you want the world to be as free as possible, you want you to be as free as possible, and you assume that means as little government as possible.
that would be great, if everyone on the entire planet was considered equally and treated equally. you forget totally to acknowledge SOCIAL power structures. or maybe you didn’t even realize they exist because you’re very likely a cisgender white guy or haven’t examined your surroundings because you’ve been somewhere inside reading ayn rand all these years.
in order to operate on the assumption that everyone is equal and would have equal advantages/opportunities/rights with minimal government, you have to completely deny the existence of racism, sexism, ableism, transphobia, cissexism, etc.
you perpetuate the very existence of these things by denying that they exist, ya dig? you erase other people’s experiences and traumas and truths for the sake of furthering your own agenda. is that worth it?
PEOPLE NEED PROTECTION FROM ASSHOLES AND SOCIAL STRUCTURES, for as long as they exist. we need mandates against hate crimes and racial profiling and rape culture. maybe, if we lived in an ideal world, we’d all be considered equal, BUT WE DON’T.
“Recently, president Obama warned graduate students about libertarians, saying, “They’ll warn that tyranny is always lurking just around the corner. You should reject these voices.” Mr. Obama, you completely misunderstood. Tyranny is not just around the corner. It’s here. When half of your earnings are taken from you and used for foolish or harmful purposes, that’s already tyranny. When a government tells you how much you can eat or drink, or how you can enjoy yourself, that’s already tyranny. When your money is used to fund immoral and unneeded wars that serve only to enrich crony corporatist defense contractors, that’s already tyranny. When you are not allowed to exercise your natural and fundamental right to defend yourself or your children, as is the case in “gun free” school zones, that’s already tyranny. And when you are not allowed to exercise your fair and fundamental right to vote your conscience, because a two party duopoly won’t let any challengers on the ballot, that is most definitely, absolutely, unquestionably tyranny. Whether it’s Democrats in Maryland or Republicans in Pennsylvania, both agree that it’s appropriate to use immoral, underhanded tactics to keep Libertarians off the ballot. President Obama, we weren’t warning about tyranny. We were describing the current tyranny. ”—US Libertarian Party
- The Government: We need to make a law about this.
- The Government: We should ban this.
- The Government: We should regulate this.
- The Government: Ooh, let's make another law, or maybe a "few" more.
- The Government: Ooh, let's ban this too, and that.
- The Government: Ooh, we need more regulations than that.
- The Government: ...
- The Government: We need-
- Me: For fuck's sake. Can you just stop?
"A libertarian is just a progressive who has not yet learned that forces outside your control can completely derail your life."
Don’t these people have better things to do with their time than troll? Like learn how to perform surgery on themselves or make their own toilet paper or something?
We get it: you’re a special snowflake and think the rest of us are lazy, irresponsible whiners and any troubles we’re experiencing are entirely self-made.
Now kindly GTFO my social justice movement and go fuck yourselves…which seems to fit more with your whole, self-help, bootstraps ethos anyway.
Property and the Propertied
My wanting to defend property would have nothing to do with others getting property. It is defense of the status quo that matters here.
Huskerred has (unintentionally) summed up everything that’s wrong with the libertarians’ insistence that they are defending “property rights.” The dogged defense of the status quo has nothing to do with society’s fluid understanding of property rights and everything to do with protecting the interest of the propertied.
Political Prof explains (quite persuasively) that property rights, like all other rights, have always been subject to certain limitations. While I agree with this—I want to take this a step further and discuss ways in which our understanding of property is malleable, defined by societal expectations, and changes according to societal need. As such, I believe the libertarians defense of their version of property rights (wittingly or unwittingly) has more to do with protecting the interest of those who own property than it does with protecting some abstract concept of property.