Give me liberty, but not libertarians 1

You can’t argue with the basic premise of Libertarianism- that more freedom, for everyone, is a good thing and an ideal to work toward. It’s a shame that most of the people who call themselves Libertarians argue for selfish irresponsibility instead.

I noticed this most recently listening to a piece on Radio 4 arising from the silly drink driving proposals from County Kerry. Sean Gabb, representing the Libertarian Alliance, argued that it’s better for people to be killed by drunk drivers than for people to be breathalysed, which catches and/or discourages drink drivers. Asked whether he thought breathalysing had saved any lives by discouraging drink driving he came back with a masterful analogy-

Sean answered that shooting drunk drivers out of hand on the roadside would be more effective, but that it would not be done for obvious reasons.
From the LA’s fanciful interpretation of the interview.

He then accused the presenter and co-interviewee of using emotive language because they dared to address the problem rather than avoid the question. Realising he was losing, GAbb decided not to use his argument winning gambit-

That states are not notably concerned about the protection of life. In the past century, thugs in uniform have been ordered by their political or military superiors to kill about 200 million people.

That’s the problem with self-pronounced Libertarians, they’re more concerned with getting their own way and indulging in their own vices than actually making the rest of us any freer. Their political philosophy is that of the spoilt child.

A proper, pragmatic, Libertarian would look for ways to raise the overall freedom of the whole country, and accept that their right to these freedoms comes with responsibilities. The right of one person to go on living, of their family to not suffer their loss and even, once they’d sobered up, for the driver to not have to live with the trauma of having killed someone, outweighs the “right” of an overconfident Libertarian to believe they’re perfectly safe to drive no matter how much they’ve had to drink.

Lollipop Ladies are a tool of the oppressors!!!! 1

You might think that lollipop ladies (and men) are a quaint but useful bunch. After all, they protect vulnerable members of society and make our roads safer.

But no. According to one blogger at the Libertarian Alliance they’re part of a scheme to control society– starting with an attack on the poor downtrodden motorist.

Perhaps they’ve been ordered to inconvenience the traffic as much as possible, maybe to cause deliberate “congestion”, so that further charges may be brought in? Since “Councils” soviets now employ these buggers, and are of course riddled to the core with the destroying-worm of GreeNazism and other forms of socialism, there‚Äôs grounds for suspecting an anti-car conspiracy.

Or they might be doing their job, which is to get children from one side of the road to the other safely. The blogger does comment that back in the good old days the children had to wait for a break in the traffic before the Lolly was deployed, because to do otherwise ‘would be considered both rude and inconvenient to “motorists”‘. So his problem is really that nowadays drivers are expected to act responsibly and don’t get the preferential treatment he feels they deserve. It appears that David Davis believes that the right of a child to be protected is less important than that of a driver to be smug in their metal box. This characterises the outlook of so many people who call themselves Libertarians- selfishness and self interest rather than anything which might actually increase the overall liberty of the population as a whole.