Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Subscribe To
Posts
Comments
My Blog List
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Cartoon: A deafening silence6 hours ago
-
2:00PM Water Cooler 12/4/20247 hours ago
-
-
-
Peril (Limerick)1 day ago
-
-
Essential Organs1 day ago
-
-
-
Election Day Jitters4 weeks ago
-
-
-
-
In Memorium11 months ago
-
-
Search4 years ago
-
-
who links to me?
Counter
The Gallery at night
Warning
Summer field
Late Summer Sunset
Chicago, downtown
under a bridge, by the lake
8 comments:
The dog appears more liberal--wants to continue getting handouts just because he thinks he deserves it and the rich should pay their "fair share" so he doesn't have to work. A libertarian pet would fetch for food and shelter...or would be upset at being a slave, if he wasn't free to find a new home.
It's Anarchists that don't want to pay for joint essential infrastructure, libertarians do (one of the key differences)...we just think that much "essential" infrastructure is best paid for by the people using it, and where practical in proportion to how much. Food and housing are pretty essential, but almost nobody wants government housing or school lunches--we'd rather make our own choices. Roads and parking should be paid for by car and truck drivers and public transportation by it's users. Voluntary trade rather than coercion and force, wherever practical.
It's statists who say strays have to have ID and get permission from the government to have a job, can't take a job for less than a certain amount, can't live in a home if it came on a truck, or isn't big enough and who will in some cases punish people for feeding strays...or claim it's better for strays to have no food than imperfect food, or imperfectly documented food. (Liberals will do that with a straight face, conservatives will wink so you know it's really to make things harder on the strays so they go somewhere else)
...and liberals have a more "government should take care of me" attitude than libertarians, so are a lot less likely to be housepets in the first place. We're far more likely to be commercial animals-guard dog, carrier pigeon, sheep or cows, trading services, wool or milk for our needs. Some of us who can *will* rely on cuteness just like pets, and that is fine if nobody is using force or coercion.
What utter stereotyped nonsense you spew, you poor thing. Trapped in all these stereotypes and cliche's.
You must be trolling.
You don't understand the people you refer to as "Liberals", first, and you're responding to them/us as a stereotype.
You won't recognize nor accept that but so be it.
It shows you also don't understand solutions to lots of America's and Americans' problems.
It's extraordinarily hypocritical to call me out on stereotypes when I'm responding to this particular cartoon. Libertarians understand cooperation...we just think it should be voluntary wherever practical. I shouldn't be required to fetch for you, you shouldn't be required to feed me. Maybe I can find less humiliating work. Maybe you can find someone who doesn't drool on your paper as much, or who eats less. Maybe you'd rather fetch your own paper, or get your news from Huffington.
We aren't anarchists, although that misunderstanding is at least plausible, there's a lot of common ground with true (nonviolent) anarchists. Libertarians understand that rights need enforcement, and we need enough government for that.
But we aren't conservatives either--Remember legal heroin for example. The Libertarian party platform has included marriage equality since it's second year, back when homosexuality itself was illegal in 49 states. Far more anti-war than Hillary or Obama or any president we've had since the Party started.
And where was my characterization of liberals inaccurate?
Quoting you:
"...liberals have a more 'government should take care of me...'"
Anyone who says and/or thinks that, as you clearly do since you wrote it, first, doesn't understand being Liberal and second, is merely spewing a stereotype. You do your fellow Americans a disservice by even thinking this way, honestly.
So no, it's not hypocritical of me to call you out on this stereotype since you trotted it out for me and the world.
Libertarians aren't conservative? To want smaller and less government alone fits the definition. So you aren't strict "conservatives." I can live with that and never thought or wrote otherwise. As for anarchists and anarchy? Some Libertarians do, in fact, promote very, very little government to no government. It's a matter of degree, certainly, and it's something not all in the Libertarian mindset yet agree on. Surely you recognize and accept that.
Making society "voluntary" as much as possible is only good to the point of terrific for corporations and businesses and multi-national corporations. That way, they can get away with virtually anything and everything. There would be nothing and no one to hold them back?
Stock sales that cheat the investor? Done. No problem.
Huge oil spill, due to negligence on the part of the oil company that fouls water and land for miles? Again, no problem, no problems and no fines because, as Libertarians would have it, there is no government to hold them accountable.
The 2008 economic near-collapse would be a bump in the road to the world you create and inflict on us all.
It is pretty rare that you talk about a problem here without also talking about the need for a government solution, usually a federal solution. Based on those words, you say government should take care of everyone in many ways--decide how much we get paid, whether we are allowed to skip health insurance, whether we have to pay for transit we don't use, cable channels we don't use, internet bandwidth that we don't use, the price of gasoline, on and on.
Libertarians are big on property rights and honest contracts. Keep your spill entirely on your own property, no problem. Damage or endanger others, that's when government steps in. Defraud others...there should be enough government to enforce contracts.
As for fouling the water and land for miles? We've got the EPA for that...Unaccountable, won't pay damages. http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2017/01/13/epa-wont-pay-claims-mine-spill-released-3m-gallons-toxic-water/96555846/
2008 would have been a mere bump in the road, not a serious problem. So much of it was caused by government, made worse by government and cronyism. But of course according to you everything good is credited to government, everything bad was caused by business.
You can try to put lipstick on that pig all you like but you're still just responding to me as what you assume to be some Liberal stereotype. You don't respond to my statements. You respond to your preconceived notions of what you think I'm saying, your interpretation. Your, again, predetermined idea of who I am and what I'm saying and what I'm for and against. I, on the other hand, only respond to what you say here. That's a huge difference. I have never once said, nor do I believe that "government should take care of everyone." That's patently untrue. There are just some things only government can do, first, and there are other things we can all do, together, through government, that make us all, as a nation. stronger.
Your example of what Libertarians are all about points our extremely well the problem with Libertarianism, especially as it relates to the environment. Once emore, to use your own words: " Keep your spill entirely on your own property, no problem."
Actually, it is still a problem and a big one.
With water alone, streams, rivers, and groundwater, as best, quick, easy examples, even if a person or company, say, does spill on their own land, the fact that that stream or river or groundwater travels does, in fact, make it a problem for others. Same with air pollution. It isn't and can't be localized. Thinking or believing otherwise is just empty and wrong. You should surely be able to recognize that.
You say "we have the EPA for that" but at just this moment, the current Right Wing, Republican President and his Congress are doing their best to dismantle it, the department, as though we Americans don't need or want clean air, water or soil. It's extremely short-sighted and even dangerous.
For you to say or suggest the 2008 economic near collapse was "so much of it caused by government", shows you're either not serious in your discussion of the topic or deeply, badly, even wildly misinformed.
And there you are yet again. You finish by doing just what you've done time and again and what I said you do. You say "according to (me) everything good is credited to government, everything bad was caused by business"
You are a dishonest person in a discussion. You should rise and be and stay above such tactics. Besides being dishonest, it's not worthy of a good and fair and true discussion or, in my case, person or communicator.
Post a Comment