I noticed how much more civil, and quiet, these political threads seem to have become since AyeYo has been absent. A single troll can turn an otherwise civil discourse between peers into a caustic argument among many former friends.
Actually, the thread pretty much died after AyeYo was banned. I left the thread around the same time. Most discussion pretty much ceased. Maybe you're confusing perceived civility with what occurs after a group drowns the one they are in disagreement with? I think the banning of AyeYo exemplifies what he was pointing out about a libertarian society that none of you could see.
"Well, see how civil we all are now, after drowning Joe in the lake. He just didn't agree with our ways."
Well, you are entitled to feel that way, but it should prove exactly the opposite. That a truly libertarian society doesn't actually function significantly different than how it already does
in practice. In fact, the Internet at large is about as close to a functioning anarchy as this world has yet seen; but is limited by agreed upon rules and physical limitations on distance. One could call those limitations the 'natural laws' of the venue, for if we could never have such heated conversations as we have all seen in person; for it we did, they would inevitablely led to violence. "Fighting words" are an established defense against the charge of assault, as long established by the SCOTUS; for the uttering of "fighting words" is considered the first strike. At least as long as a jury would agree that the words used are actually offensive enough in context to have reasonablely enraged the average person.
And it's not like I didn't repeatedly warn him about his use of language. I didn't lobby for his banishment because of his opinions, for there would be many others on this forum who would have to go with him. I, as a lib, am accustomed to holding a minority opinion; even on a forum that is established by and policed by libertarian leaning administrators. My ideology prohibits me from discriminating against those who disagree with me, civilly. I, in fact, have been lobbying for some form of administrative action against AyeYo for weeks; for mods don't have the power to act alone in the censorship or banishment of forum members on this forum. I have been doing so because of his aggressive and offensive language, not because of his ideologies. If I held the opinions of those who disagree with me against them, I would be a sad, bitter and lonely old man. My wife has
never agreed with me, and in fact views my opinions in a similar light as yourself or AyeYo. However, my wife might view my opinions with contempt; but she doesn't view
me with contempt for the crime of holding them.
Furthermore, if you could see some of the mod section forums concerning banning of errant members; you would see that I had to lobby for quite some time about AyeYo, for the very reason that the administration is very libertarian at core and did not wish to take action against AyeYo because his outbursts were viewed as borderline and/or occasional; thus not systemic, and some didn't want to be too aggressive in enforcement of civil discourse. A few openly expressed the desire to err on the side of under-enforcement, rather than censor a contributing member even if he has a history of outbursts. All of this is very consistent with a libertarian sense of order and enforcement of same; but in the end, eventually a line is crossed that justifies enforcement even within a libertarian society.