I think he is intolerant and hypocritical. I'm a pure libertarian as well but I try not to get on my high horse when talking to other people about politics. I wasn't always a pure libertarian so I am tolerant of others, provided their honest. This includes people who are bigoted against others based on their ethnicity, religion, etc. I don't view ethnic bigotry any worse than any other form of group think. Theoretically, one can be a hard core racist and a libertarian.
I think Mr. Freeman thinks libertarianism should necessarily be everyone's personal moral code in addition to being their political ideology. There are many things that I think are immoral. But that doesn't imply that I would employ coercion against those who behave in such a manner.
Mr. Freeman, and to a lesser extent Mr. Edgington(sp?) aren't very tolerant towards Christians. And it's not solely for how their faith impacts on their politics. It's for their faith, itself. I'm irreligious, but respectful of religious people. I think we need them in the liberty movement. It' strategically dumb and poor manners to make fun of another's religion.
I know this sounds collectivism, but Mr. Freeman is a complete embarassment to the liberty movement when it comes to the topic of the age of consent. He has expressed concern that the media will try to depict the liberty movement as racist if any libertarian even shows a modicum of respect or understanding to racists. I bet if you asked any racial minority where they rate bigots and child molesters and I guarantee you that child molesters rate way lower. Unfortunately, all too many libertarians think libertarianism.
Mr. Freeman also treats so-called conspiracy theorists with a lot of disrespect. He lumps all of them together in addtional to lumping all "conspiracy theories" (an Establishment epithet if ever there were one) together. He assumes that the majority of people who subscribe to one or more theories are wasting their time, agree with every outlandish theory out there or are somehow unlibertarian. The worst you can say about the 911 Truthers is that they're a little naive if they think the government isn't going to deliver justice. Otherwise, they are a grassroots movement that speaks truth to power. Some of them had loved ones who died. Who am I to mock them for trying to get justice.
__________________
Liberty lies in the hearts of men and women; when it dies there, no constitution, no law, no court can save it
Learned Hand
In the past men created witches: now they create mental patients.
Thomas Szasz
Relinquish liberty for the purposes of defense in an emergency?
Why? It would seem that in an emergency, of all times, one needs
his greatest strength. So if liberty is strength and slavery is weakness,
liberty is a necessity rather than a luxury, and we can ill afford
to be without it—least of all during an emergency.
When Ian goes on about the age of consent it makes me feel very uncomfortable.
As for conspiracy theorists I think you'll find that a majority of them are followers of Alex Jones & therefore statists because they seem to think that if their guys were in charge then everything will be okay. Plus I'd ask where does it get you debating endlessly whether 9/11 was an inside ob or that the Pentagon controls the weather?
As for disrespecting & being intolerant to Christians, well let me ask you am I being disrespectful to Christians by saying I don't give a crap for the bible? I don't give a crap for the bible or organise religion or God, but if any of those bring folk comfort fair enough just don't push it on me. I think the attitude of Ian & Mark is pretty much the same, the problem is that they bang on with a great of bias towards Quakerism & I can see that leading to problems.
Trouble with Ian is that he has a bit of seeing everything in very black & white terms, Ian seems to like to have concepts to either have very restrictive definitions or very fixed definitions & well knowing people have different interpretations of things I can see Ian coming into conflict with other Quakers over what is & isn't Quakerism, just as he has over what is & isn't libertarianism.
I'll admit I to have in the past had a similar problem in seeing things in very black & white terms & having very restrictive definitions for things. My excuse is it's the consequence of brain damage but as for Ian I'm not sure why he has the habit in doing so.
Whether you agree or disagree with "conspiracy theories", I would say that Alex Jones and a majority of his listeners are small government type people. Jones supported Ron Paul and I consider Paul to be a pretty radical libertarian.
As far as 911 and weather control, these are two separate issues. I know 911 was an inside job but I spend very little of my time on it. But there are some people who lost loved ones. And if they believe the wrong people are being accused, I can't blame them for trying to get justice, no matter how unlikely that is. They are doing the liberty movement a service by waking people up to the true nature of government. I don't know of any research backing up gov't weather control. Anytime I hear of weather control I always think of John Houseman's character in The Six Million Dollar Man. He was the creator of the Fembots who also developed a weather control machine.
The way I see the religion issue is this way. One's personal religious views are irrelevant when it comes to their political views. I see no good reason to antagonize someone, who we could convert politically, by insulting their religion.
The one area I do agree with Ian is that issues are pretty much black and white. For example,either taxation is stealing or it's not. There is no middle ground.
