Libertarians

[Vic]

most "libertarians" in real life are asking questions like "why cant i paint my shed on my property a color i choose" "why cant i build a garage within the setbacks of my property with out paying 1000s for a permit on my agricultural land? why cant I put a flag up of my choosing? etc. and not " why cant I own nukes?" and "we need to privatize the national parks" and " we should get rid of public education"




if you want to disagree with people making broad generalizations about a political party, you must provide every exacting detail of your opnion, otherwise your argument/opinion is invalid. I am surprised you did not know that @dank69

Dude, the OP's vid is from the Libertarian Party Presidential Debates. If that's not a "Libertarian in real life," then nothing is.

And BTW, I used to be a member of the LP, back before it got taken over by racists and those who think the rules apply to everyone else but not them.

 

[brycejones]

Dude, the OP's vid is from the Libertarian Party Presidential Debates. If that's not a "Libertarian in real life," then nothing is.

And BTW, I used to be a member of the LP, back before it got taken over by racists and those who think the rules apply to everyone else but not them.

From herm's examples I think he is really butt hurt about a garage project that didn't go the way he wanted it to.

 

[mect]

Dude, the OP's vid is from the Libertarian Party Presidential Debates. If that's not a "Libertarian in real life," then nothing is.

And BTW, I used to be a member of the LP, back before it got taken over by racists and those who think the rules apply to everyone else but not them.

When I watched it, I thought the video was some kind of a parody. It is insane to me that it is real.

Edit: I went on to watch the unedited video posted below in the same feed. It didn't help make it any less insane.

 

[SMOGZINN]

No it wasn't. It was anarchist420. And it specifically pertained to DUI's.

Yours wasn't really the same argument. You never said there would be no penalty for DUI short of causing harm. In fact, you appear to have made exception for it.

What sort of policy do you support regarding breathalyzer interlocks on cars?

This came up in another thread, so I'm curious what others think. For those who don't know what these are, they're essentially small computers that you blow into; they analyze your breath for alcohol and if they judge it to be high enough that you're considered impaired, refuse to start the car.

forums.anandtech.com

I'm glad it wasn't me then! I had hoped that I had purged most of my libertarian ideology by then, but I've been on these forums for a long time now.

EDIT: Oh, I also wanted to complement you on your search skills. I can never seem to find the post I'm looking for when I remember something like that! Bravo for mastering the search function!

 

[woolfe9998]

I'm glad it wasn't me then! I had hoped that I had purged most of my libertarian ideology by then, but I've been on these forums for a long time now.

Good on you. And for the record, the reason I disagreed with a420, and to a lesser extent, your prior post, was the issue of what does and does not deter reckless behavior. People never think they're going to be the one to run someone over. But they do worry over being caught by a police radar gun, or if intoxicated, they worry over being pulled over for a minor infraction then having the cop smell alcohol on their breath. If you want to deter reckless behavior, you have to make people fear what in their minds is a relatively probable occurrence.

 

[SMOGZINN]

Good on you. And for the record, the reason I disagreed with a420, and to a lesser extent, your prior post, was the issue of what does and does not deter reckless behavior. People never think they're going to be the one to run someone over. But they do worry over being caught by a police radar gun, or if intoxicated, they worry over being pulled over for a minor infraction then having the cop smell alcohol on their breath. If you want to deter reckless behavior, you have to make people fear what in their minds is a relatively probable occurrence.

Hopefully this is not too much off topic, but I actually agree with all of what you said. Since 2013 I have rethought most of my ideas on this and while I am still in favor of stronger penalties based on outcome, mainly making driving without a license a felony and suspending licenses for reckless driving, I don't think we should remove the laws that are intended to deter reckless behavior. I think that anyone that pays attention to any given road can see that they obviously don't work very well, but I now think that they probably work well enough to be worth enforcing. That is to say I think people would be even worse drivers without them, so they come out a net good.

We really just need self driving cars. People are too emotional to make good decisions behind the wheel.

 

[dank69]

Hopefully this is not too much off topic, but I actually agree with all of what you said. Since 2013 I have rethought most of my ideas on this and while I am still in favor of stronger penalties based on outcome, mainly making driving without a license a felony and suspending licenses for reckless driving, I don't think we should remove the laws that are intended to deter reckless behavior. I think that anyone that pays attention to any given road can see that they obviously don't work very well, but I now think that they probably work well enough to be worth enforcing. That is to say I think people would be even worse drivers without them, so they come out a net good.

