Respond to this: Libertarians are no better...

[TastyWheat]

Libertarians are no better than a guy who sees a woman getting gang raped in a back alley but closes his door and says, "It's not my problem," because he's afraid of gang blowback.

It's not a perfect analogy, and that was my response (saw this statement on another forum), but how would you respond to such a comparison?

 

[Czolgosz]

I would be more apt to get involved if it weren't for the legal system (government) fucking me over.

Along the same line; I would likely donate more money to charities, of which I approve, if I were not taxed so high.

Etc.

 

[bluesc]

Well, if the other choice was hold my gun to enough peoples' heads until I steal enough money to buy a bomb, and then bomb the gang, the girl, and the apartment block next door that is full of sleeping children, then yeah, the analogy wouldn't be half bad.

 

[TastyWheat]

Well, if the other choice was hold my gun to enough peoples' heads until I steal enough money to buy a bomb, and then bomb the gang, the girl, and the apartment block next door that is full of sleeping children, then yeah, the analogy wouldn't be half bad.

The "guy" is supposed to be the US in this case, but I'm willing to entertain a new analogy if you want to say the US is gang raping other countries.

 

[bluesc]

The "guy" is supposed to be the US in this case, but I'm willing to entertain a new analogy if you want to say the US is gang raping other countries.

He was trying to justify military intervention, correct?

 

[Acala]

The BIG difference is that when you, personally, intervene in an assault, you, personally, make the choice to take on the risk and the cost yourself. When the US government decides to intervene, the people who make the decision risk nothing personally and instead use force to make OTHER PEOPLE pay for the intervention and take the risk.

My response would be "I don't have any problem at all with YOU flying over to the middle east and cleaning up the place. I DO have a problem with you making ME and my CHILDREN pay for it"

 

[Ninja Homer]

Neocons are the gang. Iran is the girl. Libertarians are the only ones telling the neocons to stop.

 

[Cleaner44]

Libertarians who sees a woman getting gang raped in a back alley would justified in defending the woman's life with force against her violent aggressors.

Libertarians who sees a woman getting gang raped in a back alley would not endorse a government agent going door to door in the neighborhood and taking up a collection of money at gunpoint with the intent of offering the money to the violent rapists as a foriegn aid bribe to encourage the raping to stop.

 

[bluesc]

The BIG difference is that when you, personally, intervene in an assault, you, personally, make the choice to take on the risk and the cost yourself. When the US government decides to intervene, the people who make the decision risk nothing personally and instead use force to make OTHER PEOPLE pay for the intervention and take the risk.

That was essentially my response, I just prefer to reply with a counter analogy. I guess I should stop doing that.

 

[fisharmor]

Democrats are no better than people who see a woman getting gang raped in an alley, then call the cops and hide behind their couch, while the gang takes their time finishing up and leaves, the cops show up 15 minutes too late and call an ambulance and spend the wait time implying that she must have been after a free pap smear, and then the democrat has the balls to complain that the system isn't getting enough funding.

Republicans are no better than people who see a woman getting gang raped in an alley, then take their shotgun and confront the gang, then the cop shows up and hauls the republican off to jail on some bullshit gun techincality, then he vociferously defends the police doing this, then gets sentenced to more hard time than the gang got, then finds himself in an "alley" in prison getting gang raped, and still refuses to see that the state is the problem.

 

[pcosmar]

It is a piss poor analogy in the first place. It is hardly an accurate analogy in the second.

I would probably ignore the fool that proposed it. or ridicule him for his stupidity.

 

[awake]

The statement is a "straw man'; who says Libertarians are that way? Why the assumption that Libertarians are passive to the point of being vegetative?

As far as I'm concerned, there isn't anymore of a spirited and decisive defense as when private property rights are violated to a Libertarian.

An armed Libertarian would be fully justified to use lethal force in such a hypothetical situation. That is, if the police would recognize this basic right and not attack the Libertarian for doing so. And on the hypothetical scenario, who convinced the woman to walk around unarmed in a clearly dangerous area? Who makes it ever more difficult to own a gun? Who says to always "call them" when it takes many minutes for assistance? Who draws the chalk lines when they fail to live up to the super hero hype that we are all forced to believe?

Does one ever notice, in what seems to be the endless parade of law and order propaganda, cop dramas all start off with the police failing to protect those who they promise to protect? Some times they fail 3 - 4 more times until they get their person?

It is the responsibility of every individual to provide for their own security. Listening to the monopolists who offer such services will often ensure you are potential CSI episode, which is no consolation to the deceased.

Clearly the woman in this framed scenario trusted government way too much.

 

[azxd]

Do not fall into the trap of labels

The appropriate response to this has nothing to do with a political system of labels, but much to do with individual values, and the use of influence to achieve goals.

 

[Voluntary Man]

It's not a perfect analogy, and that was my response (saw this statement on another forum), but how would you respond to such a comparison?

I'm sure there are libertarian cowards, just like there are fascist and communist cowards (slice/splice that among Republicrats any way you like). However, on balance there are far fewer cowards among those who espouse rugged individualism than among those who are constantly clamoring for the magical state to keep them safe from this or that perceived threat.

First, in a libertarian society (much more like the Founders envisioned than the one we have now), the woman would be armed, therefore much less likely to be raped.

Second, the stranger who heard her screams would 1) be more likely to be appropriately trained and armed to combat gang violence, and 2) would be far less likely to be a coward than the person who authored the original comparison -- who would, obviously, expect the magical police to handle the situation, rather than himself, and would probably count himself among the "brave," as he anonymously dials 3 magical numbers, then turns up the volume on 'CSI: Detroit.'

 

[Pericles]

The BIG difference is that when you, personally, intervene in an assault, you, personally, make the choice to take on the risk and the cost yourself. When the US government decides to intervene, the people who make the decision risk nothing personally and instead use force to make OTHER PEOPLE pay for the intervention and take the risk.

My response would be "I don't have any problem at all with YOU flying over to the middle east and cleaning up the place. I DO have a problem with you making ME and my CHILDREN pay for it"

The more correct response, but there is more truth in the original point that many would probably own up to, which I think is evidenced in some of the posts on this thread.

The real world is ugly, and a non interventionist policy can greatly reduce the chance conflict involving the US, but can not eliminate it.

 

[otherone]

Libertarians don't suffer blowback because
they don't rape foreign countries

Fixed.

 

[Cabal]

It's not a perfect analogy, and that was my response (saw this statement on another forum), but how would you respond to such a comparison?

That's a softball for us.

Libertarians, in the tradition of NAP and property rights, are not pacifists. We just maintain that the initiation of violence is immoral. We have no qualms about responding to that initiation of violence with defensive violence. And I would even go as far as to say that a true libertarian who holds such principles in his/her heart would not be able to ignore such a brutal and wretched initiation of violence as rape.

 

[playboymommy]

This reminds me of the scene in V for Vendetta. Government cronies attempting to rape a woman who was defenseless because of government. I would like to think that V was the Libertarian that saved her from government rape.

 

[DerailingDaTrain]

As far as I know Libertarians believe in using force to protect property and people so if I saw that happening in an alley near my home I would grab my gun. Terrible analogy

 

[hard@work]

It's not a perfect analogy, and that was my response (saw this statement on another forum), but how would you respond to such a comparison?

Libertarian women carry guns.