Why I Ain’t a Libertarian

[Daktoria]

Children and Rights - Murray N. Rothbard - Mises Daily

There you have it, a libertarian addressing precisely this issue.

I've read that before. It's a retarded response. Negligent parents can threaten their children's lives, and those children can run away for their lives. Then, negligent parents can say their children ran away.

Likewise, it doesn't deal with situations of hostage taking when parents inhibit their children from leaving.

Basically, parents get off the hook from having to prepare their children.

That you disagree with the response is different from their not being a response.

Actually, it does deal with situations of hostage taking, since it clearly says that children must have the right to run away.

Hostage taking doesn't have to be a physical restriction. It can be a mental restriction where children are unaware of their rights.

The problem is Rothbard doesn't explain when or how children become informed of their rights.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

I've read that before. It's a retarded response. Negligent parents can threaten their children's lives, and those children can run away for their lives. Then, negligent parents can say their children ran away.

Likewise, it doesn't deal with situations of hostage taking when parents inhibit their children from leaving.

Basically, parents get off the hook from having to prepare their children.

That you disagree with the response is different from their not being a response.

Actually, it does deal with situations of hostage taking, since it clearly says that children must have the right to run away.

Hostage taking doesn't have to be a physical restriction. It can be a mental restriction where children are unaware of their rights.

The problem is Rothbard doesn't explain when or how children become informed of their rights.

How does one become aware of their rights now?

 

[Daktoria]

That you disagree with the response is different from their not being a response.

Actually, it does deal with situations of hostage taking, since it clearly says that children must have the right to run away.

Hostage taking doesn't have to be a physical restriction. It can be a mental restriction where children are unaware of their rights.

The problem is Rothbard doesn't explain when or how children become informed of their rights.

How does one become aware of their rights now?

I'm not defending the status quo. I'm just saying libertarianism is lacking a proscription.

We should be taught social familiarity from our families, and this should be backed up by a church or other fraternal organization. Our families bring us into the world, and those who live similarly (from which partners court one another) should subscribe to social insurance in case of negligence or accidents.

Beyond this, we should be taught it from our schools since our governments compel us to conform to their social contracts.

There's just a lot of anarchic negligence going on right now, but libertarianism wouldn't fix that anyway.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Hostage taking doesn't have to be a physical restriction. It can be a mental restriction where children are unaware of their rights.

The problem is Rothbard doesn't explain when or how children become informed of their rights.

How does one become aware of their rights now?

I'm not defending the status quo. I'm just saying libertarianism is lacking a proscription.

We should be taught social familiarity from our families, and this should be backed up by a church or other fraternal organization. Our families bring us into the world, and those who live similarly (from which partners court one another) should subscribe to social insurance in case of negligence or accidents.

Beyond this, we should be taught it from our schools since our governments compel us to conform to their social contracts.

There's just a lot of anarchic negligence going on right now, but libertarianism wouldn't fix that anyway.

I'm not convinced that any political ideology could fix this alleged problem, or even that they should try. Every individual learns in their own way and at their own pace. I'm not convinced this is a problem.

 

[Contumacious]

Hostage taking doesn't have to be a physical restriction. It can be a mental restriction where children are unaware of their rights.

The problem is Rothbard doesn't explain when or how children become informed of their rights.

How does one become aware of their rights now?

I'm not defending the status quo. I'm just saying libertarianism is lacking a proscription.

We should be taught social familiarity from our families, and this should be backed up by a church or other fraternal organization. Our families bring us into the world, and those who live similarly (from which partners court one another) should subscribe to social insurance in case of negligence or accidents.

Beyond this, we should be taught it from our schools since our governments compel us to conform to their social contracts.

There's just a lot of anarchic negligence going on right now, but libertarianism wouldn't fix that anyway.

i see, so you have concluded that fascism/socialism provide the answer.

.

 

[SAYIT]

That you disagree with the response is different from their not being a response.

Actually, it does deal with situations of hostage taking, since it clearly says that children must have the right to run away.

Hostage taking doesn't have to be a physical restriction. It can be a mental restriction where children are unaware of their rights.

The problem is Rothbard doesn't explain when or how children become informed of their rights.

How does one become aware of their rights now?

Just assume everything is legal until you get arrested.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Hostage taking doesn't have to be a physical restriction. It can be a mental restriction where children are unaware of their rights.

The problem is Rothbard doesn't explain when or how children become informed of their rights.

How does one become aware of their rights now?

Just assume everything is legal until you get arrested.

Maybe I'm weird but I don't think this is the formula I followed.

 

[PaulS1950]

If you are doing no harm to anyone then you can be pretty sure that you are living within your rights. Remember that your rights end where they infringe on mine or anyone elses.

 

[Daktoria]

If you are doing no harm to anyone then you can be pretty sure that you are living within your rights. Remember that your rights end where they infringe on mine or anyone elses.

If someone infringes your rights, how do you get your rights corrected?

