Opinion of Libertas' banning

[Bleeding heart conservative, HTMLdon]

Negative, but I'm not crying over it.  

As Libertas has taught us, in a truly Capitalist system, the person with the money and resources should have unrestricted power over their resources.  In this case, Dave holds the power and chose to exercise it accordingly.  There should be no questioning what the Capitalist does nor any interference with Capitalist whims.

If Libertas were to recruit people to advocate for his reinstatement, then that would be considered labor organizing which is against his own libertarian principles and thus wrong.

[Free Palestine]

If Libertas were to recruit people to advocate for his reinstatement, then that would be considered labor organizing which is against his own libertarian principles and thus wrong.

Voluntary organization isn't against libertarian principals.

[tpfkaw]

Libertas hasn't been in contact with any of us (as far as I know) since his banning.  Also, labor organizing doesn't violate libertarian principles at all.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Positive, only because it was not done sooner and more of them weren't banned along with him!

Yes, it's horrible that the board can't be purged of opposing ideologies.

Saying that it's "Dave's board and Dave's rules" isn't really a justification for supporting the ban.  It's like saying you support the "banning" of Jews during World War II because it was "Hitler's Germany and Hitler's rules."  Dave has the right to ban people, sure, but that's not a reason for supporting his actions.

Anyone who is comparing some forum rules to Holocaust and other Nazi crimes need to visit a mental institution. You have just offended a real victims of Nazi policies, some members of my family including.

[The Mikado]

Justice has finally been served.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Justice has finally been served.

Indeed. By the way, I just want to laugh at some posters utter hypocrisy. Those who applauded HoffmanJohn banning, yet are immaturely mourning fellow annoying and unrepentant troll.

I assume if HoffmanJohn were a libertarian hack, instead of anti-libertarian hack, you'd mourn his departure as well.

In a "words" of a departed troll: ""

[Bleeding heart conservative, HTMLdon]

If Libertas were to recruit people to advocate for his reinstatement, then that would be considered labor organizing which is against his own libertarian principles and thus wrong.

Voluntary organization isn't against libertarian principals.

So what happens when the Capitalist decides he doesn't want his employees organizing for better wages and he decides to fire or punish anyone who organizes?

[Holmes]

I am disappointed. I liked him. I mean, he had crazy views, but yeah.

[Frink]

If Libertas were to recruit people to advocate for his reinstatement, then that would be considered labor organizing which is against his own libertarian principles and thus wrong.

Voluntary organization isn't against libertarian principals.

Its collectivism.

[tpfkaw]

I believe you've got your libertarian philosophy mixed up:

Collectivism = not necessarily bad (or else even organizations like the Libertarian Party would be bad).

Collectivism as the determinant of government policy = very, very bad.

[Oswald Acted Alone, You Kook]

Positive, only because it was not done sooner and more of them weren't banned along with him!

Yes, it's horrible that the board can't be purged of opposing ideologies.

Saying that it's "Dave's board and Dave's rules" isn't really a justification for supporting the ban.  It's like saying you support the "banning" of Jews during World War II because it was "Hitler's Germany and Hitler's rules."  Dave has the right to ban people, sure, but that's not a reason for supporting his actions.

Way to invoke Goodwin's Law.

[Frink]

I believe you've got your libertarian philosophy mixed up:

Collectivism = not necessarily bad (or else even organizations like the Libertarian Party would be bad).

Collectivism as the determinant of government policy = very, very bad.

So you'd say your against corporate structure organization laws, which artificially creates monopolistic power for a dictatorial board, for instance?

[Mechaman]

Positive, only because it was not done sooner and more of them weren't banned along with him!

Yes, it's horrible that the board can't be purged of opposing ideologies.

Saying that it's "Dave's board and Dave's rules" isn't really a justification for supporting the ban.  It's like saying you support the "banning" of Jews during World War II because it was "Hitler's Germany and Hitler's rules."  Dave has the right to ban people, sure, but that's not a reason for supporting his actions.

Anyone who is comparing some forum rules to Holocaust and other Nazi crimes need to visit a mental institution. You have just offended a real victims of Nazi policies, some members of my family including.

I am not happy over what has happened but the last thing I would do would be to compare any of the policies on this forum as "Hitlerian" or the mods as "Nazis".  I mean it isn't like Dave ordered the mods to get an internet death squad together to go to Libertas' house to shoot him.  He just got internet banned.

