Don’t vote down Abi Phelps’ comment…I don’t agree with a single word she’s saying, but her argument is germane to the thread, and she was addressing a previous comment with an actual argument, not mere invective. She may be filled with hate and batshit crazy theology, but she isn’t trolling. (At least not here.)

(I voted ya’ up, Abi. Happy New Year.)

B
(Free speech-loving atheist)

You can spew all the gospel you like, but you can’t avoid the fact that your groups behavior is nothing short of evil and wicked spirited as you can get. To preach is one thing…to attack families in their most vulnerable time and to use THEIR tragedy to grandstand and vomit up that garbage that you do is disgusting to ALL but yourselves. You guys are a cult in the most base meaning of the word.

At this point, given your fanatacism and your obvious unwillingness to show any semblance of respect for your fellow man and your willingness to go to great lengths to hurt people that have never done a thing to you (all in the name of god of course), I’m not so sure that you folks aren’t dangerous to the rest of us. I hope I’m wrong, but I keep having images of David Koresh and Jim Jones with a splash of fantatical muslim terrorist thrown in. Hope I’m wrong.

So what reasonable Christian goes around quoting Kings?!?

That’s right, they don’t.

The WBC is not a Christian church, not by any stretch of the imagination.

With love,
Your friendly neighborhood well-read atheist.

Abi, what have you done to stretch your theological mental muscles? I do hope you wake up someday to your own evil and live to regret your foolishness.

People who believe in an all-powerful and benevolent god shouldn’t be claiming that it’s too late to be saved. If I remember correctly, the Bible says that all you have to do is repent and you shall be forgiven, even on your deathbed.

Also, Jesus advocated turning the other cheek, did he not? He also said, and I’m paraphrasing here, let not your right hand know what your left is up to. Did he not tell us to pray in locked in a room where nobody could see us (i.e. be humble)?

These people are the biggest cafeteria-Christians ever. Pick what they want out of the Bible so long as it fits their views.

Of course, not Anton Levy Satanism, right? ;-)

Wouldn’t it be righteous justice if they ended up in Hell, instead of their expect Heavenly visit? After all, they aren’t doing anything Good on Earth, or at least what a “Good” God would consider “Good.” In fact, since they are already condeming others, they really have ZERO idea if they are indeed going to Heaven, and using their logic, they may end up in Hell with the rest of us! And according to original sin, they are sinners along with those they condemn – so what makes them so righteous as chosen ones?

And the strange irony is that they are saying it’s too “late” to stop sinning, since God isn’t listening to prayers, but we should “stop sinning” anyway. Well, that doesn’t make a bit of logical sense, does it?

Oh, and one of the evil, crazy Satan worshippers have paid a visit here!

“So stop lying, you hypocrite. Either you love God and are most pleased with his wrathful vengeance, or you simply hate God!”

What inane simplistic logic. What’s worse, is that this Abi doesn’t even realize what a hypocrite she is, especially when she mentions “love,” “Wrathful vengeance,” and “hate” in the same phrase.

Why would we love a God that hates us and wants to wreck vengeance on us, especially if he doesn’t listen to prayers? That would be incredibly stupid.

That sounds more like Cthulhu then anything else – are you sure, Abi, you don’t worship an agless deity that slumbers deep in the ocean? Abi the high priestess!

Just the part where (it) lies and says that the prophets of God, throughout the ages have not mocked right back at the idolators. Read these words, you silly willy:

1 Kings 18:22 Then said Elijah unto the people, I, even I only, remain a prophet of the LORD; but Baal’s prophets are four hundred and fifty men.
23 Let them therefore give us two bullocks; and let them choose one bullock for themselves, and cut it in pieces, and lay it on wood, and put no fire under: and I will dress the other bullock, and lay it on wood, and put no fire under:
24 And call ye on the name of your gods, and I will call on the name of the LORD: and the God that answereth by fire, let him be God. And all the people answered and said, It is well spoken.
25 And Elijah said unto the prophets of Baal, Choose you one bullock for yourselves, and dress it first; for ye are many; and call on the name of your gods, but put no fire under.
26 And they took the bullock which was given them, and they dressed it, and called on the name of Baal from morning even until noon, saying, O Baal, hear us. But there was no voice, nor any that answered. And they leaped upon the altar which was made.
27 And it came to pass at noon, that Elijah mocked them, and said, Cry aloud: for he is a god; either he is talking, or he is pursuing, or he is in a journey, or peradventure he sleepeth, and must be awaked.
28 And they cried aloud, and cut themselves after their manner with knives and lancets, till the blood gushed out upon them.
29 And it came to pass, when midday was past, and they prophesied until the time of the offering of the evening sacrifice, that there was neither voice, nor any to answer, nor any that regarded.

Now that does not appear that Elijah was tolerant or otherwise kind to these doomed Baal worshippers, and in fact a few verses later – he slaughters them.

So stop lying, you hypocrite. Either you love God and are most pleased with his wrathful vengeance, or you simply hate God!

- Abi Phelps, Westboro Baptist Church member

Well, I’m tired of this at any rate. So, you win.

Congratulations!!!

