Why I Ain’t a Libertarian

[Supposn]

Why I Ain’t a Libertarian

A traveler ran out of a hotel, threw is bags into a cab. He then jumped into the cab and shouted “take me to the airport as fast as you can”!!

The driver pulled out from the curb and quickly accelerated. The cab reached 90+ and the driver made no effort to slow it down for intersections.

When the cab began running through red lights, the traveler cried out in terror,
“I’m in a hurry but don’t get us killed”!!!

The drive casually answered “relax; I’m an expert driver. I learned from my brother”.
This continued one red light after another.
To all of the terrorized traveler’s cries, the driver’s answer was always the same; “I’m an expert driver. I learned from my brother”.

That was until they reached a green light intersection where the driver executed a severe emergency stop.
The passenger lifted his bloody head off the cab’s floor and screamed, “You go through one red light after another at over 90MPH and when you’re doing more or less than 100MPH you then come to an immediate halt for a green light! WHY!!

The driver answered “We must stop here at this intersection. My brother drives on that other road”.

That’s the fault I find with your Libertarian contention that you and all others be permitted to exercise their own unrestricted individual good judgment. That strategy leaves all of us others dependent upon not encountering you or one of your brothers on some dark night.

That’s among the reasons most of us are not Libertarians or anarchists.

Respectfully, Supposn

 

[Daktoria]

Eh...

...that's a bit backwards.

A lot of libertarians actually have responsible judgment. What they don't care about is how others can exercise irresponsible judgment.

It's a similar problem, but we shouldn't necessarily blame libertarians for being irresponsible themselves. What we should blame them for is not acknowledging how people, even if they're irresponsible with their own lives, can also be irresponsible with others.

That said, libertarians don't necessarily care. They often just say, "That's life. Why should someone else have to pay to care for others?"

You can't always snub them off either. A lot of libertarians are elitists who just come from protected circumstances and haven't had to endure irresponsible damages.

 

[Jarlaxle]

Wow...this might be the STUPIDEST post ever made here.

 

[Agit8r]

"where there is no law, there is no freedom: for liberty is, to be free from restraint and violence from others; which cannot be, where there is no law: but freedom is not, as we are told, a liberty for every man to do what he lists... for who could be free, when every other man's humour might domineer over him?"

-- John Locke; from Second Treatise of Civil Government, CHAP. VI.

 

[PaulS1950]

So you are not a Libertarian because you know nothing about the party or its platform...
OK, I get it.

 

[Avorysuds]

That’s among the reasons most of us are not Libertarians or anarchists.

That’s the fault I find with your Libertarian contention that you and all others be permitted to exercise their own unrestricted individual good judgment.

You owned yourself with these quotes. You're not Libertarian because you have no fucking clue what a libertarian is.

I don't know what party you scribe too, or if you even are in one, but if you are you just made it a stupider party for being apart of it.

 

[Daktoria]

That’s among the reasons most of us are not Libertarians or anarchists.

That’s the fault I find with your Libertarian contention that you and all others be permitted to exercise their own unrestricted individual good judgment.

You owned yourself with these quotes. You're not Libertarian because you have no fucking clue what a libertarian is.

I don't know what party you scribe too, or if you even are in one, but if you are you just made it a stupider party for being apart of it.

Please... don't be sarcastic. If you know something he doesn't know, we'd all like to hear.

 

[Avorysuds]

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.


We believe that respect for individual rights is the essential precondition for a free and prosperous world, that force and fraud must be banished from human relationships, and that only through freedom can peace and prosperity be realized.


Consequently, we defend each person's right to engage in any activity that is peaceful and honest, and welcome the diversity that freedom brings. The world we seek to build is one where individuals are free to follow their own dreams in their own ways, without interference from government or any authoritarian power."

Right there in the preamble, you were wrong from the very fucking start. Did you even look as to what a Libertarian is?

 

[Daktoria]

How does libertarianism ensure that people won't exercise freedom in conflict?

 

[Avorysuds]

How does libertarianism ensure that people won't exercise freedom in conflict?

What does that even mean?

 

[Daktoria]

How does libertarianism ensure that people won't exercise freedom in conflict?

What does that even mean?

It means if you get victimized by a criminal, the non-aggression principle forbids you from coercing another citizen to come to your rescue.

Now, you're screwed.

 

[Avorysuds]

How does libertarianism ensure that people won't exercise freedom in conflict?

What does that even mean?

It means if you get victimized by a criminal, the non-aggression principle forbids you from coercing another citizen to come to your rescue.

Now, you're screwed.

Before you crap more chit out your mouth you should actually read what Libertarians are rather than base your ignorant opinion on pieces of broken inferior fear mongering information you found here and there.