We really just need self driving cars. People are too emotional to make good decisions behind the wheel.

Honestly 75% of people have no business operating motor vehicles. DL tests should be grueling, no less than an hour spent negotiating intersections without stoplights. And every car needs functionality that detects when the driver reaches for their phone and immediately pulls over to a safe spot, self destructs the engine, ejects the keys into the nearest sewer, and shocks the driver into unconsciousness.

 

[Muse]

Why I will never in the guise of saving money, ever let an insurance company put a monitoring device on my car.

Yeah, I investigated a company (name escapes me now) that specializes (apparently) in low cost car insurance for low mileage drivers. I would save a little but:

1. They would insist on my installing a device in the car.
2. I would lose my home insurance multi-policy discount.

Metromile, is the company. I ignore their letters now. I am driving less than 1500 miles/year last several years. I'm paying maybe $630/year at the moment, no accidents or tickets in decades.

 

[Fenixgoon]

Honestly 75% of people have no business operating motor vehicles. DL tests should be grueling, no less than an hour spent negotiating intersections without stoplights. And every car needs functionality that detects when the driver reaches for their phone and immediately pulls over to a safe spot, self destructs the engine, ejects the keys into the nearest sewer, and shocks the driver into unconsciousness.

Funny because of the self destruct party but I agree driver training needs to be more rigorous.

Having done autocross, I honestly believe people would be better drivers if they better understood their vehicles at the limits of handling

 

[SMOGZINN]

Having done autocross, I honestly believe people would be better drivers if they better understood their vehicles at the limits of handling

I disagree. The problem is not that people don't understand their vehicle (they don't. It is just not the problem) it is that they are doing so many other things other then driving that vehicle while it is in motion. Consider trying to drive Autocross while eating a sandwich and reading your email. That is how most drivers do.
When you fail at that it will not be because you didn't understand your vehicle well enough.

 

[dank69]

Funny because of the self destruct party but I agree driver training needs to be more rigorous.

Having done autocross, I honestly believe people would be better drivers if they better understood their vehicles at the limits of handling

I disagree. The problem is not that people don't understand their vehicle (they don't. It is just not the problem) it is that they are doing so many other things other then driving that vehicle while it is in motion. Consider trying to drive Autocross while eating a sandwich and reading your email. That is how most drivers do.
When you fail at that it will not be because you didn't understand your vehicle well enough.

Understanding the limits can't hurt, and distracted driving is also a huge problem which is why I joked about shock therapy, but it is much more than either of those for me. Possible long post incoming:

The first thing drivers need to understand is that the moment you get behind the wheel, even if you drive perfectly, you are a fucking annoyance to everyone else on the road. Your very presence makes every other driver that passes within LOS worse. Everyone wishes they had the entire road system to themselves, and you are spoiling that experience.

With that in mind, you can now understand why road rage happens. If you are not driving with that mindset, that you have a duty to not inconvenience other drivers any more than absolutely necessary, then you are going to increase negative emotions on the road exponentially with every seemingly minor fuck-up.

Now, it's easy to say "people should control their emotions," but humans are inherently emotional creatures, and on the road it would be much better for people to be able to focus on their own driving without also having to focus on and process someone else's shitty driving. Simply put, if you are adding unnecessary inconvenience to the system, then you are a nuisance and should not be allowed to drive. Period.

Let's look at a simple example to illustrate the type of person that should not be allowed to drive. Speed limits are calibrated for the dumbest motherfuckers on the road. They have to be. If you've ever driven the speed limit and thought to yourself "this seems appropriate, anything much faster and it would be difficult to control my vehicle on this road," you should sell your car immediately and launch your DL into the sun. Your absolute highest priority should be changing whatever you need to change in your life so that you can rely on public transportation or at least someone else to drive your ass where you need to go. Driving the speed limit is fucking painful to competent drivers, let alone above average drivers. A competent driver could build a Lego Death Star while simultaneously driving the speed limit if they had to.

Please do not get me wrong, I'm not advocating that we should all be street racing. People weaving in and out of traffic are a fucking nuisance as well. But we all have to suffer ridiculous speed limits simply because we as a society have decided that everyone should have the right to drive if they can do so without shitting their pants in the process more than once per trip, and have decided that all the deaths and dismemberment this causes is just acceptable.

