Putting the "loony" into libertarianism

[reality_hammer]

This is why there will never be a mainstream Libertarian Party. Some people in libertarianism seem to think that assault is not (or should not be) a crime because "there is no victim". Furthermore, if you don't subscribe to this you aren't a "real" libertarian

Comments

[ex_annemarie10]

I think libertarians would be right about a lot of things if they lived in a perfect world. Unfortunately, the world they want to live in has very little in common with the world as we know it. Obviously, none of the ones espousing this have never been assaulted.

[reality_hammer]

I'm still waiting for someone to accept my offer to appear at their next family reunion, totally armed and loaded (in every sense of the word). :D

[writerspleasure]

+ber

[oronoda]

I want that as like a user name XD

[reality_hammer]

Speaking of which, can I show up at your wedding and commit a series of "victimless" crimes? ;)

Congrats and have fun!

(I wasn't serious about that, by the way.)

(Probably.)

(What's the address, again?)

[shadowfox24]

There's a reason I refer to most Libertarians as "anarchists of the right".

[expectare]

Where is this?

[writerspleasure]

yes. URLs please!

[oronoda]

I think RH is talking about the pile of crap here: http://community.livejournal.com/libertarianism/2497711.html

I don't feel like sorting through the mess for I did wank a bit over the place. Admittedly, I didn't express myself as clear as I would have liked but I got rather irritated.

[izuko]

If that's the case, then I'm a bit disappointed in RH. Clearly, they were not defending assault, per se. Reckless endangerment, perhaps. None the less, the situation is not as RH made it appear.

[oronoda]

I honestly don't know why I try. At least who I was debating with lost the attitude so I can actually talk to them reasonably. Of course, this isn't about assault but driving recklessly. If no one is hurt they shouldn't be pulled over, or so he says. @_@

I'm still waiting on the answer on my metaphor on conspiracy to commit murder. Apparently, if you have a shitload of evidence that someone is planning to murder someone, the police can't arrest them because there is no victim. I say, "So, you tell the future victim that you can't protect them until the crime happens but you damn will avenge their death." Where is the freedom and liberty in that?

[reality_hammer]

I don't think those people have ever taken a law class. Conspiracy isn't just "thinking" about a crime, it is taking concrete steps toward committing that crime: making lists, buying supplies, contacting people, arranging an alibi, etc.

There isn't a "victim" in the sense that murder hasn't been committed but conspiracy to commit the crime is still a crime in and of itself.

What kind of person wants to live in a society where the police would have to wait until you actually killed someone to move against you?

There are a whole slew of laws that basically boil down to: don't be an idiot. Those don't require a "victim". :P