re: If someone tells you they’re a Libertarian

quote:

---

Libertarians want less government.

---

Correct, but the government they want is going to restrict freedoms based on moral values. See my first response in this thread; I have zero problems with libertarians who say they want fewer restrictions. It's the "those guys want to legislate morality and we don't" stuff that I think is worth correcting. This is an analog issue, not a digital one.

quote:

---

Because we do have a parks system, and we do have a government we task with managing that park, they would be allowed to decide if orgies are permitted or not.

---

Way to avoid answering the question.

But since you're ok with that logic, because we do have zoning and permits, and we do have a government that we task with managing zoning and permits, they would be allowed to decide if liquor stores are permitted or not. No problem, right?

Purists libertarians are idiots because while I agree with them in principle the application of their ideas isn’t attainable short of armed revolution.

I prefer to focus on issues we might can actually change such as reducing the surveillance state, cutting spending, more freedom on social issues.

Non interventionist foreign policy and truly unregulated free market capitalism just isn’t going to happen even though I wish it could. I’m not going to be like the purists who refuse to support anyone unless they’re true believers. Libertarians will never gain national office in any meaningful way being like that. Our system requires compromise

What are your parameters? Zoning laws exist, but libertarians don’t believe they should. Public Schools exist, but libertarians often don’t believe they should. Public parks exist though many libertarians don’t agree that they should.

I gave you your answer if libertarians had their way, and what the answer is presently. Libertarians believe zoning laws are unconstitutional, as they were for the first 150 years or so of American history. However, that is no longer the case. Libertarians would like to revert back to that state, but under the given laws, obviously, governments have power to regulate things that libertarians believe they shouldn’t. What is your “gotcha” here? Are you asking whether libertarians say you should defy the law that does exist? Libertarians argue the law shouldn’t exist.

There is what is, and what should be under a given philosophy. Libertarianism says that the world that “should be” wouldn’t have liquor licenses, zoning, public schools, or public parks.

quote:

---

When it comes nut cutting time, republicans often find the libertarian knife in their back.

---

I'm not sure what nuts you're referring to, but as the GOP tends to less government, less regulations, libertarians tend republican.

But I've certainly voted Dem at times.
I've not had reasonable options at the national level. For example, given the chance, I'd have voted for Sam Nunn or Richard Shelby (when he was a democrat) without reservation. I'd not vote for a single democrat currently in Congress (House or Senate) as they are 100% disgusting, compromised rubberstamps for socialists.

quote:

---

I'm not sure what nuts you're referring to, but as the GOP tends to less government, less regulations, libertarians tend republican.

---

There have been many instances over the years. The most recent that comes to mind is Rand Paul not supporting the border wall. Sure, sure, in a perfect libertarian world there would be no public money to entice the criminal illegals, but that's just not reality. The next best thing is a physical barrier between the two countries. Rand shite on it.

If you are on a date and a female tells you they are a libertarian or from Mississippi, there is a good chance you will get laid.

They’re decided in tort. Your rights are what you will defend. Think offensive sounds, smells, etc. Does your neighbor’s use of his property diminish your ability to enjoy your property? Can you quantity the amount by which your enjoyment is diminished?

This. The right thing done the wrong way is still the wrong thing. Why? Because it opens the door for the wrong things to be done the wrong way with no way to stop them.

The value of pragmatism vs staying true to one’s principles is often a difficult thing to weigh in a given situation. Sometimes it is best not to let the perfect be the enemy of the good, but if the means don’t justify the end, then the end doesn’t justify the means.

A libertarian would not authorize use of power it wouldn’t want usable against them. If you wouldn’t want your worst enemy in government to be allowed to do something, you probably shouldn’t be trusted with the power to do that something either.

I would assume they are very intellectual having read Mises, Rothbard, Friedman, Hayek, Hoppe, Tom Woods, Lew Rockwell, Jeff Diest, listened to Dave Smith's, Lions of Liberty's, Bob Woods, Freeman Behind the Wall, Propaganda Report, Scott Horton, Anarchcast, and Ron Paul's podcasts. An intellectual Mike Tyson for sure.