Socialized medicine's inevitable death panels

[subversive science]

The essential difference between Libertarianism and literally every other form of government is that Libertarians are insistent on prohibiting the government from trying to achieve social good by force and coercion. Instead Libertarians believe that at worst government's legitimate duty is to PERSUADE people to VOLUNTARILY donate their time and goods to help the destitute and sick and those who, through no fault of their own, find themselves in dire economic circumstances.

Give me one example of a FUNCTIONING modern government in which the majority of citizens do not contribute a share of property to society.

False dilemma. The question is not whether or not contributions from citizens to make society (not government) function are necessary, it's how the government goes about extracting those contributions from the citizens. Classic tax-based governance assumes two things as a premise for it's use of coercive force: First, it presumes that citizens will not voluntarily contribute to necessary government programs; and second, it presumes that legislators and bureaucrats, whether elected, appointed or installed, are better suited to decide how an individual spends the fruits of his labor than the individual is and that therefore it is right and proper to engage the machinery of tyrannical majority to extract from the individual what the government deems to be his "fair share" according to his ability to provide that share.

Libertarians believe that the best way to determine whether a publicly funded program or project is worthwhile and worthy is to put the matter to the populace by educating them carefully on the costs and benefits of the program or project and then asking them to contribute funds voluntarily towards the completion of that particular program or project.

You're splitting hairs. It's not realistic to ask society to voluntarily give funds for programs or projects. Not even the constitution calls for this. Now quite evading and give an example of FUNCTIONING government in which it's citizens do not contribute to society. Put up or shut up.

[Seth]

The essential difference between Libertarianism and literally every other form of government is that Libertarians are insistent on prohibiting the government from trying to achieve social good by force and coercion. Instead Libertarians believe that at worst government's legitimate duty is to PERSUADE people to VOLUNTARILY donate their time and goods to help the destitute and sick and those who, through no fault of their own, find themselves in dire economic circumstances.

Give me one example of a FUNCTIONING modern government in which the majority of citizens do not contribute a share of property to society.

False dilemma. The question is not whether or not contributions from citizens to make society (not government) function are necessary, it's how the government goes about extracting those contributions from the citizens. Classic tax-based governance assumes two things as a premise for it's use of coercive force: First, it presumes that citizens will not voluntarily contribute to necessary government programs; and second, it presumes that legislators and bureaucrats, whether elected, appointed or installed, are better suited to decide how an individual spends the fruits of his labor than the individual is and that therefore it is right and proper to engage the machinery of tyrannical majority to extract from the individual what the government deems to be his "fair share" according to his ability to provide that share.

Libertarians believe that the best way to determine whether a publicly funded program or project is worthwhile and worthy is to put the matter to the populace by educating them carefully on the costs and benefits of the program or project and then asking them to contribute funds voluntarily towards the completion of that particular program or project.

You're splitting hairs.

No, I'm not. This is the fundamental point and it's extremely important to understanding Libertarianism properly.

It's not realistic to ask society to voluntarily give funds for programs or projects.

Why not? Usually some bureaucrat wants to spend public money to get reelected and thinks that he knows better than everyone else what needs to be done and therefore has no compunctions about dunning the public to fund his notions, whether the public wants to pay for it or not. Libertarianism does not subscribe to this paradigm. People deserve the government that they are willing to fund voluntarily. No more, no less.

Not even the constitution calls for this.

One of its unfortunate failings.

Now quite evading and give an example of FUNCTIONING government in which it's citizens do not contribute to society. Put up or shut up.

Strawman. I've just explained to you why Libertarianism does not take such a position.

[subversive science]

Where is this fantasy Libertarian government? I want examples. Or is it hiding with those Marxist utopias?

[Seth]

Where is this fantasy Libertarian government? I want examples. Or is it hiding with those Marxist utopias?

The USA circa 1800. Pretty damned close for about 125 years or so, until the Progressives came along about 1907. Not perfect of course, but definitely far better than today.

[piscator]

Yep, they really fucked up when they let labor organize and women vote...


Anyone need more proof that Libertarianism is as backward-looking as any other religion?

[JimC]

Where is this fantasy Libertarian government? I want examples. Or is it hiding with those Marxist utopias?

It exists in Sethworld, in a dimension far, far away...

[pErvinalia]

Yep, they really fucked up when they let labor organize and women vote...


Anyone need more proof that Libertarianism is as backward-looking as any other religion?

Yep. Dickensian England is the golden age for Libbos.

[MrJonno]

Where is this fantasy Libertarian government? I want examples. Or is it hiding with those Marxist utopias?

The USA circa 1800. Pretty damned close for about 125 years or so, until the Progressives came along about 1907. Not perfect of course, but definitely far better than today.

USA the world is in general was basically nearer to the stone age in 1800 than it was to modern life , you might as well clone a dead caveman and ask his opinions

[subversive science]

Where is this fantasy Libertarian government? I want examples. Or is it hiding with those Marxist utopias?

The USA circa 1800. Pretty damned close for about 125 years or so, until the Progressives came along about 1907. Not perfect of course, but definitely far better than today.

Reactionary.

No modern practical examples?

[Azathoth]

Where is this fantasy Libertarian government? I want examples. Or is it hiding with those Marxist utopias?

The USA circa 1800. Pretty damned close for about 125 years or so, until the Progressives came along about 1907. Not perfect of course, but definitely far better than today.

[Tero]

The agrarian world prior to 1800 was pretty "low Gubment", so you might have liberty in an ideal world. Instead, we kinhs, nobles and land serfs.

[Gallstones]

Health Law Clock Is Ticking for Sickest Patients

Hundreds of thousands of people across the country with pre-existing chronic conditions such as cancer, heart failure or kidney disease who are covered through high risk-insurance pools will see their coverage dissolve by year's end.

They are supposed to gain regular coverage under the Affordable Care Act, which requires insurers to cover those with severe medical problems. But many of them have had trouble signing up for health insurance through the exchanges and could find themselves without coverage in January if they don't meet a Dec. 15 deadline to enroll.
...

"These individuals can't be without coverage for even a month," said Tanya Case, the chairwoman of the National Association of State Comprehensive Health Insurance Plans, which represents the nation's high-risk pools. "It's a matter of life or death."
...

The federal pool covers about 100,000 people and was created in 2010 by the Affordable Care Act as a temporary bridge until the law fully kicks in. It will cease to exist at the end of December.

"I'm scared. I'm in the middle of my cancer treatment, and if my insurance ends, I'm going to have to cancel the rest of my treatment," said Kelly Bachi, an Oklahoma boat repair business owner who has breast cancer and is covered through a pool.

Cancer treatment without insurance would cost her about $500,000, she said.

Bachi has not been able to enroll via the healthcare.gov federal website, although not for lack of trying. She attempted to sign up half a dozen times, was eventually able to create an account, but was later blocked from accessing the account.