Because Senator Schumer thinks people need to be told by the Consumer Protection Agency not to swallow the bristles of metal grill brushes . . . .
And because Mayor Bloomberg thinks people want to drink a lot of soda aren't smart enough to order two small ones if he makes the big ones illegal. . . .
Or even because the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms is arresting hot college coeds who blow up toilets in the woods. . . .
What is sadly predictable is that within the next few hours at least one commenter here will explain to us in defiantly paternalistic tones exactly why any or all of the above are absolutely necessary and only kooks like us Libertarians would not realize that.
And because Mayor Bloomberg thinks people want to drink a lot of soda aren't smart enough to order two small ones if he makes the big ones illegal. . . .
Or even because the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms is arresting hot college coeds who blow up toilets in the woods. . . .
What is sadly predictable is that within the next few hours at least one commenter here will explain to us in defiantly paternalistic tones exactly why any or all of the above are absolutely necessary and only kooks like us Libertarians would not realize that.
Comments
"What is sadly predictable is that within the next few hours at least one commenter here will explain to us in defiantly paternalistic tones exactly why any or all of the above are absolutely necessary and only kooks like us Libertarians would not realize that."
Ah, that old bugbear of paternalism. It's like the charge of socialism. Evoke the labels and let them do their infernal work and you don't have to present an argument. You libertarians are intellectually lazy. You don't fool me.
But I can remember the good old days when you libertarians opposed laws requiring--for God's sake--children to wear seat belts because that somehow trampled a parent's right to imperial his or her child. Or how you opposed requiring businesses to provide handicapped parking because the picture of a person hobbling and struggling across a parking lot was the very essence of liberty to you. Why, some of you libertarians even opposed requiring making PUBLIC buildings handicapped accessible because of the expenditure of your tax dollars to help these unfortunate CITIZENS stuck in your crawl.I remember well the "Why does their problem require me to reach into my pockets and give them my money to help them" arguments. And not one of you that I could tell had the least bit of regret for such a stingy and callous position.
So, congratulations, a paternalist showed up just as you predicted. But we both know that this paternalist had your ass on this matter.
You showed up as predicted, failed to deal with any of the examples in the post, created your own straw men, knocked them down, and declared victory.
I suppose that any governmental program a progressive proposes as necessary should be shot down on the basis of progressives in the 1930s favoring involuntary sterilization of mental defectives.
Or should all Democrats be rendered forever silent by the fact that their party platform in 1864 was "The Constitution as it is, the Nigger as he was"?
Likewise, I suppose the relatively complete silence of progressives beyond a few columnists on the current administration's devastation of civil rights means that so-called progressives should call out President Obama. What's that sound?
Crickets.
Give me a break: you do the "you libertarians" bit. Find me an example--just one--of me arguing against child seatbelt laws. After all, that seems fair, since I've found you a Senator in favor of legislating against people swallowing steel grill brushes.
It's not my ass showing here.
You argue from the absolute (that I have not seen Steve bring up) and ignore the specifics. Can we assume from this that you endorse each of the specifics Steve mentioned?