• Welcome to the Internet Infidels Discussion Board.

L.P.D.: Libertarian Police Department

 
 
 
Libertarianism will not work for the same reason Communism didn't work: The true and pure ideology will never be tried.
 
I really do wonder what are libertarian principles if market-worship, corporate control, and complete privatization of social infrastructure aren't such principles... Some of it is hyperbole, like pay-per-use guns, but what do you really expect as a result of such policies? Private for-profit everything. Though more likely it'll be more like the plot of Elysium.
 
Tom Sawyer said:
Come on, ksen, you know the opinions expressed at those links aren't the opinions of REAL(tm) libertarians.
Click to expand...

I know, I should have used Libertarian sites instead of libertarian sites.

I think I got most of the principles being illustrated, did I miss any big ones?

- - - Updated - - -

Hey . . . where'd dismal go?
 
Jarhyn said:
I really do wonder what are libertarian principles if market-worship, corporate control, and complete privatization of social infrastructure aren't such principles... Some of it is hyperbole, like pay-per-use guns, but what do you really expect as a result of such policies? Private for-profit everything. Though more likely it'll be more like the plot of Elysium.
Click to expand...

Their motto really could be, "Gotta pay to play."
 
I've always wondered if all the roads and sidewalks and land is private, where do the non-owners live?
 
privatized police force
privatized roads and sidewalks
legalized heroin
embracing bitcoin
Market prices are by definition the fair price
hatred of central banking
Click to expand...

These are not "principles", so they are not libertarian "principles".

Some libertarians may support them as policies, some may not.

I would not object to you making fun of "Patrick Tinsley" for supporting private police forces, but "Patrick Tinsley" not = "libertarians".

By this sort of argumentation I could say 'Democrats believe Guam may tip over"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v7XXVLKWd3Q

Or "Republicans believe in using a wide stance in the rest room"

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/28/AR2007082801664.html
 
Nice Squirrel said:
dismal said:
You're living in a society that has adopted some level of libertarian principles now.
Click to expand...
Woosh!
Click to expand...
I think dismal's problem is that he doesn't know the difference between conservative humor and actual humor.

Most humor, that's funny, involves an impossibility. One has to surprise a laugh out of people.

Privatized police could never operate if their own cars required quarter slots to operate. No one's saying that libertarians want such cop cars. The OP is taking real libertarian ideals (or the ideals, stated policies, of SOME libertarians) to an unrealistic, absurdist extreme for the purpose of humor.

When the very conservative joke, they tell each other much the same things they believe anyway. There's no surprise. There's not really any humor. They say 'i was joking' at the end, but the response they're looking to get has been called 'clapter.' It's not laughter, ha-ha. It's when you nod your head in agreement and hoot/holler/clap.
The blue-collar comedy tour gets a lot of that. They get the same response for telling an anti-feminist joke as they get for just saying 'I'm from Atlanta.' Nothing wrong with it, unless you can't tell the difference.

So when someone offers libertarian-flavored absurdity, dismal is not equipped to interpret it. He thinks that the joke teller is seeking clapter, and if dismal thinks it's inaccurate (as all absurdity is), then it's 'not funny.'

I get the same thing with the 'how many (fill in the blank christain sects) does it take to change a light bulb?' joke. People will laugh at the Catholic, Charismatic, Mormon and Megachurch punchlines, but suddenly grow cold and say 'That's not how Campus Crusaders think, asshole. You're not as funny as you think you are.'
 
Keith&Co. said:
Nice Squirrel said:
Woosh!
Click to expand...
I think dismal's problem is that he doesn't know the difference between conservative humor and actual humor.

Most humor, that's funny, involves an impossibility. One has to surprise a laugh out of people.

Privatized police could never operate if their own cars required quarter slots to operate. No one's saying that libertarians want such cop cars. The OP is taking real libertarian ideals (or the ideals, stated policies, of SOME libertarians) to an unrealistic, absurdist extreme for the purpose of humor.

When the very conservative joke, they tell each other much the same things they believe anyway. There's no surprise. There's not really any humor. They say 'i was joking' at the end, but the response they're looking to get has been called 'clapter.' It's not laughter, ha-ha. It's when you nod your head in agreement and hoot/holler/clap.
The blue-collar comedy tour gets a lot of that. They get the same response for telling an anti-feminist joke as they get for just saying 'I'm from Atlanta.' Nothing wrong with it, unless you can't tell the difference.

So when someone offers libertarian-flavored absurdity, dismal is not equipped to interpret it. He thinks that the joke teller is seeking clapter, and if dismal thinks it's inaccurate (as all absurdity is), then it's 'not funny.'

I get the same thing with the 'how many (fill in the blank christain sects) does it take to change a light bulb?' joke. People will laugh at the Catholic, Charismatic, Mormon and Megachurch punchlines, but suddenly grow cold and say 'That's not how Campus Crusaders think, asshole. You're not as funny as you think you are.'
Click to expand...

"Humor can be dissected, as a frog can, but the thing dies in the process and the innards are discouraging to any but the pure scientific mind."
— E. B. White

FiS
moderate green libertarian
 
Getting back to political humor, I rather enjoyed this:

20140829_isis1.jpg
 
ksen, if you had titled it Libertarian-Anarchist Police Department, you could have had: L.A.P.D. ;)
 
ksen said:
dismal said:
You're living in a society that has adopted some level of libertarian principles now.
Click to expand...

Which principles would those be?
Click to expand...

As an example it has been explained to me, while libertarians believe in little or no regulation by the government of the economy only a true libertarian can actually implement libertarian deregulation of the economy.

And this the Ray Martinez fallacy, that the libertarians believe that anyone who is not a libertarian is incapable of implementing libertarian principles in the way that this guy Martinez believes that non-christians are incapable of having a religion, that is they all are atheists.

Why libertarians believe in a known fallacy was never explained to me.

The Republicans don't really believe in deregulation, what they do is malregulation. Which is something like crony capitalism where while it appeared that the Republicans weren't enforcing the regulations that were on the books in the run up to the Great Financial Crisis brought on by the various derivatives dreamed up by Wall Street what they were actually doing was rewriting the existing regulations to favor their favored capitalists and bankers, apparently in secret.

I asked some obvious questions resulting from this explanation, such as who would be a libertarian who would be capable of implementing true libertarian principles and how were the Republicans able to rewrite regulations in secret, but the libertarian who told me this exercised his freedom to ignore questions and left.

I don't know if these are widely held libertarian principles or if this was a single libertarian exercising his libertarian freedom to make up explanations on the spot that he will later deny.

As I understand it libertarians don't know how their libertarian principles will impact society and the economy, but they are sure that the result will be wonderful and they can't wait to see what happens.

They also have no idea of how to implement their libertarian philosophy since they really don't know how the philosophy will impact the economy and society in general. But that both will be better off because they will be free.

And freedom is more important than any details on how things would work or details on how they would be implemented. And don't forget that everything will be wonderful.
 
Last edited:
It is hard not to make fun of these people, even when you try to explain what they believe in a straight forward manner using their own words. They are nearly perfect examples of self-parody. This might be why they are so reluctant to explain their principles.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom