Because we freely give up liberty, duh! We aren't forcibly coerced into giving up liberty. It's okay if we give up liberty as part of a mutually agreed upon transaction.

Its sad that people will use a couple of accidents to justify any and all regulations ranging from seat belt laws to just about anything.


You give up your liberty and do things a certain way, so everyone else should be forced to do so too? No.

Liberty is a desirable goal because it allows humans to prosper and live their lives how they see fit, rather than having someone else violently stopping them from fulfilling their desires.

People are very different. They have different preferences.
Some are willing to take more risks than others. Some don't see every little regulation as a significant risk if not complied with.
Some make choices you think are bad, and you make choices that other people think are bad. Is it not preferable that you both have the liberty to make choices that you want with your own life?

You don't need to embrace 'total liberty' to understand that liberty is beneficial and that many of these regulations are unnecessary, ineffective and very costly.



Yes, voluntarily doing something is extremely preferable to pointing guns at others and forcing them to do things.
It allows people who want to do things differently than you a chance to exercise their ability to do so.

This post was edited by cambovenzi on Mar 26 2015 10:28pm

I'm ok with abolishing seat belt laws as long as:
1. Minors are forced to wear seat belts
2. People who don't wear seat belts pay significantly higher insurance rates.

And if you get hit and aren't wearing it you lose rights to claim some of the medical compensation as part if your own negligence

Everyone is free.

If you refuse to aid a family member you may up disinherited. If you're a nuisance to your neighbors you may end up driven out.

If I seek to undercut your business it may well be malicious, and you may end up impoverished or worse.

Libertarians treat liberty as an end into itself. Fine, but that makes it a cult, not a serious philosophical position. It's predicated on the belief that you can easily separate public and private and that harm is always black and white.

Harm is often difficult to distinguish, and moral culpability even moreso. These complex dilemmas can't be adequately reduced to the tripe I hear Cambo ramble on about.

I'm interested in having the libertarian position fleshed out, but it strikes me (now) as childly simplistic.

This, of course. Also, I'd expect your family to not receive any sort of life insurance policy given that it's negligence.

Yep slaves are free. Starting off strong.


Ok?
Actions have consequences. We know this.


A massive non sequitur followed up with a strawman.
Some people treat liberty as a desirable end so that makes it a cult and not serious? ridiculous.

It is both and end and a means.
Liberty is a means that allows people the chance to reach their desired ends. Its also conducive with prosperity and well-being.
I also find liberty preferable to oppression. CULT!

Libertarians don't seek to ban all forms of "harm". Some things have negative effects on others. That is unavoidable.
It doesn't then follow that any/all forms of harm are acceptable or preferable or should be promoted.


Some things are complex therefore so my attempts to simplify and explain them are "tripe"? Another strong argument.



Great so you admittedly don't know shit about it, but are willing to brush it off as a cult, "tripe", simplistic and childish. A+

This post was edited by cambovenzi on Mar 27 2015 01:02pm

"Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end. It is not for the sake of a good public administration that it is required, but for the security in the pursuit of the highest objects of civil society, and of private life."

-Lord Acton, cult of liberty member.

why don't you stamp that quote on a picture of said lord acton fellow to bring things back on topic

Here you go


found this as a bonus: