Why aren't more people Libertarian?

[Oddball]

And speaking of compulsive, congenital, inveterate liars....

 

[JakeStarkey]

Oh, joy, Oddball has described himself yet once again two of three: bigot and ignorant.

Edit: let's add liar (just above).

Or maybe we're just sick of ignorant and bigoted little freebooter creeps like you, who claim their ignorance as wisdom, and don't wish to bother mollifying your bigotry any further.

But I guess you never heard that you get what you give, huh?

You've already amply demonstrated the default tone of argument for the board's libertarian contingent, no need to keep on proving me right.

No, what I've demonstrated is the board's general contempt for bigots, ignoramuses and liars of all political stripes.

But please carry on with your victimhood act...It's really the only card in your hand.

 

[bripat9643]

Social Contract? I never signed no steenking social contract.

That argument and some of the following libertarian arguments are commonly quoted from Lysander Spooner.

The constitution and the laws are our written contracts with the government.

There are several explicit means by which people make the social contract with government. The commonest is when your parents choose your residency and/or citizenship after your birth. In that case, your parents or guardians are contracting for you, exercising their power of custody. No further explicit action is required on your part to continue the agreement, and you may end it at any time by departing and renouncing your citizenship.

The idea that your birth imposes any obligations on you is utterly fascist and it also violates a basic legal principle. Being born isn't an "explicit" agreement to anything. Your parents cannot sign any legal contracts that are binding on you, so how can they impose this so-called "social contract" on you? Nothing in logic or the law supports such an idiocy.

Immigrants, residents, and visitors contract through the oath of citizenship (swearing to uphold the laws and constitution), residency permits, and visas. Citizens reaffirm it in whole or part when they take political office, join the armed forces, etc. This contract has a fairly common form: once entered into, it is implicitly continued until explicitly revoked. Many other contracts have this form: some leases, most utility services (such as phone and electricity), etc.

Immigrants aren't under discussion here, so this section is irrelevant. Furthermore, I might even agree with it. An immigrant explicit agrees to a certain set of obligations. I never did.

Some libertarians make a big deal about needing to actually sign a contract. Take them to a restaurant and see if they think it ethical to walk out without paying because they didn't sign anything. Even if it is a restaurant with a minimum charge and they haven't ordered anything. The restaurant gets to set the price and the method of contract so that even your presence creates a debt. What is a libertarian going to do about that? Create a regulation?

Your ignorance of the law is on full display here. Yes, it's not ethical to walk out of a restaurant without paying. In fact, it's illegal. When you order food at a restaurant, you have agreed to an implied contract. You have preformed explicit actions that in this society every competent adult understands to mean that you have agreed to pay. Furthermore, if you haven't ordered anything, you aren't on the hook for anything, minimum charge or not. The restaurant also does not set the "method of contract." Your mere presence doesn't obligate you to anything. Only ordering food and inducing the establishment to incur an expense obligates you to pay anything.

You obviously don't know the first thing about the law regarding contracts. Try not to embarrass yourself further.

 

[bripat9643]

I've seen that progressive/socialist swill...The authors of that socialist tripe have zero idea of what a legally binding contract is.

Fact remains the the mythoical "social contract" is what is known in legal circles as a contract of adhesion....Adhesion contracts are deemed null and void, ab initio, by every court in the land.

adhesion contract (contract of adhesion) n. a contract (often a signed form) so imbalanced in favor of one party over the other that there is a strong implication it was not freely bargained. Example: a rich landlord dealing with a poor tenant who has no choice and must accept all terms of a lease, no matter how restrictive or burdensome, since the tenant cannot afford to move. An adhesion contract can give the little guy the opportunity to claim in court that the contract with the big shot is invalid. This doctrine should be used and applied more often, but the same big guy-little guy inequity may apply in the ability to afford a trial or find and pay a resourceful lawyer.

Adhesion Contract legal definition of Adhesion Contract. Adhesion Contract synonyms by the Free Online Law Dictionary.

it's worse than that because at least in the above example the tenant actually signed something. No one ever signed this so-called "social contract."

 

[bripat9643]

Party Leader Oddball continues to babble.

I don't have to produce that which is common knowledge, and the Social Compact is exactly that.

You don't want to play is tough noogie, bub.

If it's "common knowledge," then why don't a significant number of forum members "know it?"

 

[bripat9643]

Libertarians tend to support policies on a purely theoretical basis, akin to releasing all the animals from the zoo without any regard for the consequences.

What's the "theoretical basis" for releasing all the animals in the zoo? Certainly, there isn't any that I can think of.

On the other hand, Dims and Pubs support stuff without any rational theory about why it should work.

 

[Oddball]

I've seen that progressive/socialist swill...The authors of that socialist tripe have zero idea of what a legally binding contract is.

Fact remains the the mythoical "social contract" is what is known in legal circles as a contract of adhesion....Adhesion contracts are deemed null and void, ab initio, by every court in the land.

adhesion contract (contract of adhesion) n. a contract (often a signed form) so imbalanced in favor of one party over the other that there is a strong implication it was not freely bargained. Example: a rich landlord dealing with a poor tenant who has no choice and must accept all terms of a lease, no matter how restrictive or burdensome, since the tenant cannot afford to move. An adhesion contract can give the little guy the opportunity to claim in court that the contract with the big shot is invalid. This doctrine should be used and applied more often, but the same big guy-little guy inequity may apply in the ability to afford a trial or find and pay a resourceful lawyer.

Adhesion Contract legal definition of Adhesion Contract. Adhesion Contract synonyms by the Free Online Law Dictionary.

it's worse than that because at least in the above example the tenant actually signed something. No one ever signed this so-called "social contract."

