I can be more civil, but why is it acceptable for some people to make vast sweeping blatantly inaccurate and false statements about people with whom they disagree politically or in terms of economic thought?
I let that slide because I figure that you can't really help that, and everyone has the right to be wrong.
I have said repeatedly that I am not a socialist, but that I do not consider socialism an insult, in response I have been called a socialist anyway (as if socialists don't know whether they are socialists or not)
Amazingly, some do not.
and furthermore I've been told that I support the nature and the mismanagements of the government of Belarus. I do not support that, and it is deeply offensive to me for it to be suggested that I do. Why has this false accusation been leveled against me? Because I have said that government must be an agent of the community as a whole, because I have suggested that there is merit to the concept that we who live together in a society have common interests that it makes sense to pool resources in order to maintain.
This is merely to state my conception of the role of government, taxes, expenditure and society. It's a big fucking leap to conclude from that that I want government thugs to kick peoples doors down and drag away their stuff to spend it maintaining dead-beats and losers in the lap of luxury.
I'm sure that you sincerely believe that, but in reality it is a matter of degree. If you accept that a legitimately elected government should have the power to take the resources necessary for survival from one group of people and give it to another group of people by use of the collective force of government, then the remainder is just a concern about under what conditions. I'm sure that you would reject divine right as a legimitate justification for a nobility to impose their will upon the majority 'mobility' (yes, that's where we get "mob" from); but would you accept the results of a presumedly democratic elected congress doing something similar? Why? Because some special group that you agree with, desire to support, or identify with receives the benefits of that ruling? I'm Cherokee, but wouldn't for the life of me want to live on a reservation for the side benefit of a $300 per month check and food stamps. You probably wouldn't either, but would you argue in favor of continuing the practice for your cousins? I would not, and do not. The conditions that come with taxpayers' money pretty much promises that the mediocre remain where they are.
This dire misrepresentation is not only completely unjustified, insulting to me and to the vast majority of working people that pay their taxes and benefit from the expenditure of those taxes in various ways at various times of their life. Therefore a vast majority of tax paying people would have to consider themselves the dead-beats and losers, stealing from... themselves I suppose.
Worse, from their own children. It's not unjustified, as it can be demostrated as being economicly accurate. You just don't see yourself as we see you. That is understandable. Everyone likes to think of themselves as the reasonable ones, as the moderate. Few people ever question themselves
or their own indoctrination. The irony of all that, which I'm sure that you will reject out of hand, is that the various flavors of liberty minded are
those few. This is why there are so few of us in the political sphere to begin with. There is no such thing as indoctrination for libertarians, it's contrary to governments of any sort to promote that. If you attended a school in the US, public or private, you have been indoctrinated in the church of the state, as you have literally been institutionalized.
If I were to say instead that I want to tear down all government on the grounds that "what survives is good" and proudly announce that I would be happy to watch children starve to death to uphold my principal against "welfare" and anyone who does not agree with this is a "socialist" and that all "socialists" basically support genocide andf hate freedom, this would be considered reasonable argument and not just "hateful rhetoric" where no attempt is made to understand how or why those that disagree with me hold their point of view..
If you want to say thinks generally about what you think libertarians want, go right ahead. You are allowed to be wrong, but you have been intentionally antagonizing your opposition, not engaging in a debate. I have no problem with you openly displaying your ignorance of your peers, no harm comes to me or others by that at all.