Why I Ain’t a Libertarian

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

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

Who let you out?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

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?

No, it's fine, I certainly didn't take your post as trying to "poke holes" or anything like that.

A libertarian wouldn't say we're free to do whatever we want, however. That's more along the lines of libertinism, or something else. A libertarian says exactly what you're saying, that you have the right to do whatever you want so long as it does not infringe upon the rights of anybody else. So in your music example, it's not simply that you should refrain from playing that loud music, it's that you have absolutely no right to play that music if it's infringing on the rights of your neighbor. Noise pollution is an infringement of their property rights, and thus you have no right to engage in it.

 

[bucs90]

This is actually a pretty good analogy. Similar to "A murderer is not a murderer until he murders someone". Which is true. Libertarian ideals, sometimes, offer a lot of freedom. But, as we get more and more and more "free", we inch closer to survival of the fittest- or luckiest.

One example: Food regulators. The ones who inspect restaurants. Lets say we did away with that. People would be free to open a restaurant, and never be inspected. They say the "free market" would dictate that they follow good practices, as people getting sick or dying would be bad for business. But...should we HAVE to go through the process of people getting sick or dying to find that out? Or, is it simply more sane and civilized to inspect and PREVENT these things???

The problem with good government is that it prevents a lot of bad things from happening. And thus, some people look at the government- and without those problems- see no use for the government.

 

[Crackerjaxon]

LIbertarians are much more concerned with defining what a libertarian is than in winning elections. That's why I'm a constitutional conservative.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

LIbertarians are much more concerned with defining what a libertarian is than in winning elections. That's why I'm a constitutional conservative.

Well when you're constantly being demagogued, misrepresented, or otherwise what else are you supposed to do?

 

[Crackerjaxon]

This is actually a pretty good analogy. Similar to "A murderer is not a murderer until he murders someone". Which is true. Libertarian ideals, sometimes, offer a lot of freedom. But, as we get more and more and more "free", we inch closer to survival of the fittest- or luckiest.

One example: Food regulators. The ones who inspect restaurants. Lets say we did away with that. People would be free to open a restaurant, and never be inspected. They say the "free market" would dictate that they follow good practices, as people getting sick or dying would be bad for business. But...should we HAVE to go through the process of people getting sick or dying to find that out? Or, is it simply more sane and civilized to inspect and PREVENT these things???

The problem with good government is that it prevents a lot of bad things from happening. And thus, some people look at the government- and without those problems- see no use for the government.

In a free market system, someone would be smart enough to start a company that inspects restaurants and certifies them as healthy and up to standards. The restaurant owners would pay for the service, not the taxpayers.

Consider UL and Good Housekeeping.

 

[Crackerjaxon]

LIbertarians are much more concerned with defining what a libertarian is than in winning elections. That's why I'm a constitutional conservative.

Well when you're constantly being demagogued, misrepresented, or otherwise what else are you supposed to do?

Become a drawing room libertarian?

 

[S.J.]

Live and let live. Everybody leaves everybody else alone. Peaceful people should be able to do whatever they want.

 

[Votto]

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

Yes, but libertarians will protect your right to smoke that weed your smok'in, so I guess it all evens out in the end.

 

[Votto]

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?

No, it's fine, I certainly didn't take your post as trying to "poke holes" or anything like that.

A libertarian wouldn't say we're free to do whatever we want, however. That's more along the lines of libertinism, or something else. A libertarian says exactly what you're saying, that you have the right to do whatever you want so long as it does not infringe upon the rights of anybody else. So in your music example, it's not simply that you should refrain from playing that loud music, it's that you have absolutely no right to play that music if it's infringing on the rights of your neighbor. Noise pollution is an infringement of their property rights, and thus you have no right to engage in it.

You have to understand, to combat the ideology of libertarianism that promotes freedom the only way it can be done it to take it to the extreme of anarchy. Expect more of the same.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

LIbertarians are much more concerned with defining what a libertarian is than in winning elections. That's why I'm a constitutional conservative.

Well when you're constantly being demagogued, misrepresented, or otherwise what else are you supposed to do?

Become a drawing room libertarian?

That one's over my head.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

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?

No, it's fine, I certainly didn't take your post as trying to "poke holes" or anything like that.

A libertarian wouldn't say we're free to do whatever we want, however. That's more along the lines of libertinism, or something else. A libertarian says exactly what you're saying, that you have the right to do whatever you want so long as it does not infringe upon the rights of anybody else. So in your music example, it's not simply that you should refrain from playing that loud music, it's that you have absolutely no right to play that music if it's infringing on the rights of your neighbor. Noise pollution is an infringement of their property rights, and thus you have no right to engage in it.

You have to understand, to combat the ideology of libertarianism that promotes freedom the only way it can be done it to take it to the extreme of anarchy. Expect more of the same.

Well there are libertarians who are anarchists.

 

[S.J.]

No, it's fine, I certainly didn't take your post as trying to "poke holes" or anything like that.