I'll stop now because I could go on for hours...

 

[UNCjigga]

I used to consider myself libertarian, but realized it was just the easy way to label myself when I didn't want to think about what was going on too much.

I consider myself progressive now, and for me that label includes personal freedoms and keeping government in check. Admittedly, that doesn't always work out (looking at you Patriot Act), but it's just how I see things now.

Ahh yes, you and Dank may have been one of those Jesse Ventura “libertarians”. Good folk, I was sad to see y’all go extinct... but maybe this guy can revive that particular genus of “tough guy progressive libertarian”:

Lt. Gov. John Fetterman | Governor Tom Wolf

On January 15, 2019, John Fetterman will be sworn in as Pennsylvania’s 34th lieutenant governor.

www.governor.pa.gov

 

[pmv]

I disagree. The problem is not that people don't understand their vehicle (they don't. It is just not the problem) it is that they are doing so many other things other then driving that vehicle while it is in motion. Consider trying to drive Autocross while eating a sandwich and reading your email. That is how most drivers do.
When you fail at that it will not be because you didn't understand your vehicle well enough.

e.g.

Driver caught brazenly eating a bowl of CEREAL at the wheel

A RECKLESS driver was caught on camera brazenly eating a bowl of CEREAL at the wheel while driving on a main road near Manchester. The footage was shot by a motorcyclist wearing a dashcam as he mad…

www.thesun.co.uk

Truck driver caught eating NOODLES while driving down the freeway

This is the moment a motorist who gave his name as Justin caught a trucker driving down the Kiwana Freeway near Perth tucking into a bowl of noodles while behind the wheel.

www.dailymail.co.uk

EMT chews out woman watching a ‘f—ing movie’ while driving

This idiotic driver in Irvine, California, was caught watching a video on her phone while speeding down the highway. An EMT, who was riding on the passenger side of an ambulance at the time, filmed…

nypost.com

Motorist caught watching a film while driving on the motorway - as cops spy on drivers from double-decker buses

A RECKLESS driver has been caught red-handed by police watching a film while driving on the M6. Warwickshire Police stopped the vehicle on Sunday after spotting the motorist using their mobile phon…

www.thesun.co.uk

It's gotten much worse with all the technology people now have in the Starship Enterprise bridge that car interiors increasingly resemble.

Also I notice how many car ads emphasise how the car will insulate you completely from the world around you - perfect sound-insulation, impregnable crash-protection, etc - so you can just completely ignore the world outside your vehicle. Consequently, people drive as if they are sitting in their office or their living room.

 

[Amol S.]

The problem is, the Libertarian Party does actually have a voter base that does consist of normal individuals. The only reason why they are Libertarian is because not all liberal ideas that are reasonable, are promoted or accepted by Democrats. One example is prostitution, where the Democrats are for decriminalization and not legalization, whereas the Libertarians are for legalization.

 

[Amol S.]

Is the Green Party as bad as the Libertarian, or are they better?

 

[alcoholbob]

Libertarianism is the philosophy of the 0.0001%. They want to avoid taxes and regulation. They are against public hierarchies (democracy) and in favor of private hierarchies and are really fascism adjacent. I think the ideal world for a libertarian is a world ruled by chieftains and warlords, since it roughly correlates with their current roles in society, except they have to deal once in a while with pesky democracy (those damn regulations and ballot initiatives...).

99.99% of people who claim to be libertarian are just paleo-conservatives who are repeating libertarian talking points funded by actual libertarians, the billionaire class. There's a reason why the Tea Party movement collapsed with the election of Trump and you have the resulting well-documented Libertarian -> Alt-Right phenomenon.

 

[dank69]

Is the Green Party as bad as the Libertarian, or are they better?

At this point they are nothing more than Russian operatives.

 

[dank69]

The problem is, the Libertarian Party does actually have a voter base that does consist of normal individuals. The only reason why they are Libertarian is because not all liberal ideas that are reasonable, are promoted or accepted by Democrats. One example is prostitution, where the Democrats are for decriminalization and not legalization, whereas the Libertarians are for legalization.

And this exposes the naivety of their thinking. Republicans want to keep prostitution illegal. If Democrats do not win, Republicans will. There is no third choice in a first-past-the-post voting system.