> > And that != thing is a bit pretentious too.
>
>It means "does not equal". Fairly common shorthand in informal logic.
When you're writing English prose for non-geek readers, it helps to use words they understand rather than symbols they don't. Part of the process of socialization, of trying to understand your audience.
>I find merit in a Constitution. That you think this is not orthogonal to
>being a libertarian proves my point.
Ditto "not orthogonal to."
>Did I say this? No. I was refuting the "libertarians are all investment
>bankers who only want to pay less taxes because they are such greedy evil
>bastards" position I got so sick of hearing.
Actually, the caricature that's been floating around here is not of greedy investment bankers, but of poorly socialized computer geeks who confuse juvenile narcissism with a political philosophy.
> You are taking this
>statement above out of context and adding a new context ("forcible
>extraction"). There is nothing mutually exclusive between being a
>libertarian and voluntary charitable redistrubution of my income.
Far from being mutually exclusive, that's exactly the libertarian line: helping the poor isn't the government's business, since that involves coercion; it should instead be the business of private individuals and charitable organizations. It's also the theory behind George W's compassionate conservativism.
>No offense taken, since I think your response clearly illustrated my
>point. Which was, that the left has pigeon-holed a political philosophy
>into one straw-position, and lacks serious understanding of the subtleties
>within.
Sorry to be so ad hominem, but you're not doing much to de-pigeon-hole the strawperson: you're spouting garden variety net libertarianism, available in overwhelming quantity at a newsgroup near you.
Doug