Lack of freedom of speech does not necessarily equal OH NOES NAZISM!!!!!!!!!!  Hell, much freer societies than Nazi Germany routinely violate the right to free speech.  At this current rate it would be more accurate to call the mods on here "Fair Speech retards" (no offense) than it would be to call them "Nazis".

Calling the Atlas Forum Moderators "Nazis" would be insulting the dead Nazi Legions who actually worked hard to get the title "Nazi". [/Jon Stewart]

[Frink]

Positive, only because it was not done sooner and more of them weren't banned along with him!

Yes, it's horrible that the board can't be purged of opposing ideologies.

Saying that it's "Dave's board and Dave's rules" isn't really a justification for supporting the ban.  It's like saying you support the "banning" of Jews during World War II because it was "Hitler's Germany and Hitler's rules."  Dave has the right to ban people, sure, but that's not a reason for supporting his actions.

Yes, because the banning of a single poster on a political forum is directly comparable to the extermination of six million Jews, over ten million Russians, over two million poles, and comparable casualties for other groups caught up in the worst conflict in history.

Yes you've figured it out; this forum is carrying out its own holocaust against libertarian posters

Denying someone the right to troll on an internet forum.. Might as well be this forums own Reich fire proclamation!

[Free Palestine]

I wasn't comparing the banning of Libertas (PBUH) to the holocaust.  I was simply pointing out how absurd it is to support a position just because the person making the decision has that authority.

[Boris]

I used to find him annoying when he posted 50,000 times a day but after that phase subsided, I found his feuds with the mods to be a mildy entertaining distraction from the weight of the world. But it was fairly obvious who was going to win in the end.

[Frink]

I wasn't comparing the banning of Libertas (PBUH) to the holocaust.  I was simply pointing out how absurd it is to support a position just because the person making the decision has that authority.

There's certainly not a more rational and constructive example to use

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

I wasn't comparing the banning of Libertas (PBUH) to the holocaust.  I was simply pointing out how absurd it is to support a position just because the person making the decision has that authority.

So much for a libertarian respect for private property.

In case you missed this fact, we're using Mr. Leip private property. We're his guests and he have every right to decide, whom to host and whom to kick out.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

I guess this is Dave's rendition of "get off my lawn":



GET OFF MY WEBSITE

[Free Palestine]

I wasn't comparing the banning of Libertas (PBUH) to the holocaust.  I was simply pointing out how absurd it is to support a position just because the person making the decision has that authority.

So much for a libertarian respect for private property.

In case you missed this fact, we're using Mr. Leip private property. We're his guests and he have every right to decide, whom to host and whom to kick out.

Yes, but that doesn't mean you have to agree.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

I wasn't comparing the banning of Libertas (PBUH) to the holocaust.  I was simply pointing out how absurd it is to support a position just because the person making the decision has that authority.

So much for a libertarian respect for private property.

In case you missed this fact, we're using Mr. Leip private property. We're his guests and he have every right to decide, whom to host and whom to kick out.

Yes, but that doesn't mean you have to agree.

Of course not, but you should keep some proportions in your reasoning.

[angus]

"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing."
   --Edmund Burke

Libertas was a good poster.  Had some radical ideas and vented quite a bit, but I just read over all his posts from the past thirty days and can't figure out why he'd be banned.  Maybe some big fight was deleted by the moderators, so I wouldn't know about that.  But it seems to me that being a wingnut is now sufficient to get someone banned.  This is not a healthy development, and it doesn't seem to me to be consistent with the forum's mission of free exchange of ideas and information.

It could be any of you next. 

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Positive

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing."
   --Edmund Burke

Libertas was a good poster.  Had some radical ideas and vented quite a bit, but I just read over all his posts from the past thirty days and can't figure out why he'd be banned.  Maybe some big fight was deleted by the moderators, so I wouldn't know about that.  But it seems to me that being a wingnut is now sufficient to get someone banned.  This is not a healthy development, and it doesn't seem to me to be consistent with the forum's mission of free exchange of ideas and information.

It could be any of you next. 

well, I never really noticed his views, rather all I saw was him complaining about the way he was treated.  Leip simply got tired of Libertas crucifying himself and decided to put him out of his forum misery.

[Shilly]

Hopefully, his fanboys will be next.