Comments on: Lord Acton and the correct meaning of liberty

By: Duane

Duane — Tue, 28 Aug 2012 18:20:00 +0000

You apparently don’t realize that some people use statements or positions of prominent persons from history to bolster their arguments. Some people are swayed by such references. If the references are false, there is value in correcting them. I suspect even you have some degree of respect for some person whose opinions you value. If I or anyone else misrepresents that person’s position on some issue, it is of value to correct that misrepresentation so that you don’t make a poor decision based on a falsehood.

And I don’t care if the person is liberal, conservative, or whatever. You should be able to make your decision based on accurate data, not a misrepresentation.

By: Behold, A Straw Man! – Latter-day Statesmen

Behold, A Straw Man! – Latter-day Statesmen — Fri, 03 Aug 2012 23:11:30 +0000

[...] Paul apparently believes that that is in fact what I was claiming. In his response to my article, Paul sought to correct my “ignorance” by producing one quote after another by and [...]

By: Behold, A Straw Man! | Connor's Conundrums

Behold, A Straw Man! | Connor's Conundrums — Fri, 03 Aug 2012 16:05:15 +0000

[...] Paul apparently believes that that is in fact what I was claiming. In his response to my article, Paul sought to correct my “ignorance” by producing one quote after another by and [...]

By: Andrea

Andrea — Thu, 02 Aug 2012 00:27:00 +0000

Actually, I only read some of this crap. Your response is circular because you can’t determine if something is crap until you start reading it, unless you are familiar with the author and know upfront that the material is crap. After the first couple of paragraphs, I realized there are more worthwhile things to read. This realization had nothing to do with my “ideological narrowness” but rather the realization that there really isn’t much value in debating whether this Acton fellow was a libertarian, conservative, or a whatever.

By: Duane

Duane — Wed, 01 Aug 2012 19:27:00 +0000

Your lack of parallel construction is not the only thing that makes your post hard to understand. Are you talking about libertarians or classical liberals? You mention both, but seem to really only mean one of them. Which is it?

Look up the Libertarian Party platform. I just now did. They want complete separation of church and state. The Founders and the Constitution intended to protect religion from the state, NOT the state from religious influences and they intended to prevent government from favoring one church over others. John Adams said: “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people.” We SHOULD expect our elected officials to be reminded of and adhere to commandments like “Thou shalt not steal.” and “Thou shalt not bear false witness (lie).” and “Thou shalt not covet.”

If you object to those principles, I would not want to work with you or for you or have you work for me or live next door.

By: Duane

Duane — Wed, 01 Aug 2012 18:55:00 +0000

You apparently did.

Too bad that you let your own ideological narrowness blind you to the point of the article. Mero was not trying to convince you of either conservative or libertarian philosophy. Or any philosophy, for that matter. He used Acton’s own words to show that Acton cannot be classified with many, if not most, modern libertarians.

That’s all. He did a good job of it.

By: capitaliat74

capitaliat74 — Wed, 01 Aug 2012 01:06:00 +0000

I don’t think this author knows what libertarians is. HEe seems To think that “modern libertarian” is opposed to religion and forms some sort of conflict. He also seems To think libertarianism is a childish fantasy. Only a person who only superficially studies classical liberalism could ever be so confused by his conclusions.

By: Andrea

Andrea — Wed, 01 Aug 2012 00:05:00 +0000

Does anyone actually read this crap?