In the most extreme case, which I don’t think too many objectivists/libertarians actually support (for reasons Kim Stanely Robinson pointed out in Green Mars), you would have privatized police forces and privatized justice systems, and privatized jails. And so the argument isn’t so much would not be that it’s okay to rape, but it’s okay for rapists to not be punished if you don’t want to pay for it.
As I said, this argument doesn’t make much sense for multiple reasons.
I totally agree with you. I’m glad things like this are being reported on. However, I also just wanted to point out that, in my opinion at least, the original language (quoted from the video itself and not from BoingBoing) did not do an accurate job of explaining what happened.
A police officer used situational power and institutional power/positional power to essentially force women to engage in some kind of sexual act (though the the acts are unspecified here). The language of “demanding sexual favors” I don’t think accurately describes what I see as being at the very least sexual assault. I think the language they used lessens the impact of what happened, and obscures the reality of the situation.
It’s because they secretly all wish they were getting sexually anything.
It’s basically, “Hey, just like you, we think cops suck! Nanny states and their operatives always do. So come on over and see some other reasonable stories about the always-outrageous excesses of government, which should really be small enough to drown in a bathtub. And never mind plutocratic takeover of government, by people like those who fund our magazine and write legislation pushed and passd by the Republicans we’ve purchased – the rich are good people because money is good because ‘free’ markets are good because freeeeeeedddoooommmm is good!”
Yes, they do deserve to be ignored on all issues. Watching their lame-ass ‘humorous’ and supposedly hip stories is like sitting down with, talking to, and feeding chunks of meat to a smiling crocodile, while completely ignoring how you’re helping it get fatter, and how much it wants to eat you.
I understand. My previous analogy regarding conservatives and Obama would seem to be spot on.
I understand too – you either don’t understand, or you’re just pretending not to.
Yes, a Koch is on the board of Reason. And somewhere on Free Republic, a conservative is using George Soros as proof of Obama’s communism.
Fine, you just keep telling yourself that orange is an apple. I wonder what color it is through those rose-colored glasses you’re wearing?
When you come here to say that the folks at Reason.com probably support sexual assault and suggest that it’s better to not know when cops sexually assault strippers than to hear it from libertarians, it’s pretty easy to see the similarities between your attitude and the attitudes of people who think Obamacare = Death Panels.
But let’s agree to disagree!
Someone should make a police procedural where this kind of stuff happens every episode. I’d watch it.
Call it something like “Blues Blood”, or “And see your ass”, or even “And see your ass, Los Angeles”.
How about “Law & Disorder”.
are all about the voluntary exchange of goods and services.
Huh. And yet SO MANY libertarians are against giving women access to birth control. You would think that would go against their core beliefs, and yet, somehow, wishy-washy humans are able to rationalize just about anything. Imagine that.
I believe that a majority of people who self-describe as libertarian support abortion rights and making birth-control over the counter, as it is in many countries. They do oppose the government providing those things or forcing employers to provide them. It’s strange, but lots of libertarians believe in things like social safety nets and environmental regulations. There are folks who call themselves “liberaltarians,” even. I’m starting to think that these labels are becoming less and less useful, as people tend to be more flexible than the labels will allow.
Frauenfelder just likes to post stuff from Reason. (And it’s his blog.)
I don’t think you have to be particularly libertarian to agree with the point of view of the video (although the added hammy acting was stupid). IIRC there was a story a while back about the San Diego PD sending police officers into bars to enforce the “no smoking” ordinance. There’s no lack of examples of police going overboard (or acting like thugs) for Reason to draw from.
The problem with the Reason foundation, and libertarians in general is that they’re also for things such as the elimination of the FDA, and the 13th Amendment. Why? Because anyone selling motor oil and lead paint chips as “potato chips in a fine vinaigrette” , would quickly go out of business when word got out that they were peddling poison. After all, these laws weren’t placed because of well known and well documented instances of willful public endangerment and fraud. There’s no such thing a market for lemons, and fraudsters never just change their name. And anyway, why would you not want to maximize Freedom™ by allowing people to sell motor oil and lead paint chips as a healthy snack? Why eliminate the 13th Amendment, because you can’t truly be Free™ unless you can sell yourself into slavery.
They always argue that you should eliminate all government, except the parts they like. The military. The police. The courts. Why? Because these maintain and extend existing power structures.
Some libertarians are for the elimination of the FDA. Some are for an FDA which acts in a competent and effective manner. Some are opposed to a federal FDA and believe it should be left to states.
If the Reason Foundation believes people should be allowed to sell motor oil and lead paint chips (or the equivalent) as food, I’d appreciate seeing a link.
If the Reason Foundation opposes the 13th Amendment, I’d appreciate seeing a link.
I’ve been checking in on Reason for a few years and I’ve never read anything like this. They are more critical of the military than Democrats. They believe in reducing it more than Democrats. Same goes for the police and courts.
Unless you can find links demonstrating that they want to "eliminate all government, except for the military, police, and the courts (along with your claims regarding the 13th amendment and poison food), then the honest thing to do is accept the possibility that you’ve been misinformed. If you do, indeed, find links to support these claims, then I will do the same.
Libertarian Police Department:
I put a quarter in the siren. Ten minutes later, I was on the scene. It was a normal office building, strangled on all sides by public sidewalks. I hopped over them and went inside.
“Home Depot™ Presents the Police!®” I said, flashing my badge and my gun and a small picture of Ron Paul. “Nobody move unless you want to!” They didn’t.
“Now, which one of you punks is going to pay me to investigate this crime?” No one spoke up.
http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/shouts/2014/03/libertarian-police-department.html
Hello,
The video from Reason.Com seems based on this article from the Washington Post: San Diego police raid strip club, photograph strippers. What I think could have been better emphasized was the use of militarized “SWAT-style” police tactics for what sounds something that could have been more appropriately (and capably) handled by administrative units.
If the San Diego Police Department is truly interested in checking the worker’s permits and working with the local adult entertainment industry (or whatever the correct term is for it), one would think that rather than using such a rather blatant show of force, they would instead have police officers out and engaging the workers using methods to build trust. After all, I would think you would want those employees to contact the police if they saw something illegal happening, instead of being afraid of them.
[Mod edit: Removed signature]
State sponsored gender based violence against women. Still.
There was a season of Dexter that was not too far off. Because Showtime.
