Sorry I missed your comments.

Steve says,

” ‘In a libertarian society he would be dead, and his dad picking up the carcass.’

I don’t get it? Why would the story end any differently under libertarianism? There would still be police and firemen etc., only funded by voluntary or strictly limited means I think you have anarchy and small government Libertarianism mixed up…or something. “

Yeah, ok. I think the confusion results from my having used society wherein I was expected to have meant “polity”.

I didn’t.

The point of my story was not that – and this is my fault in not making it clear – some druggie product of a libertarian ideology made an extreme nuisance of himself; but, that an obnoxious, callow, and probably naive teenaged annoyance, was unconsciously juggling two incompatible notions: 1, that he could do [was morally justified in doing] whatever he wanted as long as he took responsibility for it; and 2, that somehow others were to be forbearing toward him as he practiced doing whatever he wanted to, in contexts that involved him crapping up their lives with his physical presence.

Libertarianism , as a generalized social system of tolerance and forbearance has an affinity problem. It cannot justify a positive tolerance and forbearance in any but negative terms.

In a community of already and unconsciously shared moral values and interpersonal concerns, libertarianism is an attractive system.

In a society of moral ferment, where people will actually mind their own business and agree to go off and die in a corner for the right to be asses, rather than pestering you with the problems they have subsequently produced in their own lives, it should work well enough too.

But the secular principle of self-ownership cannot serve to explain who should be granted tolerance, and what is, in some measure an affiliative indulgence, in the first place.

Libertarianism sidesteps natural law foundations in favor of self-ownership premises. But these self-ownership premises cannot carry the weight of the affiliative presumption from which they surreptitiously benefit.

In some ways, libertarianism suffers from the same kind of self-justification problem that utilitarianiam does; albeit in the case of libertarianism, in a much better cause.

Political libertarianism attempts to imply – not formally but by insinuation – that all lives have value and that therefore choice must be respected because of the principle of self-ownership. But self-ownership clearly does not function by itself or in tandem with other premises to make the self-owner (the incoherence of the concept aside) inherently worthy of tolerance by anyone else having power, or inclusion in the very libertarian society of which the self-owner purports to be included.

At best, you have, nowadays anyway, to work with an accidental conglomeration of moral strangers with quite probably antithetical life interests and aims. Libertarianism works well to stipulate on its own terms why you cannot presume upon another, but it does not justify the existence or tolerance of the other within the system.

I trust I have made myself perfectly obscure?

As you know, we once had not only a more libertarian polity here in the US, but a more libertarian attitude toward self-help, especially when it was directed against the obnoxious and intrusive. But as time went on, and society became more enlightened and feminized and violence shunning, they began to be perceived not simply as others sharing a public space under the terms of a truce; but as “fellow” humans, “victims” of their own frailties, feeling and pain suffering persons deserving of compassion and identification.

Progressive social gospel religion dug the ground out from a workable libertarianism before overt politics ever did.

The funny thing is, is that secular nihilism has gutted progressivism of any rationale other than will-to-power. That is why it is so amusing when progressives deploy moral language that is plainly, virtually empty of any content in the form of objective reference, or referents.

Anyway …

Not going to take that bait. Nerves are raw, emotions are running high, and sometimes people lose control and call people names. All understandable. Especially from a strong Cruz supporter. You are one of the better commenters and conservatives at neo’s place, and I respect your opinions. That’s all I have to say about that.

The choice between Trump plus Reps or Clinton plus Dems.

” the destruction of the party that best represents our ideals.” Usually about 50% of the eligible voters don’t vote. If they did, they’d most likely be low information voters wanting more gov’t benefits.

Those who believe in small gov’t ideals are not a big enough party to win. That’s the reality anti-Trump folk need to be honest about — I don’t like it, I’m not happy, but the Earth sucks (there is no gravity).

Of those 50% who vote, maybe 30% are Dems, 30% Reps, and 40% independents, who most often decide the elections. Trump will likely get more independents voting for him than lose Reps who don’t support him; Romney the virtuous loser failed to get enough independents.

The goal now for any Rep unhappy with Trump, like me, should be to maximize the number of conservative/ Reps who get elected to Congress & the Senate. So I should be finding out more about the local San Bernadino local Reps, and which one is better.

The Anchoress has a new book out,
Little Sins Mean a Lot
with this comment:
>>The other day a friend said to me, “I just got your book in the mail; thanks a whole lot, pal! You’re a pain in the butt and I happen to like ignoring my little sins, because that leaves me free to fume about the big sins of the world, which feels a hell of a lot better than thinking about my own!”<<

So true of most Dem, Rep, and even Lib activists.

