966
A mile rule (slrpnk.net)
submitted 2 days ago by Track_Shovel@slrpnk.net to c/196
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] AtariDump@lemmy.world 25 points 1 day ago

I was shooting heroin and reading “The Fountainhead” in the front seat of my privately owned police cruiser when a call came in. I put a quarter in the radio to activate it. It was the chief.

“Bad news, detective. We got a situation.”

“What? Is the mayor trying to ban trans fats again?”

“Worse. Somebody just stole four hundred and forty-seven million dollars’ worth of bitcoins.”

The heroin needle practically fell out of my arm. “What kind of monster would do something like that? Bitcoins are the ultimate currency: virtual, anonymous, stateless. They represent true economic freedom, not subject to arbitrary manipulation by any government. Do we have any leads?”

“Not yet. But mark my words: we’re going to figure out who did this and we’re going to take them down … provided someone pays us a fair market rate to do so.”

“Easy, chief,” I said. “Any rate the market offers is, by definition, fair.”

He laughed. “That’s why you’re the best I got, Lisowski. Now you get out there and find those bitcoins.”

“Don’t worry,” I said. “I’m on it.”

I put a quarter in the siren. Ten minutes later, I was on the scene. It was a normal office building, strangled on all sides by public sidewalks. I hopped over them and went inside.

“Home Depot™ Presents the Police!®” I said, flashing my badge and my gun and a small picture of Ron Paul. “Nobody move unless you want to!” They didn’t.

“Now, which one of you punks is going to pay me to investigate this crime?” No one spoke up.

“Come on,” I said. “Don’t you all understand that the protection of private property is the foundation of all personal liberty?”

It didn’t seem like they did.

“Seriously, guys. Without a strong economic motivator, I’m just going to stand here and not solve this case. Cash is fine, but I prefer being paid in gold bullion or autographed Penn Jillette posters.”

Nothing. These people were stonewalling me. It almost seemed like they didn’t care that a fortune in computer money invented to buy drugs was missing.

I figured I could wait them out. I lit several cigarettes indoors. A pregnant lady coughed, and I told her that secondhand smoke is a myth. Just then, a man in glasses made a break for it.

“Subway™ Eat Fresh and Freeze, Scumbag!®” I yelled.

Too late. He was already out the front door. I went after him.

“Stop right there!” I yelled as I ran. He was faster than me because I always try to avoid stepping on public sidewalks. Our country needs a private-sidewalk voucher system, but, thanks to the incestuous interplay between our corrupt federal government and the public-sidewalk lobby, it will never happen.

I was losing him. “Listen, I’ll pay you to stop!” I yelled. “What would you consider an appropriate price point for stopping? I’ll offer you a thirteenth of an ounce of gold and a gently worn ‘Bob Barr ‘08’ extra-large long-sleeved men’s T-shirt!”

He turned. In his hand was a revolver that the Constitution said he had every right to own. He fired at me and missed. I pulled my own gun, put a quarter in it, and fired back. The bullet lodged in a U.S.P.S. mailbox less than a foot from his head. I shot the mailbox again, on purpose.

“All right, all right!” the man yelled, throwing down his weapon. “I give up, cop! I confess: I took the bitcoins.”

“Why’d you do it?” I asked, as I slapped a pair of Oikos™ Greek Yogurt Presents Handcuffs® on the guy.

“Because I was afraid.”

“Afraid?”

“Afraid of an economic future free from the pernicious meddling of central bankers,” he said. “I’m a central banker.”

I wanted to coldcock the guy. Years ago, a central banker killed my partner. Instead, I shook my head.

“Let this be a message to all your central-banker friends out on the street,” I said. “No matter how many bitcoins you steal, you’ll never take away the dream of an open society based on the principles of personal and economic freedom.”

He nodded, because he knew I was right. Then he swiped his credit card to pay me for arresting him.

[-] don@lemm.ee 4 points 20 hours ago
[-] Track_Shovel@slrpnk.net 4 points 1 day ago
[-] Zink@programming.dev 5 points 19 hours ago

I remember those innocent days when I considered myself a libertarian. If you aren't part of a marginalized group, and you consider yourself smart and responsible, AND most importantly assume that other libertarians are arguing in good faith with good priorities, some of what they say can seem to make a lot of sense.

