B0ycey wrote:As Liberal Party can exist with its values, it cannot be a contradiction and as such never an oxymoron.
This is simply untrue, if your core value is that its immoral to violate the NAP, and if being a part of the state REQUIRES you to implicitly support such, then that means that the idea of the party is oxymoronic, as its predicated on an inherent contradiction.
Let me sum this up for you; barring 100% voluntary consent to do so; all taxation as it currently stands is a violation of libertarian values; thus, a libertarian party running on anything other than requiring 100% voluntary assent for every single tax, or banning such altogether, is violating its own principle of the NAP. PERIOD.
You couldn't get a better example of an oxymoron, even from a textbook.
B0ycey wrote:I didn't critique your post VS because most of your points are accurate. In fact, I would love to copy and paste them to make an entirely new thread on why a political party essentially operates the same way as their opposition when elected into office because they need to win votes to keep power.
I appreciate the compliment, and I do think that is an interesting topic as well, I am just defending what I wrote that's all.