this post was submitted on 30 Jul 2023
475 points (91.4% liked)

Political Memes

5429 readers
1658 users here now

Welcome to politcal memes!

These are our rules:

Be civilJokes are okay, but don’t intentionally harass or disturb any member of our community. Sexism, racism and bigotry are not allowed. Good faith argumentation only. No posts discouraging people to vote or shaming people for voting.

No misinformationDon’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.

Posts should be memesRandom pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.

No bots, spam or self-promotionFollow instance rules, ask for your bot to be allowed on this community.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] neomis@sh.itjust.works 56 points 1 year ago (37 children)

Says “I’m a libertarian but I’m not one of those crazy ones”.

My followup question is usually what’s your opinion on seatbelt laws and drivers licenses.

[–] johker216@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Both are necessary, there's an argument to strengthen the latter, and neither violate the NAP. I'm not one of those crazy ones 😁

[–] Rottcodd@kbin.social 22 points 1 year ago (10 children)

violate the NAP

not one of those crazy ones

These two statements contradict each other.

The NAP is a substitute for laws for "libertarians" who can't tolerate the thought of other people actually being free.

The entire point is to have something that proactively justifies the forcible imposition of your will upon others. So the instant that somebody does something of which you disapprove, you can decree, by whatever rationale might serve, that it's a violation of the NAP, so you're now entirely justified in shooting them.

load more comments (10 replies)
[–] SatansMaggotyCumFart@lemmy.world 18 points 1 year ago (14 children)

Do you think roads, police and fire departments should have a pay-per-use system?

[–] unconsciousvoidling@lemmy.world 21 points 1 year ago (3 children)

i think air should be bottled and sold on the free market.

[–] SatansMaggotyCumFart@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago (3 children)

The free market will set a fair price.

Lack of regulation will make sure it’s a low price and why would a company want to kill off its customers?

[–] afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world 10 points 1 year ago

Sure if the market has healthy competition and the time horizon of the shareholders is long and if everyone is perfectly rational.

You know the 3 things each of which almost never happens.

Markets rarely have healthy competition. Usually for all practical purposes consumers have few if any choices where they can spend their money. Your supermarket might have a million items but you only have two supermarket and those million items are made by 10 companies.

Time horizons of shareholders are infamous for being short. With the larger they are the shorter they are. We live in a world where for decades stocks are bought and sold with high frequency trading. Long term means a business quarter.

Homo Economis never existed. If that abomination against all that is decent ever did form it would die off having no offspring. Humans smoke, they eat junk food, they buy boats, they lose their temper, they spend 45 billion dollars on Twatter and run it into the ground. This is why you don't leave things that matter to one asshole and just have faith that your invisible sky friend Market will correct it all eventually.

[–] Comment105@lemm.ee 6 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

And of course, if a company successfully corners the market and extracts value beyond the tolerance of some customers who eventually attempt to harm the company and force it out of business, the company is entirely justified in using assassination drones against the insurgent NAP-violators.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Username02@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago

More customers dying means fewer people buying, therefore it's better to rent them. See, the invisible hand of the free market(swt) correcting itself.

[–] HeyThisIsntTheYMCA@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Yes, if you consider existing in society "use". I think that's just a standard annual tax. Roads, that's tricky. Otherwise no.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] hoodatninja@kbin.social 6 points 1 year ago (2 children)

I generally just go straight to libraries as it’s not designed to trap/bait and it more often than not leads to productive discussions where we are both attempting to gain mutual understanding.

[–] SatansMaggotyCumFart@lemmy.world 11 points 1 year ago (1 children)

It’s not a trap or bait, it’s pointing out that it takes money to use and maintain these things.

[–] hoodatninja@kbin.social 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

My apologies, I realize it seems I implied you were baiting/trapping, but that wasn’t my intention. That being said I’m sure libertarians get examples like firefighters a LOT and they probably just glaze over and dismiss it as a result. But again, didn’t mean to imply that you were engaging in bad faith and such.

It’s because it is a fairly obvious example.

It’d be better to have a response that makes sense instead of ‘glazing over and dismissing it’.

[–] LukeMedia@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago (11 children)

Libraries are a great resource for keeping information free and protecting free speech. I think it's very reasonable for taxes to be used in ways that benefit the community as a whole, as that serves the people who pay the taxes.

load more comments (11 replies)
[–] johker216@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

No - roads are for the public good and should be supported by taxpayers that benefit with the possibility of 'penalizing' heavy vehicles that do more wear on roads.

[–] Kalcifer@lemm.ee 1 points 1 year ago

I personally feel that roads are a complicated issue. A public police force is necessary to ensure the best equal application of the law. Fire departments are sort of a contextual issue -- I am inclined to treat fire departments as more of a utility.

load more comments (9 replies)
[–] Kalcifer@lemm.ee 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

My followup question is usually what’s your opinion on seatbelt laws and drivers licenses.

Seatbelt laws would really only make sense if their purpose was to protect others from harm, but, as far as I've been able to think, this would only make sense in 2 scenarios:

  1. You are in a car with other passengers. In a crash, one passenger not wearing a seatbelt could end up harming the other passengers in the vehicle simply by their limp body flying around, and impacting the other passengers. This does raise the point, however, that the other passengers could simply refuse to occupy the vehicle with that individual, or the driver could bar them from that vehicle. If all occupants are able to give consent to the situation, then there should be no issue under the law.
  2. You have a child and you are neglecting that child's safety by not restraining them with a proper seatbelt.

As for driver's licenses, that's actually a rather complicated issue.

EDIT 1: As pointed out in this post, there is a third case that I hadn't originally considered in that, in a crash, one's limp, and unrestrained corpse could fly through the windshield and end up causing damage to someone else's property, or bodily harm to another.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (35 replies)