The Definition Of "libertarian"

[Revoltingest]

Meh, I see them as definitions, not rules. I fit a very large number of great definitions. Together, they make up a large part of what it means to "be" Alceste. Anarchist, feminist, stoic, libertarian, secular humanist, atheist, mystic, musician, wife, sister, grip, contemplative, apophatic, Taoist and more. I "am" all of those things, to the extent that "being" has any real meaning.

Then you may likely post many places.
But as Tarheeler said (paraphrasing), the definitions are the basis for enforcing rule #10.
If it looks like a rule, barks like a rule, & functions as a rule, it is a rule. Thus, I call it a rule.
Until the rules change again, & boot me out of some forum, I'll post there when I want.

 

[Alceste]

Then you may likely post many places.
But as Tarheeler said (paraphrasing), the definitions are the basis for enforcing rule #10.
If it looks like a rule, barks like a rule, & functions as a rule, it is a rule. Thus, I call it a rule.
Until the rules change again, & boot me out of some forum, I'll post there when I want.

Yeah but the rules have no teeth unless somebody reports you. The mods aren't crawling all the threads on RF looking for people who are posting in the wrong DIR. People are only gonna report you if you're annoying them, as you learned with the Feminist DIR and I learned with the Men's Rights DIR.

If anything, being overly concerned about the definitions is more detrimental than anything, since from a totally literalistic point of view I actually do support Men's (equal) Rights. I nevertheless don't belong in a forum where MRA nutjobs want to whine about an imaginary epidemic of false rape accusations ruining their lives. I know that now.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Yeah but the rules have no teeth unless somebody reports you. The mods aren't crawling all the threads on RF looking for people who are posting in the wrong DIR. People are only gonna report you if you're annoying them, as you learned with the Feminist DIR and I learned with the Men's Rights DIR.

If anything, being overly concerned about the definitions is more detrimental than anything, since from a totally literalistic point of view I actually do support Men's (equal) Rights. I nevertheless don't belong in a forum where MRA nutjobs want to whine about an imaginary epidemic of false rape accusations ruining their lives. I know that now.

You mean the Men's Issues subforum? That's not even a DIR and that forum is almost useless. The most popular thread is that offensive "How unmanly are you"? thread.

 

[Revoltingest]

Yeah but the rules have no teeth unless somebody reports you. The mods aren't crawling all the threads on RF looking for people who are posting in the wrong DIR. People are only gonna report you if you're annoying them, as you learned with the Feminist DIR and I learned with the Men's Rights DIR.

The way it works is that booting happens to non-members.
To merely report someone whose posts annoy you is not enuf.

If anything, being overly concerned about the definitions is more detrimental than anything....

The definitions are what mods use to decide who belongs.
To understand them is thus important.
But you're posting about definitions as much as I, so either you're
attracted to me, or it's that the definitions interest you too.

....I actually do support Men's (equal) Rights. I nevertheless don't belong in a forum where MRA nutjobs want to whine about an imaginary epidemic of false rape accusations ruining their lives. I know that now.

Even though one can legally post in a forum, if one has hostility but no
respect for the members, then it does make sense to voluntarily withdraw.
I, however, don't suffer from this shortcoming.

 

[Revoltingest]

You mean the Men's Issues subforum? That's not even a DIR and that forum is almost useless. The most popular thread is that offensive "How unmanly are you"? thread.

Hey! That's my thread!
You're just jealous cuz I'm unmanlyier than you are....you
young, virile, testosterone fueled hunk'o manliness!

 

[Tarheeler]

The rules don't require you to "be" anything.
They do give examples of what you can be though.
All one must do is fit the rules, which are based upon beliefs.

Conspiracy alert:
I suspect they'll change the rules to get rid of me.
These restricted forums have a social club feel to them.
Even the libertarians have been calling me "poopy head" lately.
I'll have to start a "Socially Awkward Geezer" forum to find a home.

They state that one must identify as a member of said group in order to participate in the respective section.

 

[Revoltingest]

They state that one must identify as a member of said group in order to participate in the respective section.

I searched & I see it. I checked first with Badran to verify it would be OK before
posting in the Feminist Only forum. When I brought up the lack of a self-identification
requirement, he said they might need to include it because the intent was to make it
more exclusive than inclusive. And hey, presto! There it is! Feminists can thank me
for getting myself booted out.
Would that be required in every restricted forum, ie, would a libertarian & capitalist
forum poster also have to openly identify oneself as such?
Are socialists (as state capitalists) also still able to post in the Capitalist Only forum?
(This definition is absurdly inclusive.)

Btw, too much time has passed for me to delete any of my posts during the brief
window of acceptance in the Feminist Only forum. So do as you must.
Ya know....an announcement of rule/definition changes would be useful.

 

[Revoltingest]

Left libertarianism doesn't share the idea that the initiation of force is always wrong. That's something peculiar to the right-wing American form of libertarianism. Some of us are pacifists and some of us promote violent revolutionary means.

No, what you call "the right-wing American form of libertarianism" is typified
by the Libertarian Party platform. We do not believe in initiating use of force.

Our preamble (underlining added):

As Libertarians, we seek a world of liberty; a world in which all individuals are sovereign over their own lives and no one is forced to sacrifice his or her values for the benefit of others.
We believe that respect for individual rights is the essential precondition for a free and prosperous world, that force and fraud must be banished from human relationships, and that only through freedom can peace and prosperity be realized.
Consequently, we defend each person's right to engage in any activity that is peaceful and honest, and welcome the diversity that freedom brings. The world we seek to build is one where individuals are free to follow their own dreams in their own ways, without interference from government or any authoritarian power.
In the following pages we have set forth our basic principles and enumerated various policy stands derived from those principles.
These specific policies are not our goal, however. Our goal is nothing more nor less than a world set free in our lifetime, and it is to this end that we take these stands.

But when force is used against us, we believe in force for self-defense.