Re: Libertarian or Lunatics?

I haven't watched the video yet, but...

Each one of those points are logical implications of libertarianism.

The problem occurs when they try to inject libertarianism into a socialized system.

Without turning this into a rant...

For example, consider this paragraph:

"The report further suggests decriminalizing all drug use and drug possession as well as leaving homeless people where they are to engage in "life-sustaining activities in public spaces, such as sleeping, eating, preparing food, washing clothes...urinating and defecating, or for other analogous activities in public places."

The key phrase is, "life-sustaining activities in public spaces."

In a purely libertarian society, the logic dictates that there would be no such thing as "public spaces." There would be no public sidewalks, roads, parks, pensions, healthcare, media, or "education."

Whether or not "life-sustaining activities in public spaces, such as sleeping, eating, preparing food, washing clothes...urinating and defecating" were to be permitted would depend on the owners of the property.

Some property owners might be fine with "life-sustaining activities" occurring on their properties. These might be the same people who are often labeled as "slumlords." They might be owned by the Hell's Angels, Mexican cartels, the Russian Mob, or Liberal/NDP politicians who decided to build their own Utopian communities with their own money.

Other property owners might be more conservative.

It reminds me of a timeshare complex I visited about 25 years ago near Dubois, Pennsylvania. It might have been Wolf Run Manor. I instantly recognized it as a private neighborhood. The roads and sidewalks were privately owned. It had parks and other recreation, and one or more stores. One thing I didn't see there, was anyone shitting on the sidewalk, laying in a pool of vomit, or shoving a needle into their arm. Nor were there any homeless encampments. It was a very nice place to visit or live.

What I found most interesting were the armed private cops. They were nothing like socialized cops. They were polite, friendly, and helpful because the residents were their customers.

The problem with the mentality of the UN personnel who came up with these proposals is that they are all hard-core authoritarian collectivists. They would not tolerate privately owned communities for one millisecond.

Since we don't live in a perfect world, the best we can hope for, for now, roughly speaking, is the choice between, say, red states and blue states, or their Canadian, etc. equivalents.

And abolish the UN.