Monday, September 1, 2014

Liberty Website Reports USPS Worker Discards Mail...what's the point?


How does the libertarian brain work?

OK, below is a snip from one of these libertarian people's websites where we can see them report an incident during which someone working for the US Postal Service in (I'm sure) violation of postal regulations, apparently discarded some mail I assume rather than deliver it during the remainder of the shift...

So these libertarians report:

A USPS worker was recorded throwing mail into a dumpster in Bond Hill, Ohio last week. The female worker is show tossing the letters, paychecks and notices into the trash and could face federal charges for the crime. 
“This is clearly unacceptable behavior that does not reflect the efforts of the thousands of professional, dedicated carriers in our workforce,” USPS spokesman David Van Allen said.
That's all the post reports, so what is the point here from these libertarians?

Libertarians are by definition anti-authority, here it is right from wiki:
While libertarians share a skepticism of authority...
So what prevents this postal worker from throwing out the mail other than authority?

If a supervisor was along for the ride that day, do we think that this worker would have pulled over to throw out the mail?

Of course not (unless the supervisor was also a libertarian I suppose...), so this postal worker simply acted in libertarian fashion, i.e. could give a shit about anyone else, IGNORED AUTHORITY, and simply pulled over and threw out the mail.

So what is the libertarian point here?  Seems like something right out of the libertarian playbook...  I just don't get how the libertarian brain works... I suppose they could have been applauding the postal worker?

Hard to get these people...


8 comments:

The Rombach Report said...

"So what prevents this postal worker from throwing out the mail other than authority?"

Perhaps a lack of personal responsibility and good judgement?

"... so this postal worker simply acted in libertarian fashion, i.e. could give a shit about anyone else, IGNORED AUTHORITY, and simply pulled over and threw out the mail."

Really?

"I just don't get how the libertarian brain works."

Matt - You have no idea just how clueless you are about how the libertarian brain works.

Anonymous said...

I'm glad libertarians are now on the side of better government.

Matt Franko said...

Ed,

I know!

rsp, matt

Matt Franko said...

Ed how can a "lack" of something "prevent" something?

If you can see what I mean...

Not having something is "nothing" so how can "nothing" prevent "something"?

So this person lets say "lacks personal responsibility" ie "doesnt have something" (something here being 'personal responsibility'..) so how can this "nothing" prevent this person from throwing out the mail?

How can "nothing" prevent?

If the Patriots don't have a defense, how can they prevent the Ravens from scoring every time?

rsp,

Unknown said...

Matt,

funny.

But the truth is that these so-called 'libertarians' are not really libertarians. They are really 'private property authoritarians'. They believe that the authority of private property owners should be absolute.

What they dislike is public authority, because public authority can override and limit the power of private property owners to act like absolute dictators.

Matt Franko said...

y,

Is that not "tyranny" rather than some form of "authority"?

iow I agree we should resist 'tyranny', but not resist 'authority'... 'authority' is all we of mankind have here (from my perspective...)

Ed brings up 'personal responsibility' (btw I love Ed...)

so lets look at that 'response-ability'... iow 'an ability to respond'...

Q: an 'ability' to 'respond' to what?

A: an ability to respond to authority imo...

rsp,

Unknown said...

Matt,

authority:

The power or right to give orders, make decisions, and enforce obedience

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/authority

Authority isn't necessarily good or just or legitimate.

Tom Hickey said...

The question is where authority should lie under good governance.

Conservatives say with best.

Liberals say with the people.

Both liberals and conservatives agree on hierarchical governance, e.g., representative democracy.

Libertarians disagree with hierarchical governance.

Libertarians of the right advocate for individual sovereignty and no specific governance other than the outcome produced by adherence to the non-aggression principle.

Libertarians of the left advocate for popular sovereignty and consensus government by the people

Of course, this is a very broad generalization that abstracts from a lot of variation, but I think it captures the basic categories.