The question libertarians just can’t answer

[dblack]

I believe what libertarians lack is an education in basic civics. What kind of society would this be if anyone could hang a shingle on their door saying 'doctor'?

How about a community with no building codes? You could build a fire trap. WHO shows up to risk his life to save your ass?

Whoever wants to. But I'd appreciate an answer to the specific question I'm asking. I can understand concern over someone's decisions about personal risk spilling over on to others (building a firetrap in the midst of row-homes, for example). But I think I that's a bit of a red-herring. The core of the regulation approach isn't about protecting other people from someone's bad decisions. It's about protecting a person from their own bad decisions. That doesn't seem right to me. As long as I'm not asking anyone else to suffer the consequences, why should the state override my decisions about personal risk and safety?

Totally false assumption. Are drunk driving laws to protect the drunk or the innocent victim?

The victim. What assumption is false? And what about my question? As long as I'm not asking anyone else to suffer the consequences, why should the state override my decisions about personal risk and safety?

 

[LoneLaugher]

Whoever wants to. But I'd appreciate an answer to the specific question I'm asking. I can understand concern over someone's decisions about personal risk spilling over on to others (building a firetrap in the midst of row-homes, for example). But I think I that's a bit of a red-herring. The core of the regulation approach isn't about protecting other people from someone's bad decisions. It's about protecting a person from their own bad decisions. That doesn't seem right to me. As long as I'm not asking anyone else to suffer the consequences, why should the state override my decisions about personal risk and safety?

Totally false assumption. Are drunk driving laws to protect the drunk or the innocent victim?

The victim. What assumption is false? And what about my question? As long as I'm not asking anyone else to suffer the consequences, why should the state override my decisions about personal risk and safety?

It shouldn't. What are you being overridden on?

 

[dblack]

Totally false assumption. Are drunk driving laws to protect the drunk or the innocent victim?

The victim. What assumption is false? And what about my question? As long as I'm not asking anyone else to suffer the consequences, why should the state override my decisions about personal risk and safety?

It shouldn't. What are you being overridden on?

It's a rhetorical question currently. I'm trying to better understand Bf's support for the regulatory state. If we can't agree on the basic premise I'm offering (that as long as an action isn't harming others the state has no business proscribing it), it indicates a much deeper disagreement. If we do agree on that - as you seem to - then the debate is different, and concerns the particulars of if and how a given action harms others.

 

[rightwinger]

Whoever wants to. But I'd appreciate an answer to the specific question I'm asking. I can understand concern over someone's decisions about personal risk spilling over on to others (building a firetrap in the midst of row-homes, for example). But I think I that's a bit of a red-herring. The core of the regulation approach isn't about protecting other people from someone's bad decisions. It's about protecting a person from their own bad decisions. That doesn't seem right to me. As long as I'm not asking anyone else to suffer the consequences, why should the state override my decisions about personal risk and safety?

Totally false assumption. Are drunk driving laws to protect the drunk or the innocent victim?

The victim. What assumption is false? And what about my question? As long as I'm not asking anyone else to suffer the consequences, why should the state override my decisions about personal risk and safety?

Seat belts anyone?

Another libertarian failure

 

[editec]

Then I'm certain you'll have no trouble digging up the debate and enacting vote which repealed them.

I'll wait.

I think this might answer that question

The Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union was the first constitution of the United States of America.[4] It was drafted by the Continental Congress in mid-1776 to late 1777, and formal ratification by all 13 states was completed in early 1781.

The Continental Congress – which still functioned at irregular intervals – passed a resolution on September 13, 1788, to put the new Constitution into operation.

 

[LoneLaugher]

The victim. What assumption is false? And what about my question? As long as I'm not asking anyone else to suffer the consequences, why should the state override my decisions about personal risk and safety?

It shouldn't. What are you being overridden on?

It's a rhetorical question currently. I'm trying to better understand Bf's support for the regulatory state. If we can't agree on the basic premise I'm offering (that as long as an action isn't harming others the state has no business proscribing it), it indicates a much deeper disagreement. If we do agree on that - as you seem to - then the debate is different, and concerns the particulars of if and how a given action harms others.

I think you'd find very few liberals who disagree with that premise.

 

[dblack]

It shouldn't. What are you being overridden on?

It's a rhetorical question currently. I'm trying to better understand Bf's support for the regulatory state. If we can't agree on the basic premise I'm offering (that as long as an action isn't harming others the state has no business proscribing it), it indicates a much deeper disagreement. If we do agree on that - as you seem to - then the debate is different, and concerns the particulars of if and how a given action harms others.

I think you'd find very few liberals who disagree with that premise.

