influence as atheists are. Probably less so. It's not surprising there is no much overlap between the two.

Blogger JP February 21, 2014 9:30 AM  

I still waffle back and forth as to why atheists would find libertarianism particularly attractive, but it seems they do.

No, the don't. Atheists are almost exclusively social progressive and fascist.

Blogger IM2L844 February 21, 2014 9:36 AM  

No, the don't.

Maybe I just got that impression because evangelical atheists are invariably garish attention whores. Having been an atheist, I understand that mindset, but I was never the militant activist type.

Anonymous dh February 21, 2014 9:40 AM  

No, the don't. Atheists are almost exclusively social progressive and fascist.

This isn't the case. Pew tracks this, they make it a little hard to get the bottom line because they group unaffiliated and atheists into one bucket. (They ask unaffiliated to rate their belief in God, and about 1/3 strongly believe, so there are many shades to that bucket including some that are simply unchurched. But it also includes all manner of atheists and agnostics).

http://religions.pewforum.org/portraits, select Unaffliated, and then "Social and Political views".

Only a 1/3 of this group is Democratic, and 1/5 leaning that way. So roughly half are or lean left. The rest are independent, or lean right.

Blogger JP February 21, 2014 9:41 AM  

Fair enough. The internet isn't an accurate representation of white people.

Blogger Martin Diers February 21, 2014 9:45 AM  

There are not political solutions to intellectual, moral, or spiritual problems.

Blogger The Anti-Gnostic February 21, 2014 9:50 AM  

The motto KYFHO* would be a starting point for me.

Or my ideal Constitution:

I. Mind your own business.
II. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
Signed:________________

I agree with cailcorishev as well. Libertarians have regressed to what they probably always were: just another bunch of lefty universalists.

Anonymous The Faithful Materialist February 21, 2014 9:52 AM  

"The morons have it backwards. First you win elections and seize power, THEN you build the ivory tower."

This is the point. Right here. The Libertarians decided they want to build a party from the top down, not from the bottom up. You build the power of the local party structure first. Dog Catcher----->Mayor-------->County Supervisor---------->State Representative---------->Congress-------->Governor.

The Tea Party folks actually have been going about it correctly, give or take. Their problem is they have no sense of how to wield power for their own ends. They use a bulldozers when shovels will do the trick.

Anonymous kfg February 21, 2014 9:59 AM  

The essential problem I have with KYFHO is, oddly enough, its continuation of libertarian philosophy; specifically the principle of self ownership.

The principle of self ownership is the result of, and perpetuates, the view that everything is some form of property and I do not share that view. I am not property. Not even my own.

I am.

When they come for me or mine I will not tell them I am self owned, I will tell them I AM.

I note, however, that while I reject the specific philosophy, my own is otherwise fully compatible with KYFHO, as KYFHO is not dependent on it.

Anonymous roger u February 21, 2014 10:00 AM  

"Yes. It is the political ideology based on the principle of maximizing human liberty."

Maybe I should have said "does the term libertarianism mean anything concrete". Liberty is a nebulous concept open to interpretation, what does it look like maximised?

Anonymous Brother Thomas February 21, 2014 10:01 AM  

2004 was the last ime I voter for a Libertarian for president. I voted for Badnarik. I couldn't vote for either Barr or Johnson. I voted for Baldwin in 2008 and didn't vote for anyone in 2012.

Anonymous Desiderius February 21, 2014 10:12 AM  

"We may have to lay off staff.

We may not be able to finance the purchase of our Libertarian Party Headquarters"

This is bad how?

Reminds me of Churchianity. The only thing this generation of leaders, across the board, knows how to do is expand bureaucracies. They've the lost the ability to even imagine any alternative or downside to doing so. Evidently, Wes would actually send money in response to such an e-mail and expects others to do likewise.

Anonymous Desiderius February 21, 2014 10:15 AM  

"There are not political solutions to intellectual, moral, or spiritual problems."

There are, however, political actions which exacerbate them.

Anonymous Jake February 21, 2014 10:16 AM  

" Liberty is a nebulous concept open to interpretation, what does it look like maximised?"

Really? It's much more concrete than concepts like "the greater good", "the will of the people", "government sovereignty" used to justify statism.

Liberty is the absence of coercion. If you know what coercion is then you should have no problem recognizing it's absence.

Taken to the extreme, you'd have a society unburdened by taxation, monetary manipulation, rent-seeking, political extortion, class warfare, astronomical debt, etc. What that looks like I'm not sure, but I very much suspect it'd be a huge improvement. Most of the the problems in society are caused by coercion, then used to justify more coercion to "solve", which never works out well for the coerced.

Anonymous roger u February 21, 2014 10:22 AM  

"Liberty is the absence of coercion."
This is impossible, competition is coercion.

Anonymous roger u February 21, 2014 10:24 AM  

Let me also add that the liberty you define would, in fact, require some coercion to implement.

Anonymous Jake February 21, 2014 10:30 AM  

"This is impossible, competition is coercion."

"Let me also add that the liberty you define would, in fact, require some coercion to implement."

Please make your case rather than just throwing out claims.

Anonymous roger u February 21, 2014 10:37 AM  

To compete implies coercing the opponent to yield, something they are obviously not doing voluntarily or you wouldn't be competing.

The welfare bum obviously doesn't want to work and will have to be forced to do so while also being prevented from turning to crime as a means to make a living.

Anonymous Porky February 21, 2014 10:51 AM  

We are all anarchists now.

Blogger Brad Andrews February 21, 2014 10:54 AM  

[Jdg 17:6 NKJV] 6 In those days [there was] no king in Israel; everyone did [what was] right in his own eyes.

How appropriate for many today.

