Libertarians: You fire fighter lovers sure are good at debate!

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Libertarians: You fire fighter lovers sure are good at debate!

Sharkie: Feb 4, 2013; by Fluffdaddy

So have any libertarians attempted to account for something like Jim Crow or anti-miscegenation laws? I feel like hatelaughing.

# ¿ May 23, 2014 02:33

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ Apr 28, 2024 20:55

Sharkie: Feb 4, 2013; by Fluffdaddy

Joementum posted:

Those appear to be laws passed by the government and not actions performed by the market.

Oh yeah, duh, obviously it's government, the source of all evil and woe. But not all segregation can be blamed on the evil government who forced those poor shop owners to turn away customers on the basis of race:

A sign in a state without forced segregation laws for businesses.

# ¿ May 23, 2014 02:42

Sharkie: Feb 4, 2013; by Fluffdaddy

Sublimer posted:

Out of these types of libertarians, which ones typically support (And supported before it was politically acceptable) gay marriage? I'm pretty sure the libertarian conservatives just want to leave it up to the states to decide, but I'm not sure about the others.

They tend to side-step it with "Well, the government should get out of marriage altogether," and then don't think about it for any longer.

# ¿ May 24, 2014 00:59

Sharkie: Feb 4, 2013; by Fluffdaddy

jrodefeld posted:

I'm not a loving conservative, get it straight. You're not going to ready Chartier or Sheldon Richman, or Lysander Spooner or Pierre Joseph Proudhon or Frederick Bastiat or any other individualist anarchist, liberal or left-libertarian intellectual, that is quite clear. But you ought not to articulate an opinion on something you know nothing about.

You are the walking embodiment of the famous Bastiat quote:

I said there should be no laws requiring (by threat of force) school attendance. From that you assume I don't believe in school attendance. If something is not coerced on society then I must not support people choosing to pursue that thing of their own volition? Preposterous.

Children ought to be educated and local governments can provide public education as can private organizations and churches. Most parents WILL send their children to a place to get educated because it is beneficial to them. There will be social pressure to get children educated.

You never miss the opportunity to use coercion to pursue a desired social end.

Should the state be able to use coercion to make people feed their children?

# ¿ Jun 5, 2015 04:38

Sharkie: Feb 4, 2013; by Fluffdaddy

Plastics posted:

Well that is their own fault then! Libertarianism does not try to protect people from making their own mistakes so all this stuff that you have said and other people have said about causing harm and people being idiots and hurting themselves does not really make any sense because that is the exact idea! People who are smarter or work harder to put the work in will do better than those who do not. That is the whole IDEA!

Okay so I think the problem is that you are looking at this from the perspective of Consequences instead of the position of Principles. The reason I think that it is better my way is because the Government is not involved but the fact that I think it would lead (in the long term!) to a more efficient system is also a good bonus and sometimes that kind of thing persuades people. But I see that on this forum a lot of people do not agree that it would be more efficient!

What level of human suffering would you be willing to tolerate if it meant society adhered to your principles? If you want to break it down into specifics like "I would tolerate (x)% increase in cancer," or "I would tolerate infant mortality going up by (x)%," that's fine.

More specifically, why should I risk shoddy medicine in order to make sure the unschooled don't rise above their place in the human hierarchy?

# ¿ Aug 10, 2015 18:16

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Libertarians: You fire fighter lovers sure are good at debate!