Do Libertarians support pit bull and chicken fighting?

[Kevin_Kennedy]

So Kev, do you agree there are narco-Libertarians (not sure really what that means)? But good for you for pointing out that all Libertarians aren't the same.

"Narco-Libertarian" is a term invented by The Rabbi, I have no idea what it means.

 

[2Parties]

Narco-Libertarian is a libertarian with narcolepsy.

 

[Bern80]

Deflect, dissemble, repeat.
Here is evidence that narco-libertarians object to laws criminalizing torturing animals, which is what I have always maintained.
Defending the Undefendable: Michael Vick, Dog Killer by Todd Steinberg

Now that we have that out of the way, and I have provided proof for everything you've asked, maybe you can show you have more than 1 dying brain cell and bring support for your statements. This is only the fifth time or so I've asked.

If you believe this guy represents libertarians then you probably also believe that Fred Phelps represents Christians. And that makes you a disingenuous doucher or seriously fucked in the head. Take your pick.

My support is simple logic and reasonableness, both of which you obviously lack. Libertarians believe in limited government and limited restrictrictions on individual liberty. They do not believe in no government and no restrictions. It's a matter of simple logic and reasonableness to conclude that laws against animal torture do not run afoul of libertarian ideals. To suggest otherwise is ludicrous hyperbole at best (USCitizen) and pure intellectual dishonesty at worst (You). But of course you know this so you throw out the bullshit red herring that I somehow need to validate what I know to be logical and reasonable with a written opinion of another. You fail.

The problem being that there are libertarians who believe in no government.

And as I said before just because you call yourself something doesn't mean that's what you are. A libertarian that believes in no government is not a libertarian at all.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

If you believe this guy represents libertarians then you probably also believe that Fred Phelps represents Christians. And that makes you a disingenuous doucher or seriously fucked in the head. Take your pick.

My support is simple logic and reasonableness, both of which you obviously lack. Libertarians believe in limited government and limited restrictrictions on individual liberty. They do not believe in no government and no restrictions. It's a matter of simple logic and reasonableness to conclude that laws against animal torture do not run afoul of libertarian ideals. To suggest otherwise is ludicrous hyperbole at best (USCitizen) and pure intellectual dishonesty at worst (You). But of course you know this so you throw out the bullshit red herring that I somehow need to validate what I know to be logical and reasonable with a written opinion of another. You fail.

The problem being that there are libertarians who believe in no government.

And as I said before just because you call yourself something doesn't mean that's what yo are. A libertarian that believes in no government is not a libertarian at all.

So it's your contention that "Mr. Libertarian" Murray Rothbard, essentially the father of the modern libertarian movement, was not a libertarian?

 

[2Parties]

The only people who refuse to recognize anarchist thought in libertarianism are those who are ignorant of the history and philosophy of libertarianism itself.

 

[Bern80]

The problem being that there are libertarians who believe in no government.

And as I said before just because you call yourself something doesn't mean that's what yo are. A libertarian that believes in no government is not a libertarian at all.

So it's your contention that "Mr. Libertarian" Murray Rothbard, essentially the father of the modern libertarian movement, was not a libertarian?

From what I have read about him, I wouldn't say he believed in no government. As with most libertarians he just couldn't come up with much they do well.

 

[manifold]

The fact remains that there is nothing inherent in libertarian ideology to suggest support for an individual's right to torture animals.

^^Truth^^

 

[Bern80]

The only people who refuse to recognize anarchist thought in libertarianism are those who are ignorant of the history and philosophy of libertarianism itself.

The only way the are related is that in terms of an ideological spectrum libertarianism is closer to anarchy in terms of government's role than say liberalism. Anarchy, however, is a lack of order or chaos. It would be hard to argue that libertarians favor lack of order.

 

[uscitizen]

Would libertarians oppose mandatory car child safety restraint laws?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

And as I said before just because you call yourself something doesn't mean that's what yo are. A libertarian that believes in no government is not a libertarian at all.

So it's your contention that "Mr. Libertarian" Murray Rothbard, essentially the father of the modern libertarian movement, was not a libertarian?