We may have trouble finding the truth and agreeing on it, but it exists. Seeking out own truth is just as ultimately effective as walking off a tall building and wanting to fly.

Anonymous Jake February 21, 2014 10:58 AM  

"To compete implies coercing the opponent to yield, something they are obviously not doing voluntarily or you wouldn't be competing."

Incorrect, if I make a better widget than my competitor and he goes out of business for lack of sales I have not coerced him in anyway. I may not have ever had any interaction with him at all. Customers chose to buy my widget instead of his. There is no coercion, just withdrawal of support. There's a big the difference between not giving someone your money (competition) and stealing their money (coercion).

"The welfare bum obviously doesn't want to work and will have to be forced to do so while also being prevented from turning to crime as a means to make a living."

You don't have force him to work. This is a government-mentality. He can starve if that's what he prefers. More likely he'll find it better to work and eat than sit around and starve. Either way he's not being coerced. The coercion is taking money from all of us so that some can be professional paupers.

Anonymous roger u February 21, 2014 11:06 AM  

That's wishful thinking, Jake. Marketing trumps quality 99% of the time. I use marketing to convince/trick/coerce/bribe/anything I can do to get customers to come to me rather than my cometitor. Differences in actual quality, as opposed to perceived quality-marketing, between most products is negligible.

I often wonder how many businesses would operate like Mexican cartels, without the third party coercion of laws and police.

Your welfare bum will still have to be coerced not to rob people.

Blogger kurt9 February 21, 2014 11:18 AM  

Like the Republican Party, the Libertarian Party is run by hacks who are more interested in perks than principles, it's a micro-Republican Party. The sooner it goes away, the better. In any event, it should be eminently clear that the problems presently faced by the USA cannot and will not be solved by electoral politics.

I agree with both.

Anonymous patrick kelly February 21, 2014 11:20 AM  

"Because their atheism derives from not wanting anyone (including God) to be able to tell them what to do."

Yeah, it always gets back to drunkenness and fornication....they want to be free to have drunken orgies.....if they could organize one....or get invited to any......heh.....

Anonymous Jake February 21, 2014 11:24 AM  

"Marketing trumps quality 99% of the time..."

Even if this were true (I do not say it is) it's not coercion.

"Your welfare bum will still have to be coerced not to rob people"

Fair enough, libertarianism allows for the use of force, coercion, in defense against aggression. Unless you can't see the difference between shooting someone because you want his shoes and shooting someone who just kicked down the door to your house this is a stupid argument:

A: "We shouldn't commit murder"

B: "This is unrealistic, a society where murder is not allowed requires murder to exist"

A: "huh?"

B: "What is some would-be murderer comes at you with a knife?"

A: "I'd probably shoot him"

B: "Well there you go! Murder!"

A: (sighs)...

Anonymous Porky February 21, 2014 11:26 AM  

My hope is built on nothing less
Than Jesus’ blood and righteousness;
I dare not trust the sweetest frame,
But wholly lean on Jesus’ name.

On Christ, the solid Rock, I stand;
All other ground is sinking sand,
All other ground is sinking sand.
♪♩

Anonymous Susan February 21, 2014 11:27 AM  

Patrick, I don't think we should let Josh forget about that little comment too soon, ok?

Anonymous civilServant February 21, 2014 11:32 AM  

Does the word "libertarian" actually mean anything?

Yes. It is the political ideology based on the principle of maximizing human liberty.


Incorrect. Libertarianism is an ideology based on the principle of maximizing a given individual's liberty. Libertarianism is inherently atomistic and therefore anti-political. The concept of "human liberty" plays no role.

Anonymous roger u February 21, 2014 11:42 AM  

I don't understand the point of your dialogue, but that's neither here nor there

On self defense, if someONE kicks down your door that's one thing, but 10s of people forming an organisation for the purpose of kicking down doors and taking people's shoes requires a more organised defense. Hence the law abiding citizen's force multiplier-police. Police also act to find known door kicking shoe stealers to prevent them doing so again thus freeing up the law abidig citizens to live his life- division of labor. Governments pen laws to regulate the manner in which the police act and taxes to pay for it all.

Do governments and police sometimes over step their bounds or even become the door kicking shoe stealers themselves? Yes, but only because we citizens are such pussies that we don't coerce them to behave in the manner we want. With or without government, there is no autopilot setting.

And yes, marketing trumps quality in most products simply because people don't have the time to do an investigation of every product they buy. Marketing creates a brand and then attempts to convince the consumer that the brand equals quality. The act of marketing itself uses psychological ploys-fear of loss, color, images, etc- to influence choice. Attempting to remove your ability to make a rational decision is attempting to coerce you.

Anonymous Mr. Rational February 21, 2014 11:49 AM  

I still waffle back and forth as to why atheists would find libertarianism particularly attractive, but it seems they do.

Originally, the Libertarian movement was all about the non-aggression principle and what flows from it.  The association with (more properly, infiltration by) pro-lifers and other "social conservatives", who are only too happy to use aggression to impose their will on others, came in the 90's.  Libertarianism 1.0 is still quite attractive to atheists, as well as many of other persuasions.

Had the Libertarian party accepted the support of the cons but not allowed them in any policy-setting position, this would never have happened.

Anonymous Porky February 21, 2014 11:50 AM  

Libertarianism is an ideology based on the principle of maximizing a given individual's liberty.

True. It is the engine of neofeudalism. The freedom to subjugate.

Anonymous VD February 21, 2014 12:01 PM  

All right, Porky, you're done on this topic. I'm sick of your idiotic lying. You are henceforth banned from commenting on libertarianism.

It's like listening to some moron claim that the core principle of communism is the stock market.

Blogger TontoBubbaGoldstein February 21, 2014 12:02 PM  

We may not be able to finance the purchase of our Libertarian Party Headquarters.


