Why I Ain’t a Libertarian

[Kevin_Kennedy]

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.

The idea that the current banking system, replete with government backing (FDIC), the Federal Reserve, and government bailouts, is somehow comparable to a free market banking system doesn't really hold up.

 

[Daktoria]

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.

I'm saying that coercion is the only way to guarantee that a victim will be helped.

Otherwise, we're forcing victims to assume the risk of charity.

Furthermore, we're expecting others to be charitable who haven't necessarily consented to associate with others.

 

[Supposn]

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?!?!?!?!?!?!?!

.

I first posted my message, “Why I ain’t a Libertarian” on to a Libertarian forum. This was the first and I believe the clearest and best written response. I believe all of the others concurred with this responder but many of them were angered because they perceived my message as an accusation that they deliberately drive in an unsafe manner.

What they actually all seem to concur with is a contention that they need not subordinate their own judgment to the explicit command of a traffic device.

They do not deliberately drive unsafely but if as I do accept their responses as their true determinations, the concept of (in the absence of an emergency), simply obeying the law as a matter of policy is contrary to their political creed which in this case clearly expressed as:
"Traffic lights themselves are fine but the fines, penalties and cameras that have come to be part and parcel to said lights are a violation of individual's rights and freedoms".

I contrend that is not the policy of a prudent driver or for a prudent society.

Respectfully, Supposn

///////////////////////////////////////////

Traffic lights regulate the flow of traffic in multiple directions as to prevent traffic accidents. They can be used as an indication as to whether or not it is safe to proceed through an intersection but I feel that a driver can make the same determination. If it is 3 am and there is no other traffic on the streets, there should be no punishment to a driver that proceeds through an intersection against a red light. Municipalities that have taken to heavily enforcing the edict of a computer and light bulbs are attempting to remove the resident's ability to decide for themselves.

Traffic lights themselves are fine but the fines, penalties and cameras that have come to be part and parcel to said lights are a violation of individual's rights and freedoms.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

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.

I'm saying that coercion is the only way to guarantee that a victim will be helped.

Otherwise, we're forcing victims to assume the risk of charity.

Furthermore, we're expecting others to be charitable who haven't necessarily consented to associate with others.

That's ridiculous. When I go to Best Buy I can guarantee that I'm going to be helped in some way, and that it will be done without my relying on their charity or in my ability to coerce them into doing so. They do so because they're compensated. The same can apply in any scenario you've put forward. The woman in the shady part of town can compensate somebody to protect her if she'd like. Compensation is neither coercion nor charity.

Also, being charitable means you have consented to associate with others by definition, so I'm not even sure what you're really trying to say there.

 

[Daktoria]

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.

I'm saying that coercion is the only way to guarantee that a victim will be helped.

Otherwise, we're forcing victims to assume the risk of charity.

Furthermore, we're expecting others to be charitable who haven't necessarily consented to associate with others.

That's ridiculous. When I go to Best Buy I can guarantee that I'm going to be helped in some way, and that it will be done without my relying on their charity or in my ability to coerce them into doing so. They do so because they're compensated. The same can apply in any scenario you've put forward. The woman in the shady part of town can compensate somebody to protect her if she'd like. Compensation is neither coercion nor charity.

Also, being charitable means you have consented to associate with others by definition, so I'm not even sure what you're really trying to say there.

Compensation only works if you can afford it. You're an elitist, not an individualist.

 

[Contumacious]

What they actually all seem to concur with is a contention that they need not subordinate their own judgment to the explicit command of a traffic device.

There is a big difference between a mechanical traffic device and welfare/warfare state politicians.


A traffic light has never tried to disarm me nor prevent that use high capacity rifle magazines.

.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

I'm saying that coercion is the only way to guarantee that a victim will be helped.

Otherwise, we're forcing victims to assume the risk of charity.

Furthermore, we're expecting others to be charitable who haven't necessarily consented to associate with others.

That's ridiculous. When I go to Best Buy I can guarantee that I'm going to be helped in some way, and that it will be done without my relying on their charity or in my ability to coerce them into doing so. They do so because they're compensated. The same can apply in any scenario you've put forward. The woman in the shady part of town can compensate somebody to protect her if she'd like. Compensation is neither coercion nor charity.

Also, being charitable means you have consented to associate with others by definition, so I'm not even sure what you're really trying to say there.

Compensation only works if you can afford it. You're an elitist, not an individualist.

Your "elitist" quip not withstanding, it's clear you don't know what individualism is.

Regardless, compensation and charity are the only moral means at our disposal to interact in society. Enforced egalitarianism is an irrational pipe dream.

 

[Darkwind]

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.

In other words, "I was born to be a rich mans son. I did my part."

We are all born with the same potential. That is all that is ever required in life.

What happens after you draw your first breath is largely up to you. The 'victim' mentality of "I don't have the same opportunities as the rich kid" just doesn't really cut it.

There is no real social justice, nor should there be. The world does not owe you, Me, or anyone, anything.

The sooner people understand that, the sooner we move on to actually becoming a better society.

 

[Daktoria]

That's ridiculous. When I go to Best Buy I can guarantee that I'm going to be helped in some way, and that it will be done without my relying on their charity or in my ability to coerce them into doing so. They do so because they're compensated. The same can apply in any scenario you've put forward. The woman in the shady part of town can compensate somebody to protect her if she'd like. Compensation is neither coercion nor charity.

Also, being charitable means you have consented to associate with others by definition, so I'm not even sure what you're really trying to say there.