 

[Supposn]

Transcript from
Libertarian's Forum - Libertarian forum for politics and economics

Re: Libertarians’ positions regarding traffic lights?
Reply #26 - Mar 18th, 2013 at 4:24am
//////////////////////////////////////////////

zophos wrote on Mar 16th, 2013 at 12:48am:
My point is that your life is already at risk due to the idiots that surround you. The regulations you want strict adherence to do not cure idiocy, they only give you the illusion of safety. Remember the video I posted. Remember that idiots don't follow laws - either out of incompetence or malice. So, again, the laws only make you think you're safer.
///////////////////////////////////////////

Supposn wrote:

Zophos, a crowded city sidewalk is an example of what traffic regulations and laws would satisfy libertarians. There are few laws and regulations governing sidewalk traffic and there's no great effort to enforce any that do exist.

It’s not unusual to witness head on pedestrian collisions but what’s of more interest is what occurs when collisions are imminent.
When two pedestrians are both aware they’re on collision courses, (unless there is some hint of direction passing between the two pedestrians, e.g. one of the pedestrians could move first in an obvious direction), there's close to a 50/50 of their collision.
[That’s the chances that the second pedestrian will precisely mimic the first pedestrian. If they both chose to move to their own lefts or their own rights, a collision is almost inevitable].

Direct collisions between pedestrians are of no great consequences; such collisions between high speed vehicles are usually disastrous.

We believe ourselves to be persons of good judgment but others perceive us as the idiots that act out of incompetence or malice. You’re advocating anarchy and labeling it as libertarian.

Respectfully, Supposn

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Transcript from
Libertarian's Forum - Libertarian forum for politics and economics

Re: Libertarians’ positions regarding traffic lights?
Reply #26 - Mar 18th, 2013 at 4:24am
//////////////////////////////////////////////

zophos wrote on Mar 16th, 2013 at 12:48am:
My point is that your life is already at risk due to the idiots that surround you. The regulations you want strict adherence to do not cure idiocy, they only give you the illusion of safety. Remember the video I posted. Remember that idiots don't follow laws - either out of incompetence or malice. So, again, the laws only make you think you're safer.
///////////////////////////////////////////

Supposn wrote:

Zophos, a crowded city sidewalk is an example of what traffic regulations and laws would satisfy libertarians. There are few laws and regulations governing sidewalk traffic and there's no great effort to enforce any that do exist.

It’s not unusual to witness head on pedestrian collisions but what’s of more interest is what occurs when collisions are imminent.
When two pedestrians are both aware they’re on collision courses, (unless there is some hint of direction passing between the two pedestrians, e.g. one of the pedestrians could move first in an obvious direction), there's close to a 50/50 of their collision.
[That’s the chances that the second pedestrian will precisely mimic the first pedestrian. If they both chose to move to their own lefts or their own rights, a collision is almost inevitable].

Direct collisions between pedestrians are of no great consequences; such collisions between high speed vehicles are usually disastrous.

We believe ourselves to be persons of good judgment but others perceive us as the idiots that act out of incompetence or malice. You’re advocating anarchy and labeling it as libertarian.

Respectfully, Supposn

I'm not sure what your point is with this post, but I'll repeat that there are anarchists who are also libertarians.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Or atleast radical individualists who believe a free market provides the best protection service for individuals, rather than a forced, monopolized one. Even one that stands for the illusion of majority rule.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Sorry, forgot to add the illusion of representation as well.

 

[whitehall]

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

Ummm, stupid anecdotal story aside, the words "be permitted to exercise their own unrestricted judgement" are very telling. What political entity would presume to restrict us from "exercising our own good judgement"

 

[Supposn]

Ummm, stupid anecdotal story aside, the words "be permitted to exercise their own unrestricted judgement" are very telling. What political entity would presume to restrict us from "exercising our own good judgement"

Whitehall, is it your practice, (similar to Zophos), that confronted with a red traffic light your judgment trumps an automated traffic control device and if, (depending upon your superior judgment), you determine it’s safe to do so, you’ll “run the light”?

You don’t see the possibility of encountering any other libertarians confident of their own excellent judgments and additionally may also be confident of their own abilities to drive at excessively high speeds?

Respectfully, Supposn

 

[Supposn]

Or atleast radical individualists who believe a free market provides the best protection service for individuals, rather than a forced, monopolized one. Even one that stands for the illusion of majority rule.

TakeAStepBack, you consider traffic lights as an attack upon free markets?
I don’t suppose traffic light are your only manifestations of your paranoid logic? What about the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission? I suppose you’re even more opposed to that?

Supposn

 

[Supposn]

... 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, in your “free market system” with no building codes, I or my family are likely to have need or inadvertently enter “fire-trap” structures in the courses of our normal activities.
Refer to post #34)

Respectfully, Supposn

 

[initforme]

Posts like this are why I cannot relate to being a Democrat nor Republican.

 

[Supposn]

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.

Kevin_Kennedy, eventually, self-regulating much more (than independent regulators) do often fail. Independent regulators perform better. Our federal system of divided but overlapping authority seems to better perform their tasks. Our systems dependent upon foolish humans are not fool-proof.

Respectfully, Supposn

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

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

Holy FUCKING retarded.