What?

The deal with Ned Flander's Leftorium fell through?

Anonymous Jack Amok February 21, 2014 12:21 PM  

cail:

Unfortunately, too many people take that to mean "individual human liberty" (more often "my individual liberty"), which translates into pro-abortion, open borders, etc.


Yes. Some people want to legalize marijuana because they are libertarians, and some people are libertarians because they want to legalize marijuana. There's all the difference in the world between the two. The first sort understand that a functional society requires people to respect one another. The second sort don't really understand social interactions, they just want to indulge themselves.

Anonymous Jack Amok February 21, 2014 12:25 PM  

roger u:

To compete implies coercing the opponent to yield, something they are obviously not doing voluntarily or you wouldn't be competing.

Competition is entirely voluntary in a free society. Everyone chooses whether to compete, and if so, where to compete. Also how hard. All choices.

And do not confuse libertarians with anarchists. Your "without the third party coercion of laws and police" is exactly where the difference comes from. A libertarian philosophy allows for a small presence of government to enforce a small number of rules that prevent power blocks from setting themselves up at gate keepers and rent-collectors (or shoe-stealers if you prefer). But the scope must remain small or else the government will become the oppressor instead.

In fact, if you have any functional knowledge of history at all, you realize that government oppression is far, far, far more common than "private" oppression.

Anonymous The Faithful Materialist February 21, 2014 12:25 PM  

"Liberty is the absence of coercion"

Isn't the absence of coercion the absence of laws and the punishment that often goes along with breaking laws? That can't be a good thing, confirmed by the fact that no political entity has ever tried it.

OpenID cailcorishev February 21, 2014 12:27 PM  

Yes, calicorishev and Jimmy, but I sometimes think that the individual responsibility that libertarianism also emphasizes on balance would be off-putting for them.

The libertarians I've known (obviously not Vox's type) never talked much about "individual responsibility." They were pretty focused on, "the government shouldn't be able to tell me not to do X," with X usually being their favorite drug or sexual deviancy, or occasionally something to do with private property rights.

That's a perfect fit for the atheist, whose theology usually boils down to, "I don't want there to be a God who will punish me for doing X," where X is usually some sexual deviancy.

Anonymous The Faithful Materialist February 21, 2014 12:28 PM  

" A libertarian philosophy allows for a small presence of government to enforce a small number of rules that prevent power blocks from setting themselves up at gate keepers and rent-collectors (or shoe-stealers if you prefer)."

The presence of government does more than that. It enforces the standards of the community though prohibitory laws as well as requirements of community participation.

Anonymous Porky February 21, 2014 12:29 PM  

You are henceforth banned from commenting on libertarianism.

Case in point.

Vox, I'm not talking about the ideal. I'm talking about the practicality. Good Lord, the ideal of communism is a classless society, but the practicality is that this will never happen. Why do you imagine libertarianism is any different from any other pie-in-the-sky political ideology? Do you really imagine there will be no stratification in a libertarian regime?

Need I remind you that it took approximately one year for the world's most liberty-minded government to turn it's troops on the very Sons of Liberty who fought for it ... because these Sons of Liberty had the temerity to ferment their extra corn into whiskey?

But you've been itching to banhammer me for some time so go ahead and banhammer away. In the name of libertarianism.

Anonymous The Faithful Materialist February 21, 2014 12:30 PM  

"That's a perfect fit for the atheist, whose theology usually boils down to, "I don't want there to be a God who will punish me for doing X," where X is usually some sexual deviancy."

A better description is, "There is not a god that will punish me for X so I'll decide for myself whether X is prudent or not."

Anonymous kfg February 21, 2014 12:35 PM  

"That can't be a good thing, confirmed by the fact that no political entity has ever tried it."

It cannot be deemed a bad thing if it is an untested hypothesis.

Anonymous REG February 21, 2014 12:37 PM  

"[Jdg 17:6 NKJV] 6 In those days [there was] no king in Israel; everyone did [what was] right in his own eyes."

If one studies those days, they will find that each tribe had local leadership, common laws as set by Moses and his council were standard across the nation. (Sort of like a Constitutional government) The people were free to live their lives without a overbearing central government. Sort of like when this country was first started, free but responsible. True, it wasn't perfect and there were internal conflicts, etc. Read what Samuel said would happen when they got a king and see what did happen. Did becoming a socialist monarchy help the people?

I have been a member of the Libertarian Party since it's birth in 73. When we started, it was with an entirely different mindset. Like Vox has stated more than once, an organization begins, it allows in some supposed well meaning members and before you know it, it has been taken over.
Now the Libertarian Party is a copy of the Blue Dog Democrats "We want everything the Democrats want, we just don't want it to cost so much" or Liberal Republicans, take your pick. I have quit sending them support and will send them a letter stating why I and my wife are quitting as soon as I can compose a letter that is short and still concise. Right now, I want to tell them just how disgusted I am and that is a waste of paper.

Anonymous The Faithful Materialist February 21, 2014 12:37 PM  

"It cannot be deemed a bad thing if it is an untested hypothesis."

This is probably true. However, I'm assuming it has occurred to peoples that they organize with the absence of any laws, but I don't know of any people that have taken that path. Maybe it has never occurred to a people.

Anonymous Jake February 21, 2014 12:41 PM  

"Hence the law abiding citizen's force multiplier-police. Police also act to find known door kicking shoe stealers to prevent them doing so again thus freeing up the law abidig citizens to live his life- division of labor. Governments pen laws to regulate the manner in which the police act and taxes to pay for it all."

And you accuse me of wishful thinking!

