# Cranick's Folly: Libertarianism at its finest? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [October 5, 2010, 9:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cranicks-folly-libertarianism-at-its-finest/556104 "2010-10-05T09:02:39Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 10
**Author:** ![emacknight](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/3ec8ea/32.png) [@emacknight](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/emacknight)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2010, 11:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cranicks-folly-libertarianism-at-its-finest/556104/181 "2010-10-05T23:49:34Z")
> [@Le\_Jacquelope](#): > > > [@emacknight](#): > > > > I asked that a couple of times, apparently you can. Just call **Le Jacquelope** , he’ll hook you up. The casino on the other hand is not nearly as gracious. > > Excuse me, don’t misrepresent what I said. I said that insurance companies would refuse you or fight you in court for what the Cranicks did. I did not ever say they would insure you if you got in an accident and then tried to get them a policy. Well, I did ask you at least three times, and you tried your hardest to evade in each of them. So for the record, you agree that if Mr Cranick didn’t pay is insurance policy, his carrier would have no obligation to pay out a claim. You evaded that question before, there it is again. Mr Cranick is trying to get an insurance payout without paying his premium. Hence, the fire department (for a different region) is under no obligation to provide him with a service. They were, however, obligated to provide a service to the neighbour, who had a policy with them. It’s certainly interesting to see how **Der Trihs** then treats the fire department (for the neighbouring city). They refused to provide a service, making them terrorists. Had they charged a fee they’d be extortionists. But if they do it for free they’re suckers, and doing a disservice to their paying customers (who will ultimately foot the bill). I feel bad for the guy’s neighbour, who is going to find out shortly that the fire department wants nothing to do with his area, which is usually how this sort of thing goes–one cheap ass apple fucks the entire system with his selfishness. Makes you wonder though, why hasn’t a private fire department set up shop and charged $70? ---
**Author:** ![Raygun99](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/6f9a4e/32.png) [@Raygun99](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Raygun99)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2010, 11:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cranicks-folly-libertarianism-at-its-finest/556104/182 "2010-10-05T23:49:34Z")
How is this the statists’ alternative? Statists would mandate fire coverage through taxes and have a fee per call negotiated between municipalities that can support a full fire department and those that can’t. ---
**Author:** ![emacknight](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/3ec8ea/32.png) [@emacknight](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/emacknight)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2010, 11:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cranicks-folly-libertarianism-at-its-finest/556104/183 "2010-10-05T23:51:27Z")
> [@athelas](#): > > Except…[it was a government-run fire company](http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2010/10/bizarre_salon_a.html). > > > [@](#): > > > > It turns out, though, that the fire department in Tennessee was not a private for-profit fire department. It was a government-run fire department. You read that right: the fire department that refused to show up and refused to name a price at which it would show up was run by the government of South Fulton. > > > > So let’s see now: Libertarians tend to advocate that government not be in the business of providing fire protection because we think that people should be free to contract with whoever they want to contract with and, as a side benefit, they will get better protection at a lower cost. If someone could show us that this works badly, we would look at that case. But it’s bizarre for a statist to attack libertarians when his own statist alternative works out badly. That’s exactly what Alex Pareene and many of his commenters did. What’s next: blaming libertarians because TSA is taking x-rays of people? Or blaming libertarians because the government is so vicious in the drug war? Or blaming libertarians because government schools are so lousy? So? Is there evidence to suggest that a private for profit fire house would have acted differently? Or were you trying to suggest that this is all part of the overall failure of government and part of the death panels Palin warned us about. ---
**Author:** ![Le\_Jacquelope](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/e0b2c6/32.png) [@Le\_Jacquelope](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Le_Jacquelope)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2010, 11:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cranicks-folly-libertarianism-at-its-finest/556104/184 "2010-10-05T23:51:55Z")
> [@emacknight](#): > > Well, I did ask you at least three times, and you tried your hardest to evade in each of them. I had no idea that you were actually serious in asking such a question. > [@](#): > > So for the record, you agree that if Mr Cranick didn’t pay is insurance policy, his carrier would have no obligation to pay out a claim. Of course not. However, your comparison with the fire department is totally invalid. They’re not the same thing. I believe I said THAT before to someone else. ---
