libertarian labour

Your terms are vague enough not to give anyone enough leverage to grab on. Easy enough to say "low taxes, limited government," and especially that last one, "maximum liberty." But what exactly do you mean by any of them? That's where you'll run into trouble.

wow-and you have the gall to tell me I don't understand the concept? You've reduced it to buzzwords.

tell me this... if a multinational retailer wants to set up shop in a neighbourhood to it's detriment, does the neighbourhood have the right to say no?

People can have the same basic beliefs, but have different ideas about what constitute those beliefs. For example, I believe in limited government, but what I feel is limited is going to be different from you.

There's also this fallacy that in order to be libertarian, you have to support state's rights to the exclusion of the power of the federal government. Yet you can have weak state's rights while maintaining a limited federal government. To me, this system is preferred in a society where human beings are more mobile than ever. Having different laws in different states adds an extra layer of inefficiency to the system.

I wonder what he thinks of the flagpole dilemma?

All people have the liberty to protest anything they disagree with.

I protest you ignoring my posts.
It makes you look like a slob who can't defend his positions.

The fallacy is that you are defining what you think Libertarianism is and expect me to defend that definition which you created.

My life doesn't revolve around answering your stupid questions. I've answered what I think about child labor in great detail. Take it or leave it.

Why do so many internet morons think this is a clincher argument?
I'm not asking for life-revolving, I'm asking for a straight fucking answer.

It actually would have taken less verbiage than your jackass dismissal!

"Here's how I square being anti-slavery, and apathy-exploitation, yaddada-dadadada-dada-da!".
The end!
Bam!

A five year old could have done it!
You can't rise to the level of a school child, and now you're going to act arrogant?!?!
Bull-fucking-shit, Beppo!

cluing in that you're really out of your league yet?

Too many big words?

There's a non answer if I ever didn't hear one.

Who's right takes precedence? THe shopping mall or the people who's property values just took a 15% hit and are going to have a parking lot abutting their back yards? Can the community tell the corporation what to do on its property?

What's the question your highness?

well, that's even more of a non answer than before.
nicely done.

To think I was this close to taking you seriously.

Except I'm not defining Libertarianism, rather I'm pointing out the fallacy in thinking that your definition of Libertarianism is the only one that matters. There is no single definition of Libertarianism, much like there is no single definition of Liberalism, Conservatism, Socialism, etc.

Well, I can tell you what it is not and I can tell you specific characteristics that I've seen and heard that makes up Libertarian thought and concepts. I was asked to define Libertarianism and now that I have, you're bitching that I did and you don't like my definition. There are specific characteristics of socialism, communism etc. and when someone claims that something is socialist, the dictionary definitions start rolling out pretty quickly from the left.

Which fallacy is that, specifically? If you know it's a fallacy, then surely you're capable of naming which one you think it is.

Let me save time and give you the spoilers -- if you don't know which formal fallacy Ohoitnik is committing by giving you his personal definition of 'Libertarianism', then it becomes clear that you're culpable of the same error when you apply your own personal definition of 'fallacy' to what he's doing.

I'm not sure you understand his question, so let's try a different approach. Does your support of free trade zones extend to free trade with nations engaged in exploitative labor practices?

on that note, what's your take on the flag pole dillema?

You can only ask hypothetical questions as if I'm a person with any legislative power.

I'll paraphrase Jefferson, free trade with all, permanent alliances with none. Or something like that.

Never heard of it.

Me neither. Probably another liberal construct to say, "gatcha".

The flag pole dilemma was described in this very thread, boys.

Total lack of answer. And it's not a hypothetical, it's very real.

Okay, I think I've found it, or a version of it:

The dilemma leaves out an important question: How did the hanger-on get up to the 15th floor to begin with? Either the "trespasser" had permission to be on the premises, in which case the owner has gone insane and the philosophical dilemma falls apart, since we can't apply reason to unreasonable actors; or, the "trespasser" was trespassing from the very beginning and caused his own predicament, which means that the "hanger-on" was already operating counter to Libertarian principles, and Libertarian principles don't apply to his current situation -- a situation for which the owner cannot be morally responsible.

You forget the third alternative.

A tornado threw him up there.

Sorry you don't like my answer.

Highly unlikely.

Oh, I'm aware of what the juvenile, stupid "gotcha" is supposed to be. If the Libertarian elects to live, then, "Whoooaaa HOHHHHHHH, YORRRRRR not committed to these principles!1"

It's so cute. Almost as cute as the, "Well, your worldview doesn't account for... *knowing smirk*... ehhhhhhh-verrr-ee-thing! So, obviously, it can't work!2!"
"Well, what about conservatism? Or liberalism? Those don't acc--"
"It may not be perfect, but it's the system we got! Move to Somalia if you don't like ehhhhehhehhhht!"

I figured he fell from own apartment on the 25th floor.

So, then what?

Yes.
Life isn't precious, and death isn't scary.
Don't be a fuggin pussy, and stand for something.