I know this is the story. it's what you're taught in school. But it's simply not the case. The police, the government as a whole, work to "protect" you only to the bare minimum necessary to maintain the illusion that they exist for that reason. Their true motives are to exploit and suppress society at large for their own benefit. You can go all the way back to the founding of the USA and see this. The ink on the constitution wasn't yet dry when the federal government started finding ways to rip off its citizenry for the benefit of it's friends. Even before that, the constitution was CREATED because powerful people NEEDED a powerful central government to enable their frauds and enforce their dictates.

Anonymous Giraffe February 21, 2014 12:41 PM  

A better description is, "There is not a god that will punish me for X so I'll decide for myself whether X is prudent or not."

Or, as Vox says, "do what thou wilt with due regard for the policeman around the corner". And this is logically consistent until you idiots start talking about morals.

And, for your information, that is not the same as libertarianism.

Anonymous roger u February 21, 2014 12:42 PM  

Jack Amok:
A libertarian philosophy allows for a small presence of government to enforce a small number of rules that prevent power blocks from setting themselves up at gate keepers and rent-collectors (or shoe-stealers if you prefer). But the scope must remain small or else the government will become the oppressor instead. "

You will have to compete with the would be power blocks for control of government or they get to make the laws and do as they will.

If you have any knowledge of history you will realise that it is the story of groups competing for power over other groups. Ideology is a sales tactic. All ideologies lead to a small group controlling the lion's share of power. Competitive authoritarian men will alway compete for authority.

Anonymous roger u February 21, 2014 12:50 PM  

jake,
the stronger will do what they will. Its not necessarily fair or moral, but it is reality. Hoping against all evidence that people will abide by the NAP when they won't abide by laws that are enforced with violence is childishly naive.

Anonymous Jake February 21, 2014 12:55 PM  

" However, I'm assuming it has occurred to peoples that they organize with the absence of any laws, but I don't know of any people that have taken that path. Maybe it has never occurred to a people. "

It certainly has, it's been tried and continues to be tried. Problem is governments are quite jealous of their dominion and don't readily tolerate any size group of people saying "we'll do it our own way thank you". I was listening to a guy recently who was trying to build a "libertarian" community where within the constraints of a few accepted ground-rules members could do as they wished. They'd also have access to community own facilities and be share holders in the community which had several revenue streams planned. The business model was terrific, had tons of investor interest, started going from county to county looking at land to buy for this plan and couldn't find anywhere that local ordinances, regulations, codes, etc. didn't make it impossible, or at least 5-10x more expensive than necessary.

Our government is very subtle, even clever in the ways it disguises it's acts, but do not be deceived, it is very totalitarian towards anyone or anything that might demonstrate alternatives to it's rule. They won't shoot you and toss you in a mass grave (not yet at least) but neither will they allow you to succeed.

Anonymous Eric Ashley February 21, 2014 12:59 PM  

Libertarians have some other characteristics. 1. They support the simplest political theory possible. KYFHO is very simple indeed. 2. They are more schismatic than even Independent Baptists. Probably they are the most schismatic group in society. 3. They are emotionally adolescent. Libertarianism is the teenage drive for cheap certainties. 4. Libertarianism is the political pressure group for the class of horny, white, male IT guys. 5. Libertarianism is a Single Value Ethical System and as such quickly leads to monsters. 6. Libertarians desire socially conservative females to be made available to them as prostitutes as men desire virtuous young women, and as a sign of their dominance over the culture of the fathers of those girls. 7. Libertarianism is the only poltical group without a nickname. See: GOP, or Reps, or Dems. I nominate 'Tarian'.

Anonymous roger u February 21, 2014 12:59 PM  

"They won't shoot you and toss you in a mass grave (not yet at least) but neither will they allow you to succeed. "

And yet, some people are succeeding fantastically.

Anonymous Jake February 21, 2014 1:01 PM  

" Hoping against all evidence that people will abide by the NAP when they won't abide by laws that are enforced with violence is childishly naive. "

You're not listening/comprehending. Violence is still an option for enforcement of non-aggression. You can shoot the guy charging at you with a knife without being guilty of wrong doing in a libertarian society. So that's a non-argument.

There will always be people with the will to dominate others yes. Libertarians would like to see them deprived of the most powerful, effective, and deadly means of domination known to man. i.e. the existence of a government which grants itself a monopoly over the use of violence and force.


Anonymous Jake February 21, 2014 1:03 PM  

"And yet, some people are succeeding fantastically."

Who? And note specifically the type of movement I'm referring to.

Anonymous Jack Amok February 21, 2014 1:06 PM  

You will have to compete with the would be power blocks for control of government or they get to make the laws and do as they will.

Your dialog is tiresome. Let's cut to the chase. You have little use for libertarian philosophy, so what organizing philosophy do you prefer for society? If we're fools for being libertarians, what would you advise us to be instead?

Blogger smraluvr February 21, 2014 1:09 PM  

Harry Browne was a good economist who I voted for twice. R.I.P., 3/1/02. We need more like him.

Anonymous VD February 21, 2014 1:09 PM  

Vox, I'm not talking about the ideal. I'm talking about the practicality. Good Lord, the ideal of communism is a classless society, but the practicality is that this will never happen. Why do you imagine libertarianism is any different from any other pie-in-the-sky political ideology? Do you really imagine there will be no stratification in a libertarian regime?

You're lying, Porky. You're not talking about "the practicality". You're talking about your own imagination.

And your attempt to portray my action as ironic is bullshit. This blog is private property. I can throw anyone and everyone off it at any time for no reason at all. And furthermore, you're lying about my "itching to banhammer" you. I actually don't mind you most of the time, but I will not tolerate anyone constantly claiming that black is white and acting as if this is an argument rather than a shameless falsehood.

In any event, you're not banned, you're simply forbidden from commenting on matters related to libertarianism.

