|Binro the Heretic |
My big problem with Libertarian philosophy is this:
1 - I believe the freedom to swing your fist ends at my nose.
2 - Libertarians say you can't stop people from swinging their fists until AFTER your nose is bloodied.
3 - They don't seem to want any system in place to hold nose-punchers accountable.
I think a Libertarian utopia would quickly degenerate into everyone suing each other but with no way to make losing parties pay up.
"2 - Libertarians say you can't stop people from swinging their fists until AFTER your nose is bloodied."
I know what you're getting at, but to be fair what you described here is kind of the foundation of due process.
The Libertarians have some good ideas on paper, but in practice not so much.
Say what you want about anarchism , at least it has provisions for governing bodies and social accountability, which puts it way ahead of real world Libertarianism.
Binro the Heretic
Yeah, but the problem is if you swing your fist towards my face, it greatly increases the odds you're going to hit my nose whether you mean to hit it or not.
I don't want to tie your hands behind your back, but I do want some rules that say you can't throw a punch at my face even if you fully intend to stop short of actually hitting it.
A real-world example would be somebody turning their property into a toxic waste dump in the middle of a residential area. I know they won't INTEND for everyone to start giving birth to flipper babies, but I'd like the odds of flipper babies to be as low as possible.
I was never a fan of Christopher Hitchens but I do remember liking what he said about libertarianism during some Reddit AMA. In that libertarianism is historically useless, and that you couldn't ascribe a libertarian position to something like the Vietnam War with much depth. He was right, libertarian theory was only able to discuss things in the 19th and 20th century to an extent but not outside of those.
Lack of depth seems like the core of the entire ideology to me.
At least, once upon a time, Libertarianism attracted a variety of people, right and left libertarians, etc. who seemed to be at least grown-ass adults.
Though the party as such has attracted political misfits and weirdos since the beginning in the 1970s, the weirdos and misfits have been gathering in numbers. Now it's mostly a catchall for a variety of "natural cure" quacks, suit-and-sandals wearers, nudists, sex-maniacs and neckbeards.
You forgot millionaires, billionaires and people that want no taxes because that will turn them into the former.
|Born in the RSR |
mr. Darryl Perry has a very unfortunate face.
Also, they ended up nominating two of the most establishment politicos they could find for President and VP. For crying out loud, in 2012, Johnson supported the idea of sending US troops to Uganda to fight the Lord's Resistance Army and bring down Joseph Kony.
McAfee: businessman, political candidate, gunslinger.
Could someone clear up the libertarian stance on child protection laws?
re;the no selling drugs to kids gets boo'd video seems to show some dislike of laws that inherently restrict the ability of shitty adults to make money in ways that may harm children...with the solution being that parents could sue the drug dealer or something stupid like that.
But what about abusive parents? will 5 year olds be expected to sue their parents?
I'm just wondering because I fully expect the libertarian stance to be that government should stay out of family business and parents have some inherent biological instinct to 'know and do what's best' for their children.
I don't really know but the bits and pieces of Libertarian opinion I've picked up in passing all strongly support your hunch.
I don't think they even know. I'm sure every one of them would find raising a child a calamity of chaos and scared inner dialog from a position of flailing ignorance.
Like every other human.
| Register or login To Post a Comment|