A libertarian wouldn't say we're free to do whatever we want, however. That's more along the lines of libertinism, or something else. A libertarian says exactly what you're saying, that you have the right to do whatever you want so long as it does not infringe upon the rights of anybody else. So in your music example, it's not simply that you should refrain from playing that loud music, it's that you have absolutely no right to play that music if it's infringing on the rights of your neighbor. Noise pollution is an infringement of their property rights, and thus you have no right to engage in it.

You have to understand, to combat the ideology of libertarianism that promotes freedom the only way it can be done it to take it to the extreme of anarchy. Expect more of the same.

Well there are libertarians who are anarchists.

Then they're not libertarians.

 

[Supposn]

[QUOTE=Crackerjaxon;6925459]

This is actually a pretty good analogy. Similar to "A murderer is not a murderer until he murders someone". Which is true. Libertarian ideals, sometimes, offer a lot of freedom. But, as we get more and more and more "free", we inch closer to survival of the fittest- or luckiest. ...
... The problem with good government is that it prevents a lot of bad things from happening. And thus, some people look at the government- and without those problems- see no use for the government.

In a free market system, someone would be smart enough to start a company that inspects restaurants and certifies them as healthy and up to standards. The restaurant owners would pay for the service, not the taxpayers.
Consider UL and Good Housekeeping.[/QUOTE]

Underwriters' Laboratories.

Cracker Jaxon. Underwriters’ Laboratory seals’ values are based upon UL’s reputation.
UL’s success from the date of its inception is based upon its successful public relations. I do not mention its PR as an accusation of any undesirable practice or implied criticism. Without UL’s reputation, it approval seal would be worth much less and UL would be of much less service to all of us.

There is a price passed down to all of us to retain that seal’s reputation. I suppose it’s a significant price but I have no way of knowing what that price is; but I also suppose UL’s cost to us is a net bargain.

With regard to what a Libertarian believes is the simple libertarian concept of an electric component manufacturer paying UL to test their product and validate their products with the UL seal:
There are complex relationships between many entities and those entities direct which are eventually passed down to all taxpayer, and the eventual purchasers, and/or users of those products that contain the component that UL validated.

UL are one of the comparatively few companies whose test finding are acceptable to federal safety watch dog organizations.
Insurance companies write policies which explicitly require components and products be qualified by UL and/or some government agency and/or be equivalent to such component and products. It’s risky to pay for insurance and then be dependent upon proving equality of quality if a casualty should occur.

For some products many government regulators from federal down to towns or villages require insurance and/or some higher government level’s validation or its equivalent.

UL is one of the major participants of very complex and I suppose expensive web of related of testing labs and/or regulators and/or insurers. Such a complex system of checks and balance , subject to human failures and so very dependent upon reputations is fragile expensive and vulnerable. Thus far it’s the best that we've done and I’m grateful for it.

Wrigley, the guy who dominated the entire chewing gum industry at the time when it was a much bigger industry said, “I know at least half of my advertising budget is wasted; but I don’t know which half”.

Our complex and expensive safety regulations are the antithesis of libertarianism and I regret that we haven’t been able to expand our efforts and resources for these tasks.

Respectfully, Supposn

 

[editec]

I would be a libertarian if we were ALL STARTING OUT with the same access to resources..

Sadly that is not the world we live in.

 

[Daktoria]

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.

That's not respectful either. Now, you're saying people are compelled to come to others' rescue despite not necessarily consenting to associate with one another.

For example, if a chick travels in a shady neighborhood you don't approve of, why should you have to come to one's rescue?

Heck, if a chick dates a jerk you don't approve of, why should you have to come to one's rescue?

It sounds like you support "nice guy syndrome".

Do you support universal health care too?

 

[Contumacious]

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

That is the stupidest analogy ever.

Why is driving prudently against Libertarian tenets?!?!?!?!?!?!?!

.

 

[editec]

Theoretical Libertarianism falls down for exactlty the same reason theoretical Communism does.

Both theories are based on the theory that human nature will change to fit into the needs of that system.

If you think, as one example, that the regulated will hire regulators who will play the game of regulating honestly?

then perhaps you truly do NOT understand what happened when the BANKS hired their own regulators MOODYS and STARDARD AND POOR to evaluate the RISK associated with derivatives.

THAT complete failure to regulate (assess risk) was a perfect example of why libertarianism will FAIL to serve a society well.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

You have to understand, to combat the ideology of libertarianism that promotes freedom the only way it can be done it to take it to the extreme of anarchy. Expect more of the same.

Well there are libertarians who are anarchists.

Then they're not libertarians.

According to who? Anarcho-capitalists believe in the non-aggression axiom, thus they're libertarians.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

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.

That's not respectful either. Now, you're saying people are compelled to come to others' rescue despite not necessarily consenting to associate with one another.

For example, if a chick travels in a shady neighborhood you don't approve of, why should you have to come to one's rescue?

Heck, if a chick dates a jerk you don't approve of, why should you have to come to one's rescue?

It sounds like you support "nice guy syndrome".

Do you support universal health care too?

Again, you seem to think that compulsion or coercion is the only way that one can decide to help somebody else, which is demonstrably false.