reply on: My questions for libertarians \ stacker news ~libertarian

pull down to refresh

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @021da48107 14 Mar \ parent \ on: My questions for libertarians libertarian

I was thinking more around pragmatism.

Pragmatism isn't a moral framework. You can argue if killing someone is pragmatic, but most won't care about that, they care if it's moral.

If I am an average guy who is happy with my life, why should I risk "letting the market solve national defense?" At best, I pay less in taxes. At worst, my country gets invaded by China.

Because what you are supporting is immoral.

Fair. Under your definitions, can you imagine a scenario in which this is the case? If not, why not?

Sure, under almost any metric humans have flourished in the last few hundred years. Now did they flourish as a direct result of a constitution? I don't see the connection between a constitution and human flourishing.

This was listed in the post I linked as one of the hard questions libertarians need to answer.

I understand that, what I don't understand is where the baby in the ocean thing came from. Who ever said throwing a baby in the ocean isn't immoral?

Please note - the questions I posed are what I think libertarians need to answer if they ever want to have a legitimate voice in the direction of their country (at least from my perspective in the US). I am already opposed to most regulations. I also think there are some that probably do more good than harm, but those are very limited and I can't think of any examples off the top of my head.

Sure, but that's all just your opinion, man. My opinion is that a Libertarian (big L) isn't going to be able to do anything to get a legitimate voice. Look at what happened to Ron Paul when he ran. You can also look at what happened to Bernie Sanders. In the USA if you don't run as a D or a R you are not going to make it anywhere, it's been proven for years.