arisbe: (Default)
arisbe ([personal profile] arisbe) wrote2004-07-23 09:08 am

Is it George's Turn?

To win the popular vote -- and lose the election?

This may be the map worth following.

Though it doesn't take into account the Libertarian spoiler effect. Yet.
siderea: (Default)

Re: Part 1

[personal profile] siderea 2004-07-26 07:47 pm (UTC)(link)
If Badnarik's argument is as you said, it is certainly ill-formed. Do you have a link?
Here you are:
http://www.badnarik.org/Issues/RxDrugPrices.php

I agree that advertising an unproven benefit is wrong. I don't think it needs to be illegal

Then you don't think the government should prevent force and fraud? Why, then, do you call yourself a libertarian, instead of, say, an anarchist? Or are you a anarcholibertarian?

At any rate, you've mistaken me for someone interested in defending or advancing political positions. I haven't the slightest interest in convincing you from your opinions; they're yours, you think about them. I already have. I wrote in response to the question of how I perceive the big-l-libertarians -- on which I commented as simply a datapoint in the prior discussion of the likelihood of a right-wing spoiler effect (to whit that I thought it unlikely that Badnarik will draw from the left) -- not because I had the slightest desire to discuss their merits or lack thereof.

Put it another way: You inquired after my perspective, and so I shared it with you. I may be interested to hear your perspective (or not -- honestly, I've heard it before and would only be being polite) but I'm certainly not about to quarrel with you about such things in someone else's journal. That seems tacky.

Frankly, I think it quite rude of you to inquire after my position and then argue with it. I indulged your curiosity and instead of saying "thank you" for the favor I did you and generally behaving respectfully towards me, you then launched into a tirade at me. That's not very polite.

Re: Part 1

[identity profile] arichi.livejournal.com 2004-07-27 01:40 am (UTC)(link)
I don't think that advertising something unproven is fraud. Advertising something you know to be false is fraud. Unproven and false are different things.

Anyway, my apologies. I thought by your response that you were interested in debate.