The good thing about being a libertarian is that you are motivated by freedom, which is a very noble principle, and you have lots of evidence on your side, whether the issue is economics or personal liberty.
You can’t afford to be smug, of course, since it’s still a big uphill battle to convince politicians not to engage in plunder.
But at least you can sleep soundly at night knowing that you’re on the side of the angels.
And that even means you have self-confidence about your ideas and you can laugh when someone puts together some clever anti-libertarian humor.
Here’s the latest example, sent to me by a TV journalist.
What makes this funny is that libertarians are sometimes quick to defend their rights, even when nobody’s trying to take them away.
Which is why we sometimes get pigeonholed as being weird, like the family in the lower left of this poster, or paranoid, like the guy in the #8 spot of this poster.
But let’s be thankful that there are some libertarians willing to raise a stink about government even if the rest of the world thinks we’re a bit odd. As we’ve seen dozens of times, most recently with the IRS and NSA, bureaucrats and politicians have a compulsive tendency to grab more power and make government more intrusive.
I started yesterday’s post with a mother-in-law joke, so I’ll end today’s post by mentioning the fable of the frog that gets put in a pot of water and doesn’t jump out because the temperature feels comfortable. But then the heat is slowly raised and the frog no longer has the energy to escape when he finally figures out he’s being cooked.
Well, libertarians are the ones who loudly complain when the government puts us into pots.
[…] Our second item captures the mindset of libertarians. […]
[…] The answer to the riddle of why the libertarian chicken crossed the road. […]
[…] Next, we have a doggie that takes after the libertarian chicken. […]
[…] part of my collection of libertarian humor (both pro and con), I provide an answer to the age-old question of “why did the libertarian chicken cross the […]
[…] for libertarians, as shown in this video from Reason. My favorites are 1) Entitle-Mints, 2) the libertarian doorbell, 3) Jury Nullification Barbie, and 4) Hungry, Hungry […]
[…] are sometimes considered to be a bit odd, and the same thing is sometimes said about […]
[…] going overboard with libertarian intensity at a family gathering. Then you come across like the libertarian chicken, or the “missionary” from the 24-types-of-libertarians […]
[…] I don’t want to have the same guess as almost everyone else (we libertarians have a tendency to be obstreperous), so let’s mix things up. The easy adjustment would be to give one or two of the […]
[…] The answer to the riddle of why the libertarian chicken crossed the road. […]
[…] you can see, the “libertarian chicken” obviously provided the answers for the third […]
[…] The answer to the riddle of why the libertarian chicken crossed the road. […]
[…] The first segment of the video reminds me of the libertarian chicken. […]
At the risk of resurrecting a dead post, I would reply — there is never a time when someone isn’t trying to take away your rights.
[…] The answer to the riddle of why the libertarian chicken crossed the road. […]
[…] I’ll simply regurgitate some of what I wrote back in […]
[…] I’ll simply regurgitate some of what I wrote back in […]
Mr. TA,
There currently is no problem* enforcing private arbitrators’ decisions. The courts order sheriffs to do so every day. And sheriffs comply with such court orders every day.
No complicated system need be created. The courts already back the arbitrators up.
This system works wonderfully in contractual matters. It would be next to impossible, though, to extend arbitration to non-contractual litigation.
* I asterisk “no problem” because both arbitrators’ awards and court judgments are subject to all kinds of enforcement tribulations. The larger point is, though, that arbitrators’ awards are no more problematic when it comes to enforcement than court judgments. For example, a million dollar court judgment against an impecunious defendant is no less merely a sheet of paper than a million dollar arbitrator’s award against that impecunious defendant. In court or in arbitration, you still cannot get blood from a turnip.
Go Dogs Go,
Sure, but who is to ensure that private parties will obey arbitration decisions?
I suppose there could be a mechanism of sheriffs enforcing the decisions of licensed arbiters, but absent that complicated system which has very little chanced politically, the courts have to be there to back the arbiters up.
Courts to need to be streamlined and optimized, no argument there.
[…] The answer to the riddle of why the libertarian chicken crossed the road. […]
Dan, you wrote in the Townhall version of this article that you remain to be convinced that national defense and the legal system can be privatized.
I’m sure you are aware of the growth over the past 20 years or so of private, mandatory, and binding arbitration. Business people like the consistency and rapidity that arbitration entails. By contrast, simple litigation in the government-run justice system takes years to resolve and is often seemingly arbitrary in outcome.
Only contract-based disputes can be subjected to mandatory arbitration because the parties have to agree in advance to subject disputes to arbitration,
But government is losing this not insubstantial piece of the justice pie because contracting parties have found and continue to find private arbitration preferable to government justice.
Go ‘Dogs!
That’s awesome, funny too!