I think Ian is speaking his mind, in the variety of examples you give, LS. Surely that is what liberty is all about? Free speech?
Saying what you think is very different to coercion.
I would speak very openly of my distaste for organised religion. Yet, I would also speak very openly about my belief that everyone should be allowed to express what they wish to express, religious or otherwise.
So, I don't think I am disrespectful. In fact, I think it would be more disrespectful to dumb down my views, and not share my opinion in a conversation with a religious person, were the subject to come up. And, with regards to Ian and Mark, and most religious people that phone into FTL, it's only a matter of time before the subject does come up.
Full disclosure: I am a fan and supporter of FTL so I am biased towards Ian and Mark.
First and foremost, FTL is a radio talk show. As such, a bit of controversy is beneficial since it drives ratings. If everyone agreed with everything all the time, the show would quickly get stale and boring. Also, FTL's schtick is that Ian is an anarchist and Mark is a minarchist. It's sort of good cop/bad cop with Ian criticizing callers who support the State in any way while Mark often comes to their defense. Whether you like this particular tactic or not, it is compelling and has made FTL successful.
Controversial issues often come up in radio. That’s the nature of the medium. I don’t always agree with Ian or Mark, but the fact is that FTL is successful as a business and successful as a libertarian outright effort.
__________________
The great non sequitur committed by defenders of the State, including classical Aristotelian and Thomist philosophers, is to leap from the necessity of society to the necessity of the State.--Murray N. Rothbard
The folks at Mises Institute are the biggest bigots of all times, their motto is "Do not give in to Evil, but proceed even more boldly against it", that's so bigoted viewpoint against evil. How can you not tolerate Evil, and be sympathetic against those who commit and support evil.
While I am at it, I don't think its rational to differentiate between people who choose something(like choose to wear a blue shirt, or follow Republican/Democrat ideology) and those who are born with some thing(like if you are born Asian or born white or born black or born blind).
Supporting State is not a choice, I was born like that, Ian should be more tolerant towards people like me whose belief in state is a completely aesthetic thing(like skin color) and not a functional action(like believing in women not being able to drive, or snipping foreskins out of culture/religion).
You guys here who are using the word Bigot for someone who is intolerant of aggression and using 'Scott the Bigot' as an example of showing Ian's hypocrisy SICKEN ME.
I think he is intolerant and hypocritical. I'm a pure libertarian as well but I try not to get on my high horse when talking to other people about politics. I wasn't always a pure libertarian so I am tolerant of others, provided their honest. This includes people who are bigoted against others based on their ethnicity, religion, etc. I don't view ethnic bigotry any worse than any other form of group think. Theoretically, one can be a hard core racist and a libertarian.
I think Mr. Freeman thinks libertarianism should necessarily be everyone's personal moral code in addition to being their political ideology. There are many things that I think are immoral. But that doesn't imply that I would employ coercion against those who behave in such a manner.
Mr. Freeman, and to a lesser extent Mr. Edgington(sp?) aren't very tolerant towards Christians. And it's not solely for how their faith impacts on their politics. It's for their faith, itself. I'm irreligious, but respectful of religious people. I think we need them in the liberty movement. It' strategically dumb and poor manners to make fun of another's religion.
I know this sounds collectivism, but Mr. Freeman is a complete embarassment to the liberty movement when it comes to the topic of the age of consent. He has expressed concern that the media will try to depict the liberty movement as racist if any libertarian even shows a modicum of respect or understanding to racists. I bet if you asked any racial minority where they rate bigots and child molesters and I guarantee you that child molesters rate way lower. Unfortunately, all too many libertarians think libertarianism.
Mr. Freeman also treats so-called conspiracy theorists with a lot of disrespect. He lumps all of them together in addtional to lumping all "conspiracy theories" (an Establishment epithet if ever there were one) together. He assumes that the majority of people who subscribe to one or more theories are wasting their time, agree with every outlandish theory out there or are somehow unlibertarian. The worst you can say about the 911 Truthers is that they're a little naive if they think the government isn't going to deliver justice. Otherwise, they are a grassroots movement that speaks truth to power. Some of them had loved ones who died. Who am I to mock them for trying to get justice.
Liberty lies in the hearts of men and women; when it dies there, no constitution, no law, no court can save it
Learned Hand
In the past men created witches: now they create mental patients.
Thomas Szasz
Relinquish liberty for the purposes of defense in an emergency?
Why? It would seem that in an emergency, of all times, one needs
his greatest strength. So if liberty is strength and slavery is weakness,
liberty is a necessity rather than a luxury, and we can ill afford
to be without it—least of all during an emergency.