From what I have read about him, I wouldn't say he believed in no government. As with most libertarians he just couldn't come up with much they do well.

That would be incorrect. Rothbard believed in a stateless society combining the philosophy of the individualist anarchists, such as Lysander Spooner, with Austrian free market economics, and libertarian political philosophy to come up with anarcho-capitalism.

"Enough has been said here, I believe, to indicate that an anarchist system for settling disputes would be both viable and self-subsistent: that once adopted, it could work and continue indefinitely. How to arrive at that system is of course a very different problem, but certainly at the very least it will not likely come about unless people are convinced of its workability, are convinced, in short, that the state is not a necessary evil."

Society Without a State by Murray N. Rothbard

 

[The Rabbi]

The fact remains that there is nothing inherent in libertarian ideology to suggest support for an individual's right to torture animals.

^^Truth^^

Yet another straw man. No one suggested that. Try posting support for your views.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

The only people who refuse to recognize anarchist thought in libertarianism are those who are ignorant of the history and philosophy of libertarianism itself.

The only way the are related is that in terms of an ideological spectrum libertarianism is closer to anarchy in terms of government's role than say liberalism. Anarchy, however, is a lack of order or chaos. It would be hard to argue that libertarians favor lack of order.

No, anarchy is lack of a state, not of order.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Would libertarians oppose mandatory car child safety restraint laws?

Yes.

 

[Gadawg73]

Just curious about this. For the extremeo's the laws against stuff are anti libertarian.

The typical narco-libertarian response wil be that as long it doesn't bother anyone it's OK by them. Good thing no one asks the chickens.

Wrong. Speak for yourself. R U Libertarian?
We heard the right wing oppose the ban on fox hunting in England as " left wing conspiracy whacko environmentalists"
As usual, the right wing wants to sit the fence, play both sides and pick and choose.
Dog fighting is animal cruelty just like greyhound racing, fox hunting and a dozen or more other sick and sad sports. I can not stand Michael Vick but his sentence was absurd.
When have we seen Rush and Sean oppose racing?

 

[Bern80]

Would libertarians oppose mandatory car child safety restraint laws?

Yes.

Why? You don't own your children, so it isn't a question of property rights. I think they very well may support them, on the grounds that your actions, or lack of action in this case, effects the safety of another.

 

[2Parties]

From what I have read about him, I wouldn't say he believed in no government. As with most libertarians he just couldn't come up with much they do well.

Read The Ethics of Liberty (link to the entire book in PDF format for free: The Ethics of Liberty, by Murray N. Rothbard - - Mises Institute) and tell me if he believed in no government.

Though I don't agree with a few things that Rothbard supports his opposition to ALL government is very clear.

(Just so you know I own that book and have read the entire thing)

 

[Bern80]

The only people who refuse to recognize anarchist thought in libertarianism are those who are ignorant of the history and philosophy of libertarianism itself.

The only way the are related is that in terms of an ideological spectrum libertarianism is closer to anarchy in terms of government's role than say liberalism. Anarchy, however, is a lack of order or chaos. It would be hard to argue that libertarians favor lack of order.

No, anarchy is lack of a state, not of order.

But it is the likely end result just the same.

 

[uscitizen]

It would be interesting to watch the Libertarians if in control do away with the for your own good and child safety food safety, etc laws and then bring them back as time passed.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Would libertarians oppose mandatory car child safety restraint laws?

Yes.

Why? You don't own your children, so it isn't a question of property rights. I think they very well may support them, on the grounds that your actions, or lack of action in this case, effects the safety of another.

And who has the right to raise their children? The parents or the state?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

The only way the are related is that in terms of an ideological spectrum libertarianism is closer to anarchy in terms of government's role than say liberalism. Anarchy, however, is a lack of order or chaos. It would be hard to argue that libertarians favor lack of order.

No, anarchy is lack of a state, not of order.

But it is the likely end result just the same.

Not in the opinion of Murray Rothbard and the rest of the anarcho-capitalists. They believe the free market can order all of society better than government.