Okay. So you ignore the hypocrisy of libertarians regarding public transportation?
I'm sorry I missed that one. But does that mean I've effectively responded to the other examples you gave?
Here's my response regarding public transportation:
AGAIN, a libertarian does not have to conform to your idea of libertarianism. It's almost useless to even bring up libertarianism, because there are socialistic libertarians who believe the state should have a fundamental role in the economy, and libertarianism is quite possibly the most diverse political ideology. Second, if you ask the majority of libertarians in this country, though they are quite diverse in thought, they will align themselves with "classical liberalism." Classical Liberalism is another broad ideology that encompasses a wide range of interpretations. Some classical liberals believe the government should only serve the function to protect against force and fraud, while others would include basic public infrastructure (roads, highways, canals, bridges, weights & measures, records management), and still others would even go a bit farther. I, myself, actually believe that the government has a role to protect the environment, and this is where I disagree with most libertarians. Many libertarians, when it comes to basic public infrastructure, believe in a public-private partnership. I'm personally afraid to support any sort of public-private partnership because I do not want to merge government and economic power. To me, public-private partnerships = corporatism. But not everybody agrees with me on that one, so let's move on.
I also hope that all of the libertarians who are workers ignore the safety regulations from the state force on business owners that help provide safe working conditions for them.
How can we? That would be against the law.
And why are you and other libertarians even using the internet, since much of it's development and the infrastructure for it was put in place with government dollars?
Though there may be some truth to that, it does not justify the government investment. Governments invest in a lot of things, and many of those investments are costly and unnecessary. This one just happened to be a good idea. But any good investment idea will be capitalized by private entrepreneurs. It's not like the Internet would have never existed had the government never invested in its development. But anyway, if we're going to continue this debate regarding the Internet, I would like to see statistical data. How much investment came directly from the government, and how much from private citizens (or businesses).
So thanks for proving the fact that libertarians are just as hypocritical as every other political philosophy out there.
So, let me get a few things straight. You believe in taxing libertarians for a government investment you deem appropriate (in which case, you are forcing your hand into my pocket), and then you expect libertarians to refuse any and all returns (if there are any) that come from that investment? So, I'm taxed a hundred times a day in order to finance some risky government investment, and then you expect me to surrender ALL returns on that investment? Not only are you stealing from me to finance your own investment, but you would also like to prevent me from receiving ANY gain from such investment?
The second thing I'd like to get straight is this idea of hypocrisy. Instead of directly responding to the hypocrisy of progressivism, I'm instead forced to defend my own political platform. Are you not diverting the entire topic this way?
Let's get back to T.R., shall we? Now that it is a confirmed fact that TR was no more honest in his campaign finance agenda, can we now agree that the Citizens United ruling was a just ruling based on constitutional grounds? If TR can accept millions of dollars in campaign contributions, why can't we all? If the head of the progressive movement, which is also spearheading "campaign finance reform", was a total hypocrite on this most pressing issue, isn't time the progressives re-examine the ruling?