Political imbalance

[Curious George]

I'm referring to civil free speech not incivil free speech. Free speech to have any value requires from all involved a modicum of civility.

I thought we were discussing free speech, even extreme examples.

Not sure atm that the fire example is legitimate. Someone yelling fire is not going to cause me to run over or climb over other individuals or do anything extraordinary to put someone else's life at risk. I guess the assumption is that everyone panics and no longer has any control over their actions.

If I trample someone to death because of what someone else yells does it me I bear no responsibility for killing someone? I would hope not. Otherwise I'm free to blame anyone else's speech for my actions. Someone claims Obama allowed thousands to die in Chicago. Ok, so I go shoot Obama out of a sense of justice. Not my fault?

Of course ypu bear responsibility, but your bearing of responsibility does not negate the speakers responsibility either. Responsibility is not a zero-sum game wherein once a party is found to have responsibility the others are exonerated. We look to mens rea and actus reus when looking at most crimes. Several people can be responsible and thereby held accountable for one outcome.

 

[Revoltingest]

The fact that many have allied themselves with evangelicals (not known for their love of liberty) certainly hasn't done their image or reputation any favors.

Every group has some members giving the whole a bad name.
(It's my job at RF.)

 

[Revoltingest]

The libertarians are by in large responsible for gentrification and a budding new housing crisis. The Silicon Valley libertarian (of the Ayn Rand objectivist variety) have some of the most toxic environments out there. Just saying.
There's plenty of criticism to go to all parties including those outside the partisan lines.

Libertarians would loosen restrictive zoning laws.
Housing crisis averted!

 

[ADigitalArtist]

Libertarians would loosen restrictive zoning laws.
Housing crisis averted!

I notice by their voting that they're more likely to loosen them in other people's neighborhoods rather than their wealthy constituants. Zoning reformation for some land use tends to be bipartisan between both libertarians and progressives in some areas, but not wholesale parts of gentrification and pricing the poor out of their neighborhoods or removing 'undesirables.'
I definitely know some libertarians who oppose zoning because they'd love to push poor and immigrant families to industrial districts.

 

[Revoltingest]

I notice by their voting that they're more likely to loosen them in other people's neighborhoods rather than their wealthy constituants. Zoning reformation for some land use tends to be bipartisan between both libertarians and progressives in some areas, but not wholesale parts of gentrification and pricing the poor out of their neighborhoods or removing 'undesirables.'
I definitely know some libertarians who oppose zoning because they'd love to push poor and immigrant families to industrial districts.

Well, I know some Democrats & Republicans who are vile racists or sexists.
Still, I don't judge the whole by the few.
You might extend the same courtesy to Libertarians.

Btw. we don't want to get rid of the undesirables.
We are the undesirables.