A few pointers. First, calling me a kook doesn’t impact, either way, the validity of my positions. Second, pointing out that XYX-famous-libertarian also advocates heinous violations of peoples’ rights (like conscription) — also doesn’t impact the validity, or invalidity of a position. It’s _wrong_ and _immoral_ to conscript people to fight for you at the point of a gun because it’s human slavery. And it’s wrong and immoral even if Mises is the one who, wrongheadedly, advocated it.

Finally, you can waive your hands in the direction of arguments all you want, but that doesn’t explain say, how a supposed free rider problem justifies the use of force against someone. There are lots of wonderful things that I would like to get done, that may not get done if I can’t convince someone to voluntarily do them for me (like say, make dinner). But supposing I can’t get someone to agree voluntarily to do that, it’s not clear to me how “I would like that to be done” magically transforms into a justification for the use of force against a person. If I can’t get a person, or a group of people, to voluntarily agree to do something, well, I guess I’ll just have to live with it not getting done.

Ordinarily, your admission that you’re an anarchist would be the end of this discussion, as I’ve no use for discussions with kooks.

But it’s Christmas, I’m bored, and dinner won’t be ready for a few more minutes, so why not?

My use of tax reform was what we call an “example.” I don’t know what you think of taxation, and I don’t care. My point was that if one’s analysis of taxation is that “it’s theft” and therefore no more analysis is needed, then that person is not to be taken seriously among adults.

Sometimes we “utilize violence” against people because, without violence, some things wouldn’t get done. Free rider problems, externalities, etc. make it difficult to produce optimum amounts of, e.g., police and military protection, contract enforcement, and so some amount of coercion is necessary to allow the market to work its magic.

Hell, even Mises recognized that conscription might be justified in the event of an imminent military attack. I guess that makes him something other than a “consistent, principled libertarian.” Right. Mises and Hayek: communists; JJH2: libertarian super hero.

Now, before you go tell me to read Murray Rothbard, Anthony de Jasay, or Hans-Hermann Hoppe, or Tyler Cowen’s book on externalities, or David Friedman (who, by the way, rejects the universal applicability of the NAA), just save it, because I’ve already read all of those too

There are a few things about which you appear to be mistaken. For example, I’m not interested in making a “sophisticated analysis of tax reform.” Why? Well, because as any consistent, principled libertarian should be, I’m necessarily an anarchist and completely opposed to government taxation. Since I don’t want to “reform” the tax system, but rather abolish it, I don’t make arguments for the purposes of engaging in “sophisticated analysis” of it from a “public policy” perspective.

You may think this is “unsophisticated” – but well, a position is not _right_ or _wrong_ based on how “sophisticated” it is from a “public policy” perspective, but rather, whether it’s, well, right or wrong.

You may be of the opinion that it’s acceptable to utilize violence against innocent people who have not violated any of your rights. Okay, well why? I am curious. If you’re going to take the position that such an action is somehow _justified_ it behooves you to explain why this is somehow compatible with any worthwhile political philosophy.

Since, to this point, you have not bothered to make any intelligent arguments regarding anything, I’m not holding my breath. But feel free to insult me, tell me that my views on tax policy aren’t “sophisticated” from a “public policy” view point, and insult my use of commas. Anything except, you know, addressing any substantive point.

Libertarians have been hashing this out for decades, and since I’m pretty well caught up on it all, I don’t feel the need to argue it out on Radley’s blog with one of the few libertarians left who still dogmatically hangs on to the “NAP” as if it were a legitimate tool for solving public policy problems.

The NAP is a nice starting point for political philosophy, but that’s all it is. Political sophistication begins when we recognize that the NAP isn’t universal, that it has many, many exceptions, and that public policy problems are most likely solved within the range of those exceptions.

It simply won’t do to say “taxation is theft” and pretend you’ve engaged in some kind of sophisticated analysis of tax reform.

If you’re wondering whether any libertarians reject the universal applicability of the NAP, look up “Ludwig von Mises” and “F.A. Hayek”.

And lay off the commas, man. You’re a comma addict.

The Non-Aggression principle can be rephrased as the simple proposition that it’s wrong to use violence or the threat of violence against innocent people. Maybe you think this is a profoundly ridiculous proposition that has no basis in reality. I think, however, that you will find that, understood this way, it is in principle, one of the most widely accepted moral maxims humanity has come up with. Now, just because many people purport to believe in it in principle doesn’t make it _right_ — but if you’re going to reject it, you should feel compelled to at least offer, you know, some kind of reason for it.

To be frank, if you reject the NAP in principle, I find it hard to imagine what other principle of justice or morality you DON’T feel fit to just wave your hand at and dismiss.

But hey, feel free to respond with some more petty and pointless sniping!

Some things don’t require debate or argument. They’re better left being mocked. Like this video we’re discussing, for instance, or the non-aggression principle.

Pardon me if I’m over dorm-room style debates on what constitutes “real libertarianism”. Besides, shouldn’t you be saving up those arguments for the next kids’ edition of the “Journal of Libertarian Studies”?

Oh, there I go again.

Merry Christmas!