Libertarians Like Libertarianism, Except When It’s Inconvenient


Libertarians Like Libertarianism, Except When It’s Inconvenient

A popular libertarian podcaster, whose show I consistently listen to and enjoy, recently did an episode where he advocated that the police remove homeless people from a public park that he and his daughter were visiting. That started a debate on some censorship platform that I’m not familiar with, called “Twitter”, I think. On the podcast episode in question, the host mildly criticized libertarians who opposed the common-sense practice of having police remove the homeless from public parks. As much as I want to just go along with what this guy says, I was a little shocked by it (mission accomplished, [Name Redacted]!), as being not only non-libertarian, but also naïve and impractical.

Therefore, Bulleted List:

  • The state isn’t here to enforce your preferences. In fact, that’s a lot of the reason we are where we are. People want the state to enforce their preferences on others by force and the state is all too happy to take the power that comes along with that and do whatever they want with it, your preferences be damned. You’ll be lucky if that same power isn’t used against you, instead.
  • If the state should have the power to kick homeless people out of the park, should they have the power to kick people out of the park who have no Maxine passport? Why or why not? 
  • If the homeless people don’t like you, should the cops kick you out? I mean, we’re all human here, right? None of us have rights that others don’t. So, if it’s cool for some to have the state kick people out of parks who don’t share their lifestyle choices, then we should support a situation where all groups are trying to use government force to exclude those they don’t like. 
  • If you argue that the state owns this property (the park), then it’s up to them what to do with it, unless you also argue that it’s not up to you what you do with your own property. Obviously, someone who supports the idea that some can’t do with their property what they want, then they would also argue that they themselves can’t do with their own property what they want, to be consistent. If you argue that the state can’t legitimately own property, then what gives you more of a right to it than a homeless person?
  • This is why they propagandize. They do what benefits them at our expense and that creates problems, but they’ve taught us in their schools from an early age that the solution to those problems they created is more power for them. That creates more problems, etc. 
  • Why would you bring your kid to a place like that? Maybe somehow you didn’t know it would be that way? If that was the case, once you figured out that it was that way, why stay? Just don’t take your kid to places like that. I wouldn’t want my kid on Jeffrey Epstein’s island and, for that reason, I wouldn’t take her there.
  • I get that you don’t want your kid around that stuff. But if you’re arguing for the use of force just to get your way, then you’re part of the problem. 
There’s no good solution to the problem. The state’s got things all messed up. Go somewhere that isn’t a  homeless infested park. I realize that may not be ideal, but your ideal isn’t going to be accomplished by the naïve advocacy for state violence on behalf of your preferences.

Now, carry on with your normally excellent podcast.

Conceptual logician, libertarian philosopher, musician, economist, almost-ran businessman and other stuff.
Back To Top