You're viewing a single thread.
Real libertarians would stand there with their hands in their pockets watching a toddler drown in a duck pond because the parents have no right to demand their labour.
What you're describing is something called "Duty to Rescue". It has serious implications if enacted, and should not be taken lightly.
hey look, I was bang on the money.
For your reference, here is a Wikipedia article on Good Samaritan Law. This graphic also provides some important context (it is contained within that Wikipedia article, but it is a useful graphic, so I explicitly linked it).
no please, don't let me get in the way of you confirming the stereotype. Say more words by all means.
What stereotype do you believe that I am confirming?
The one at the top of this comment chain.
I never stated that it is un-libertarian to have duty-to-rescue laws. To be clear, I, personally, am of the belief that one should not be forced to come to the aid of another; however, I do support good samaritan protections. This being said, I would like to point out that your original argument is founded upon an assumption.
And I'm stating that libertarians are selfish assholes who would watch a toddler drown before allowing any sense of obligation within a mile of their massive entitlement, and be proud of themselves for doing it.
What a libertarian would actually say is that it is an individual's right to choose whether or not to come to someone's aid. What if coming to the aid of another requires the endangerment of your own life, or the destruction of your own property? Should one be compelled by force to risk their own life, or their own property for the sake of another? The moral answer would be yes one should come to the aid of another, no matter the personal risk, but the actual question at hand is should one be compelled by law to do so -- duty to rescue does compell you by force to come to the aid of another. Not all libertarians are of the same mentality as you describe in your comment.
is this satire or...?
because i actually noticed a few specific people (namely us-citizens) associating libertarianism with uncontrolled market instead of the humanitarian background of the enlightenmentSorry your movement got co-opted by idiots. It happens. Pick a new name for your beliefs and start over. The brand is tarnished and anyone who disagrees either is in denial over the state of things, or perfectly fine with what it has become. It's time to move on.
I've been saying "lais·sez-faire - anism" because at this point I could care less what other people do or what bathrooms they use lol
Liberalism maybe? It's a thing you know
RIP vegetarianism
I feel sorry for chill vegans.
They still even exist?
The entire concept is "I don't have to and you can't make me!".
That's it, that's all; a complete renunciation of social obligation. Nobody is required to do anything for anybody else, and the very idea is offensive.
Regulation is tyranny, taxation is theft, fuck you, pay me.
Your baby is starving to death in the street? Better hope someone decides to randomly donate to a charity or something, because I don't have to give a shit about anyone in the world but myself. But its okay, I'm a good person because I'm not touching you!
At least toddlers grow out of it.
Randroid scum the lot of them; a bunch of edgelord ex-teenage anarchists who realised they like money and want laws to protect it, without any of that inconvenient and expensive functioning-society stuff getting in the way of their selfishness.
