(December 28, 2013 at 2:20 pm)TaraJo Wrote: No, but you could certainly make a libertarian case for legalization of murder, especially murder-for-hire (free enterprise and all).No, you really couldn't. If you think you can, then you are are too deluded about what Libertarianism actually is and what it stands for. Above anything else, Libertarianism is about the rights of a person to control their own life. Free enterprise does not somehow trump that. A company that killed people for money violates Libertarian ethics and laws just as it violates our current ethics and laws.
Quote:Outlaw? No.Go and re-read the article, specifically this part:
Quote:It never stops: Close down the homeless shelters. Shut down the Salvation Army. Make it illegal to throw a starving person a coin or toss a blanket over them as they lay on the sidewalk. This logic only ends one way: in a hellish dystopia where the underclass is starving, homeless and dying in droves.
Seems that outlawing is exactly what this guys thinks Libertarians want to do.
Quote:Strangle? Yep. That seems to be the case. Here in Texas, our government has been going more and more towards this type of libertarianism over the past few years, with less and less of the governments money going to help people with things like food kitchens and shelters. Yet we've had story after story after story about how the charities don't have enough food or money or resources in general anymore. I'd be more willing to let the government out of the assistance business if not for the fact that the private sector doesn't seem to be covering it (especially the people with the most money who have been proven to be greedy assholes).You just don't get it. You can't just take part of Libertarianism (in Texas' case, less government spending) and apply it without applying the part of Libertarianism that balances it out. It's obvious to even Libertarians that simply reducing government spending on welfare won't solve the problem; that money has to come from somewhere else, which is why Libertarians also advocate lowering taxes so that ordinary people have more money, which they can then give to charity. Libertarianism is a way of governance; it's designed to be implemented as a way of running the country, much like systems like communism and socialism are supposed to be.
(December 28, 2013 at 2:30 pm)Minimalist Wrote: Yet you steadfastly refuse to acknowledge that it is these "libertarians" who claim the word for themselves, Divi Tiberio. I'm sorry but you are not the Pope of Libertarianism. You don't get to decide who is in and who is out.No, but neither do they. However, the definition of Libertarianism is pretty easy to find, so go look it up and apply what it says to what they are advocating. You'll see that they are not proper Libertarians. It really is quite simple Minimalist, and I'm afraid that it is you who is the one "steadfastly refusing to acknowledge" this fact.
Quote:I consider the title to be terribly dishonorable...just like "xtian" so anyone who wants it can have it.Fair enough, but that is your opinion and it doesn't make it so. I consider the title of "communist" dishonorable, but I'm not going to go about stating you are a communist, or Obama is a communist, or <insert Min's favourite political person here> is a communist, unless they actually match the definition of the word.
You simply latch onto any moron who calls themselves a Libertarian, assume that this is the case, and then use whatever disgusting views they espouse to attack Libertarianism itself, despite the fact that Libertarianism doesn't even remotely support these views.
