[Osborn F Enready]

Isbskins said: Ok, how about this...it would seem to me that you would care that sometimes kids don't know or respect property lines.

That would be correct.

Isbskins said: Do they deserve to die because you do not want to go to the extra expense of putting up a fence?

False question.

I don't want any children to die, but at the same time, their well-being is not my responsibility, nor my expense.

The childs well-being is the responsibility of the parents, and you obviously think parents should be held accountable for the actions of their children, and teaching of their children. Well so do I, which is why I am anti-public school and anti-nanny statism.

Isbskins said: This is not about you being actually harmed, it is about you being cheap.

Excuse me? Who is to judge cheap or extravagant? Who is to judge means and ability?

Its about individual responsibility, which you are asking the state or fed to use force to usurp via laws that violate the rights of property owners and cause undue expense.

It is about YOU and people like you asking government to "overstep" its Constitutional boundaries based on irrational fears, and illogical arguments that deny the "area of responsibility" held by the parents.

It is about the illogical attempt to child-proof and idiot-proof society.

Isbskins said: If you can't afford the fence, you can't afford the pool.

Based on?

Isbskins said: It is a foreseeable danger.

So are car accidents, bad parenting and eventual death as a living being. Point?

Isbskins said: And it is not that different from leaving a loaded gun sitting on your front porch where the same child might walk up and discharge it and shoot themselves or someone else.

Appeal to emotion in an attempt to misconstrue the "guilt" in violation of property rights.

Isbskins said: It does not matter that it is "on your property", it is fundementally an unsafe thing to do and a reasonable person can see and would take measures to prevent that danger.

A reasonable person would teach their children to respect property rights, and not let them roam until they understand that points values and dangers.

I disagree. Reasonable people would not agree with that point you made.

Isbskins said: Again, you are why it is necessary to put laws on the books that require the fence, and mandate how high it needs to be, and mandate that the gate must latch.

And people like you, who attempt to use illogical arguments, appeal to emotion, and fear mongering to influence law, government and the rights of individuals is why reasonable people retain the right to bear arms...... to protect the rights we value as self-evident, to "reasonable" people.

SDBest said: I started this thread, and in the original post I quoted a short segment from an essay about the problem of Libertarianism leading to tyranny, and I provided the source.

Yes, and your source was an "opinion". I didn't see any valid questions or arguments in the "opinion" editorial that would validate the debate.

SDBest said: The case for the premise that Libertarianism, in its more extreme forms (which I believe you advocate) would lead to tyranny was made very strongly.

Strongly, if you give credence to illogical arguments and appeal to emotion. I don't.

SDBest said: Perhaps you should read the source which I quoted from before accusing "anti-libs" of not making their case.

I had trouble reading it the first time, and didn't finish, but I will re-read it in its entirety just so I can appease you, due to my gracious generosity and goodwill.