Compensation only works if you can afford it. You're an elitist, not an individualist.

Your "elitist" quip not withstanding, it's clear you don't know what individualism is.

Regardless, compensation and charity are the only moral means at our disposal to interact in society. Enforced egalitarianism is an irrational pipe dream.

It's clear you don't understand how the rights of all individuals are entitled to protection.

There's a reason why even conservatives think libertarians are cuckoo. Libertarians don't care for the general populace who are entitled to protection as much as everyone else.

 

[Contumacious]

Compensation only works if you can afford it. You're an elitist, not an individualist.

Your "elitist" quip not withstanding, it's clear you don't know what individualism is.

Regardless, compensation and charity are the only moral means at our disposal to interact in society. Enforced egalitarianism is an irrational pipe dream.

It's clear you don't understand how the rights of all individuals are entitled to protection.

There's a reason why even conservatives think libertarians are cuckoo. Libertarians don't care for the general populace who are entitled to protection as much as everyone else.

HUH?

And you reached that conclusion how?

/

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Compensation only works if you can afford it. You're an elitist, not an individualist.

Your "elitist" quip not withstanding, it's clear you don't know what individualism is.

Regardless, compensation and charity are the only moral means at our disposal to interact in society. Enforced egalitarianism is an irrational pipe dream.

It's clear you don't understand how the rights of all individuals are entitled to protection.

There's a reason why even conservatives think libertarians are cuckoo. Libertarians don't care for the general populace who are entitled to protection as much as everyone else.

It's clear you don't understand libertarianism, and have no interest in learning. Your demagogic arguments have nothing to do with my beliefs.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Your "elitist" quip not withstanding, it's clear you don't know what individualism is.

Regardless, compensation and charity are the only moral means at our disposal to interact in society. Enforced egalitarianism is an irrational pipe dream.

It's clear you don't understand how the rights of all individuals are entitled to protection.

There's a reason why even conservatives think libertarians are cuckoo. Libertarians don't care for the general populace who are entitled to protection as much as everyone else.

HUH?

And you reached that conclusion how?

/

He disagrees with libertarians politically, therefore libertarians hate humanity. Simple.

 

[Daktoria]

HUH?

And you reached that conclusion how?

/

Sorry for stating the obvious.

 

[Daktoria]

It's clear you don't understand libertarianism, and have no interest in learning. Your demagogic arguments have nothing to do with my beliefs.

I actually used to be a libertarian.

Then I thought it through and realized it's a bad idea.

 

[Contumacious]

HUH?

And you reached that conclusion how?

/

Sorry for stating the obvious.

Be a man, quit stonewalling and spell it out.

We are not going to browbeat you that much.

.

 

[Oddball]

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.

Classic bigoted PANGie (People Are No God) attitude.

Lolberal snobs are the smartest people in the room, are essential in order to protect the world from stupid people, and very conveniently exclude themselves from the slightest possibility that any of the stupid people could ever be one of them.

Talk about elitist.

 

[Daktoria]

HUH?

And you reached that conclusion how?

/

Sorry for stating the obvious.

Be a man, quit stonewalling and spell it out.

We are not going to browbeat you that much.

.

Exactly. The libertarian obsession with rugged individualism dismisses the dignity of the weak, sensitive, exposed, vulnerable, and thin-skinned.

If you're born on the fringe of society, libertarianism basically tosses you to the wolves.

 

[Contumacious]

Sorry for stating the obvious.

Be a man, quit stonewalling and spell it out.

We are not going to browbeat you that much.

.

Exactly. The libertarian obsession with rugged individualism dismisses the dignity of the weak, sensitive, exposed, vulnerable, and thin-skinned.

If you're born on the fringe of society, libertarianism basically tosses you to the wolves.

Oh, I see. You are allegedly concern about the majorities' right to tyrannize and enslave minorities.

Yep, I disagree.

Thank god for my assault rifle and high capacity magazine.

.

 

[Daktoria]

Be a man, quit stonewalling and spell it out.

We are not going to browbeat you that much.

.

Exactly. The libertarian obsession with rugged individualism dismisses the dignity of the weak, sensitive, exposed, vulnerable, and thin-skinned.

If you're born on the fringe of society, libertarianism basically tosses you to the wolves.

Oh, I see. You are allegedly concern about the majorities' right to tyrannize and enslave minorities.

Yep, I disagree.

Thank god for my assault rifle and high capacity magazine.

.

No. I'm concerned that the majority will only care about the rugged. Anyone who's too weak to be bothered will be forgotten unless they conform to authority.

 

[Dugdale_Jukes]

Real libertarianism is built around individual rights not far from what some justice described as "the right to be let alone" within a minimal legal structure. Basically that means most of the Ayn Rand/Ron Paul set are some other kind of "libertarian".

Real libertarianism is not associated with anarchy or nihilism. Further, real libertarianism is fairly close to Jeffersonian, or classic liberalism, which holds that the rights of the individual are paramount. If someone feels like dancing it doesn't matter what others think. On the other hand no real libertarian believes anyone has a right to speed through stop signs or holler "fire" in a crowded theater.

What tickles me is how different what passes for "liberal" and "conservative" today is from what those words meant before 1980. Reagan tripled the national debt in peacetime, something not done before or since but is hailed by halfwits as a "conservative" while Clinton balanced the budget on the backs of the blue collar middle class and every credential hound fake-liberal fake-meritocrat cocksucker in America thinks he was a liberal.

Amusing, to say the least.