posted on 02/09/2018 11:18:57 AM PST
by Red Badger
(Wanna surprise? Google your own name. Wanna have fun? Google your friends names......)
More broadly, libertarians fail to grapple with the reality that, for most individuals in an advanced society, the most coercive force in day-to-day life isnt the state, but the boss.
What a hit piece. In this instance, if you don’t like your boss, you leave. He can’t arrest you and throw you in jail. Whom you work for is your choice. Anyone who equates your boss with the state is a far cry for being a libertarian.
posted on 02/09/2018 11:37:24 AM PST
(See more at Sparklite Times)
Cato, ain’t he the one what got his soft pink hands nailed to the door of the Senate?
posted on 02/09/2018 11:47:52 AM PST
(People don't want to believe it be what it is but it do.)
“... would sometimes drink vodka mixed with Crystal Light” = Christini.
posted on 02/09/2018 11:51:30 AM PST
While no fan of the Libertarians nearly anarchist attitude about Liberty, much of the rest of the author’s critique is ignorant, uninformed and simply in error about many of the desired or expected results of what Libertarian’s do believe.
There is no greater coercion in human existence than the law.
The founders understood the evil about it - coercion at the legalized point of gun - and considered it a necessary evil but one that must have its powers limited. They were neither purist “Libertarians” nor ignorant socialists.
posted on 02/09/2018 12:07:12 PM PST
New York Magazine is ok with government raping your wallet.
posted on 02/09/2018 12:13:54 PM PST
by a fool in paradise
(Ask a lib if Alger Hiss colluded with the Russians.)
The difference between the Cato Institute and Fascists is that the former has no problem with corporatists wielding as much power as a government and the latter wants government to run the corporations. Either way, the public has no representation and ends up being ruled by the same kind of people. It's like the difference between 1+3=4 and 3+1=4.
posted on 02/09/2018 12:29:09 PM PST
(The swamp is draining; and the alligators are allegating.)
I’ve done some research into anarcho-capitalism out of interest, and I learned that the way their intellectuals frame the NAP derives ultimately from a human being existing in their own body, and therefore being able to claim private property by original appropriation or contract.
That being said, I don’t see how slavery is possible under that system. Corporate mercenary armies, brothels, depends... not slaves though; a person cannot take over another sentient person without violating the NAP, just exploit them through a contract they sign.
posted on 02/09/2018 1:48:52 PM PST
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson