- Joined
- Oct 31, 2008
- Messages
- 10,260
- Reaction score
- 5
But it's not 1%. It's Sen. Al Franken calling people racist when Sen. Elizabeth Warren lies about being Native American. It's Sen. Tim Kaine using strawman arguments like the one in the video I have posted below. It's stuff coming out the mouths of the elected politicians. It's a huge chunk of the vocal liberals on this forum. It's not 1%, and it's not just the whackos out in Berkeley.The problem with this is that you're tarring 99% of liberals by trying to associate them with 1%. And I don't think you'd do that unless you were already inclined to oppose them. And it's meaningless to say that anyone is "into regulation or big gov't."
This is where I see a problem. A consistent libertarian would be for less-restrictive immigration policy (or straight-up open borders if they're really consistent), against enforcement of no-compete clauses, against occupational licensing, against housing construction restrictions, against abusive police practices (like we see in places like Ferguson), against the gov't trying to start wars with the media, and OK with environmental regs (preventing externalization of costs is one of the few legitimate functions of the gov't in most libertarian theory). But they're not there fighting those fights. They're cheering on the gov't as it becomes more authoritarian, they're out there saying that victims of police violence should have been more obedient, etc.
I'm not a 100% consistent libertarian, just as few people are 100% conservative or liberal. Those kinds of people are extremists. I think that the government has the authority to control the national borders. The most important purpose of government is to defend the homeland, and that starts with defining and protecting the borders. It has the authority to raise and maintain a military to defend its interests (I largely agree with the Powell Doctrine there). I am against abusive police practices, but that really starts with asking ourselves what laws we need to have in the first place versus which ones we are going to enforce and to what extent. And we aren't cheering on the government. If anything, we have people out there looking to pass constitutional amendments to require a balanced budget instead of increased deficit spending. Those same people are looking to abolish government agencies like the Department of Education, HUD, and others, as well as get rid of things like the PATRIOT Act. And since you want to bring up Michael Brown, you can say what you want about how the environment was bad. But he was killed because he attacked Officer Darren Wilson. If you attack someone, and they shoot you, then that's on you. And no one made Michael Brown attack Officer Darren Wilson. That was his own really, really stupid choice. Libertarian thought holds true that you are fundamentally responsible for the decisions that you make and the things that you do. It holds true consistently in this case. And I don't know a single libertarian that is defending the shooting of Walter Scott, and I personally think that Eric Garner was a problem. I don't think it's murder, but a rear naked choke was applied improperly in such a manner that led to the death of an unarmed suspect. If the problem was with the training, then I think that the NYPD is to blame. If the training was solid, and it was the officer to blame for the misapplication of that training, then I think that he should be held responsible for the wrongful death. And the investigative process should determine that.