But then when you look at the real-world motivations and results, they start to look like people who are down to to smoke weed while licking the same boot as a brown person.

[-] Track_Shovel@slrpnk.net 3 points 16 hours ago

You had me til brown person. Not quite sure what you mean, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that it wasn't meant as bigotry.

The whole libertarian movement smacks of the big brain thinking of entitled people in their 20s, and Joe Rogan's fan club.

It paints with the same broad strokes as communism and like it, fails to acknowledge the real world outcomes: only the ideology matters, and adherence to it. Ignore or prosecute those who don't implement it as intended or under the guiding assumptions.

[-] Zink@programming.dev 3 points 15 hours ago

The brown person thing was me referring to them being "socially liberal," so they would share the same water fountain -- or boot -- as somebody of another race.

That quote refers to the "socially liberal and fiscally conservative" label that they like to use. Because part of the fun is saying that you love everybody and have no hate in your heart, but you definitely don't want to spend any money or enforce any regulations to help people's lives.

Libertarians are just republicans who are too afraid of being lumped in with their own so they came up with a different name. Sure you may think it isn’t, but every libertarian politician and leader votes among republican lines. Actions speak louder.

[-] rational_lib@lemmy.world 26 points 1 day ago

Actual argument I had recently with a "libertarian" family member:
Libertarian: "Rent control shouldn't exist! It's wrong for big government to tell property owners and renters what kind of agreements they can enter!"
Me: "What are your thoughts on single family zoning that bans missing-middle housing throughout most of the US?"
Libertarian: "Well that's different! People choosing what kind of rules should apply to where they live is the epitome of freedom!"
Me: "Couldn't that same argument apply to rent control?"
Libertarian: "Wha...you have clearly been brainwashed by the woke mind virus! So sad!"

[-] lemmyseikai@lemmy.world 5 points 1 day ago

Clearly they are not a libertarian.

The correct reaponse is "The government would need to demonstrate a beyond reasonable need for that ban. Preventing industrial chemical plants from being built near housing, sure, types of housing, get out."

[-] AeonFelis@lemmy.world 23 points 1 day ago

Libertarian ideology is logically solid, but it has two minor problems:

  1. It heavily depends on assumptions that never hold in real life.
  2. Any other ideology, when confronted with bad outcome predictions of their models, will try to explain why their way actually prevents these bad outcomes. Libertarianism... prefers to explain why these outcomes are actually a good thing.
[-] HawlSera@lemm.ee 16 points 1 day ago

Except it isn't logically solid, because the premise is that Governing bodies cannot be expected to provide for the general welfare because humans are naturally greedy and selfish, and the solution is that we abolish all social safety nets and instead rely on voluntary charity to solve the problem of poverty...

But what voluntary charity exists if by Libertarian's own logic: Humans are too greedy and selfish to give to the poor even when they're literally mandated to do so?

[-] jessca@lemmy.ca 5 points 1 day ago

It also seems to assume perfect knowledge and that all harms can be compensated for.

[-] AeonFelis@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago

Hence my first "minor problem". There are more such assumptions though - e.g. the assumption that you can star/stop/switch t a business/career with zero cost.

[-] HawlSera@lemm.ee 2 points 1 day ago

The lives Brian Thompson measured in dollars were priceless to the families they said goodbye to.

Luigi, number one!

[-] chonglibloodsport@lemmy.world 4 points 1 day ago

Milton Friedman, my favourite libertarian, advocated for a negative income tax as the best form of social safety net. It means that the minimum amount of money any person gets is not zero!

He also liked to point out that a lot of other government programs were in fact regressive: paid for in taxes by working class people and providing the benefit to middle class and up. A classic example of that is funding for higher education. It’s pretty darn regressive to pay for higher education with taxes collected from working class people whose children don’t even attend higher education!

He has a lot of other arguments that make a ton of sense. He is against any and all forms of subsidies for large businesses and he is against laws which create and protect monopolies and oligopolies.

The one thing I’m not clear on is how to organize society to protect against future government interference and especially corruption by special interests.