I'd like to think that's true. Maybe there's a skewed sampling online, but I've run into more than a few liberals (and conservatives) who believe that the state has an interest in correcting people when the make the 'wrong' decision (in the eyes of the state), irrespective of whether it actually harms anyone else or not.

Bf, what's your take on this?

 

[Bfgrn]

Whoever wants to. But I'd appreciate an answer to the specific question I'm asking. I can understand concern over someone's decisions about personal risk spilling over on to others (building a firetrap in the midst of row-homes, for example). But I think I that's a bit of a red-herring. The core of the regulation approach isn't about protecting other people from someone's bad decisions. It's about protecting a person from their own bad decisions. That doesn't seem right to me. As long as I'm not asking anyone else to suffer the consequences, why should the state override my decisions about personal risk and safety?

Totally false assumption. Are drunk driving laws to protect the drunk or the innocent victim?

The victim. What assumption is false? And what about my question? As long as I'm not asking anyone else to suffer the consequences, why should the state override my decisions about personal risk and safety?

It really depends on what the 'consequences' you claim only you suffer. If you break the law, say drink and drive, and are caught, do you expect to be let go without arrest?

 

[dblack]

Totally false assumption. Are drunk driving laws to protect the drunk or the innocent victim?

The victim. What assumption is false? And what about my question? As long as I'm not asking anyone else to suffer the consequences, why should the state override my decisions about personal risk and safety?

It really depends on what the 'consequences' you claim only you suffer. If you break the law, say drink and drive, and are caught, do you expect to be let go without arrest?

No. I'm just trying to get at the heart of our disagreement. Do you agree that if an action doesn't harm (or threaten to harm) others, the state should stay out of it?

 

[Oddball]

I believe what libertarians lack is an education in basic civics. What kind of society would this be if anyone could hang a shingle on their door saying 'doctor'?

How about a community with no building codes? You could build a fire trap. WHO shows up to risk his life to save your ass?

What about complete ignoramus moonbats who construct straw man argument after straw man argument?

Yea Jethro, all this adult shit is beyond your age group.

Have the butler read up on actuarial risk. And then have him draw pictures.

When you start having an adult conversation you'll get treated like one, junior.

 

[Oddball]

Then I'm certain you'll have no trouble digging up the debate and enacting vote which repealed them.

I'll wait.

I think this might answer that question

The Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union was the first constitution of the United States of America.[4] It was drafted by the Continental Congress in mid-1776 to late 1777, and formal ratification by all 13 states was completed in early 1781.

The Continental Congress – which still functioned at irregular intervals – passed a resolution on September 13, 1788, to put the new Constitution into operation.

I see nothing in there which says the Articles of Confederation were repealed, just that the new Constitution was put into place.

 

[Pop23]

Totally false assumption. Are drunk driving laws to protect the drunk or the innocent victim?

The victim. What assumption is false? And what about my question? As long as I'm not asking anyone else to suffer the consequences, why should the state override my decisions about personal risk and safety?

Seat belts anyone?

Another libertarian failure

Please show how seat belt laws are applied on private property?

Before you strain your brain, I'll answer the question.

They are not.

Seat belt laws are only applied on roads that are build in common with others.

Ask Jeff Gordon or any Farmer you know if they were ever ticketed for not wearing a seat belt on PRIVATE PROPERTY.

You are welcome to try again

 

[Bfgrn]

The victim. What assumption is false? And what about my question? As long as I'm not asking anyone else to suffer the consequences, why should the state override my decisions about personal risk and safety?

It really depends on what the 'consequences' you claim only you suffer. If you break the law, say drink and drive, and are caught, do you expect to be let go without arrest?

No. I'm just trying to get at the heart of our disagreement. Do you agree that if an action doesn't harm (or threaten to harm) others, the state should stay out of it?

I don't know if there is a disagreement. I also believe if an action doesn't harm (or threaten to harm) others, the state should stay out of it. Give me some examples and maybe I can add comments.

Where I think we may have a difference is the 'consequences' part.

 

[Pogo]

It WAS tried, and it worked. The country it was tried in was the United States.

That isn't "libertarianism". It's liberalism.

You don't spel to gud.

 

[kaz]

I strongly believe in private property and privacy. And I am willing to bet I am more libertarian than any of you right wing turds who say you are 'libertarian', then you turn around and support the NRA, who doesn't believe in private property at all. They believe I can park my car on YOUR property with a loaded gun in the glove box, and YOU, the property owner has NO RIGHT to know a deadly weapon is a few feet away from you, your family or your employees.

