McParadigm wrote:At heart, libertarianism and government constructionism both rely on the existence (at reasonable frequency) of rational actors. Both are thus unavoidably stupid.
Agreed. They don't want a corrupt centralized government impeding on everyone's rights, but don't seem to understand that a private landowner will do the same if given the chance.
I suppose one can envision a world where private landowners send out agents to choke the Eric Garners of the world to death, but it seems like a poor business model.
Because private landowners and their "business models" have such a good track record when it comes to human rights?
Again, I don't understand this misguided view that somehow a libertarian society would be devoid of power-hungry assholes.
A libertarian society assumes nothing of the sort. It only assumes that power hungry assholes have to provide some sort of value and that generally you can avoid dealing with them. Additionally, attempting to separate said power hungry assholes from the judicial system is desirous, as opposed to aligning the interests of the power hungry to the judiciary as much as possible.
As it stands now, power hungry assholes are encouraged to sign up to carry guns and abuse others with political and legal protections. I don't recall seeing too many stories about the loss prevention guys at Wal-Mart beating someone to death. That could be because they know they don't have qualified immunity . It could also be because they didn't sign up for the position because they enjoy abusing people.
Surely you're not comparing Wal-Mart's attempts to stop people from stealing Duck Dynasty bobbleheads to a city's attempts to police 8.5 million people.
What else did you consider naming as the product besides Duck Dynasty bobbleheads?
I don't know. It's the first thing I thought of. Every time I go in there, Duck Dynasty is fucking everywhere.
McParadigm wrote:At heart, libertarianism and government constructionism both rely on the existence (at reasonable frequency) of rational actors. Both are thus unavoidably stupid.
Agreed. They don't want a corrupt centralized government impeding on everyone's rights, but don't seem to understand that a private landowner will do the same if given the chance.
I suppose one can envision a world where private landowners send out agents to choke the Eric Garners of the world to death, but it seems like a poor business model.
Because private landowners and their "business models" have such a good track record when it comes to human rights?
Again, I don't understand this misguided view that somehow a libertarian society would be devoid of power-hungry assholes.
A libertarian society assumes nothing of the sort. It only assumes that power hungry assholes have to provide some sort of value and that generally you can avoid dealing with them. Additionally, attempting to separate said power hungry assholes from the judicial system is desirous, as opposed to aligning the interests of the power hungry to the judiciary as much as possible.
As it stands now, power hungry assholes are encouraged to sign up to carry guns and abuse others with political and legal protections. I don't recall seeing too many stories about the loss prevention guys at Wal-Mart beating someone to death. That could be because they know they don't have qualified immunity . It could also be because they didn't sign up for the position because they enjoy abusing people.
Surely you're not comparing Wal-Mart's attempts to stop people from stealing Duck Dynasty bobbleheads to a city's attempts to police 8.5 million people.
What else did you consider naming as the product besides Duck Dynasty bobbleheads?
I don't know. It's the first thing I thought of. Every time I go in there, Duck Dynasty is fucking everywhere.
What should I have gone with?
I don't have anything better in mind, I just imagined you going through a couple of options before settling on duck dynasty bobblehead and hitting submit.
