U.S. Gun Violence

Post Reply New Topic

And I told you that the Libertarian party is not representative of libertarianism as a whole. If you're going to comment on whether things are or are not libertarian, then you should - at the very least - know what libertarianism is, not just what the Libertarian party is. They are not the same thing. Being lazy isn't a valid excuse.

Libertarianism isn't mutually exclusive with socialism, or Communism, or Capitalism, or democracy, or republics. About the only view that isn't compatible with libertarianism is a dictatorship.

EDIT: In fact, you should go back and re-read that wikipedia article on Libertarianism, because it says exactly what I just told you.

Last edited by sliqua-jcooter on 11 Feb 2014, 9:51 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Dude, it might not be representative of all of Libertarianism, but as I told you before, it does preclude you from being able to honestly tell me that what I am describing 'is not libertarianism.'

If it makes you happy, in the future I will try to remember to say, "libertarianism.*"

*excluding SJC's idiosyncratic, individual definition of libertarianism, which apparently does not agree with the standard definitions of the term.

Last edited by LKL on 11 Feb 2014, 9:53 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Stannis, that lecture is about Anarchism. Are you suggesting that libertarianism and anarchism are one and the same?

Your assumption of Libertarianism is that it is anti-statist. You are wrong, in exactly the same way that someone who says that Socialism is anti-statist is wrong. The only requirement for a society to be a libertarian society is that they uphold individual liberty as the number one priority. If that is a strong state government that upholds that liberty, then so be it. If it is a corporation that upholds that liberty, then so be it.

Libertarian Socialism and Anarchism are *almost* exactly the same. Which you would have realized if you had watched more than 2 minutes of that lecture.

Last edited by sliqua-jcooter on 11 Feb 2014, 10:04 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Shall we proceed to start dragging out the most obnoxious examples of feminists we can find and referring to them as representational of the movement as a whole, using the same rationale that you're using here? Would that be productive for anything besides irritating people, which seems to be your goal here?

Dox, are you saying that the Libertarian Party is a fringe group a la RadFems, who make up probably less than 5% of actual feminists?
That the Wikipedia article only represents the "most obnoxious example" of libertarianism?
Surely someone could get in there and edit that article, if so.

@SJC: I've mentioned before that I don't do many YouTube videos, partly because of the time involved and partly because they can't be fisked. In addition, I'm really not a fan of Chomsky.

80 years ago people were using sliding rules, now we have computers. There is nothing magical about millions of guns and gun owners. There are also millions of cars and car owners, and there is a registry for them. The effort to catch over-speeding or drunk or illegal driving is just as real law enforcement as other police missions. Yes, there are still drunk driving, but there are also murder, robbery, burglary, etc still happening. Are you concluding the effort to fight all these crimes worthless 'chasing its own tail'?

In the case of gun registrations, registration all new guns and private sales alone is enough to address the main sources of criminal weapons. The later is greatly helped by automated computer searches. The police has been discovering and confiscating illegal guns with existing stop and search procedures and other investigations. No more effort is needed regarding this. If anything, the database makes verification easier.

As for those guns buried in the backyard so that their nominal owner can enjoy the feel of owning an illegal weapon, they are just irrelevant pieces of metals. In any case they do not magically fall into criminal hands. The whole cops actively going through every household searching for guns scenario is just your paranoia.

So then maybe you should refrain from commenting on videos that people post, if you're not going to watch them.

The wikipedia article *very clearly* spells out that libertarianism doesn't necessarily mean that one must believe in small government/no government - and that the only requirement for libertarians is that individual liberty is held in the highest regard.

that is valid. Usually I do.

looks like it has been edited since I saw it a couple of days ago.
Either that, or I was way too tired when I read it last.
The current version is much saner, and more explicit in allowing various degrees of restraint and economy, but is almost so broad that the current US government could be considered 'libertarian.'

The current US government is, in most cases, libertarian. We're not very far off from a libertarian utopia in theory, although in practice there are definitely areas where we don't follow our own theory of government *cough* NSA *cough*

!

SJC, I hope you realize that I'm going to use that now whenever I have to argue against the other type of libertarian

If the US government is libertarian then that's a good reason for me never to become one.

Please tell me you're joking. I don't think that 'in theory' is enough of a fig leaf to cover all the illiberal policies pursued by the US government, an entity I would usually use terms such as 'stifling' and 'overbearing' to describe.