My heart still bleeds for those 6 year olds shot to death. Does that make me a bleeding heart? One who has only voted Democrat only once? (Obama in 2008). Liberals represent the pussification (new word I just invented just now) of America. If you want to be some nerd who lives in the basement of his mother, then vote Democrat. Otherwise, be a man, grow some balls, and vote libertarian. Democrats live in basements of their mother, real men vote libertarian.
You know, it is possible to possess some emotion, and feel for those poor, innocent 6 year olds shot to death by the son of some gun nut who couldn't give up their guns for the greater good. She should have gave up her guns for the greater good. She knew her son was troubled, but yet, trained her son to shoot guns. Republicans are inhuman, and lack emotion.
My point is, it's still possible to have empathy, and feel for other human beings, and be a libertarian. Those liberals will try to make you think it isn't possible, but it is.
The key is those with guns that are accessible by family members with mental problems should give them up willingly out of moral conviction, not because some fascist (yes, even liberals can be faschist) agenda. It's for the greater good. The government is not the answer. Look inside your heart, find the moral conviction. That is the answer. Gun control is not the answer. Moral conviction is.
(note: I'm slightly intoxicated while writing this, but I think I have my thoughts in order. Government is not the answer to our problems. Being a good person, and making sacrifices for the greater good is).
For starters: using "basement dweller" for liberals ignores the grandness of how liberalism evolved as a political idea, especilly with Immanuel Kant. It is a failure of the most strawed to use "real men" when it is but a mear society created idenity and nothing more.
Second: fascism is a idea of its own, its holy book being set by the works of Carl Schmitt. It is a rather complex idea than something simply to Godwin people with.
Third: while I see the Republican party as a exstream ultraconserative, ultracapitalist, fundementalist party... I would not call their entire membership as "inhuman."
Fourth: of course liberterians can have empathy but "those liberals"... you are trying to make straw yes?
Also your defining terms by pure American definitions, forgetting that there is such thing as eccomonicly left liberterians and that liberalism is a fully made idea than some group for you to label as villains.
Fifth: appleasment policy (your giving up voluntery) will take advantage of your Godwinning; it appears like appleasment...
Sixth: "Goverment is not the answer! No to goverment" forgets the reasons why goverments exists; a issue tackled by many thinkers from Plato to Machiavelli to Hobbs to Locke to further on including critics like Rousseau and Marx. While I agree that too much goverment is a issue, the think is I am defining from thinker terms not of the middle between authoriterianism and anarchy (the true definitions) but of shifting the middle to their own end instead of taking academic considerations. Just as too hot and too cold both makes the growing of crops as of issue so must it be considered that a goverment must, while having a cap on power, is to exist for it is the communual destiny of a community.
There is two thinkers, a classical thinker and a man who influenced liberarlism, that have to be considered. The classical thinker Hobbs spoke of a State of Nature, a place without goverment, where life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and shorty" according to Hobbs. He described it as a place of conflict, seeing it as not true freedom, instead feeling that the giving up of certains rights is of freedom. His thoughts are important in considerations of statecraft.
Yet I must turn you to is the man who influenced liberalism greatly, for the "liberals=big goverment" thing is a American falacy that forgets the terminology and the history. I turn you to the man who influenced the American Revolution: Locke. He wrote in time of James II, our last absolute monarch, before the glorius revolution of 1688 which Locke got caught up in. Locke was a thinker of rights; he was a member of the Whig Party that was an earth bound philosopher and a very English one at that. He spoke of individual creations of God. We all have natural rights.
Hobbs have the state of nature as violent and dark: Lock does not agree. He feels it is unpredictable. Locke thinks states are forge to promote more peace and safety. According to Locke people may suffer some restriction on their rights. What they cannot do is give away their natural liberties. Unreasonable to give away liberties. Hence Locke spoke of a right to revolt; that if the goverment fails their social contract (the "social contract" is a important term for political thinkers) then the people have a right to express their discountent... as noted by the Americans who would read his work and take influence from it.
Locke was a advocate of political association, with enourmous reverses of privacy which cannot be violated.
Hence as noted by Locke one cannot simply dismiss things as "evil." The area of political philosophy looks at the relation of state, soceity and person. While freedom is a important consideration it is important to avoid lawlessness or you will not receive true freedom but rather brutality. The community will require a note of meeting; current represenative democracy system is not fully set to the task, yet evolution in the represenative democracy model in Wales and Germany are of note in considerations of the expressed general will. It is important we avoid exstreams, as eating too much food or eating too little food be bad for you.
Seven: there was a quote I wish to end with:
Charity exist because SOME people give; welfare exist because MOST don't.
