Quote:
Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy
WTF, you are an encyclopedia of ignorance. Listen you ignorant SOB, I am about tired of you calling me ignorant! Libertarians aren't anarchists.*** Libertarians aren't heartless. I never said they were and if you weren't so God Damn ignorant you'd see that I didn't. In fact had you half a brain you'd know that there all a whole spectrum of Libertarians! We love freedom, and it is doubtful that any Libertarian would evict that woman. The ones pressing it are the banks, and Libertarians have no more faith in banks than you do. Many libertarians think that private charity would/should take care of that old woman. You need to study up on just WTF you believe in.
Libertarians support laws that protect a person's life liberty or property from being taken or harmed by force or fraud. This woman was likely screwed over by the bank, which a LIbertarian would not support. You have no basis in saying that. This woman may be behind on her house note but that was not the point of me posting this. I liked how these people handled it. They would not do it and it gives me a sliver of hope in humanity. The deputies, regardless of their personal political persuasion, did the right thing. Agreed. I wasn't the one that brought up politics.
You'd want to have Libertarians on the police force. They won't care if you're hobbying, but if you rob someone, or beat someone up, you will pay for it. |
Maybe, maybe not....you are saying a sweeping thing as fact.
***The statism / anarchism distinction
Libertarians differ on the degree up to which the state can be reduced. Two groups can be distinguished,
statists, who support states, and anarchists, who favor stateless societies and view the state as being undesirable, unnecessary, and harmful
[47][48] while others have defined anarchism as opposing authority in the conduct of human relations.
[49]
Supporters of government argue that having defense and courts controlled by the market is an inherent miscarriage of justice because it turns justice into a commodity, thereby conflating justice with economic power.[
citation needed] Libertarian anarchists argue that having defence and courts controlled by the state is both immoral and an inefficient means of achieving both justice and security. They argue that a state is coercive by its nature and therefore violates the non-aggression principle.
[50][51] Another argument is that private defense and protection firms would tend to represent the interests of those who pay them enough.
[52] Murray Rothbard agrees with this argument, however add that it is self-defeating to fight potential concentration of power by concentrating power in the hands of the state.
[53] Furthermore these anarchists claim that a market system is the best
Checks and balances system known to man.
[54]
Anarchists are divided according to their proprietarian or non-proprietarian definition of liberty. The proprietarian libertarian philosophy of anarchism is called
Anarcho-capitalism.
[55] Non-proprietarian libertarian philosophies of anarchism include
anarchist collectivism,
anarchist communism,
social anarchism) and
anarcho-syndicalism. Anti-property anarchists hold that liberty is incompatible with state action based on a class struggle analysis of the state.
[56]
Anarcho-capitalists generally argue government is aggressive by its nature because governments use force against those who have not stolen private property, vandalized private property, assaulted anyone, or committed fraud.
[57] Many also argue that
monopolies tend to be corrupt and inefficient.
[58] Murray Rothbard argued that all government services, including defense, are inefficient because they lack a market-based
pricing mechanism regulated by the voluntary decisions of
consumers purchasing services that fulfill their highest-priority needs and by investors seeking the most profitable enterprises to invest in.
[59] Pro-property anarchists also argue that
private defense and
court agencies would have to have a good reputation in order to stay in business.
[60] Murray Rothbard agrees with this argument. However, he argued that one cannot justify a concentration of power out of a fear of a concentration of power, and that a market system is the best
checks and balances system.
[61] Furthermore,
Linda & Morris Tannehill argue that no coercive monopoly of force can arise on a truly free market
[62] and that a government's citizenry can’t desert them in favor of a competent protection and defense agency.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism
Thank God, we haven't hit rock bottom yet.
I have never understood why, maybe because I do not judge you Log Cabin tootise pops to harshly. 
