The absolute-sounding terms (that aren't) are too often (in my opinion) troll-bait or invitations to arm-wrestling matches.

What was interesting to me is how people tried to define them, not what the definitions were. I'm working on several metaphors and on metaphor itself in real life right now, the form of the definitions accidentally became more important than the content.

@ certifiedprepwn3d

…even while it occurred to me that it was like getting trapped in the elevator with an evangelist…

Well, actually, a non-stop flight from, say, London to Sydney was what came to mind for me—but, hey, reasonable people will differ…

I'll say one good thing about libertarianism, the subject seems to keep 'Shooter' comments down to a bare minimum.

I assure you, those are Gary North's words. Google it. I first saw him and his father-in-law interviewed in a religious studies course I took over twenty years ago. he man literally is American Taliban. But I also have checked the North postings at Lew Rockwell, and THOSE sentiments are missing. But no libertarian ought to be promoting anyone who holds the fascist views north does, even if he has the very occasional, useful insight on economics. But I have no intention of emailing Rockwell about it, and as for Glenn, he is aware of North, my opinion on the matter, and it is his position -- and it is his decision to make -- that anyone may reprint him. (Altho now that he is at Salon, I'm not sure what the copyright implications are for him -- but you can bet he knows.)

Bail bondsman: they are out of control, and I believe I'd abolish them. But even there, there is a huge nexus between them and the state, as they are basically private contractors enforcing the state's right to capture a fleeing accused. Libertarians have written numerous articles about the excesses (some of them truly heinous) of bounty hunters. There is a right to use force in that instance, but I do not think the govt should delegate it. At a minimum, bounty hunters ought to be deputized, licensed and trained. The wrongness of their actions goes back to the state using its right to employ force, but using private companies to do it where standards and training have often been, to understate, lacking.

Would now be an appropriate time to say, "Jesus H. Tap-Dancing Christ?"

If not now, when? ;-)

I hate to break it to you but this government monopoly on force is a figment of your imagination. If it weren't then Iraq would be totally placid as our soldiers would be the only ones with guns.

The idea of a nation-state is associated with the rise of the modern system of states — often called the "Westphalian system" in reference to the Treaty of Westphalia (1648). (look it up)

You miss the point. The nation-state is the only agent that can use force in a "legal" and "moral" manner; because the nation-state decided those matters within its geographic borders. If it lets you have a gun, that is the state's right to do.

By the way, have you noticed how this "new Hitler" named Saddam let his people keep machine guns? Dummy. (or perhaps bush fed us some lines)

(Note: to the fools out there who aggressively mis-read every word of mine, that did not absolve Saddam of his manifold crimes)

Yep... you, sir, are on top of the publishing world's history.

From wikipedia.com

On the Road...

Kerouac wrote constantly but could not find a publisher for his next novel for six years. Building upon previous drafts tentatively titled "The Beat Generation" and "Gone on the Road," Kerouac wrote what is now known as On the Road in April, 1951 (ISBN 0-312-20677-1).

Part of the Kerouac myth is that, fueled by Benzedrine and coffee, he completed the first version of the novel during a three week extended session of spontaneous confessional prose. This session produced the now famous scroll of On the Road. In fact, according to his Columbia professor and mentor Mark Van Doren, he had outlined much of the work in his journals over several years. His technique was heavily influenced by Jazz, especially Bebop, and later, Buddhism, as well as the famous Joan Anderson letter, authored by Neal Cassady.[4]

Publishers rejected the book due to its experimental writing style and its sympathetic tone towards minorities and marginalized social groups of the United States in the 1950s. In 1957, Viking Press purchased the novel, demanding major revisions.[5]

In 2007, to coincide with the 50th anniversary of On the Road's publishing,[6] an uncensored version of On the Road will be released by Viking Press, containing text that was removed from the released version because it was deemed too explicit for 1957 audiences. It will be drawn solely from the original scroll[7] and the only things not included will be things that Kerouac himself crossed out.

and Atlas Shrugged...

Rand's magnum opus, Atlas Shrugged, was published in 1957. Due to the success of The Fountainhead, the initial printing was 100,000 copies,[22] and the book went on to become an international bestseller. (The frequent claim[23] that Atlas Shrugged was later found to be the "second most influential book in America, after The Bible,"[24] may be an exaggeration of the findings of one 1991 survey; however, it has been cited in numerous interviews as the book that most influenced the subject.)

Ah, the old hue and cry, eh? Kinda like here....

Too adversarial? Too long? Too boring or inconclusive? Well, tune in tomorrow, same time, same station...we may be doing the funky chicken. (But I doubt it.)

Cato is funded by some businesses, but nearly every think tank is. Wealthy foundations also spread money to "pro-consumer" and other left-of-center activist groups/think tanks as well.

Cato is not "anti-consumer." Cato thinks a lot of Technocrats at some of these lavishly funded left-of-center tanks are merely devising ways to expand the power and control of government. They, however, also oppose a good deal that Big Business likes.

Big Business is not libertarian. Discrete ones, such as Big Tobacco, may like Cato's view that adults ought to be free to smoke and then pay the consequences if they do, and that property owners as opposed to the state should decide whether smoking will be permitted. So it makes sense for them to forge an alliance on that particular issue, but their motives are hardly the same.

There is a reason -- as I believe Cato fellows have pointed out, certainly many libertarians have -- Big Alcohol donates generously to Partnership for a Drug Free America and other drug prohibitionist groups. It is called keeping the competition out. If one didn't risk arrest and prison smoking pot and selling it to your pals, one might forgo the six pack more often.