You right wing turds who say you are 'libertarian', then you turn around and support a woman's uterus deemed property of the STATE, the death penalty where the GOVERNMENT exterminates you, the egregious war on drugs, making people piss in a cup and have GOVERNMENT determine your fate.

I never see any of you 'libertarians' posting any of writings of the late great Harry Browne, Barry Goldwater or ANY civil libertarians.

Well, we support your right to do drugs. Most of us just think you're a moron for doing them. But you go girl, you're tripping.

Do you even know who Harry Browne is? BTW, the only drug I do is caffeine in the morning.

I was referring to your complete inability to post a coherent thought or respond in any logical way to the discussion. That wasn't written being high on life.

You may have heard of Harry Browne, but to say that you think anything significant with what he does is as delusional as everything else you write.

 

[dblack]

It really depends on what the 'consequences' you claim only you suffer. If you break the law, say drink and drive, and are caught, do you expect to be let go without arrest?

No. I'm just trying to get at the heart of our disagreement. Do you agree that if an action doesn't harm (or threaten to harm) others, the state should stay out of it?

I don't know if there is a disagreement. I also believe if an action doesn't harm (or threaten to harm) others, the state should stay out of it.

Ok, good. I'm certainly not trying to 'trick' you into conceding anything. But the proposition that the state knows better what's good for us, and should supersede our personal decisions when we 'err', indicates an entirely different argument.

Where I think we may have a difference is the 'consequences' part.

Exactly. Once we agree that actions that don't harm others aren't any of the government's business - the debate centers around what constitutes harm. And that can run the gamut from the position that nothing outside of serious physical injury should be considered harm, all the way to vague notions like the idea that actions harm the 'moral fabric' of society.

And, yeah, to proceed with that debate it's probably best to look at specific examples. I'll start with the health care regulation debate. How would you say it harms others if I contract the services of a quack? As long as I'm not asking anyone else to pick up the pieces when things go awry, why should the government tell me which doctors I can see? Besides me, who would be harmed in such a case?

 

[kaz]

Do you even know who Harry Browne is? BTW, the only drug I do is caffeine in the morning.

Yeah, well you should see a professional (no, seriously) and get on some kind of psychotropic regimen.

And, yes, it's safe to say that just about every libertarian here knows who Harry Browne is.

I don't believe it 'safe' to say any of you far right wing 'bitches for plutocrats' who call yourselves libertarians have a clue who Harry Browne was.

I believe what I believe, not what Harry Browne does. So I talk about what I believe, not what Harry Browne does. Now those things overlap to a great extent so I voted for him multiple times and read his book "How I Found Freedom in an Unfree World." However, your assigned standard that to be a libertarian I have to talk about Harry Browne or I'm not a libertarian is why I brought up the theory of your recreational drug use.

 

[percysunshine]

... I'll start with the health care regulation debate. How would you say it harms others if I contract the services of a quack? As long as I'm not asking anyone else to pick up the pieces when things go awry, why should the government tell me which doctors I can see? Besides me, who would be harmed in such a case?

That would make you a 'Quack Enabler'. Aiding and abetting 'Quackery'. An acolyte and adherent of 'Quackism'.

Off to Guantanamo for you.

 

[Bfgrn]

Well, we support your right to do drugs. Most of us just think you're a moron for doing them. But you go girl, you're tripping.

Do you even know who Harry Browne is? BTW, the only drug I do is caffeine in the morning.

I was referring to your complete inability to post a coherent thought or respond in any logical way to the discussion. That wasn't written being high on life.

You may have heard of Harry Browne, but to say that you think anything significant with what he does is as delusional as everything else you write.

Thanks for answering my question. It is no longer what Harry Browne 'does', it is now what he 'did'. Harry died on March 1, 2006.

 

[Bfgrn]

Yeah, well you should see a professional (no, seriously) and get on some kind of psychotropic regimen.

And, yes, it's safe to say that just about every libertarian here knows who Harry Browne is.

I don't believe it 'safe' to say any of you far right wing 'bitches for plutocrats' who call yourselves libertarians have a clue who Harry Browne was.

I believe what I believe, not what Harry Browne does. So I talk about what I believe, not what Harry Browne does. Now those things overlap to a great extent so I voted for him multiple times and read his book "How I Found Freedom in an Unfree World." However, your assigned standard that to be a libertarian I have to talk about Harry Browne or I'm not a libertarian is why I brought up the theory of your recreational drug use.

What I constantly hear from you folks who claim to be 'libertarians', is identical to the same ignorant faux news talk radio propaganda right wing conservatives parrot. I never hear anything that could be mistaken as coming from the sphere of thinking Harry had.