How to Discombobulate Your Libertarian Friends

Raoul

 

Why are you acting surprised?

There's no difference among you in principle -- or lack thereof, actually -- you just have different prejudices.

Two sides of the same statist coin. Peas in a government-lovin' pod.

 

I'm sorry, but all your little thought experiment is doing is adding yet another barrier on top of the multitude of barriers by shifting the responsibility of accommodation to the individual rather than society in general.

That may be indeed what you want to do and what you think is right, but I disagree.

Time and time again, Universal design principles have turned out to benefit far more people than just the people that they were originally attended to help. For example: curb cuts benefit not only wheelchair users, but mothers with strollers and delivery persons. Universal design is what society should be striving for, not individual workaround kludges.

By the way, there already is at least one stair climbing wheelchair that I know of, and it is hideously expensive and many power wheelchair users like myself would be unable to use it anyway.

 

Why does Archangel seem to think that there aren't varying degrees of libertarians, just like there are varying degrees of liberals and conservatives? Not all libertarians think taxes should be done away with entirely, just like not all liberals think we should ban guns. Some think they're a necessary evil, but should be restricted to the bare minimum.

 

Why do some Libertarians think that some support of government programs, of any government programs whether madatory or not, are government lovers?

 

Well, some of us don't like seeing our money being wasted on government programs that are either broken or corrupt.

 

Or extra-Constitutional.

 

So do you assume that absolutely any government program, whether mandatory or not, is broken and corrupt, if not mandated by the Constitution?

 

Exactly. I readily admit I'm on the extreme that thinks any involuntary taxation is immoral.

Some favor a flat tax tax, some a sales tax, some a user fee, etc.

The one common thread is however government revenues are raised -- and there are so many ways to raise funds without necessarily resorting to involuntary taxation -- those funds should go to a very few and limited function.

 

Don't put words in my mouth.

If it's not mandated by the Constitution, then it shouldn't even be there in the first place, regardless if it's corrupt or not.

 

So far, I only think Raoul and Marso can see straight.

 

I'm sorry, but I really was not trying to put words in your mouth.

 

But, then again, universal designs fail to take into account the individual.
What you need, I may not. People are different.
You must do both.

 

Sure, but Universal design should get you 90% of the way there. Which is a far cry better than leaving it 100% up to the individual.

 

Yeah, because god forbid a person do with their own property what they wish.

 

Yeah. People should be able to put up statuary depicting dolphin porn if they wish.

 

You're just a fiend with the strawmen today, aren't you?

 

Oh you do, do you? Care to elaborate?

 

Machiavellian control works great, but doesn't account for the lone assassin.

"Both".
And where did you get you numbers from?

 

Strawmen?

What if I don't want to ruin the look of my building with a ramp? Or ADA compliant signage? Or waste perfectly good parking spaces by marking them handicapped?

That's what I wish to do with my property. According to you, I shouldn't be allowed to.

 

Should I be able to put up a row of decapitated heads on spears for everyoneto see and dump poisonous chemical waste in my river?

 

What kind of heads? People? That would be murder. Big no-no.

Is the river limited to and wholly contained on your property? If so -- whatever. If you poison the water table or it goes downstream, then you're violating the rights of your neighbors. A big no-no.

 

Human heads. What if I bought them from a medical firm?

 

And if there is enough demand from mothers with strollers and delivery persons, it would make economical sense for the bus company to accommodate these people.

That's because the government has phased out regular buses and put in wheelchair-friendly ones all over the place. (Probably at great expense to the taxpayer.) If they hadn't, how could you be so sure that the inventor of this contraption wouldn't have improved the design tenfold by now?

 

Knock yourself out. Don't expect your neighbors to treat you well, but knock yourself out.

 

Just to save you time, JUSTLEE: The above is true primarily because Storm is not in the habit of doing anything that poisons rivers. If he had to do so in order to, say, run his car, he would demand that you prove arsenic can damage a man's health, and the opinions of chemists and doctors would not count as proof.

 

Just my own speculation.

 

Why wouldn't the opinions count if it was based on solid hard measurable scientific proof?

 

Because Packard is talking out of his ass.

 

That's the argument most of this always seems to boil down to, but if it holds true, then why would there be ANY function left to government?

If it makes economical sense to have an army, people will volunatrily pay for an army. If it makes econmical sense to protect their property with a police force, people will pay for a police force. And so on.