F.A. Harper
When Ian goes on about the age of consent it makes me feel very uncomfortable.
As for conspiracy theorists I think you'll find that a majority of them are followers of Alex Jones & therefore statists because they seem to think that if their guys were in charge then everything will be okay. Plus I'd ask where does it get you debating endlessly whether 9/11 was an inside ob or that the Pentagon controls the weather?
As for disrespecting & being intolerant to Christians, well let me ask you am I being disrespectful to Christians by saying I don't give a crap for the bible? I don't give a crap for the bible or organise religion or God, but if any of those bring folk comfort fair enough just don't push it on me. I think the attitude of Ian & Mark is pretty much the same, the problem is that they bang on with a great of bias towards Quakerism & I can see that leading to problems.
Trouble with Ian is that he has a bit of seeing everything in very black & white terms, Ian seems to like to have concepts to either have very restrictive definitions or very fixed definitions & well knowing people have different interpretations of things I can see Ian coming into conflict with other Quakers over what is & isn't Quakerism, just as he has over what is & isn't libertarianism.
I'll admit I to have in the past had a similar problem in seeing things in very black & white terms & having very restrictive definitions for things. My excuse is it's the consequence of brain damage but as for Ian I'm not sure why he has the habit in doing so.
Whether you agree or disagree with "conspiracy theories", I would say that Alex Jones and a majority of his listeners are small government type people. Jones supported Ron Paul and I consider Paul to be a pretty radical libertarian.
As far as 911 and weather control, these are two separate issues. I know 911 was an inside job but I spend very little of my time on it. But there are some people who lost loved ones. And if they believe the wrong people are being accused, I can't blame them for trying to get justice, no matter how unlikely that is. They are doing the liberty movement a service by waking people up to the true nature of government. I don't know of any research backing up gov't weather control. Anytime I hear of weather control I always think of John Houseman's character in The Six Million Dollar Man. He was the creator of the Fembots who also developed a weather control machine.
The way I see the religion issue is this way. One's personal religious views are irrelevant when it comes to their political views. I see no good reason to antagonize someone, who we could convert politically, by insulting their religion.
The one area I do agree with Ian is that issues are pretty much black and white. For example,either taxation is stealing or it's not. There is no middle ground.
I think Ian is speaking his mind, in the variety of examples you give, LS. Surely that is what liberty is all about? Free speech?
Saying what you think is very different to coercion.
I would speak very openly of my distaste for organised religion. Yet, I would also speak very openly about my belief that everyone should be allowed to express what they wish to express, religious or otherwise.
So, I don't think I am disrespectful. In fact, I think it would be more disrespectful to dumb down my views, and not share my opinion in a conversation with a religious person, were the subject to come up. And, with regards to Ian and Mark, and most religious people that phone into FTL, it's only a matter of time before the subject does come up.
Full disclosure: I am a fan and supporter of FTL so I am biased towards Ian and Mark.
First and foremost, FTL is a radio talk show. As such, a bit of controversy is beneficial since it drives ratings. If everyone agreed with everything all the time, the show would quickly get stale and boring. Also, FTL's schtick is that Ian is an anarchist and Mark is a minarchist. It's sort of good cop/bad cop with Ian criticizing callers who support the State in any way while Mark often comes to their defense. Whether you like this particular tactic or not, it is compelling and has made FTL successful.
Controversial issues often come up in radio. That’s the nature of the medium. I don’t always agree with Ian or Mark, but the fact is that FTL is successful as a business and successful as a libertarian outright effort.
The great non sequitur committed by defenders of the State, including classical Aristotelian and Thomist philosophers, is to leap from the necessity of society to the necessity of the State.--Murray N. Rothbard
The folks at Mises Institute are the biggest bigots of all times, their motto is "Do not give in to Evil, but proceed even more boldly against it", that's so bigoted viewpoint against evil. How can you not tolerate Evil, and be sympathetic against those who commit and support evil.
While I am at it, I don't think its rational to differentiate between people who choose something(like choose to wear a blue shirt, or follow Republican/Democrat ideology) and those who are born with some thing(like if you are born Asian or born white or born black or born blind).
Supporting State is not a choice, I was born like that, Ian should be more tolerant towards people like me whose belief in state is a completely aesthetic thing(like skin color) and not a functional action(like believing in women not being able to drive, or snipping foreskins out of culture/religion).
You guys here who are using the word Bigot for someone who is intolerant of aggression and using 'Scott the Bigot' as an example of showing Ian's hypocrisy SICKEN ME.
did somebody just drop that roody pooh jabrony? CX rules!