Soldato
It means a scepticism on state authority. Like onerous eating laws on public transport.
Except when it suits you to drop the libertarianism, of course.
Is it racist ?
- Thread starter Minusorange
- Start date
Except when it suits you to drop the libertarianism, of course.
Soldato
Where does defending onerous laws passed down by state authority fit with libertarianism? Where's the freedom - to eat a ******* sandwich on a train!
- Joined
- 25 Nov 2005
- Posts
- 12,451
Except she's only lost her book deal because people cried racist, not because she reported a staff member for breaking rules and being rude
Soldato
No one wanted her locked up, they want consistency. Either everyone is allowed to eat or no one is. If there is a rule against eating then staff should abide by it. Libertarian is a belief in small government, you're maybe thinking of Anarchism. It's honestly a chore posting here sometimes.
Soldato
Not that I agree (she lost it because of the furore, not because of racism), but so what?Except she's only lost her book deal because people cried racist, not because she reported a staff member for breaking rules and being rude
If losing the book deal was proportionate (you've not argued that point), does it matter the mechanism?
Soldato
It is becoming an increasing struggle to determine which side of faux outrage aisle one should sit, eat or tweet.
Article content is hilarious in its spectrum of absurdity.
Article content is hilarious in its spectrum of absurdity.
Like is said I think you are confused between anarchy and libertarianism. One is the state of disorder due to absence or non-recognition of authority or other controlling systems and the other isn't and recognises that authority and controlling systems are needed to balance one person's rights against others.
- Joined
- 25 Nov 2005
- Posts
- 12,451
How is it proportionate ? She wasn't breaking any rules or telling customers to mind their own business
It was the staff member doing that and they don't sound like very good staff if they ignore rules and tell customers to politely eff off
Not mentioning the fact that nobody actually gives a **** she was reporting the staff member, they only care because the staff member was black
Now where's the morality in only caring due to skin colour ?
Soldato
So eating a sandwich on public transport being banned is ok?
But some of the blatant racism and other bigotry we often see defended on here as "freedom of speech" or whatever is not something that should be banned?
There's a balance of peoples rights there?
And, frankly, if libertarianism doesn't oppose stupid laws like restriction on the right to eat on a train, then what's the point in libertarianism? Where's the ******* liberty?
Of course there isn't anything inherently racist about calling out the hypocrisy of having laws against eating while a uniformed employee is actively breaking those rules. The main source of racism here are the various idiots on twitter who are more concerned about the race of the person tweeting and the race of the person eating...
Erm no, they've been advised not to issue citations for it, that doesn't mean they're not enforcing the rules and simply telling people not to eat. Or indeed that they won't issue a citation if pushed.
They've certainly issued citations for it in the past and even arrested people for it:
Why is she stupid?
Erm no, they've been advised not to issue citations for it, that doesn't mean they're not enforcing the rules and simply telling people not to eat. Or indeed that they won't issue a citation if pushed.
They've certainly issued citations for it in the past and even arrested people for it:
thinkprogress.org said:
Why is she stupid?
What is the "bad faith" angle you're referring to?
I mean if you believe she's a secret racist and is doing this because the employee is black and she wants to cause trouble for her because she hates black people etc.. then you could argue she's acting in bad faith with regards to the reporting and has ulterior motives.
But there doesn't seem to be anything to indicate any motive other than simply objecting to a uniformed employee seemingly breaking the rules at will when ordinary passengers would potentially be told off for doing the same thing, in which case what has made you conclude that she's acting in bad faith?
Caporegime
- Joined
- 30 Jul 2013
- Posts
- 28,886
Because somebody eating their lunch shouldn't get you all hot and bothered, let them get on with it - No need to report them on twitter.
Maybe all these stupid people doing stupid things on twitter (see Danny Baker) should just be more careful.
There is no "right" to eat on the trains, it's a rule that the police can enforce, which implies that it is illegal.
If the employee wanted to eat then they had the "right" to take another form of transport.
No one has ever defended racism as freedom of speech LOL. Please stop with these silly straw men. Try and actually type things that you aren't making up for the sake of your argument
You don't know that she was "hot and bothered" and you've not actually given a reason to assume she is stupid other than you simply disagreeing with her reporting it. That is just a difference in values and potentially rather silly of you to conflate someone having different values or a different opinion to you with stupidity.
You must be psychic.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 30 Jul 2013
- Posts
- 28,886
I don't know, but I can assume she was, since she asked the member of staff why she was eating and was told to "worry about yourself" and then went on Twitter to publicly complain about her to her employer, for eating lunch, rather than leave it at that.
Those aren't the actions of somebody who isn't bothered.
And I think most people who use twitter are stupid
.Laws have to have to cover a wide range of circumstances as its not practical to have or enforce a rule that says for example eating a sandwich is OK but eating smelly food that your more likely to spill all over the seats and floor is not. As a commuter and train user in London in the past I have certainly had my personal liberty impinged by people being inconsiderate in the way they eat on public transport and/or the associated rubbish they left behind or seats/floor they soiled so as to make them unusable for others. So it's not a case of whether quietly eating a sandwich is an issue but rather balancing the rights of all people on the service and the needs of the operator to run as an efficient and clean service for its customers
Libertarianism doesn't mean you get to spout of whatever you want wherever without control. Ocuk provides these forums free at the point of use and it would be entirely within their remit to much more strongly restrict what could be posted on their website. So I don't see the parallel you are trying to make. If people are complying with UK law and the rules here then that's it. If you don't like thoose rules of think others should be employed by the moderating staff you are free to go elsewhere.
Libertarianism implies some scepticism of authority and rules but ultimately its aims are to maximise everyone's liberty. Which necessarily means rules to balance one person's 'rights' against another or else all you have is anarchy.
As I have previously outlined I don't beleive that a ban on eating on certain types of public transport is necessarily disproportionate to maintaining the rights of everyone to use a public transport service.