[-] Narauko@lemmy.world 2 points 18 hours ago

You need solid anticorruption laws the same way you need solid antitrust laws and they need to be liberally enforced. The problem is that neither have been since the 70's. Regulatory capture by big business is a massive problem, and I am not sure if it is possible to 100% defend against.

I self identify libertarian but lean left. I'd argue that while things like funding higher education may currently be regressive, if free education extended from the current cap of 12th grade to encompass at least an associates level degree you would have a lot more lower and working class taking advantage of it and making it less regressive. With the country having jettisoned it's manufacturing and blue collar industry, I would further argue this is necessary for the country to compete on the international stage.

[-] chonglibloodsport@lemmy.world 2 points 17 hours ago* (last edited 17 hours ago)

Germany has government funded education throughout. It’s still regressive! They stream people into either working class tracks (hauptschule and realschule) or academic (gymnasium). In effect, this means working class students have far less opportunity to go to university in Germany than they do in the US, despite the latter’s problems with affordability.

Friedman would go 100% the other way and abolish public schools entirely, along with abolishing the minimum wage, subsidies for universities, subsidies for business, and tariffs. His argument is that the minimum wage puts a floor on the productivity of a worker which means many people who could be hired at a lower wage and be trained on the job instead do not get hired at all and have to pay for their own training through school (either directly with tuition or indirectly through taxes).

The current system ends up creating large classes of people who get an education in subject matter that’s totally irrelevant to their career (like someone studying sociology in order to work in HR). Why should we, as taxpayers, be paying for this? Employers should be paying to train their own workers on the job!

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] bbpolterGAYst 33 points 2 days ago

i met plenty of people who'd like to fuck clowns and a total of zero who want to fuck libertarians. Clowns 1, Libertarians 0

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] ProtonEvoker@lemmy.world 123 points 2 days ago

A libertarian is just a conservative that likes weed. You can ask their girlfriends after they pick them up from middle school.

load more comments (9 replies)
[-] Allonzee@lemmy.world 8 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

Reminder: Ayn Rand died on public assistance.

They're only for freedom to gouge for water at the only source for a hundred miles when they believe they'll be the ones holding the ladle.

[-] SkunkWorkz@lemmy.world 5 points 1 day ago

You have to pay toll for the road first

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] HawlSera@lemm.ee 5 points 1 day ago

Libertarianism - The idea that a just society with fair rules is impossible because of the greed and selishness inherent in human nature. So by embracing this we can abolish all taxes and social safety nets, instead we would solve everyone's problems through voluntary charity work, as after all humans are naturally giving and kind.

Yeah, clown shoes seem appropriate. I can somewhat respect a philosophy that I disagree with by saying "Well, that's certainly a take, can't say I'm on board."

But I cannot if the problem isn't that I disagree, it's that it is self-refuting by its own logic.

Kinda like how Sam Harris' Free Will Denial nonsense is bullshit simply by my own ability to decide for myself that it's bullshit.

[-] Plastic_Ramses@lemmy.world 18 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

In my heart, i am a libertarian.

In my brain, im not stupid enough to believe that the general public is smart enough to make it work.

[-] Saint_La_Croix_Crosse@midwest.social 1 points 17 hours ago* (last edited 17 hours ago)

sounds like you are stupid enough.

An accurate rejoinder would be "In my brain, I am not stupid enough to believe that the market is an omniscient omnipotent God that makes everything perfect in all places and all times, in the absence of public input. I am not stupid enough to think that individuals and corporations are perfect benevolent actors that can do no wrong, because doing wrong always means making less profits and doing good always means more profits" FTFY

[-] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 12 points 2 days ago

The eternal problem of "the general public" is that they're a product of their material conditions. They don't emerge from the soil and engage with the world on first principles.

When you grow up in a community that has been heavily privatized and financialized, socially owned and operated community functions have to be developed from the ground up rather than inherited. Any kind of proposed social change will grow out of the body of the system that came before.

Libertarians grow up in countries where it is easier to believe in the end of the world than the end of capitalism.

load more comments (27 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 17 Jan 2025
966 points (100.0% liked)

196

16847 readers
1430 users here now

Be sure to follow the rule before you head out.

Rule: You must post before you leave.

^other^ ^rules^

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS