UNR Students for Liberty

The fact you feel that your point is proven by disproving Lee is perhaps the most indicative of you own ignorance. You fail to acknowledge the greatest source of strength in the Libertarian Ideal: the belief in the inalienable freedom of the individual. This idea cannot be soundly defended from an economic bastion alone. Great movements don't win supporters because the math works (and you math isn't unassailable, by the way); support is won from the belief in an idea. The idea of freedom extends much further than pure economic theory.

The fact you fail to realize that there are different ways of making a point is perhaps most indicative of your own ignorance. You fail to acknowledge the great amount of different ways there are to make strong arguments. Some people respond to facts and figures and statistics; some people respond to thorough logic and step by step deduction; some understand concepts from economic, scientific, and/or religious points of view; some people are swayed by “the belief in the inalienable freedom of the individual”; and others just need to be slapped in the face with a wet fish.

Stefan just gave Lee a good (metaphorical) slap in the face. We'll see how he takes it.

(As a note, I don't see how you can fault anyone for not only not saying “inalienable freedom of the individual” and then not defending that position. That's just ridiculous. Also I don't recall any math anywhere at all in this debate-Lee Hampton/Myself/Stefan-so, I really don't see your point about the non-unassailability of our math as anything but moot.)

But more importantly, what do you mean by “great movements”? And how their support is won from belief in an idea? And suggesting that this is, what, better? than having sound theoretical backgrounds? Fascism, socialism, Marxism, militarism, Statism, are a few of the bigger ones seen simply during the last century. There is nothing intrinsically good in getting people riled for something. Therefore, once again, I don't see your point as anything but beside itself.

And yet again, where ever you're keeping this straw man, maybe you should just leave him there next time, because I don't recall anyone ever even remotely claiming that the idea of freedom only extended to pure economic theory. So, way to add literally nothing to this conversation.

(That smell is wet fish)

The fact you fail to realize that there are different ways of making a point is perhaps most indicative of your own ignorance. You fail to acknowledge the great amount of different ways there are to make strong arguments. Some people respond to facts and figures and statistics; some people respond to thorough logic and step by step deduction; some understand concepts from economic, scientific, and/or religious points of view; some people are swayed by “the belief in the inalienable freedom of the individual”; and others just need to be slapped in the face with a wet fish.

Stefan just gave Lee a good (metaphorical) slap in the face. We'll see how he takes it.

(As a note, I don't see how you can fault anyone for not only not saying “inalienable freedom of the individual” and then not defending that position. That's just ridiculous. Also I don't recall any math anywhere at all in this debate-Lee Hampton/Myself/Stefan-so, I really don't see your point about the non-unassailability of our math as anything but moot.)

But more importantly, what do you mean by “great movements”? And how their support is won from belief in an idea? And suggesting that this is, what, better? than having sound theoretical backgrounds? Fascism, socialism, Marxism, militarism, Statism, are a few of the bigger ones seen simply during the last century. There is nothing intrinsically good in getting people riled for something. Therefore, once again, I don't see your point as anything but beside itself.

And yet again, where ever you're keeping this straw man, maybe you should just leave him there next time, because I don't recall anyone ever even remotely claiming that the idea of freedom only extended to pure economic theory. So, way to add literally nothing to this conversation.

(That smell is wet fish)