Maybe it is time for the NH Libertarians to take a little break from the internet. When your politics espouses letting babies starve, it's time to tap out. They did delete the tweet, but the internet is forever.
Advertisement
The Libertarian Party: "The baby should be allowed to parish" if no one wants to feed it.
Stuff like this is why the Libertarian Party will never grow or being taken seriously. pic.twitter.com/Pbz8NNpY7f
— Peter Henlein (@SwissWatchGuy) May 3, 2024
In the tweet, the Libertarian Party of New Hampshire says if there is no one willing to feed an orphan, they should be allowed to die. That's incredibly heartless.
I wonder why the Libertarian party in America is struggling. Perhaps it's their policy of "Let orphan babies die." pic.twitter.com/2PXlTpJF7i
— George Simkin (@George_Simkin) May 3, 2024
There is going to be problems gathering people around that philosophy.
Hi Ron, glad to see some excellent Libertarian philosophy on the timeline.
After all, what right does an orphan have to food or water? None. Let them perish!
— SDL (@SocDoneLeft) May 3, 2024
So you're "kind" enough to violently dominate others to save a baby, but not kind enough to... just help the orphan yourself?
The urge to "help" is almost always a false front for the urge to rule.
— Libertarian Party NH (@LPNH) May 3, 2024
Yes, they continued to dig. While yes, there probably would be many people to help a starving baby, society should have some safety nets in place to ensure a baby is fed.
Recommended
Advertisement
We're going to delete the above tweet because we were discussing an orphan, not a baby with parents, which got lost in the quote tweet.
— Libertarian Party NH (@LPNH) May 3, 2024
Not sure why it matters if babies have parents or are orphans, they all have to eat.
Oh ok. You just meant that it's fine to allow orphans to die. pic.twitter.com/N4yPIfL2cG
— Problematic Thinker (@Texaggie79) May 3, 2024
That does not make the context of *this* any better pic.twitter.com/iiuQ6suwC1
— plannercars 🚃🚉 (@plannercars) May 3, 2024
It's a good time to go and look back at the original exchange. That does not make it any better.
And you think that's better pic.twitter.com/6lpC6zugMb
— History Vareck (@HistoryVareck) May 3, 2024
Thank god you clarified that it's an orphan you would let starve and not a baby with parents
— Yzma (@nakedmolerat888) May 3, 2024
It was supposed to say orphan.
Once you justify forcing people to care for others, you're right back at socialism and the social welfare state.
You really out here supporting food stamps?
— Libertarian Party NH (@LPNH) May 3, 2024
There is a level of society who deserve help from society. Those are people who are disabled and cannot work and children.
Just can't wrap my head around this one.
— George Simkin (@George_Simkin) May 3, 2024
Advertisement
It's stunning.
Is this Libertarianism showing an extreme faith in their fellow humans that "no one would let a baby starve" or is this Libertarianism showing why everyone just pats them on the head and sends them to hang out with the Green Party?
— Matthew Sablan (@lucentile) May 3, 2024
It’s a logical extension of their philosophy that there should be literally NO taxes and that the role of government should be as tiny as possible to the point of largely corporatist anarchism. Like, philosophically I see the point but it goes waaaaay too far
— Enguerrand VII de Coucy (@ingelramdecoucy) May 3, 2024
Yeah, I didn't think that post was going to stay up for long. However, they did redeem themselves by saying they only mean ORPHAN babies should be allowed to die. https://t.co/noUcGQCP9a
— Problematic Thinker (@Texaggie79) May 3, 2024
As if that is so much better. While political philosophy is well and good, it has to be combined with some common sense.
