Are Libertarians Isolationist?

I think most people would say Iam more a Libertarian than a Democrat or Republican. I don't think Libertarians are really isolationist. I would say Libertarians know who to help and what type of help would benefit the recipient as well as everyone else. For instance you see a guy in a ditch, lets say he is known to drive like a maniac and is often times under the influence. A Libertarian might be inclined to resist helping him cause it might be best to keep a dangerous driver off the road. It's not that a Libertarian doesn't care, it might be they care in a more practical sense.

I think most people would say Iam more a Libertarian than a Democrat or Republican. I don't think Libertarians are really isolationist. I would say Libertarians know who to help and what type of help would benefit the recipient as well as everyone else. For instance you see a guy in a ditch, lets say he is known to drive like a maniac and is often times under the influence. A Libertarian might be inclined to resist helping him cause it might be best to keep a dangerous driver off the road. It's not that a Libertarian doesn't care, it might be they care in a more practical sense. Originally Posted by acp5762

Except usually, it's not that the guy you see is in a ditch, but he's swerving drunkenly in the road waving a loaded gun around.

You can do nothing and let him very likely injure other people or you can do something about it.

I don't know of a single Libertarian who is opposed to laws against driving drunk and waving a gun around. You are confusing Libertarians with anarchists. They are not the same.

I think you're missing the metaphor...

You need to lose the label, COG . . .you don't qualify as a Libertarian.

Except usually, it's not that the guy you see is in a ditch, but he's swerving drunkenly in the road waving a loaded gun around.

You can do nothing and let him very likely injure other people or you can do something about it. Originally Posted by jbravo_123

Well you can do a couple of things. Get behind him and Pit his vehicle into a ditch which could kill'em, or keep a safe distance and tail him and call the police giving them the necessary information. Or you could do what the average Liberal would do, pull up beside him and try to intice him to pull over by waving a Hundred Dollar Bill at him.

You need to lose the label, COG . . .you don't qualify as a Libertarian. Originally Posted by MooneyFlyer

And why is that?

Actually, I try to eschew all labels, but this one is convenient. I believe in Liberty and personal responsibility. I suppose I would most qualify for the label of classical liberal, but that would get confusing around here. Hell, Libertarian confuses enough of these people.

If we limited the government to about a 1/3 of what they get now we wouldn't have to worry about overreach. They wouldn't have the money.

Well you can do a couple of things. Get behind him and Pit his vehicle into a ditch which could kill'em, or keep a safe distance and tail him and call the police giving them the necessary information. Or you could do what the average Liberal would do, pull up beside him and try to intice him to pull over by waving a Hundred Dollar Bill at him. Originally Posted by acp5762

And the Libertarian isolationist solution would be to sit back and let him shoot someone / cause an accident when you have the ability to help. Why should I waste my own personal cell phone minutes calling the police!?!?

Isolationism is a policy that simply doesn't work.

And the Libertarian isolationist solution would be to sit back and let him shoot someone / cause an accident when you have the ability to help. Why should I waste my own personal cell phone minutes calling the police!?!?

Isolationism is a policy that simply doesn't work. Originally Posted by jbravo_123

How about you give the ultimate solution of your original post.

And why is that?

Actually, I try to eschew all labels, but this one is convenient. I believe in Liberty and personal responsibility. I suppose I would most qualify for the label of classical liberal, but that would get confusing around here. Hell, Libertarian confuses enough of these people. Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

Well eschew this!

How about you give the ultimate solution of your original post. Originally Posted by acp5762

Intervention may not be the ultimate solution, but it's a heck of a lot better than sitting around with your thumb up your ass (unless you're into that kind of thing).

Intervention may not be the ultimate solution, but it's a heck of a lot better than sitting around with your thumb up your ass (unless you're into that kind of thing). Originally Posted by jbravo_123

I never incinuated sitting back. I am all about intervention when it's warranted. You by your own admition wouldn't waste your precious cell phone minutes to call the police. So how would you intervene in a situation to prevent or minimize something that obviously would have bad consequences?

I never incinuated sitting back. I am all about intervention when it's warranted. You by your own admition wouldn't waste your precious cell phone minutes to call the police. So how would you intervene in a situation to prevent or minimize something that obviously would have bad consequences? Originally Posted by acp5762

In your drunken driver example you advocated that Libertarians should do nothing and allow him to drive into a ditch and that would be a practical thing to do.

I'll also have to start putting /sarcasm tags because apparently it's too difficult for some readers to tell when I'm being sarcastic.

So what yu're saying is that like many others in this thread, you believe that an isolationist policy is untenable then?

In your drunken driver example you advocated that Libertarians should do nothing and allow him to drive into a ditch and that would be a practical thing to do.

I'll also have to start putting /sarcasm tags because apparently it's too difficult for some readers to tell when I'm being sarcastic.

So what yu're saying is that like many others in this thread, you believe that an isolationist policy is untenable then? Originally Posted by jbravo_123

I never gave a drunken driver example, that was you. I gave the example of a guy who was already in a ditch out of traffic, who had a reputation of being a bad driver who would possibly be under the influence. My main jist was since he was out of traffic and not a danger to anyone or himself don't help him so he won't be a hazard. Oh and by the way you're sarcasm is not really obvious. Actually I think you use sarcasm as an excuse for your inability to properly comprehend.