Goodness!

[rivka]

Watch a libertarian attempt to explain that women were much, much more free back in the days when they couldn't vote, own property, or enter into contracts.

Then explain to me why anyone still expects people to take libertarianism seriously.

Comments

[ailbhe]

I had someone explain to me why couverture was a good thing for women a while ago. Makes it easy to defriend people I suppose.

[wcg.livejournal.com]

It's curious how people can string words together into sentences, and sentences into paragraphs, and end up with a result that almost appears to make sense (provided you ignore ~90% of what you've learned) but upon careful examination is really incoherent nonsense.

[dornbeast.livejournal.com]

It almost appeared to make sense?

Wow. I mean, I knew you were smart, but you almost made sense out of that?! I am in awe.

[sioneva.livejournal.com]

Yes, I've had a number of disagreements with libertarian cousins, in particular. One just this morning, in fact.

It's delightful. Just delightful.

[oursin.livejournal.com]

I think I saw a follow-up yesterday to this, in which he was trying to weasel out of someone's counter-argument re marital rape (i.e. that this was not legally a concept in those golden days and therefore wives had no recourse against marital sexual violence - or of course against non-sexual marital violence).

Just because me, I could make a cogent case that not all Victorian women were helpless oppressed victims of the patriarchy (HAI! I can bore for Europe on this topic), doesn't mean I think that being a Victorian woman was hunkydory and that it isn't, all in all, much, much better to be a C21st woman.

[antonia-tiger.livejournal.com]

That's it: law (and custom) sets the lower limit. Good people are still good people.

As for the others... As some day it may happen that a victim must be found, I've got a little list--I've got a little list.

[Exit, embarrassed, stage left.]

[ricevermicelli.livejournal.com]

And bonus anti-semitism for the win. Those lucky late 19th century Jews. No pogroms! What more could they ask for?

I think WCG has this guy dead to rights.

[naomikritzer]

::jaw drops::

WOW.

[vom-marlowe.livejournal.com]

WCG has got him pegged all right.

Good grief. I haven't seen this argument in a while, mostly because I started getting up and walking away from all libertarians in person. I heard an argument about how sidewalks should be paid for by individuals, and were a detriment, and how little old ladies ought to pay to use them, and I just decided it was so cracked I wasn't listening. La la la la. That's all I hear now. La la la.

[badgerbag.livejournal.com]

There are some interesting leftist libertarians - Kevin Carson is a good one. So while the word remains a major red flag for me to indicate a person is about to be a jerk, it isn't 100% certain...

[duane-kc.livejournal.com]

*That* was not a libertarian, except possibly in the sense that he belongs to the Libertarian Party. That was a boob, and not the happy fun kind either.

There's a *reason* I'm not registered Libertarian any more, and it's not just because they decided to endorse a Republican candidate in the last Presidential race.

[elusis.livejournal.com]

I like crossfire_'s term: Lolbertarian.

[klwalton.livejournal.com]

I haven't seen an argument that... painful since an undergrad logic class.

[jerusha.livejournal.com]

I describe people of that political ilk as "Libertarian with a capital Loony"

[minnehaha.livejournal.com]

"Then explain to me why anyone still expects people to take libertarianism seriously."

Because it sounds right, because it should be right. It's not just that people take Libertarianismm seriously, it's that otherwise smart people -- computer people -- take Libertarianism seriously.

B

[bosssio.livejournal.com]

[i]But from a libertarian standpoint, they were freer than they are on Sex and the City.[/i]

hahahahahahahahhhahah! oh, wait, he is serious.

I am confused. It sounds like this dude discounts the existence of any structures outside of the legal system - sure, it may be LEGAL for me to do something, but if the impact is that my entire community shuns me, I lose my housing and source of food, my religious leaders tell me I am damned for all time, and I lose access to my children, it isn't really a free choice, is it? My individual ability to express my individual free will is being limited by powers outside of my control. Sounds pretty damned anti-libertarian to me.

Establishing and protecting legal rights are not the only element in extending freedoms.

[bosssio.livejournal.com]

another comment.

a woman could remain unmarried back in the day. But her ability to have children would be seriously compromised, to the point where she would be essentially prevented from having children outside of marriage. If she married, she would be essence trading her personal freedoms for the right to reproduce, with a great deal of vulnerability to both her and her children if the male was not trustworthy.

The right to reproduce is to me a FUNDAMENTAL HUMAN RIGHT. It is a core desire, a core evolutionary need that all humans share. Whether or not and how a particular human chooses to exercise that right is immaterial to the fact that we all must have the right to choose.

And women historically have had their reproductive options controlled by the men in their lives - whether, when, how many, and with whom children are created.

These old marriage laws, anti-adultery laws, limits on access and information to birth control, and severe penalties against children born outside of "approved partnerships" are all forms of controlling women's reproductive freedoms.

I ain't even starting with the control over children after they are born, cuz that is a whole 'nuther can of worms.