Am I free to go?
Flattened, most likely.
This rag is really gross. I'm sorry. Achee! Here, hold that.
Wait! Stop! Did you pay the cross-the-road toll to the road's owner?
"Yes, yes you are. You have the right to be plucked. You have the right to be rolled in flour lightly seasoned with salt, pepper and cayenne. You have the right to be deep-fried. Should you give up these rights, you have the right to be stewed. Should you choose to be stewed you have the right to be represented by dumplings, biscuits or buttered noodles. If you cannot afford representation, the state will provide you with dumplings at the state's expense."
And, yes: for failure to obey a traffic signal, destruction of government property (walked on public grass did we?), and disobeying right of way rules, and on suspicion of being an undocumented chicken, falsely asserting membership in 4-H, threatening a police officer, and general mopery.
I'm feeling clucky.
What do you expect when you have your cock out in the middle of the highway?
I dream of the day when a chicken can cross a road without having their motives questioned.
In a libertarian world, surely it's a private road and they were being asked if they'd paid the toll?
Surely in a truly libertarian world there will be no road and no infrastructure capable of developing and producing the vehicles that would require a road?
To get to Bronie-con.
Q: Why did the libertarian cross the road?
A: I don't answer questions without my lawyer present.
I believe that's a hen, who's about to lay it on the line.
That chicken is suitable only for stew!
When the coop gates are opened, the real capon will fly out.
So I'll just bring this up before Clark does: apparently Britain detained Glenn Greenwald's partner for 9 hours at an airport today, which they're apparently allowed to do without reasonable suspicion due to some Terrorism Act, and they refuse to comment on why they did it. So if it's in a British border area, the answer to the libertarian's question is "yes, for 9 hours without a lawyer".
"To show the 'possum it could be done."
I like the original punchline best, but:
…because even though the road was backed by men with guns, they had to retrieve their chicken to uphold strong private property rights.
…to find out what it is like to be middle of the road.
…to work with the left side of the road and right side of the road against the statist lane divider.
…You wouldn't understand why. Sheep.
…to get to the other side.
> …You wouldn't understand why. Sheep.
Also, if we detune what we mean by "libertarian" a bit:
…there was gold currency on the other side.
…there was a Bitcoin on the other side.
…there isn't even a road; the government schools have just brainwashed you to think there is.
I'm a utilitarian and I can relate to this post because of that whole, ya know, near-police state thing we have going on.
@michael Hawkins: Utilitarian – your personal savior is The Electric Company?
Maybe I'm dense, but I don't get it. Is it trying to say that libertarians all have persecution complexes? Or just that they think they have a monopoly on state-overreach-outrage?
As a libertarian leaning guy, I think it's perfect, but did like "You wouldn't understand why. Sheep" too. It's not persecution 205guy, it's that we're tired of being told to do something for "your own good". Dunno about you but I have two parents already and don't need anymore.
Ironic that a libertarian is crossing a road built and paid for by the government while complaining about the government intruding into his business?
@Kilroy: Libertarianism does not imply anarchism. I'm quite happy to allow for a minimal government that provides public services and infrastructure.
When people need something, they build it.
"Ironic that a libertarian is crossing a road built and paid for by the government while complaining about the government intruding into his business?"
The government paid for it with the money it earned working part-time at Subway?
As long as the libertairian wasn't being coerced and as long as the libertarian arrived at the road being crossed by ethical means, the "why" of it is the libertarians own knowledge which he may choose to sell; if both parties agree ( and are not coerced).
Doesn't surprise me, Conster. The authorities at Heathrow can be heavy as hell "because they can." The agents in question are most likely employees of the UK Border Agency, not airport security.
Chickens should not be allowed to relocate their manufacturing across the road. The wolves/coyotes will then relocate. What will become of the utopia on the original side of the road?
@Damon, the 'for your own good' thing has faded. Now, when the Republicrats want to spend more money that we don't have, it's 'for the children,' 'because terrorists,' or basically because some big campaign donor is too critical to let fail. Libertarians don't claim to want no government and no infrastructure, but they claim to advocate a conservative approach in taking minimally from the GDP to fund what we need as a country… rather than the willy-nilly approach taken by our two major parties.
Basically, the Libertains are publically calling for the same things the Republican Party publicly called for until 2000, when they got the presidency and congress. Then, entitlement expansion, government expansion, and huge government handouts (TARP bailout) suddenly weren't such a bad idea. Ironically, during this time, the Democrats suddenly began calling for restrained spending. Should the Libertarians actually ever get a significant foothold, I would be shocked if they didn't start backing away from their conservative positions. After all, when you're an elected official, using the public coffers to buy votes for staying in office is awfully tempting.
We have been shy about having more than two parties for too long, I think. At this point, there is more difference between Coke and Pepsi than between Democrats and Republicans. A third and fourth party might help keep them a bit more true to themselves. Now, elections are about merely trying to convince the voters that a party might not be perfect, but children will suffer, terrorists will overrun us, and ponies will thrive if we vote for the other guys. With party plurality, parties might not be able to afford to abandon substance.
@mcinsand I'd say that libertarians need a disruptive candidate that appeals to youth and can run on a vacuous platform for the masses. Sadly, a senator from what I consider to be the most famously corrupt state in the union has already done that, and I don't know if it's possible to be that disruptive twice in as many presidents.
I'd generallly agree, but edit your comments to include Democrats, but the "for your own good" hasn't stopped: gun control, banning large sodas, etc. are decent examples that are recent.
@damon, See line 2. I did include the Democrats; Republicrats is lumping Republicans and Democrats into the same party, sort of like the way I use the term Bushbama for the presidential years since 2000.
Since you refuse to state your intent in crossing the road, Chicken, I can only assume it is hostile intent, as everything and everyone is evil and corrupt by default in accordance with Original Sin. Since I have assumed RRM as the intent (Rape, Robbery, Murder), I am engaging in standard SYG protocol. *pulls .45, empties clip into Chicken*
You see, Officer, I was in fear of my life…
Follow Popehat on Twitter
Become a fan on Facebook