I recently read a piece titled "why I am not a libertarian". It was brought to my attention by James Daniel Ross, a man I respect greatly and whose reply to said piece I have posted here. There were many faults of logic and reason in this piece, and there were many replies in support of and a few against his assumptions. I just felt the need to voice my own now here for all of you in a manner which even we feebleminded libertarians can understand.
Here is a link to the offending article for you all to read... http://weeklysift.com/2011/08/22/why-i-am-not-a-libertarian/
And now to my somewhat simple minded reply:
I am a Libertarian, because the idea of individual Liberty is the only one which will allow people such as our friend here to make such statements about other's ideas without being imprisoned or even killed for doing so. Individual Liberty is that core idea which this nation was founded upon, that no one man can be oppressed by another group. I know we have had a rather difficult time with living up to that ideal, that we have actually failed in doing so, but it is the striving to attain that which makes this nation great.
That the star trek axiom trotted out so often by the left of the "needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few" which we as a nation hold as anathema. But rather that the rights of the individual are what is truly important, for only in defending the individual can we assure the rights of the whole of society.
Collectivism as espoused in the article in question is nothing more than a pretty face placed upon slavery. An inducement for those to strive mightily to reach the middle... er.. rather be born to the middle, and locked into it.
If you have Liberty, you can gather a group of your like minded brethren and create a commune, a socialist oasis where you can practice what you preach. If you wish to have socialized medicine, you may create and build your own socialized medical care center, you may donate as much of your money as you so choose because you have the freedom to do so. You may even choose not to do so as you also have that freedom as well, but you may not coerce or otherwise force others to act as you wish in regards to their property. The American axion of "your rights end at my nose" apply.
I believe it comes down to that particular issue, the one of "property". Under Libertarianism, property and the rights to such exist and are protected, whereas in this offending article the assumption is no such thing as property, nor the right to own it, exist.
It is also quite obvious that despite his claims to the contrary, he has zero understanding of Libertarian principles and ideas. Mr. Muder equates Libertarianism with total anarchy, which nothing could be further from the truth. Libertarians recognize the need for government, and for a certain amount of "collectivism" such as people to collect the trash, police the streets, teach our children, but we also recognize the need to limit it's powers and control it tightly. Two things which have not been occurring for quite some time now.
So, I'm assuming that my taking his wallet and raiding his fridge for my lunch... wait, our wallet, and our fridge... what was I thinking?, would be just A-OK by him.
SAN FRANCISCO – Transit officials blocked cellphone reception in San Francisco train stations for three hours to disrupt planned demonstrations over a police shooting.
Officials with the Bay Area Rapid Transit system, better known as BART, said Friday that they turned off electricity to cellular towers in four stations from 4 p.m. to 7 p.m. Thursday. The move was made after BART learned that protesters planned to use mobile devices to coordinate a demonstration on train platforms.
The tactic drew comparisons to those used by the former president of Egypt to squelch protests demanding an end to his authoritarian rule. Authorities there cut Internet and cellphone services in the country for days earlier this year.
"BART officials are showing themselves to be of a mind with the former president of Egypt, Hosni Mubarak," the Electronic Frontier Foundation said on its website.
The American Civil Liberties Union criticized the tactic, saying on its blog that it was the "wrong response to political protests."
BART officials were confident the cellphone disruptions were legal. They said in a statement that it's illegal to demonstrate on the platform or aboard the trains, and that it has set aside special areas for demonstrations.
The demonstration planned Thursday failed to develop. "We had a commute that was safe and without disruption," said BART spokesman Jim Allison.
The demonstrators were protesting the July 3 shooting of Charles Blair Hill by BART police, who claimed Hill came at them with a knife. Several people were arrested when a July 11 demonstration disrupted service during the rush-hour commute and prompted the closing of BART's Civic Center station."
Three cheers to you San francisco!! It's about time someone cracked down on that stupid 1st amendment with a little preemptive action! Well done! That will show those layabout ne'er-do-well jackanapes just exactly who has the authority in your town! Protesting a shooting indeed, I have never heard such shocking disrespect for authority in all my days.
And to plan a demonstration which clearly disregards the "special areas" which you have so graciously set aside for demonstrations so any such demonstrations cannot disrupt even for a moment the orderly and controlled flow of workers to and from their assigned duties. To have a demonstration cause a disruption or inconvenience simply goes against everything that you have been so long trying to ingrain into their minds. Everyone knows that disruption of the planned routine is antithetical to order and control. I mean really, who do these protesters think they are? It's not like San Francisco lays claim to any kind of tradition of free thinking, where do they think they are Haight-Ashbury? Wherever that is.
Well! What other choice could you have possibly made than to shut down everyone's ability to communicate, thus snipping the strings of their anarchistic puppet masters before they could ever make them dance their disruptive, and therefore dangerous dance.
"BART officials were confident the cellphone disruptions were legal. They said in a statement that it's illegal to demonstrate on the platform or aboard the trains, and that it has set aside special areas for demonstrations."
And the proof of it is that there was no such protest. The quick actions of BART have also assured that there were zero lion attacks and bear maulings. Their quick actions of shutting down everyone's ability to communicate has also prevented a repeat of the 1914 assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand, thus preventing us all from the hell of yet another world war which would have no doubt resulted in the deaths of untold millions, possibly even billions of innocents. Thank you San Francisco.
"The demonstration planned Thursday failed to develop. "We had a commute that was safe and without disruption," said BART spokesman Jim Allison."
See, the ends justify the means, just look to San Francisco from now on for order and preemptive action.
I'll shut up now and get back to my pottery.