>I remember during the Chick-Fill-A thing, a libertarian friend of mine who posts political stuff on their facebook feed made an about face when people started protesting the business. Actually, no, to his/er credit, s/he changed attitude when a governor (GUBERMINT) decided to enact policies against the business...which is understandable because that is plain wrong, still, his/er attitude changed towards the whole issue when that happened close to sympathizing with the business instead of protestors (who unlike the governor, had a right to protest).

Given how many libertarians I know, and especially seeing the same thing happen on my facebook feed, I'm pretty sure it was because the protesters from the get-go were arguing that Chick-Fil-A should not be allowed to have these policies. So naturally the libertarian would side with the business; why wouldn't they given their ideology? It's not "business vs protesters" as you try to frame it (deceptively so, I might add). It was the libertarians and those such as Ron Paul that were the loudest in opposing the bank bail outs and letting them fail. You even acknowledge why they opposed the protesters but since you can't think of another example offhand you still run with this one. Unbelievable, and I'm not even a libertarian so I have no horse in this race!

To libertarians there is no real division between business/economic relations and any other. I think this is partially why they have a fetish for describing so many things in market/economical terms.

You also create a false dichotomy here:

>Most libertarians I meet seem to feel more strongly about the business side than the individual liberty side

But how a business is conducted is itself, in the libertarian framework, an issue of individual liberty. The government to them has no moral authority over telling an organization whom they can hire anymore than they have would have a moral authority ordering Chick-Fil-A to remain open on Sundays. The main fact is that you disagree with them there on a fundamental level and instead of being charitable you try to read it into the most Snidely Whiplash way imaginable so you can try to claim they're inconsistent no matter what they say.

As for global warming, they just tend to deny it occurs, and they believe what they say even though they are wrong.

>In the great depression, FDR and others decided the opposite, that the freedom of the individual is more important the rights of the businesses

That's funny, the "Being Liberal" page just posted a quote form Hillary Clinton stating that ""We must stop thinking of the individual and start thinking about what is best for society." Shifting rhetoric to fit the situation is not exactly the hallmark of honesty; it is the left that seems to argue against individualism more than anything else. The left is for the individual except when they're for society. What?

Arguing that libertarians are being inconsistent because their view of rights is incongruent with your framework is just dishonest. Start at the beginning and claim they start from a flawed place, don't be misleading about it.

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10151114330741275&set=a.180479986274.135777.177486166274&type=1&theater

>When I asked how would things like fire departments and libraries run in a liberatiran country they could never tell me and they would accuse me of being inflammatory.

I'm not a libertarian, but what? Who did you even talk to? They don't always have specific answers for fire (but then again they are not proposing administrative systems top-down do they do not need a single one to settle on) but they do have answers and their answer for libraries is obvious enough from their beliefs--fund it like any other system, like Blockbuster did for movies or what have you.

I will say one thing, the left (I am not left, no, but I am not right either--I don't really believe in anything, having given up on ideology and saving the world and stuff) always touts libraries and universities as the hallmark of civilizations but libraries are frequently under-used as it is (increasingly less so in this digital age so the appeal is more increasingly of aesthetics and signaling to other liberals) and universal university education just means yet another step on the ladder to get a job as degrees have become increasingly devalued for most fields--and for the cases that aren't, once people start filling up those fields, they too will be over saturated. All that talk about needing to be well-educated to be a good citizen is just that, talk, it is a means to instill one ideology over another (what is a "good citizen" anyway, who decides that?) knowledge has nothing to do with moral OPINIONS anyway, and well-educated people will still go ahead and deny human-caused climate change and what have you.

I will say something in the libertarian's defense--they are not positing top-down systems but a more organic system grown bottoms-up so the true ideological libertarian's motivation is not something greed-based. The libertarian's ideology is individualistic but believes true just governance is a sort of emergent process, so whenever I hear the left talk about libertarians just being rich or spoiled without understanding the basis of their ideology (however naive or unrealistic it may or not may not) makes me question the supposed intellectual superiority they claim to have in online debates since their entire approach is a strawman designed to make them feel morally superior from the onset.

For my part I think the libertarian view sounds aesthetically pleasing, but, as horrible as a world where the gods exist and DEMAND blood sacrifice, it may simply not be feasible with common human stock. That won't change the libertarian's view though, even if they agree, because they do not believe that just rule emerges out of collective agreement of society on imposing on the individual or that government "just is" a true moral authority.

Then what use if the word "libertarian" if it's so flexible it can mean just about...anyone?

Curiously enough, I doubt anyone else today did either! Thank you for bringing this highly salient point to our attention!

Wow, that is one wild way to skew the facts, do you think anyone is going to forget how China economy is pretty different than the Wests to begin with?

>The problem though, is Mitt Romney's "good-ole American capitalism" is part of why so many people are out of work right now. Bain Capital's entire business is buying up businesses, dismantling them, and selling them for parts to pay off debts incurred in said purchases. How is this good for the USA?

Sooooo... what explains the worse unemployment rates in much further-left Europe?

It's clear he was speaking in general terms and you actually bolster his argument by pointing out that not one, but several, appear there.

Seriously, can you believe the shit progressives come up with? I bet he really believes what he said about taxi cabs over Manhattan.

Oh please, I know what this legislation is. Just because you put the enforcement on the supplier side and not the consumer side doesn't change much functionally speaking. It's still controlling the population with your own fantasies. You want me to claim that outlawing abortions or restricting what abortion clinics can do isn't limiting women's health choices? I won't, but your line of argument would lead there.

Yet its the left here on slashdot defending it...

Wouldn't that be even more of a reason to ban those activities then?

Yes, banning certain sizes of soft drinks is just like your mommy taking care of you when you have a boo boo.

Politicians do it better than anyone--let's ban them. And cosmetics, too.

I don't stand a snowballs chance? I cut soda out of my diet completely. Hmm.

Hahaha, I'm scared of the fact that you think anything about this is reasonable. I'm guessing you're not "pro-choice?"

I'm not conservative... But I have to say, I recall a LOT of liberals flaming conservatives for implying that laws such as these would ever be passed in health care related arguments... Looks like the right was on the money about that for once.