**Author:** ![Le\_Jacquelope](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/e0b2c6/32.png) [@Le\_Jacquelope](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Le_Jacquelope)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2010, 11:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cranicks-folly-libertarianism-at-its-finest/556104/185 "2010-10-05T23:54:24Z")
What cracks me up is that there are still places in America where this arrangement goes on. I say let them be and pray that whatever afflicts South Fulton or whatever municipality or jurisdiction or whatever that is, isn’t contagious. ---
**Author:** ![emacknight](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/3ec8ea/32.png) [@emacknight](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/emacknight)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2010, 11:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cranicks-folly-libertarianism-at-its-finest/556104/186 "2010-10-05T23:55:48Z")
> [@Le\_Jacquelope](#): > > > [@emacknight](#): > > > > Well, I did ask you at least three times, and you tried your hardest to evade in each of them. > > I had no idea that you were actually serious in asking such a question. > > > [@](#): > > > > So for the record, you agree that if Mr Cranick didn’t pay is insurance policy, his carrier would have no obligation to pay out a claim. > > Of course not. > > However, your comparison with the fire department is totally invalid. They’re not the same thing. I believe I said THAT before to someone else. What exactly is the difference? As a comparison, if Cranick had “fire insurance” that he failed to pay, the same scenario would have played out. Except there would a fun middle player half of us could crap on: \*the evil heartless insurance company \*that refused to pay for his fire service because he didn’t pay the bill. Those bastards let this poor guy’s house burn. ---
**Author:** ![Le\_Jacquelope](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/e0b2c6/32.png) [@Le\_Jacquelope](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Le_Jacquelope)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2010, 11:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cranicks-folly-libertarianism-at-its-finest/556104/187 "2010-10-05T23:58:07Z")
> [@emacknight](#): > > What exactly is the difference? > > As a comparison, if Cranick had “fire insurance” that he failed to pay, the same scenario would have played out. Except there would a fun middle player half of us could crap on: \*the evil heartless insurance company \*that refused to pay for his fire service because he didn’t pay the bill. Those bastards let this poor guy’s house burn. Oh, dear. Okay, well, you go with that. ---
**Author:** ![amanset](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/8dc957/32.png) [@amanset](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/amanset)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2010, 11:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cranicks-folly-libertarianism-at-its-finest/556104/188 "2010-10-05T23:58:46Z")
> [@septimus](#): > > What do Dopers think? (Since lefties will probably trot out their usual Marxist message, it’s those with libertarian or conservative views I’m most interested in hearing from.) Surely we have rules against these sort of additions to OPs in Great Debates? ---
**Author:** ![pulykamell](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/pulykamell/32/3166_2.png) [@pulykamell](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pulykamell)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2010, 12:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cranicks-folly-libertarianism-at-its-finest/556104/189 "2010-10-06T00:01:36Z")
> [@Rumor\_Watkins](#): > > > [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > > > They offered to pay at the site and the money was refused. That made it not about the money, but out of deliberate desire to see them burn. > > Can I offer to pay up my car insurance arrearages when I get into a car crash? Pretty please. But that’s not the same in this situation, is it? The home owner offered to pay the costs, no? The fire department refused. If you don’t pay for insurance, it’s not like you can’t get your car fixed–you just pay full price to do so. I would think the same should apply here. (Although I personally would prefer for payments to the fire department to be covered by local taxes.) ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2010, 12:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cranicks-folly-libertarianism-at-its-finest/556104/190 "2010-10-06T00:05:09Z")
> [@Sam\_Stone](#): > > There are plenty of lefties around who are ‘purists’ fighting for communism, community ownership of all goods, nationalization of all business, collectivization of agriculture, and all the rest of the goody bag of far left policies. No, there aren’t. Not here in America at least. Almost nowhere these days as far as I know. > [@Sam\_Stone](#): > > > [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > > > Libertarians are well known for their insistence that the private sector can do anything better than the government Because They Say So. And for their insistence that free market solutions exist even when they don’t. > > That’s funny, because I’ll bet I know ten times as many libertarians as you do, and I never hear that. You’re also Canadian. And you’ve made it clear over the years that you have very little real understanding of what the American political landscape is actually like. ---
