Perhaps the Libertarians you've spoken with: A. Don't know the tenets of their own party B. Are fringe crazies (like every party has) Are you familiar with the "NAP" (non-aggression principle?). Libertarians believe that the role of government is to focus solely on those laws which would prevent human aggression against one another. What you're describing is not Libertarianism vs Anarchy... one of the more annoying misassociations out there, usually brought on by people who think they are Libertarian.
Who is Gary Johnson and why should I care more about him than my cousin Gary, who's a goofus? Is he a Johnson of the Johnson and Johnson "family," kings of the Q-Tips, or whatever? Does he own a share of Dreamers? (google it).
He's Al Bundy's cool friend at the shoe store, who they never developed and then re-cast as a ball-busting female boss near the end of the series.
1) Still legalizing all drugs and legitimizing ethnic drug gangs. 2) Still defunding any and all public education. 3) Still repealing civil rights legislation. Those alone would destroy black America overnight.
I still don't see the problem. This was a discussion about law enforcement on traffic laws and such. No aggression there whatsoever. He believed traffic laws don't change people's behavior and that is why people still drive drunk. Where is the "human aggression against each other" by me doing 180mph on 288?
Yeah. Please explain how me speeding is aggression towards someone else. Seems more like a pollution type issue. Do (L)libertarians think the government should be involved with pollution?
soon you'll be replaced by a driverless car, and the streets will be safe from your boundless aggression SENOR Bandwagoner. no laws required. http://www.sciencealert.com/driverless-cars-could-reduce-traffic-fatalities-by-up-to-90-says-report
We'll just have to set the self-driving cars to kill motorcyclists on sight. Again, no laws required!
Cars and trucks are already stuck on that setting and even I see how that would be against the (L)libertarians "non-aggression principle".
Why are you getting all upset over comments in regard to a politician who left the Libertarian Party in a thread about the Libertarian Party's presidential candidate? Then you have the nerve to say the Libertarian Party is crap after all of that. Ron Paul is a dime-a-dozen, bought-and-paid-for politician.
I'm not getting upset. What made you think I was upset? Was it my labeling a political party as crap? Or my reckless use of the word "silly"? Apologies if one or both of those things came off to harsh. Ron Paul is done and gone, so it's whatever. Initially, I was just trying to tell you why he left (not that it really matters anymore). Then your second response just made no sense ("real job" / "big money") so I was trying to figure out what you were getting at. Turns out, nothing. OK. That's cool. I suspect the one and only thing you know about him was that he was once with the Libertarian Party and then went to the Republican Party. And if that's the case that's fine and your posts now make some sense. And yeah the LP is crap. Doesn't take any nerve to say that, and I'm as libertarian as it gets. The LP is embarrassing. (And I apologize again if my use of crap comes off too harsh.)