Sorry, I can't be nice to people who pick to remain stupid about a subject yet they so very much believe they are informed.

Try and read the link I gave you. That is about as nice as I can be about it.

Yeah, Libertarians believe you should watch a chick get raped... fucking r e t a r d e d.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Why I Ain’t a Libertarian

A traveler ran out of a hotel, threw is bags into a cab. He then jumped into the cab and shouted “take me to the airport as fast as you can”!!

The driver pulled out from the curb and quickly accelerated. The cab reached 90+ and the driver made no effort to slow it down for intersections.

When the cab began running through red lights, the traveler cried out in terror,
“I’m in a hurry but don’t get us killed”!!!

The drive casually answered “relax; I’m an expert driver. I learned from my brother”.
This continued one red light after another.
To all of the terrorized traveler’s cries, the driver’s answer was always the same; “I’m an expert driver. I learned from my brother”.

That was until they reached a green light intersection where the driver executed a severe emergency stop.
The passenger lifted his bloody head off the cab’s floor and screamed, “You go through one red light after another at over 90MPH and when you’re doing more or less than 100MPH you then come to an immediate halt for a green light! WHY!!

The driver answered “We must stop here at this intersection. My brother drives on that other road”.

That’s the fault I find with your Libertarian contention that you and all others be permitted to exercise their own unrestricted individual good judgment. That strategy leaves all of us others dependent upon not encountering you or one of your brothers on some dark night.

That’s among the reasons most of us are not Libertarians or anarchists.

Respectfully, Supposn

What in the world are you talking about?

 

[Avorysuds]

Why I Ain’t a Libertarian

A traveler ran out of a hotel, threw is bags into a cab. He then jumped into the cab and shouted “take me to the airport as fast as you can”!!

The driver pulled out from the curb and quickly accelerated. The cab reached 90+ and the driver made no effort to slow it down for intersections.

When the cab began running through red lights, the traveler cried out in terror,
“I’m in a hurry but don’t get us killed”!!!

The drive casually answered “relax; I’m an expert driver. I learned from my brother”.
This continued one red light after another.
To all of the terrorized traveler’s cries, the driver’s answer was always the same; “I’m an expert driver. I learned from my brother”.

That was until they reached a green light intersection where the driver executed a severe emergency stop.
The passenger lifted his bloody head off the cab’s floor and screamed, “You go through one red light after another at over 90MPH and when you’re doing more or less than 100MPH you then come to an immediate halt for a green light! WHY!!

The driver answered “We must stop here at this intersection. My brother drives on that other road”.

That’s the fault I find with your Libertarian contention that you and all others be permitted to exercise their own unrestricted individual good judgment. That strategy leaves all of us others dependent upon not encountering you or one of your brothers on some dark night.

That’s among the reasons most of us are not Libertarians or anarchists.

Respectfully, Supposn

What in the world are you talking about?

He is talking about how liberals believe no one should work, everyone should have at least 1 abortion and Government should run everything. Also that Conservatives want no regulations on markets, everyone should be required to buy a gun and everyone who does not accept God should be stoned to death.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

How does libertarianism ensure that people won't exercise freedom in conflict?

What does that even mean?

It means if you get victimized by a criminal, the non-aggression principle forbids you from coercing another citizen to come to your rescue.

Now, you're screwed.

That implies that my only recourse is to coerce somebody else, which makes no sense.

 

[tooAlive]

How does libertarianism ensure that people won't exercise freedom in conflict?

I think this post raises a valid concern.

What is to say that one libertarian exercising his/her complete freedom won't violate someone else's freedom?

For example, I saw a video on Adam Kokesh's channel (he's a Libertarian) and he was demonstrating how police brutally arrested him and his friends for just dancing in front of a monument (don't remember which one).

He claimed there was nothing wrong with dancing publicly, and he was free to do so. But what he failed to understand was that although he was certainly free to do so, others may not have wanted to see him dancing there. It may have made them feel uncomfortable.

So by Adam exercising his complete freedom, he was also violating the freedom of others.

I believe something similar to that is what Daktoria is referring to.

 

[Avorysuds]

How does libertarianism ensure that people won't exercise freedom in conflict?

I think this post raises a valid concern.

What is to say that one libertarian exercising his/her complete freedom won't violate someone else's freedom?

For example, I saw a video on Adam Kokesh's channel (he's a Libertarian) and he was demonstrating how police brutally arrested him and his friends for just dancing in front of a monument (don't remember which one).

He claimed there was nothing wrong with dancing publicly, and he was free to do so. But what he failed to understand was that although we was certainly free to do so, others may not have wanted to see him dancing there. It may have made them feel uncomfortable.

So by Adam exercising his complete freedom, he was also violating the freedom of others.

I believe something similar to that is what Daktoria is referring to.

I don't know the situation, but if people can get other people arrested for dancing while they have done nothing illegal then this country has fallen further than what I believe might be salvageable. Further more, just because someone says they are libertarian does not mean all libertarians share their position on a subject matter.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

How does libertarianism ensure that people won't exercise freedom in conflict?

I think this post raises a valid concern.

What is to say that one libertarian exercising his/her complete freedom won't violate someone else's freedom?

For example, I saw a video on Adam Kokesh's channel (he's a Libertarian) and he was demonstrating how police brutally arrested him and his friends for just dancing in front of a monument (don't remember which one).

He claimed there was nothing wrong with dancing publicly, and he was free to do so. But what he failed to understand was that although we was certainly free to do so, others may not have wanted to see him dancing there. It may have made them feel uncomfortable.

So by Adam exercising his complete freedom, he was also violating the freedom of others.

I believe something similar to that is what Daktoria is referring to.

Well that situation is a bit more nuanced, in that Kokesh was also demonstrating the ridiculousness of "public property." On private property Adam would have had no right to dance, unless it were permitted by the property owner. Being on public property, Adam had as much right to dance as anybody had to do anything. In other words, nobody had the right not to see Adam dance. Just as I couldn't hypothetically demand that you remove your crying child, no one there had any right to demand that Adam stop dancing. That's a problem of poorly defined property rights, not of libertarianism.

And it was the Jefferson Memorial, for the record.

 

[Avatar4321]

Why I Ain’t a Libertarian

A traveler ran out of a hotel, threw is bags into a cab. He then jumped into the cab and shouted “take me to the airport as fast as you can”!!

The driver pulled out from the curb and quickly accelerated. The cab reached 90+ and the driver made no effort to slow it down for intersections.

When the cab began running through red lights, the traveler cried out in terror,
“I’m in a hurry but don’t get us killed”!!!

The drive casually answered “relax; I’m an expert driver. I learned from my brother”.
This continued one red light after another.
To all of the terrorized traveler’s cries, the driver’s answer was always the same; “I’m an expert driver. I learned from my brother”.

That was until they reached a green light intersection where the driver executed a severe emergency stop.
The passenger lifted his bloody head off the cab’s floor and screamed, “You go through one red light after another at over 90MPH and when you’re doing more or less than 100MPH you then come to an immediate halt for a green light! WHY!!

The driver answered “We must stop here at this intersection. My brother drives on that other road”.

That’s the fault I find with your Libertarian contention that you and all others be permitted to exercise their own unrestricted individual good judgment. That strategy leaves all of us others dependent upon not encountering you or one of your brothers on some dark night.

That’s among the reasons most of us are not Libertarians or anarchists.

Respectfully, Supposn

You dont want to be a libertarian because you dont want to think for yourself? Well, no one will force you to. That's the beauty of libertarianism.

 

[tooAlive]

How does libertarianism ensure that people won't exercise freedom in conflict?

I think this post raises a valid concern.

What is to say that one libertarian exercising his/her complete freedom won't violate someone else's freedom?

For example, I saw a video on Adam Kokesh's channel (he's a Libertarian) and he was demonstrating how police brutally arrested him and his friends for just dancing in front of a monument (don't remember which one).

He claimed there was nothing wrong with dancing publicly, and he was free to do so. But what he failed to understand was that although we was certainly free to do so, others may not have wanted to see him dancing there. It may have made them feel uncomfortable.

So by Adam exercising his complete freedom, he was also violating the freedom of others.

I believe something similar to that is what Daktoria is referring to.

Well that situation is a bit more nuanced, in that Kokesh was also demonstrating the ridiculousness of "public property." On private property Adam would have had no right to dance, unless it were permitted by the property owner. Being on public property, Adam had as much right to dance as anybody had to do anything. In other words, nobody had the right not to see Adam dance. Just as I couldn't hypothetically demand that you remove your crying child, no one there had any right to demand that Adam stop dancing. That's a problem of poorly defined property rights, not of libertarianism.

And it was the Jefferson Memorial, for the record.

I wasn't trying to poke a hole at libertarianism, as I identify with many libertarian values myself.

Just addressing a point I've wondered about and imagine others have as well. In my opinion, I'd say we're free do with our lives what we wish as long as we don't harm, affect or disturb anyone else in the process.

If my freedom of playing loud music infringes upon your freedom of tranquility, I should refrain from it. I think that's along the lines of what Daktoria was referring to.

If we're all free of doing whatever we want, what's to stop someone's freedom from infringing the freedoms of others?