Anonymous Archbishop Adolf February 21, 2014 1:09 PM  

4. Libertarianism is the political pressure group for the class of horny, white, male IT guys.

Yep.

Anonymous Dan in Tx February 21, 2014 1:18 PM  

Competition is not coercion. Is it really necessary to link to the dictionary definitions?

Anonymous Jake February 21, 2014 1:30 PM  

"No sir. Why do you think I included a concrete example from history? Is the irony of George Washington pointing a cannon at the Sons of Liberty completely lost on you?"

So we've established that Washington did not govern in a libertarian manner. Who has made any claim he did? Only you as far as I've seen.

I hear what you're saying, but you gotta let go of the "ideas and acts of the federalists = libertarianism" mantra. Its obviously not the case and no one has claimed it was.

Personally, I see the constitutional convention as a counter-revolution, throwing away what was won in the revolutionary war and handing over the nation to a new set of elites very much like, probably even worse than, the old elites it had rebelled against. This is not an uncommon interpretation among libertarians who have studied the matter at all. Why do you expect anyone exposing libertarianism then to defend the acts of Washington, Adams, Hamilton, and even Jefferson, who was better than the others only in that he said the right things while doing the wrong things to a lesser degree.

Anonymous roger u February 21, 2014 1:31 PM  

Jake,
"There will always be people with the will to dominate others yes. Libertarians would like to see them deprived of the most powerful, effective, and deadly means of domination known to man. i.e. the existence of a government which grants itself a monopoly over the use of violence and force."

Who do you think creates governments? Those with the power to force compliance. If I set up a government nobody would pay any attention. Government, itself, is not the root of the problems you point to. People set up systems for the division of labor in order to do things more efficiently, sometimes those things are bad. You have to fight the bad guys, taking away their toy won't make them good guys.

If you meant won't let you succeed in setting up a libertarian reservation within an existing country, then you are correct. I took it to mean succeeding generally.

Jack Amok:
" If we're fools for being libertarians, what would you advise us to be instead?"
I'm not necessarily saying your fools to hold to the basic ideals of libertarianism. However, it is lazy to propose a one size fits all solution to political and social issues. You can't implement a limited government on the libertarian model and then go on about your business any more than you can under the US Constitutional model.Your organising philosophy isn't as important as the will to compete to create and maintain the world you want to live in. Ideology is what leaders use to stampede the herd.

"Watch out, the capitalists want to exploit you!"

"Watch out, the communists want to enslave you!"

In the end there is a small group who acquires the majority of the power. If its your group, hooray!, if not, the fight continues. In order to fight that fight, you need more concrete goals than "maximised liberty" and KYFHO or whatever, these are slogans not goals.
Libertarians seem to be trying to create a perfect system where they only have to compete in those things they want to and in every other aspect of life they are left alone to do as they will. The main place where they don't seem to want to compete is for power which is the one thing they are most trying to control. It doesn't make sense.

Anonymous roger u February 21, 2014 1:37 PM  

Jake,
I agree with you on the Constitution being a step backwards from the Articles.

"and even Jefferson, who was better than the others only in that he said the right things while doing the wrong things to a lesser degree."

I lost a lot respect for Jefferson last year when I was reading libertarians. Recently, I read some of his later correspondence and gained a lot that respect back. There are two phases in Jefferson's politics, pre- presidency idealistic phase and post presidency realistic phase. The ongoing trade disputes with Brittain made a big impact on him.

Anonymous Jake February 21, 2014 1:46 PM  

"Government, itself, is not the root of the problems you point to. People set up systems "

Which is why we argue these things with people, not governments. You are correct to a large extent, people have to change before there's much hope of changing government. And that is happening at the lower levels giving at least some reason to have some optimism long term. In the mean time I'm not closing my eyes and hoping, or waving a sign and yelling for the corrupt scum running this country to reform themselves. I am instead working to isolate myself as much as possible from those people and the mechanisms they use to control us. I will also correct those who spout apologia for the ruling-scum, at least when it amuses me to do so.

Anonymous roger u February 21, 2014 1:47 PM  

Tune in, turn on, drop out?

Anonymous Jake February 21, 2014 1:53 PM  

Jefferson wrote eloquently and intelligently about many things. But I do not see him as some kind of hero or standard bearer, nor do I think his personal life or presidential career live up to the high standards of his writing. He was a thorn in the side of the really bad guys and did good work in resisting/undermining some of their schemes, but he also did bad things of his own. Very similar in my mind to Andrew Jackson, though Jefferson might be a little better.

Anonymous Jake February 21, 2014 1:58 PM  

Drop out? no.
Cut as many puppet strings as possible? Yes.
Do as much as possible for myself and my family rather than pay the government a large cut for everything I pay for others to do? Yes.
Move to an area where there are many like-minded people to support and receive support from? Where taxes and government intrusion is lower than most? Yes.
Have a plan to own land and house debt free within 5-10 years? Yes (see "puppet strings" above)

Anonymous kfg February 21, 2014 2:20 PM  

""do what thou wilt with due regard for the policeman around the corner". And this is logically consistent . . ."

. . . as well as quite pragmatic.

"And, for your information, that is not the same as libertarianism."

Certainly not, the presence of the policeman inherently prevents it from being so. What it is, essentially, is going outlaw.

And I don't say that like that's a bad thing.

Anonymous Jack Amok February 21, 2014 2:25 PM  

I'm not necessarily saying your fools to hold to the basic ideals of libertarianism. However, it is lazy to propose a one size fits all solution to political and social issues.

I'm not going to let you claim libertrianism is a lazy one-size fits all solution (or frankly anything else for that matter) if you aren't going to propose some alternative. Every political idealogy has it's faults and I'm quite familiar with those of libertarianism, so let's talk aout the faults in your ideology for a moment, shall we?

