Free Broccoli

RSS

>responding to people who don't know what libertarianism is like they aren't gonna tantrum

Sometimes when I get bored I have to go looking for conflict. My life is sad.

Some of the “great advantages” of a Libertarian society are:

lejacquelope:

freebroccoli:

[snipped]

Actually I know more about libertarianism than you do.

Let’s see…

https://www.lp.org/platform

2.5| All persons are entitled to keep the fruits of their labor. We call for the repeal of the income tax, the abolishment of the Internal Revenue Service and all federal programs and services not required under the U.S. Constitution. We oppose any legal requirements forcing employers to serve as tax collectors.

Translation: no tax money, so no money to run the courts or law enforcement system.

3.5| Libertarians embrace the concept that all people are born with certain inherent rights. We reject the idea that a natural right can ever impose an obligation upon others to fulfill that “right.” We condemn bigotry as irrational and repugnant.  Government should neither deny nor abridge any individual’s human right based upon sex, wealth, ethnicity, creed, age, national origin, personal habits, political preference or sexual orientation. Parents, or other guardians, have the right to raise their children according to their own standards and beliefs.  This statement shall not be construed to condone child abuse or neglect.

Translation: if you refuse to hire black people, women, Jews, Mexicans, etc., libertarian philosophy says that’s your right and the Government should not interfere.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/libertarians-on-paul-s-civil-rights-stance-very-reasonable

Paul’s stance is “very reasonable, and quite close to the Libertarian position,” a spokesman for the Libertarian Party told TPMmuckraker.

Here’s a suggestion for you - perhaps this is where you should bow out of this argument and hurl a few childish insults to cover for your logical inadequacies.

You don’t have a counter argument. I have the cited facts and you pretty much have… well… nothing.

Embarrassing, yes, but that’s what happens when you accuse me of not knowing what I’m talking about.

You realize that there’s more to libertarianism than the libertarian party, right? In fact, it seems to me like the majority of studied libertarians actually resent the LP.

Your assertion that there would be no justice system is ignoring the large number of minarchist libertarians as well. But since I’m not one of them, I’m not going to argue for their perspective now.

From the ancap perspective, you’re right: there will be no coercive justice system in a libertarian society. This does not mean that the issues you’ve mentioned will no be addressed. Just because we don’t plan to use your solutions doesn’t mean we don’t have any solutions of our own.

Libertarian scholars have put out a lot of work explaining how things like a justice system could work without a coercive institution. You don’t have to be convinced by those arguments, but pretending that they don’t exist is being willfully ignorant.

Some of the “great advantages” of a Libertarian society are:

lejacquelope:

You can refuse to hire any blacks or Mexicans or women and nobody can ever sue you for it.

You can even fire women that you do hire for not bending over and, well, you know. And they can’t sue you.

A worker gets killed by machinery? That’s okay. Replace them with any one of the other 10 people trying to get that job.

Feel like beating up a worker? Have at it - or have your private security have at it! Since you don’t pay taxes under a libertarian state, there’s no funding available for a police force or court that might punish you.

Want to dump toxic waste in the nearby neighborhood? Go for it!!! Again, who’s going to prosecute you? Just make sure your private security force has bigger guns than the people you’re dumping on.

Isn’t libertarianism great!!!

You don’t know a lot about libertarianism, do you?

jaehaerys1:

freebroccoli:

It seems kind of silly to criticize deontological libertarians for arguing about consequences, and then advocate for a minarchy on the grounds that it results in the fewest violations of rights that don’t have any moral standing anyway.

When you talked about two tiered morality (I may have misunderstood what you meant by that), many philosophers do break it down into first and second order claims. The “first order” is essentially personal values, beliefs, and such, e.g. “I don’t prefer doing drugs” and the “second order” has more to do with normative prescriptions, public policy etc, e.g. “Drugs are immoral and should be illegal.” I rec. JL Mackie’s Ethics: Inventing Right and Wrong. He does a nice job explaining my views (for the most part) on the topic in a concise, accessible manner.

What I was going for is more like this: Say you have action A, which does not violate any rights. It passes the first tier of morality. Action A does have negative consequences, so even though it’s deontologically correct, you still shouldn’t do it. Then again, suppose action B does violate rights, but it has positive results; it’s still immoral because it never made it to tier, where the consequences are relevant.

I find it really hard to believe that anyone really thinks the symptoms prison industrial complex are something to blame on feminism or misandry; but then again if they also believe in "black privilege" I really just having nothing else to say. I'm disappointed, I hope you think about that post again.

I’ve heard numerous feminists say that the sentencing disparity which favors women is the result of misogyny for the reasons stated.

Saying that black people get longer sentences as a result of privilege is clearly absurd. Clearly. That’s precisely the point: the logic that men get harsher sentences because if misogyny is equally absurd. OP was using irony to make their point.

Whether it’s accurate to call it misandry…I don’t think it’s inaccurate per se, but it misses the point. Both men and women are subject to gender roles, and either side will get benefits or penalties as a result, depending on the context. What’s happening here is that in this particular case, men are being penalized, and feminists will come along and say “no, this is really our problem.”

Is feminism at fault for the disparity? Fundamentally, no; this problem precedes feminism. Then again, feminists have fought against laws that would enforce equality in sentencing.

Regardless, this is not about blaming feminists for the problem (although I acknowledge that this does happen); this is about identifying a social dynamic which disadvantages men, and feminists and trying to womansplain it away (I’m using that term ironically).

  • Feminist: Misandry doesn't exist.
  • Me: Men get sentenced to longer prison terms for the same crime.
  • Feminist: That's misogyny, because women aren't seen as a threat.
  • Me: So is black men being sent to jail longer an instance of black privilege, because white people aren't seen as a threat?
priceofliberty:

zacchaeus:

americas-liberty:

red-dirt-roads:

priceofliberty:

This was given to 6th graders at Milam elementary in Tupelo, MS. It is the 6th grade school. They were told to not speak about it outside of class and to not take it home. She snuck it home because she knew her parents would want to see it.
Common core strikes again.

Good grief.
Any veterans want to weigh in on benefits being received under the current administration versus the last one?

They suck. It’s like getting water from paper. The wait times are ridiculous.

Can we talk about the fact that the last question asks if you think Flag Burning is acceptable? 
Democrat or Republican, you should never be okay with anyone burning the American flag. And if you are, get the fuck out of my country. 

priceofliberty:

zacchaeus:

americas-liberty:

red-dirt-roads:

priceofliberty:

This was given to 6th graders at Milam elementary in Tupelo, MS. It is the 6th grade school. They were told to not speak about it outside of class and to not take it home. She snuck it home because she knew her parents would want to see it.

Common core strikes again.

Good grief.

Any veterans want to weigh in on benefits being received under the current administration versus the last one?

They suck. It’s like getting water from paper. The wait times are ridiculous.

Can we talk about the fact that the last question asks if you think Flag Burning is acceptable? 

Democrat or Republican, you should never be okay with anyone burning the American flag. And if you are, get the fuck out of my country. 

"The founding fathers knew the constitution wasn’t perfect; that’s why they included an amendment process."

Correct. So why do you insist on ignoring the constitution rather than follow that amendment process?

It seems kind of silly to criticize deontological libertarians for arguing about consequences, and then advocate for a minarchy on the grounds that it results in the fewest violations of rights that don’t have any moral standing anyway.

I do not know if my approach here is “thick” or “thin” and do not really care; I have never found the thick-thin paradigm to be coherent, consistent, well-defined, necessary, or even useful. It’s full of straw men, or seems to try to take credit for quite obvious and uncontroversial assertions. I respect many of the libertarians arguing for it, but I’m not persuaded. I reject the very paradigm, just as I and other standard, radical anarchist libertarians reject the coherence of the left-right spectrum (from our perspective, left and right are just different flavors of statism/socialism; we are neither; we are better than both). I am not a left- or right-libertarian; I am a libertarian. And I don’t think I’m thick, and I don’t think I’m thin, because I think this entire way of looking at things is confused. I’m a non–thick-thinner.

- Stephan Kinsella