Conservatives need to become more active locally — and support vouchers for education.

Conservatives lost the culture when allowing Dems to semi-destroy independent thought in schools.

But like so many poli-junkies, it's easier to look for a silver bullet, like Cruz (?), rather than keep fighting the forever war against socialism and cronyism.

To get more Reps elected, supporting Trump plus Reps seems clearly superior to any other realistic strategy.

Of course, if Clinton and Stalinism wins, America might learn, like Vietnam after 40 years, about the superiority of capitalism. Yechh. Better to wisely learn from other's mistakes.

No it’s not. It’s vote for Gary Johnson. Let me crystallize this for you a bit more: vote for Hillary is a vote for Hillary. And a vote for Trump is a vote for Trump. A vote for Gary Johnson or Neo (a good choice by the way) or my dad are all votes for Gary, Neo, and Wayne, respectively. Hillary does not possess that vote.

If I vote for person X I’m not voting for person Y. For example, if I vote for someone other than HRC or DJT, neither one of them get my vote., whereas if I was actually to vote for HRC she actually gets a vote. She goes up one vote on DJT.

If I was the only voter in the country both DJT and HRC would be tied at zero votes. So by definition my non-vote for DJT did not result in a vote for HRC. In this hypothetical Neo (or maybe my dad) would be sworn in on Jan 20, 2017.

My voting for someone else hurts Hillary as much as it hurts Trump. Unless we’re living in an alternate universe where, just because I voted R in every single previous election it means that the Rs somehow own me. They don’t. And since DJT is now the standard bearer of the R party the party won’t receive my vote for their preferred presidential candidate and I’m not a Republican anymore, even though I’ve been one since the first time I voted (for Reagan in 84).

Whoever I vote for will get my vote. And it won’t be Hillary or Trump. Logic.

As to Trump’s books being ghostwritten. I read his book, “Crippled America: How to Make America Great Again,” which was co-written with Jeremy Lowell. Either Lowell is great at emulating his co-author’s speech patterns, or Trump had a lot of input, because reading the book was like listening to Trump when he gives a pre-written speech. Same vocabulary, same cadence.

I am not quite as repelled by him as you are. I am, however, very unhappy that the country has come to the point that we have to choose between two such flawed candidates. Reminds me a bit of the election of 1968 – Nixon, Humphrey, and Wallace. Not exactly paragons of American statesmanship. Although I supported Nixon because of his foreign policy, I have come to realize that his domestic policy was very destructive (Endangered Species Act, EPA, Federal Revenue Sharing, the War on Drugs, and school busing – to name the worst.) Yes, the Donald could do similarly stupid things..

However, HRC could:
Appoint as many as four liberal Justices to the SCOTUS.
Kill not only coal mining, but oil and gas drilling, including fracking.
Weaken the 2nd Amendment.
Nationalize the $15/hour minimum wage.
Further discourage small businesses.
Increase EPA controls on all construction, fishing, manufacturing, farming, etc.
Continue to fund alternative energy companies that don’t work/make financial sense.
Continue to push the theory of AGW to increase government control of the economy.
Continue to divide citizens by ethnicity, sex, and sexual preference.
Not control government spending.
Not clean up the IRS, Justice, VA, and other awful government agencies under the control of the administration.
There are many, many more awful things she will assuredly do or try to do.

In addition, it is my opinion that she and Bill will use the power of the Presidency to further enrich themselves through the Clinton Foundation, which they very cannily put together prior to leaving the Whitehouse. It has a cut out foundation in Canada that funnels donations from foreign nations/individuals to the Clinton Foundation. That allows them to conceal the real source of the funds. As President she, using Bill as her representative, will be in a position to elicit more “donations” for favors as she did as SOS.
You can read about Peter Schweizer’s book, “Clinton Cash,” here:
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/20/us/politics/new-book-clinton-cash-questions-foreign-donations-to-foundation.html?_r=0

What Charity Navigator has to say about the foundation here:
http://nypost.com/2015/04/26/charity-watchdog-clinton-foundation-a-slush-fund/

I loathe HRC as much or more than you loathe the Donald. So, we will probably never agree on whether Trump is a worse or better option than Hillary. A vote for Gary Johnson (a good man by the way) is a vote for Hillary.

I support the Heritage Foundation. They are off the rails about Trump’s apparent nomination. Here’s what I received from them today:
“There are eight million conservatives who can form the core of a new movement for free enterprise, limited government, individual freedom, traditional American values, and a strong national defense. Heritage’s Conservative Census will organize them and strengthen our cause.”