**Author:** ![emacknight](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/3ec8ea/32.png) [@emacknight](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/emacknight)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2010, 12:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cranicks-folly-libertarianism-at-its-finest/556104/191 "2010-10-06T00:07:16Z")
> [@pulykamell](#): > > > [@Rumor\_Watkins](#): > > > > Can I offer to pay up my car insurance arrearages when I get into a car crash? Pretty please. > > But that’s not the same in this situation, is it? The home owner offered to pay the costs, no? The fire department refused. If you don’t pay for insurance, it’s not like you can’t get your car fixed–you just pay full price to do so. I would think the same should apply here. (Although I personally would prefer for payments to the fire department to be covered by local taxes.) Is the repair shop obligated to fix your car, or can they refuse? The fire department doesn’t HAVE to accept his money, they are under no obligation to enter into a contract with him. Just as he wasn’t required to pay the $75 fee up front, they have no obligation to him after the fact. Further to that, what if by experience, 50% of past customers failed to pay. Remember, the trucks were only there for the neighbour. As as far as I can tell no other fire department gave a rat’s ass either. ---
**Author:** ![foolsguinea](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/foolsguinea/32/14751_2.png) [@foolsguinea](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/foolsguinea)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2010, 12:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cranicks-folly-libertarianism-at-its-finest/556104/192 "2010-10-06T00:17:03Z")
> [@Sam\_Stone](#): > > The problem is that ‘libertarians’ are always forced to fight straw man arguments because _other people_ assume that libertarianism has to be ‘pure’, and ‘pure’ means anarchism. So those of us who simply want to eliminate government from areas where market solutions exist and where government has demonstrably failed are instead subjected to arguments about privatizing fire services and police forces. > > In other words, opponents of Libertarianism always attack it from its weakest point - the extreme fringe, which they elevate to be representative of mainstream libertarianism, and then if they can shoot down the fringe argument they act as if all of libertarianism has been discredited. > > It would be like a liberal proposing a new regulation of finance, and being forced to debate the collectivization of agriculture instead because it’s all ‘statism’, and if you can’t defend collectivization of agriculture then ‘statism’ can be shown to have failed and therefore you should not be allowed to regulate finance. How would that work for you? Sounds like every third political argument here in Ron Paul-land. Sam, your problem is that you are a moderate (at least by Yank standards) & you _think_ you’re some kind of ideological libertarian. The USA is a pretty libertarian country to begin with. And even the left is mostly OK with that. But this is where it ends up, too often. ---
**Author:** ![E-Sabbath](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/e19adc/32.png) [@E-Sabbath](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/E-Sabbath)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2010, 12:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cranicks-folly-libertarianism-at-its-finest/556104/193 "2010-10-06T00:18:24Z")
> [@hansel](#): > > Another data point: in 2007, Crannick’s son caused a fire in his house. The FD came out, put the fire out, and let Crannick pay the $75 the next day with the understanding that he now saw the value of the subscription fee. Instead, the lesson Crannick apparently took was that he didn’t have to pay at all. Is this the same son who attacked the fire chief? ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2010, 12:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cranicks-folly-libertarianism-at-its-finest/556104/194 "2010-10-06T00:20:59Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > > [@Sam\_Stone](#): > > > > There are plenty of lefties around who are ‘purists’ fighting for communism, community ownership of all goods, nationalization of all business, collectivization of agriculture, and all the rest of the goody bag of far left policies. > > No, there aren’t. Not here in America at least. Almost nowhere these days as far as I know. Then you’re simply ignorant. The premier think tank for libertarianism in the states is the [Cato Institute](http://cato.org). Why don’t you mosey on over there and read some of their position papers? You won’t find a single thing about eliminating all government. Next, you can try reading [Reason](http://reason.com/) magazine. You could also try [Liberty Magazine](http://www.libertyunbound.com/), which is a little more ‘radical’ but still far short of your caricature. Those are all American publications. I’ve been reading them for 25 years. My wife was a contributor to ‘Liberty’. So don’t tell me I don’t understand the movement. Have you ever read any of those? Even a little? Have you read any of the libertarian literature by David Boaz, Milton Friedman, or other major thinkers? If not, where do you come off telling me you’re more knowledgeable about what libertarians believe than I am? > [@](#): > > > [@Sam\_Stone](#): > > > > That’s funny, because I’ll bet I know ten times as many libertarians as you do, and I never hear that. > > You’re also Canadian. And you’ve made it clear over the years that you have very little real understanding of what the American political landscape is actually like. I’d also like to make it clear that libertarianism is an international movement, so I’m not even sure why you’re trying to claim that it’s something unique to America. Hell, the most prominent libertarian head of a major government today is Vaclav Klaus of the Czech Republic. The most popular political party in my province is libertarian. There are official libertarian parties in many countries. And really, there’s very little difference between most of them. ---