True....But the point remains that the mythical "social compact" -a document to which Fake Malarkey has never ever linked- would fall under the law as a contract of adhesion....Therefore, as such, is completely null and void.

But I don't expect common racketeers to admit that they're...well....common racketeers.

 

[bripat9643]

Contumacious cares nothing about "civil liberties". He cares about only one thing, really. That is the government not forbidding him to do whatever he wishes to do, which was the major failure of the Roman Republic.

Your ignorance of history is astounding. Do you actually believe that the Roman government had no laws?

 

[bripat9643]

You are correct, there is not a hardcore libertarian here that does not secretly wish to be an absolute emperor.

Liberals should project their own depraved fantasies onto others.

 

[bripat9643]

Yeah, I am sure you started out as such a nice guy but the rest of the world just would not cooperate. Once a jerk, always a jerk.

So you think you're a nice guy? Is that what you're trying to tell us, that we should all strive to emulate your behavior?

 

[occupied]

You are correct, there is not a hardcore libertarian here that does not secretly wish to be an absolute emperor.

Liberals should project their own depraved fantasies onto others.

I am perfectly happy in spite of being a part of a society that sometimes goes against what I would wish while you take broad social trends as a personal insult and seem to have a limitless reservoir of impotent rage.

 

[konradv]

Contumacious cares nothing about "civil liberties". He cares about only one thing, really. That is the government not forbidding him to do whatever he wishes to do, which was the major failure of the Roman Republic.

Your ignorance of history is astounding. Do you actually believe that the Roman government had no laws?

Who are you to talk about ignorance of history? Guess you get over shame really quick. I guess that happens when you have no morals when it comes to lying. Are you a sociopath or what?

 

[whitehall]

Seriously, why aren't there more Libertarians out there?

Is it because people don't know what Libertarians stand for?

My guess is that the strict Constitutional true Libertarian party has been hijacked by the liberturds who's main focus is "legalizing" drugs and making a buck by selling them to our kids. The freaking cowards hide behind legitimate politicians and pretend that they have the same values as the Tea Party.

And your guess would be wrong...Just like you are bout anything and everything else concerning libertarians.

Nothing new under the sun there.

Legalizing drugs. Isn't that the numero uno item on the Libertard agenda or are libertards going to be coy about it?

 

[JakeStarkey]

You are babbling, little libertarian loser.

But interesting that you are willing to be governed by laws.

Whose, bripat?

Contumacious cares nothing about "civil liberties". He cares about only one thing, really. That is the government not forbidding him to do whatever he wishes to do, which was the major failure of the Roman Republic.

Your ignorance of history is astounding. Do you actually believe that the Roman government had no laws?

 

[bripat9643]

My guess is that the strict Constitutional true Libertarian party has been hijacked by the liberturds who's main focus is "legalizing" drugs and making a buck by selling them to our kids. The freaking cowards hide behind legitimate politicians and pretend that they have the same values as the Tea Party.

And your guess would be wrong...Just like you are bout anything and everything else concerning libertarians.

Nothing new under the sun there.

Legalizing drugs. Isn't that the numero uno item on the Libertard agenda or are libertards going to be coy about it?

It's not "numero uno" on the agenda. However, it is on the agenda. Pubs and Dims never fail to blow it up into a big issue. That seems to be the only issue they want to discuss when they debate libertarians.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Real conservatives believe that most drugs should be legalized, regulated, and taxed.

 

[occupied]

Yeah, I am sure you started out as such a nice guy but the rest of the world just would not cooperate. Once a jerk, always a jerk.

So you think you're a nice guy? Is that what you're trying to tell us, that we should all strive to emulate your behavior?

I don't expect the impossible, a few less invitations for people to insert their ideas into their rectal cavities would be a good start.

 

[Oddball]

My guess is that the strict Constitutional true Libertarian party has been hijacked by the liberturds who's main focus is "legalizing" drugs and making a buck by selling them to our kids. The freaking cowards hide behind legitimate politicians and pretend that they have the same values as the Tea Party.

And your guess would be wrong...Just like you are bout anything and everything else concerning libertarians.

Nothing new under the sun there.

Legalizing drugs. Isn't that the numero uno item on the Libertard agenda or are libertards going to be coy about it?

You lie on this topic with almost as much ease as does Fake Malarkey....Prolly have little more than his naked bigotry and ignorance about libertarians to go on, huh?

 

[Samson]

And your guess would be wrong...Just like you are bout anything and everything else concerning libertarians.

Nothing new under the sun there.

Legalizing drugs. Isn't that the numero uno item on the Libertard agenda or are libertards going to be coy about it?

You lie on this topic with almost as much ease as does Fake Malarkey....Prolly have little more than his naked bigotry and ignorance about libertarians to go on, huh?

The subject of Legalizing Drugs does not even appear on the 2012 Libertarian Platform.

Platform | Libertarian Party

 

[Contumacious]

The subject of Legalizing Drugs does not even appear on the 2012 Libertarian Platform.

Platform | Libertarian Party

As Libertarians, we seek a world of liberty; a world in which all individuals are sovereign over their own lives and no one is forced to sacrifice his or her values for the benefit of others.

1.2 Personal Privacy

Libertarians support the rights recognized by the Fourth Amendment to be secure in our persons, homes, and property. Protection from unreasonable search and seizure should include records held by third parties, such as email, medical, and library records. Only actions that infringe on the rights of others can properly be termed crimes. We favor the repeal of all laws creating “crimes” without victims, such as the use of drugs for medicinal or recreational purposes.