Anonymous roger u February 21, 2014 2:49 PM  

Jack Amok,
I wasn't clear, all ideologies are one size fits all solutions. As I said earlier, ideologies are political marketing to stampede the herd.

http://voxday.blogspot.com/2014/02/libertarians-are-not-libertarian.html?showComment=1393008459324#c7165485023083878209

The alternative is to define what you want and go get it. When I read history, I read the stories of men competing to impose their will on each other. Doesn't matter what ideology they claim to hold, they take what they need to get what they want. My complaint with libertarianism is it is more of a religion than a political model, libertarians comment on the "sins" of those with power, but their philosophy prohibits them from fighting to attain power. Libertarians neuter themselves.

Your opponents are completing this loop repeatedly:
1 want more power
2 make plan to acquire more power
3 execute plan
4 acquire more power
5 repeat

The only way to stop them is to break the loop. Libertarianism isn't willing to be coercive in order to gain the power to implement liberty. That's my root problem with libertarianism, its limp wristed.




Anonymous VD February 21, 2014 2:50 PM  

I already told you that you're not permitted to discuss the topic here, Porky. I just deleted your comment. The next time, it will be spammed, which will likely cause you continued problems commenting here and at other Google blogs.

Anonymous stonercad February 21, 2014 2:55 PM  

Shut up, Porky.

Anonymous patrick kelly February 21, 2014 3:18 PM  

@Porky: How is AC different and better than L-isms? How is it not just another utopian ideology?

I think they both suffer from the same major weakness: When surrounded by stronger, different governments, it has difficulty competing or even existing for long.

Anonymous Porky. Bad Pig. February 21, 2014 3:22 PM  

Sorry Patrick. This conversation is over.

Anonymous Jake February 21, 2014 3:32 PM  

AC is just libertarian theory without exceptions/exemptions.

libertarian: "government is bad, evil, destructive, immoral, etc. therefore we should only have a little"
AC: "government is bad, evil, destructive, immoral, etc. therefore we should have none"

I see it as the most radical sub-set of libertarianism. From the outside looking in the distinction isn't particularly important because we're so far from either one. It's like arguing whether to get tickets behind home plate or on the green monster of Fenway Park while driving east just outside of LA. There's a very very long ways to go before it makes any difference where you wind up.

As for the weakness: isn't that true of any societal structure, i.e. it's vulnerable to being conquered by a stronger government? Truth is right any nation that isn't China or Russia and doesn't submit to the wishes of one of those two or the US is vulnerable to being the next target for "regime change". Just look at Ukraine.

Blogger Unknown February 21, 2014 5:02 PM  

"[Jdg 17:6 NKJV] 6 In those days [there was] no king in Israel; everyone did [what was] right in his own eyes."

If one studies those days, they will find that each tribe had local leadership, common laws as set by Moses and his council were standard across the nation. (Sort of like a Constitutional government) The people were free to live their lives without a overbearing central government. Sort of like when this country was first started, free but responsible. True, it wasn't perfect and there were internal conflicts, etc. Read what Samuel said would happen when they got a king and see what did happen. Did becoming a socialist monarchy help the people?


Looking at this some more (thanks to Reg), people in chaos demand more government.

The issue I have been having with the LP (and why I won't entirely subscribe to it's ideals) is the idea that giving people complete freedom will somehow result in... freedom.

Having the freedom to prostitution or marijuana is only so good as you are willing to choose monogamy and sobriety. Once you choose to engage in the indulgences of your freedom, you fall prey to the natural consequences and demand someone to step in and clean it up for you. Disease? GIMME A KING FOR HEALTH CARE! No job? GIMME A KING TO GIMME MONEY!

The Israelites were in chaos because the refused to follow the word of God - which was being given to them in a very unobtrusive, non-coercive manner. Follow it or don't. They refused to follow, ended up doing really shitty things, collapsed into chaos, and then begged for a King (more government) to clean up their pitiful mess.

Look at the Democrat party - once it's voters demanded freedom - freedom of expression, freedom from the draft, freedom to make my own choices however I see fit and no one to tell me no... and the choices they made have led to addictions, disease, high rates of single-motherhood and children without two-parent homes. And those people have done what? Demanded universal health care, unemployment benefits, and welfare.

While people who imposed their own boundaries, refusing to partake in the hedonism of western civ, find that their efforts to build a better life for themselves and their families have been destroyed by the hoard of takers who were incapable of accepting boundaries on their own.

I fail to see how libertarianism would correct this self-imposed quandary of freedom-inspired illicit behavior that begets chaos and a desire for big government. You end up right back where you began - oppressive government.

- C

Anonymous civilServant February 21, 2014 5:48 PM  

This blog is private property. I can throw anyone and everyone off it at any time for no reason at all.

Back in the 1980's it was seriously discussed in libertarian circles that the way to solve air pollution was to make the atmosphere someone's private property and make everyone pay a fee to use it or pollute it. Under a libertarian regime would there be anything at all that was not private property? Would there be any limit to eviction? Consider that the king was described as owning everything - was this not libertarian? Consider that in ancient times the persian kings were described as the absolute owners of absolutely everyone and everything - was this not libertarian? Consider a corporation that achieves a monopoly on all food production - is this not libertarian? When libertarians speak of "national libertarianism" - meaning they claim absolute freedom of association for themselves but claim power to limit freedom of association of others and see no contradiction whatsoever in the claim - is this not merely personal liberty and not human liberty?

Anonymous roger u February 21, 2014 5:52 PM  

I posted once that King George was a libertarian and the Founding Fathers were statists unlawfully depriving him of his property.