**Author:** ![foolsguinea](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/foolsguinea/32/14751_2.png) [@foolsguinea](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/foolsguinea)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2010, 12:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cranicks-folly-libertarianism-at-its-finest/556104/195 "2010-10-06T00:21:43Z")
> [@Rumor\_Watkins](#): > > > [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > > > Pay or die" is as extortionist as it gets. > > I’m not even offering you water, though. Just like the Cranicks weren’t even offered the possibility of fire fighting services. Are you actually arguing that it’s more moral to refuse to help even for a price than to charge an extortionate price for your help? :eek: ---
**Author:** ![emacknight](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/3ec8ea/32.png) [@emacknight](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/emacknight)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2010, 12:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cranicks-folly-libertarianism-at-its-finest/556104/196 "2010-10-06T00:24:06Z")
> [@athelas](#): > > Except…[it was a government-run fire company](http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2010/10/bizarre_salon_a.html). > > > [@](#): > > > > It turns out, though, that the fire department in Tennessee was not a private for-profit fire department. It was a government-run fire department. You read that right: the fire department that refused to show up and refused to name a price at which it would show up was run by the government of South Fulton. > > > > So let’s see now: Libertarians tend to advocate that government not be in the business of providing fire protection because we think that people should be free to contract with whoever they want to contract with and, as a side benefit, they will get better protection at a lower cost. If someone could show us that this works badly, we would look at that case. But it’s bizarre for a statist to attack libertarians when his own statist alternative works out badly. That’s exactly what Alex Pareene and many of his commenters did. What’s next: blaming libertarians because TSA is taking x-rays of people? Or blaming libertarians because the government is so vicious in the drug war? Or blaming libertarians because government schools are so lousy? No wait, I want to change my answer: your kilt is showing! Did I use that right? In other words, there can be no criticism of libertarianism, because it can never actually exist. There will always be some sort of government involvement, otherwise there is anarchy, and anarchy is not libertarianism. Personally, this scenario is exactly how OTHER people view libertarians. It’s all about me, me, me. Leave me alone, get off my lawn, stop taking my money and using it to put out other people’s fire. Until I need something, and then it’s me me me, save me, I need savings. In the end, libertarianism has a shitty PR problem. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2010, 12:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cranicks-folly-libertarianism-at-its-finest/556104/197 "2010-10-06T00:33:45Z")
> [@septimus](#): > > What do Dopers think? (Since lefties will probably trot out their usual Marxist message, it’s those with libertarian or conservative views I’m most interested in hearing from.) I realize the thread has moved past this, but this comment is just poisoning the well. In the future please start your threads without these kinds of statements. ---
**Author:** ![Rand\_Rover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/db5fbb/32.png) [@Rand\_Rover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rand_Rover)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2010, 12:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cranicks-folly-libertarianism-at-its-finest/556104/198 "2010-10-06T00:33:46Z")
This thread very nicely illustrates the failure in the thought processes (if any) of the SDMB lefty contingent (hereafter, the “SDMBLC”). It warms my heart to see I didn’t waste all that time going out to set that fire.\* The situation is basically this: A bunch of people decide how to take care of a problem in a way that they are all happy with. It may not be what you or I would do to take care of the problem, but they are closer to the facts than we are, and this is how they chose to handle it. I think that’s fine and dandy. The Cranick’s house burns down and the fire department doesn’t put it out. Well, old man Cranick chose not to pay up, so the firefighters don’t put out his house, but they do come out to make sure other people’s property is not damaged and no human life is in danger. The system these folks all decided to set up has worked just fine. This story is really a non-story–it’s akin to “a guy walks into a convenience store, buys a bottle of water, pays and leaves.” Nothing all that exciting has happened. Enter stage left: The SDMBLC. They see a result they do not like (i.e., a guy’s house burned down while the fire department was there and could have put it out). Therefore, these people and their agreements that they are all happy with be damned! If the world doesn’t work exactly as the SDMBLC dictates that it must, then the SDMBLC is not happy! And the SDMBLC very much frowns on the fire department’s shenanigans. Of course, the SDMBLC finds our old friend the “moral obligation” lurking in the background to save the day for their position–the fire company of course had a “moral obligation” to achieve the result the SDMBLC wants. Also, of course, increased government is the answer. So here are the lessons from this thread for the SDMBLC: 1. People have their own ideas about how to run their lives. Sometimes they do things that reach results you aren’t happy with. That doesn’t mean that they did something bad or that they should not be allowed to set things up in such a way that that result may occur. Your unhappiness with the result means absolutely nothing. 2. It adds nothing to express your preferences in terms of a “moral obligation”–and that’s all that term is, an expression of your preference that people do things to achieve the result you want to achieve. You do not have the ability to tap into the ether of absolute right and wrong. You are just a meatbag crawling around like the rest of us. Your preferences are not absolutely and objectively correct in some cosmic sense. 3. The fact that you find a moral obligation and a role for more government in this problem illustrates how you approach life–always with the use of force to get your way. You aren’t happy with people making agreements they are happy with if it could achieve a result you aren’t happy with, so you want to force them to modify their agreements more to your liking. You could simply just accept that not everyone has the same ideas of how their lives should be arranged as you do. \*This is not a joke. I really did set that fire. ---
**Author:** ![pulykamell](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/pulykamell/32/3166_2.png) [@pulykamell](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pulykamell)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2010, 12:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cranicks-folly-libertarianism-at-its-finest/556104/199 "2010-10-06T00:34:41Z")
> [@emacknight](#): > > Is the repair shop obligated to fix your car, or can they refuse? > > The fire department doesn’t HAVE to accept his money, they are under no obligation to enter into a contract with him. Just as he wasn’t required to pay the $75 fee up front, they have no obligation to him after the fact. Sure they can refuse, I suppose (although, once again, for this type of service, I prefer a more “common good” model.) I just don’t see any rational business reason to do so. Let a house burn down, or get $100,000 (or whatever) for putting out the fire? Gee, I know my answer as the head of the FD. > [@](#): > > Further to that, what if by experience, 50% of past customers failed to pay. Factor that into your price. That’s capitalism, right? ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2010, 12:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cranicks-folly-libertarianism-at-its-finest/556104/200 "2010-10-06T00:35:35Z")
> [@foolsguinea](#): > > Sounds like every third political argument here in Ron Paul-land. Sam, your problem is that you are a moderate (at least by Yank standards) & you _think_ you’re some kind of ideological libertarian. > > The USA is a pretty libertarian country to begin with. And even the left is mostly OK with that. But this is where it ends up, too often. No, the problem is that liberals love to post stories like this, then libertarians take the bait and attempt a libertarian defense. That doesn’t mean they spend their political energy pushing for privatized fire departments and police forces. People on the left get sucked in the same way. Someone on the right will read about some insane proposal to use government to mandate something stupid, and post it along with commentary about how this proves that government intervention is idiotic. Then someone on the left will take the bait and try to defend government action, thereby validating the original author’s belief that all leftists support said crazy policy. And in my experience on this board, when I try to engage people on the left in debates where the libertarian position is much more solid and ‘mainstream’, the debate either dies or mutates into another straw man attack. Because no one wants to debate their opponent where the opponent is strongest. For example, there have been endless debates, vigorously fought, over whether or not global warming is ‘real’. Global warming supporters love that debate, because it’s where they are strongest and where the issue is most clearly defensible for their side. But I have tried on numerous occasions on this board to engage global warming activists in the more difficult debate over what to do about global warming, how cap and trade translates into a real solution that actually makes a difference, how to value the present cost of damage that may occur in 100 years, the accuracy of economic models that try to predict CO2 emissions 50 years from now, and other issues that are just as important but much more difficult for global warming adherents, and I never get any takers. It’s much more useful to frame the debate as, “Either global warming isn’t happening, which we can disprove, or it’s happening, and therefore the debate is over and you must do as we say.” If instead, the debate becomes “If global warming is real and manmade, let’s now consider the vast array of choices that are available to us and try to logically determine the best path forward”, then you’ve opened all kinds of doors for your opponents. In the same way, it’s much better from your standpoint to frame the debate around government as, “Government is generally good, and people opposed to more government are reactionaries and radicals who shouldn’t be listened to.” That beats the hell out of having to defend specific government programs on their merits, because then it all gets a lot fuzzier. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cranicks-folly-libertarianism-at-its-finest/556104.md?page=9) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cranicks-folly-libertarianism-at-its-finest/556104.md?page=11)