things you're secretly kinda libertariany about

I'm torn on smoking in bars. I get the idea that bars should be able to decide whether to allow smoking or not, but at the same time there's not exactly perfect freedom of movement for people in the industry - a lot of times there aren't comparable-income or comparable-hour jobs available to the people stuck working in the smoke.

sometimes i like to be in a smoky bar, most of the time i prefer not to. otoh i live somewhere with a real mild climate, so going outside to smoke is not that unpleasant.

alcohol regulations, especially in canada. (is that too easy?)

I'm weirdly ambivalent about this one. As profoundly as I enjoyed the bounties to be had in the States, there's a part of me that actually thinks that there's something to be said for alcohol not being as cheap and available.

xp: What I meant by my question upthread was "How many bars were there that chose not to allow smoking before the bans?"

d. people can smoke in bars but they have to give money to everyone around them to make up for the health costs

The LCBO is obviously a bit crap though.

xpost

xp - but that's why there's already such an enormous tax on cigarettes though!

is it libertarian of me to wish that my cigarette tax money worked like social security, that it gets repaid to me when i get old?

Ha, that Stephan Kinsella guy is so hardcore against anti-bribery laws!

the beauty of cigarette-social security is that you don't have to worry about getting old

not everyone who smokes dies young!

OK, I read through most of Kinsella's article. Thanks for linking it, Sanpaku. I'm not as hardcore as him. I'm OK with having some copyright and patent laws. I just think I should be able to photocopy handouts and play DVDs and CDs in class without needing to jump through multiple hoops.

d. people can smoke in bars but they have to give money to everyone around them to make up for the health costs

― iatee, Sunday, February 12, 2012 11:48 PM (Yesterday) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

people can smoke in bars but they have to do everyones laundry

it must "sting" sometimes to "bee" a part of the libertarian party w/the trouble they have getting traction on the political landscape.

doin whatever i want (applies only to me)

― lag∞n, Sunday, February 12, 2012 11:19 PM (Yesterday) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

p much

it must "sting" sometimes to "bee" a part of the libertarian party w/the trouble they have getting traction on the political landscape.

― omar little, Monday, February 13, 2012 12:25 AM (2 seconds ago)

honey, you don't know the half of it

not everyone who smokes dies young!

damn straight! smoking ages you something fierce, so it doesn't take very long to become an old smoker.

i feel like techy libertarians have positions weird enough to put them in the vegans covered in honey category

or whatever

"wll, cover me with ip law and throw me to the libertarians"

Answer #7 urgent & key here - Europe has left-identifying Libertarians too.

But any institution that can cause serious harm under the mismanagement of a few bad men (Alan Greenspan, Arthur Burns in the 70s) seriously requires scope reduction.

Or better regulation! <- statist until I die.

fiat currencies.

a. public unions *sometimes might not have* the public's welfare in mind w/ their pay and benefit deals and *sometimes* that can be a bad thing.

Not sure why they *should* have "the public welfare" in mind. That's not what unions are for. It's the job of the elected officials dealing with them to keep the public welfare in mind when structuring contracts.

Yes, the bit of the public that's actually employed in the public union doesn't have anyone else on their side, is sort've the point of the unions.

if i knew more about libertarian positions i'd probably agree with some of them

people above who said you're libertarian about guns: are you guys actually anti-regulation? I support gun ownership (and I've always thought this was one of the areas where I was pretty "lol conservative" by ilxor standards), but feel that things like background checks are good for public safety. are you guys really totally hands-off "libertarian" on this?

Why would you support gun ownership?

self-defense and hunting. note that I dont own a gun, but might in the future and have friends who do.

There's times I'm glad I'm not American

8am to midnight, 7/365

i'm not really interested in a "why own guns" convo. more interested in the thoughts of left wingers who support gun rights to the point that they would consider themselves libertarian about it.

Scared the world governemnt's coming after them?

sometimes I get in trouble on ilx because i'm up and running before the rest of my continent.

i sort of support gun ownership tho i think it might've been better if the genie had never been let out of the lamp. but i'm cool with the notion that a state doesn't hold a monopoly on firearms.

i feel like the aspect of government that regulates gun ownership is as far as I can tell a left-wing impulse: regulation in the interests of public safety. keeping guns out of the hands of convicted criminals, specifiically.

like it seems to me that it's difficult to argue that gun ownership hasn't had some terrible consequences in countries that allow it, but there's a big question about whether those consequences are sufficient to outweigh an adult's right to own a firearm, and to what extent you can separate a gun culture from gun legislation.

a left-wing impulse: regulation in the interests of public safety

i think most right-wingers who aren't some shade of libertarian are also happy for the state to legislate in matters of public health and safety?

or if not happy, at least consider it a necessary evil

maybe it depends on how we define public health and safety, but I can think of an instance when they would. like

ok, that's not entirely true.

care to elaborate? are you thinking about healthcare? i have a thick head this morning.

CPAC basically building a bonfire in the shape of the EPA, though?

xp £5 it's abortion.

I think that's a moot point when the state holds a monopoly on tanks and drones and nukes

I secretly love fast sports cars and feel the US should use its vast land resources to build racetracks in every county, people would park their fast cars in the 'clubhouse garage' and race them on weekends, however your car is not allowed onto a public highway if it gets under 30mpg, but you can go 110+ mph on the racetrack ^_^

dayo, i will support you if you want to run for office. that's the best.

noodle, i was thinking specifically of conservative take on environmental regulations, but also healthcare. i do realize that cons do legislate in the name of public safety though, often i guess in terms of crime. i dont know really though. feel like reading up on this once i get to the office.

i personally find firing guns incredibly amusing but the country would for sure be a better place were they just not available

But there are already threads about whether or not guns should be available. I just wanted clarification from people on why they would choose a "libertarian" stance.

i'd have that stance because i think "competent adults" - not gonna argue the toss about that now - shd be free to do as they wish as long as that freedom doesn't actively curtail the rights of other people. in practice obviously that is massively complicated. unless you're a libertarian i guess.

its because guns are sweet to fire and i should be able to do what i want

the things i'm libertariany about i'm not secretly libertarian about, like sex and drugs but then i imagine most libertarians never have good sex or drugs so its like

yah but its important that they have the right to

the notion of rights divorced from power is an interesting and problematic one