The second frame is clever (enough) and a good critique of anarcho-libertarianism, but not of the other major strand of libertarian thought, miniarchist.
Two related issues are just what constitute essential government services, and how non-essential services should be removed. I'm not aware of any intelligent libertarian who wants to immediately and quickly undo all of the current government infrastructure; that would be a disaster. Such changes must occur incrementally.
Zilch, pragmatism isn't the only measure of what ought to be done. Humanity would be a lot better off if the government could determine what books everyone could read, or if it could redistribute organs from healthy stupid people to smart ill people. But even if humanity must operate at a continual disadvantage, it is morally preferable that it do so rather than violate individual liberty.
But even if humanity must operate at a continual disadvantage, it is morally preferable that it do so rather than violate individual liberty.
Can you see that?
No, honestly, I can't. I am happy to "operate at a disadvantage", as you put it, in the form of paying taxes and not pushing old ladies out of my way, in return for the benefits of living in a society: public transportation, science, and friendship. Do you want to live in a society of one, Andiron?
The first frame is pretty weak. The last one is hilarious and spot-on, however.
ReplyDeleteSo people who love freedom and want liberty for all people are goofy like these three examples?
ReplyDeleteI thought Liberty was a fine quality of life for us to seek and even fight for. maybe I'm ill-informed.
The second frame is clever (enough) and a good critique of anarcho-libertarianism, but not of the other major strand of libertarian thought, miniarchist.
ReplyDeleteTwo related issues are just what constitute essential government services, and how non-essential services should be removed. I'm not aware of any intelligent libertarian who wants to immediately and quickly undo all of the current government infrastructure; that would be a disaster. Such changes must occur incrementally.
This drawing presupposes that pets can talk. So is it hyper-Charismatic or hyper-Darwinian?
ReplyDeleteDemocrats were using the same logic against conservatives in general not too long ago.
ReplyDeleteAn argument from analogy minus the argument. Now where have I heard that before?
ReplyDeleteCute, but demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of libertarianism.
ReplyDeleteEven in anarcho-capitalism, a more "extreme" strand of libertarianism, the argument isn't against critical infrastucture or compassion for the poor.
The argument is for societal needs to be met by voluntary social cooperations within society instead of the state.
The argument is for societal needs to be met by voluntary social cooperations within society instead of the state.
ReplyDeleteThat would be nice if it worked. Trouble is, it doesn't. That's why we have governments in the first place.
Zilch says: "That would be nice if it worked. Trouble is, it doesn't. That's why we have governments in the first place."
ReplyDeleteRegardless of whether you think the argument works, that is the argument, not the caricature in the cartoon strip.
Zilch, on those terms, it hasn't worked with governments either.
ReplyDeleteZilch, pragmatism isn't the only measure of what ought to be done. Humanity would be a lot better off if the government could determine what books everyone could read, or if it could redistribute organs from healthy stupid people to smart ill people. But even if humanity must operate at a continual disadvantage, it is morally preferable that it do so rather than violate individual liberty.
ReplyDeleteCan you see that?
C. Andiron, you say:
ReplyDeleteBut even if humanity must operate at a continual disadvantage, it is morally preferable that it do so rather than violate individual liberty.
Can you see that?
No, honestly, I can't. I am happy to "operate at a disadvantage", as you put it, in the form of paying taxes and not pushing old ladies out of my way, in return for the benefits of living in a society: public transportation, science, and friendship. Do you want to live in a society of one, Andiron?