Fun with libertarians

I should start a webpage where people bait libertarians.  I'll call it Loonbook.  They're pretty easy, really.  A lot of them paint themselves as moderates or centrists, but there's nothing moderate or centrist about them.

Pretty much without exception, they're all raving, ultra-paranoid, grasping right-wingers who see tax as theft and government spending as absolutely necessary if it's on them.  And the moment that you suggest that government does something, you're a "statist" and as bad as the rest of them.

But you know, for the most part, libertarians do mostly the right thing, in standing up for people's rights.  Strangely, though, where people are too weak to assert their own rights, libertarians are only too keen to ride slipshod over them.  Get a load of this fine fellow:

Name Nazi New Zealand statists, doing what statists do best, outlawing harmless behavior. SMH holykaw.alltop.com/new-zealand-up…
— Chuck Baggett (@ChuckBaggett) May 5, 2013

OK.  I had read about this earlier in the week, and shot off a response.

@chuckbaggett Like naming a child "Anal" is harmless. What kind of fantasy land are you in?
— Dikkii (@dikkii) May 5, 2013

The reason that we need the state to intervene on this and other issues, is that parents can't be trusted to not be cruel to their kids.  Imagine that the NZ authorities had allowed the name "Anal" to be registered.  What next?

Kid's going to get bullied, heckled and all sorts of things at school so badly that he (or she) will probably commit suicide before he (or she) graduates.

The kid is in no position to consent or approve their parents' selection of a name.  Hence one of the reasons why we need a name-vetting process.

@dikkii "I can confirm... several people named Anal, including Anal Exceus. Anal Singh, and Anal Shah." vastpublicindifference.com/2008/08/urban-…
— Chuck Baggett (@ChuckBaggett) May 5, 2013

So it's a normal subcontinental name is it?  So what?  It's still not harmless, which was this guy's original claim.

@chuckbaggett Right. And that's harmless in an English-speaking country (NZ) how?Remember your original claim was harmlessness.
— Dikkii (@dikkii) May 5, 2013

I followed that up with this:

@chuckbaggett ... Incidentally, none of the Anal's you named were in NZ.
— Dikkii (@dikkii) May 5, 2013

So imagine my surprise when our libertarian friend tweeted this (Edit: to be fair, he's since deleted it, but I still have the text, and the permalink for the record):

@dikkii How long should a person be put in prison for naming their child something you disapprove of? Or do your favor the death penalty?
— Chuck Baggett (@ChuckBaggett) May 5, 2013

This is a popular red herring with libertarians. Apparently, the government just wants to lock you up.  And the bigger the government is, the more people they want to lock away.  So you better watch out!

With my stupidmeter off the scale and me carrying on several other conversations on Twitter, I dashed these off, and then jumped into the shower

@chuckbaggett The names are just banned. As in "refused to be registered". What is this nonsense about people being jailed?
— Dikkii (@dikkii) May 5, 2013

@chuckbaggett Are you even reading the articles that you're linking to?
— Dikkii (@dikkii) May 5, 2013

By the time I got out of the shower I was blocked, once again.

Edit, 3 July 2013: I pulled this post in June 2013 after I received a request from @ChuckBaggett himself. I thought that we had an understanding.  Obviously, if you're reading this, it should be clear that we do not, at least, not any more:

And Chuck, just so you fully understand, if you are reading this: Blocking people on Twitter only stops people from following you.  It does not stop you being retweeted into their timeline, nor does it them from being retweeted into yours.  It also doesn't stop them reading your subtweets.  And, just so it's crystal clear: Blocking on Twitter is NOT considered to be playing nice.