Anonymous Jack Amok February 21, 2014 6:13 PM  

When I read history, I read the stories of men competing to impose their will on each other. Doesn't matter what ideology they claim to hold, they take what they need to get what they want. My complaint with libertarianism is it is more of a religion than a political model, libertarians comment on the "sins" of those with power, but their philosophy prohibits them from fighting to attain power. Libertarians neuter themselves.

Yeah, well, I think this falls into the category of "I guess you're not capable of understanding."

If your attitude is that life is all about imposing your will on someone else before they impose their will on you, you're pretty much doomed to ending up with a boot on your face eventually. Possibly you're not fit for anything better, but some of us are.

Some people occasionally ask how do you decide who gets to vote in a just society? There's your answer. People who think like you don't.

Anonymous roger u February 21, 2014 6:19 PM  

Who gets to decide who thinks correctly in libertopia?

Anonymous Jack Amok February 21, 2014 6:34 PM  

Who gets to decide who thinks correctly in libertopia?

People who understand the difference between imposing your will on someone else and preventing someone else from imposing their will on you.

Anonymous roger u February 21, 2014 6:35 PM  

Who enforces it?

Blogger Glen Filthie February 21, 2014 6:45 PM  

Well I am a hard core conservative and I am watching libertarians with a sense of disgust and fascination. I have been called an 'authoritarian' and a 'neocon' by angry libertarians and told I am no better than the Democrats or the liberals.

Guys - I share 95% of your agenda. No, I won't go along with you on legalizing drugs, prostitution, and cults. But I WILL support your second amendment rights, your right to speak, your goal of a smaller gov't, and less intrusive social policies outside the blatant vices. Hell - we can talk about the rest too.

But if you insist on fractionating the political right, we ARE going to lose a lot more rights under the Donks. If worst comes to worst we WILL hang separately - but I will get to watch you swing first.

As it stands right now - hope you're ready for the Hildebeest in 2016...

Blogger foxmarks February 21, 2014 9:21 PM  

That it is best to maximize individual or human liberty is a naked assertion. Who decided that liberty (whatever it means) is more important than security? Or more important than family. Or submission to God. Or any other ideals about which one can structure a worldview and lifestyle.

Anonymous Grinder February 21, 2014 9:52 PM  

Any party or movement that allows jews into its membership will eventually be destroyed from within. A good example are the jews for the 2nd Amendment crowd. It's just another way to extend the mileage on their holohoax racket... Never again!...but we maybe need to be a little less extreme on this since we're not in the wilderness with muskets any more....we're open to a reasonable discussion on gun rights in the 21st century....

Anonymous Jack Amok February 21, 2014 9:52 PM  

yes roger, I get it, the whole concept makes no sense to you because you're one of the people who does not "understand the difference between imposing your will on someone else and preventing someone else from imposing their will on you" They're both the same thing to you, otherwise you wouldn't ask a question like "who enforces it."

You're Churchill's Hun, either at our feet or at our throat. There are people like you in the world, and if your choice is to force people to keep you at their feet, well, we've been talking about choices this thread, haven't we.

Anonymous I Smell Bacon February 21, 2014 10:47 PM  

"understand the difference between imposing your will on someone else and preventing someone else from imposing their will on you"

Jack, these concepts are EXACTLY alike.

Assume Group X states that only Group X, based on specific, arbitrary criteria, ought to have the ability to exercise the franchise because Group Y cannot be properly trusted with this right. These standards include the provision that Group Y has no redress of grievances. When the means to carry out this objective is put into place, Group X has simultaneously imposed their will Group Y AND prevented Group Y from imposing their will on Group X. Because Group Y = MPAI. Because Group Y "knows better" more than females or vibrants.

Anonymous Jack Amok February 22, 2014 12:23 AM  

No, they are not alike. Is there a difference between me kicking down your door and shooting you in your own house, and you kicking down my door and me shooting you dead in my house? You're dead in either case, but perhaps one death is not quite like the other...

Or are you a Hun too?

Anonymous Stg58/Animal Mother February 22, 2014 12:39 AM  

When darkness veils his lovely face
I rest on his unchanging grace
When high and stormy winds assail
My anchor holds within the gale

Anonymous BuhLScaT February 22, 2014 9:10 AM  

Who then do you support if not the Libertarians?

Anonymous roger u February 22, 2014 11:55 AM  

"You're Churchill's Hun, either at our feet or at our throat. There are people like you in the world, and if your choice is to force people to keep you at their feet, well, we've been talking about choices this thread, haven't we. "

Exactly. If you want to make the rules, you have to use force.

Now go and subjugate those who minimalise your liberty! Hun Power!

Anonymous I Smell Bacon February 22, 2014 3:42 PM  

“Is there a difference between me kicking down your door and shooting you in your own house, and you kicking down my door and me shooting you dead in my house?”

No. As you stated, that person is in a pine box, and rightfully so.


“but perhaps one death is not quite like the other...”

Both cases represent self-defense. Each death is EXACTLY alike in this particular circumstance. Listen, try next time to address my specific example in the context of the conversation rather than throw shit on the wall and hope it sticks.


"Or are you a Hun too?"

Just finished polishin' my jackboots.

Anonymous Jack Amok February 23, 2014 12:57 AM  

Both cases represent self-defense. Each death is EXACTLY alike in this particular circumstance.

Dude, your reading comprehension skills suck. How is me kicking down your door and shooting you self-defense on my part?

Try to keep up with the program if you don't want the rest of us to realize you're too short for the ride.

Anonymous I Smell Bacon February 23, 2014 10:45 AM  

Regardless of my reading faux pas, your statement does nothing to refute my original claim from 10:47 p.m. But, by all means, please explain to us all how "we are not capable of understanding". Because roger u is spot on when he states that there are libertarians who would use force to install their own oppressive measures. I would argue you fall under that camp.

