>>>>>Constitutional Libertarian is the best way to describe him. I identify with him because we line up pretty well politically with the basis of our philosophies being that we tend to come down on the side of liberty and personal responsibility in most.
>>>
>>>You "tend" to - meaning that some lines in the sand still are OK, but only if drawn by people who agree with you. Compare this to the platitudes:
>>>
>>>>>> True freedom demands complete faith in the individual and the ability to be repulsed by their choices. True freedom dictates a hands-off policy that allows people to fail and be disgusting. True freedom means living, and letting live.
>>>
>>>The correct label for these platitudes is "anarchy" where there are no boundaries or lines in the sand- not even those drawn by Constitutional Libertarian illuminati. ;-)
>>
>>I do find it hysterical when lefties accuse libertarians of being anarchists. You do know whose been tagging the world with the A in a circle symbols don't you? ;)
>>
>>I decided a little while ago to no longer engage the invalid argument that those of us who believe in liberty and limited government want no government. It's a completely unserious strawman and no longer worthy of acknowledgement.
>>
>>>So by his own standards, he's a hypocrite. See, we can all play that game as long as the other fellow states a position and we don't.
>>
>>I've found that everyone is hypocritical about something. ;)
>>
>>That said, reading it again, I see your point. I posted it because I have the experience of having listened to the show for years and thus have the perspective of time spent understanding the positions he advocates in detailed terms. Thus when I read this I don't simply see them as platitudes but read them as more of an outline of the greater details which I am familliar. You're not alone, here's what I received from a leftie friend when I sent it to him:
>>Some hyperbole, and some things I don't agree with, but mostly spot on.
>>
>>>>>I've mentioned this before, traffic lights fall into the priviledge realm. Namely, driving is a priviledge not a right thus one submits voluntarily to the laws of the road in order to participate. It's similar to receipt examination at Costco v. Best Buy. At Costco you voluntarily submit to the rules when you sign up for membership and one of those rules is to show your receipt before leaving the store. At Best Buy that is not the case and you are under no obligation to show your receipt regardless of how pushy the door clerk.
>>>
>>>That's sophistry, since you can define most activity as a privilege so that any loss of "freedom" is neatly redefined as a consequence of choosing to participate. Controls over smoking, fatty foods, guns and interference in practically any activity can be rationalized by this route.
>>
>>Actually, controls over any of those cannot be rationalized. Individual rights end at one's nose. I should be free to smoke, eat and shoot at will so long as I do not infringe on another's rights.
>>
>>>>>As for "fire" in a crowded theatre, that's unconstitutional. From the 1st : "Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech".
>>>
>>>Perhaps theater proprietors can redefine attendance as a privilege in which case you willingly submit to their rules?
>>
>>Walking into someone else's private business IS a privilege, theatres are private property. Take the recently famous theatre in Aurora. The one which had a "gun-free" policy. That's a rule put in place by a private property owner. If the theatre owner wants to put a restriction on a customer's speech as part of the price of admission they are free to do so. Think "foul" language at Chuck E Cheese, or the banning of cell phones in theatres. The difference is that it's not the government abridging our rights.
>>
>>>You may say the right to free speech is guaranteed- but so is the pursuit of happiness behind the wheel of my car and you have no problem trampling my unalienable rights for that one. ;-)
>>
>>You are free to pursue happiness behind the wheel of your car however you wish so long as you stay on your private property. Your rights end at your nose.
>
>When I was kid it was announced that the Pursuit of Happiness was an occupation for the insane.

Didn't MicroSoft patent that phrase somewhere in the 80's?