I see that as useless posturing at this point. Better to get people into the Trump administration, if there is one, and try to influence the policies from within. Your post about Ben Rhodes as national security expert suggested to me that infiltration might be the best way forward at this time.

Well, I didn’t mean to write a book. Sorry.

No one disputes that Trump might make the trains run on time, if you know what I mean.

The problem is all the rest that goes with it, things that that note conveniently leaves out.

As well as the fact that Trump did not write his books. They were ghostwritten—actually not technically ghostwritten, as the writers’ names (Tony Schwartz for the first, Kate Bohner for the second one) are on them, so the credit is shared.

“Ya know, who wouldn’t be just totally fascinated by this Trump thing !?!? There are parts that are truly exciting. Just to see what would happen with somebody like this elected. We’ve got separation of powers, stopgaps, that don’t exist now because the Republicans are afraid to oppose Obama. However, the DEMOCRATS are not going to be afraid to oppose Trump if he does things they don’t like. Something worth considering.

I’ve read both “The Art of the DEAL” and “The Art of the Comeback,” which are better at explaining his personality, although not as good about actually explaining business. If we get a Trump Presidency, I think it will be a lot like Andrew Jackson. To understand Trump, he’s Andrew Jackson with Theodore Roosevelt’s energy and P.T. Barnum’s public relations ability. You WILL NOT be able to predict every morning what he’s going to do. He is a study in motion……………………..

You really see this when you read his books; he intuitively moves towards trying to get something to work. He zigzags and he does stuff. He DOES NOT fit the corporate, well-planned, risk avoidance model. He’s also not ideological. He’s not guided by ideology, and a lot of people have trouble understanding him because of that.

Trump understands the larger world. He’s a business man. This is not some guy who’s an isolationist. He’s also a very loving father and grandfather, in a way that people don’t really understand yet. As folks get to know him and his kids, they’re going to have a much better sense of who he is in ways that he doesn’t personally talk about much because I think it makes him uncomfortable.

Here’s the way this old squid sees him:
This is Trumpism – think of it as a table with four legs. The first leg is that he is ANTI-LEFTISM.
He’s just instinctively against leftism, because as a businessman, he has seen it FAIL, he knows it doesn’t work, and he watched Giuliani and Bloomberg really change New York in dramatic ways by taking on the LIBS.

Second, he’s anti-political correctness, because he knows it’s truly STUPID………………

Third, he’s against being DUMB. When you look at some of the stories in his books, it will just jump off the pages at you. It WILL SINK
IN. His approach to the Veterans Administration will be a PLEASURE to watch, because he’ll just RIP APART that entire bureaucracy, which of course is why the public employee UNION LIBS will fight him to the end. He’ll make ALL of ’em BLEED !!!! The sooner the better…………………..

Finally…he’s an American nationalist. He’s VERY DEEPLY AMERICAN.

The reason I describe it as the 4 legs of a table is he’s going to move back and forth across that table ALL DAY EVERYDAY with enormous energy. You’re not going to be able to predict
where he’ll be next Monday, because he’ll be intuitively following the flow of what’s going on, and he’s going to try to MAKE THINGS WORK EVERYDAY.

Yes, he does have an immense amount to learn. This dude has both the biggest potential upside and the biggest potential downside of
any candidate that I’ve ever seen. He could become an extraordinary change agent who mobilizes the American people, BREAKS the OLD ORDER, and really moves us into a dramatically more dynamic future, or he could turn out to be a disaster. I don’t think any of us honestly know yet.
However, we do know that Washington D.C. is VERY SICK !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! And that Hillary is going to make it a LOT SICKER. Trump’s a gamble, but Hillary a sure ticket to Davy Jones’ Locker.”

Cornflour, your comments resonate. I have posted that activism is almost antithetical to the conservative mind set–at least the activism that some advocate, and that mirrors the left.

I think the term Evangelical Christian has been corrupted, and used pejoratively by detractors; much like the Zionist label. At one time, it had a narrow meaning that did not suggest proselytizing or trying to impose beliefs or lifestyles, despite the claims by opposing voices. The majority of Christians still simply want to practice their faith as guaranteed by the Constitution. Not alone in that of course.

If we turn our backs on the Judeo-Christian heritage we have no underpinnings.

We continue to disagree.

I’ll leave it at that, since we certainly won’t convince each other. Perhaps our disagreements are a matter of degree.