You see, you alone are defining who are the "barbarians at our door" and that there is justification to, at the very least, limit their influence, or, at worst, eradicate them completely. Because vibrants. Because female solipsism. Because insects.


I can at least admit when I fucked up in my haste. Can you? Or am I being too obtuse?

Anonymous roger u February 24, 2014 10:43 AM  

My whole point was that libertarians will have to use force if they ever want to live in a libertarian society. Its true of all ideologies, if you want to implement it, you have to be the one with the power. Only a Hun can overthrow a Hun and usher in liberty.

Anonymous The Dude. February 27, 2014 10:27 AM  

Ok. Here is how you buff your corporate resume:

1. Crank out fifteen or so SCIgen papers.
2. Buy an ISBN number.
3. Write a very flattering introduction about yourself and your research activities.
4. Compile the papers into an ebook.
5. Put it on Amazon with a price of $250.

No one will ever read it or buy it. But they can see it at Amazon with some glowing reviews on how you are God's gift to science, you add it to your corporate/academic resume and score a few points, perhaps a promotion. You can also supply several of the SCIgen articles to an Indian diploma mill and get a PhD really cheap. No one ever checks Indian degrees in the US, they just check the "PhD" box and that's it. Change your business cards to say "Dr." and you are in like Flynn. Total outlay for the book is maybe $2500. For the PhD, I would guess $5000-10000 additional.

Blogger dhlii March 04, 2014 12:17 AM  

So much idiocy here about libertarians, without writing a book you would nto read it is impossible to correct.

But lets address some simple things:

Voters with libertarian values may not dominate the electorate. But whether on the right or left you are not getting elected without a significant portion of the libertarian vote.
Those on the left can usually mange to win elections with 40% of the vote of libertarians in the broadest sense. On the right you need more than 60% of it - the good news is that libertarians vote right far more than left.

I can not grasp why various forms of conservative - particularly fiscal conservatives have so much antipathy to libertarians.
With few exceptions you are not converting us. Most of us have already been there - though as mentioned you are likely, but not certain to get our vote.
With few exceptions we are your natural allies. Conservatives pissing on libertarians is like one anabaptist sect condemning the members of another to hell because they dunk twice forward and once backward. The rest of the world can not tell us apart - just shows the stupidity of the left, but still true.
If you have to form alliances with some group to get elected who would you rather compromise with - libertarians ? Or Rhino's ?
I am going to join you in the fight against expanding the entitlement state,
and I am going to bark right in your face when you hypocritically try to pork up farm subsidies. But atleast you got my support reigning in the entitlements state.

I have zero idea what todays libertarian party position on abortion, immigration and trade are. Nor do I care. I do not think there can be a formal "libertarian" position on these.
At the same time MY position likely is at odds with yours, and for most on the right, you are wrong on these issues. Free trade works. Period. It works so well that unilaterally dropping barriers to trade works. Open Borders is no different from free trade - it works, with the caveat that it is inconsistent with the entitlements state. So long as we have the one we can not have the other. Lets presume that from the instant of conception a zygote is fully human. There is no right to compel another person to use their body to keep you alive against your will. Society through the state may insist that every possible effort be made to assure the survival of that fetus, but it can not force someone to remain pregnant against their will.














Blogger Steve Finnell July 04, 2014 5:53 AM  

WHAT IS FAITH?

What is faith? Faith is believing in something you cannot prove.

Hebrews 11:1 Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see. (New International Version-1984)
Hebrews 11:1 Now faith is the assurance of thing hoped for, the conviction of things not seen. (New American Standard Bible)
Hebrews 11:1 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. (King James Version)

I have faith that Jesus is the Son of God. I have faith that He performed miracles. I have faith that Jesus was resurrected from the grave by God the Father. I believe this because I have faith that the historical record of the Bible is accurate, yet I cannot prove it. There are no living eyewitness to confirm that Jesus was who He said He was or that He was resurrected from the dead, I accept it by faith, I believe it, however, I cannot prove it.

Atheists do not believe the fact that Jesus was the Son of God or that there even is a God, they cannot prove their unbelief, they accept it by faith.

Romans 8:24 For in hope we have been saved, but hope that is seen is not hope, for who hopes for what he already sees?(NASB)

We have hope we have been saved, but we hope because of faith. We cannot prove we have been saved. We believe that we have been saved because we believe, by faith, that the Bible is accurate and trustworthy.

John 20:27-31 Then He said to Thomas, "Reach here with you finger, see My hands and put them into my side; and do not be unbelieving, but believing." 28 Thomas answered and said to Him, "My Lord and my God!'29 Jesus said to him, "Because you have seen Me, have you believed? Blessed are they who did not see, and yet believed." ...... (NASB)

Thomas had proof that Jesus was resurrected from the grave. Men today cannot prove the resurrection of Jesus from the grave, they accept it by faith.

There were more than five hundred brethren, including the apostles, who saw Jesus alive after He faced death on the cross. They were eyewitnesses, they had proof of the resurrection of Jesus. (1 Corinthians 15:3-7)

Those of us alive today have to have FAITH that the Biblical accounts of Jesus and His resurrection are true. We cannot prove they are true. NO ONE IS ALIVE TODAY WHO WAS AN EYEWITNESS TO THE RESURRECTION OF JESUS.


FAITH IS BELIEVING SOMETHING YOU CANNOT PROVE!

NOTE: Atheists believe, by faith, that God does not exists, but they cannot prove it.


YOU ARE INVITED TO FOLLOW MY BLOG. http//:steve-finnell.blogspot.com

Post a Comment

Rules of the blog
Please do not comment as "Anonymous". Comments by "Anonymous" will be spammed.

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts