Man 'too fat' to live in New Zealand

[Seth]

Quit being a fucking leech on other people's lives and labor. Buy your own health care or health care insurance or whatever you like, but fucking pay for it YOURSELF.

Don't expect me (or anyone else) to pay for it.

That really is the most stupid attitude. All sorts of insurances are obligatory, and it's a good thing.
Take car insurance.
Every driver has to have car insurance by law.

Only if you're a driver. So you have a choice, don't you?

If it was left up to the individual to decide, you would be surrounded by uninsured drivers.

Do you even begin to understand the nature and function of mandatory liability insurance for drivers versus actual insurance? I don't think so.

The insurance industry is, and has always been based on the individual's analysis of his personal economic risks in the culture in which he lives. Thus, if you live in a high crime area, you may decide to insure your belongings against theft, whereas in a peaceful rural area you may choose to forego theft insurance in favor of flood or fire insurance, which may be a higher risk.

The point is that insurance is the individual insuring himself against a particular peril or perils. The individual finds a risk in his life and negotiates with the insurance company to compensate him in the event that peril affects him. What he pays is based on the nature of the peril, the value insured, and the actuarial chances that the peril will befall the client by the insurance company.

To sum up, insurance is the individual insuring himself against what might happen TO him.

Mandatory auto liability insurance is yet another giant Progressive Marxist scam that completely reverses the entire paradigm upon which insurance is based.

Mandatory liability insurance is the individual paying to insure everyone else against the peril that he may perform some wrongful act, so that everybody else is freed from having to purchase their own actual insurance against the peril of being harmed by the individual.

It's a very Marxist and MrJonno thing. It says that the individual is presumed to be inherently dangerous to everyone else and that rather than everyone else having to insure themselves against the peril of a bad driver, government artificially and wrongfully shifts the burden to every driver under the assumption that they will wrong someone else and therefore have a duty to insure everyone else against their wrongful act.

The idiocy of this should be obvious. I am only economically responsible for the actual damages I cause to others. I am legally liable for those damages and may be sued if I do someone else harm. Because I have assets I wish to protect from seizure in a lawsuit, I address that peril (my malfeasance) by buying an insurance policy that covers the economic cost of my malfeasance. The rate is based upon my record and history as an individual as assessed by the insurance company, which looks at its risk versus its profits in the long term.

Mandatory liability insurance is merely a Marxist Progressive way to reverse the burden by assuming that I will damage someone else and wrongfully proclaiming that the harmed individual is not responsible for insuring HIMSELF against perceived perils. It doesn't matter at all whether I ever have an at-fault accident or not. It doesn't matter much whether I'm a good driver or a bad driver because so long as I meet the minimum qualifications for a license, the state mandates that I must be offered liability insurance. So I have to pay to insure society against behavior that I do not engage in on the premise that I might one day do so and that others should not be burdened with paying to insure against that peril.

It's idiocy and fraud. It was concocted to benefit the insurance companies, who make billions every year off of the mandatory liability insurance racket because the vast majority of people never do anything that triggers a payout. It's a giant government-created scam.

If YOU are concerned about MY driving habits, then it's up to YOU to insure yourself against that peril, or to accept that peril as a natural risk of life and save your money.

It's exactly like saying that you are required to insure your entire community against the peril that your house will burn down and damage someone else's house.

Once you start down that illogical and irrational path, there is literally no end to what the government can decide you constitute a danger of and therefore must insure everyone else against, no matter how small that risk.

The best example of this "mission creep" is the recent demands by anti-gun supporters that gun owners be required to carry huge liability insurance policies on the premise that they are inherently dangerous to everyone else and therefore have a duty to insure everyone else against their potential wrongful conduct...even though statistically gun owners are not dangerous to others.

And once you go down that road, there's no end to it. You could be required to carry liability insurance in case you sneeze on someone and transmit a virus to them, or in case you become unemployed and need public assistance, or because you might step off the sidewalk in front of a bus and dent it.

That's now how insurance is supposed to work and it's asinine to turn it completely upside down like that.

If you are afraid that I, or someone else, will harm you in some way, then insure yourself against that peril...or don't, if you choose to take that risk or mitigate it in some other way.

What a shitty world your fantasy is.
Laws are there to make life better for everybody, and they don't work if they are optional. Your fantasy world would be a nightmare, and I bet you would be one of the first to whine about it.

Try thinking it through.

You first.

Nobody said laws cannot be valid or necessary even in a Libertarian society. That's a falsehood that ignorami like to purvey because they aren't smart enough to actually understand Libertarianism.

If I have no risk exposure that I care to cover, why should I buy insurance? If I am not a risk to others, why should they buy insurance against my malfeasance? If I conduct myself properly and do no harm to others, why should I be required to insure everyone else against a non-event? If others deem that I am a risk to them, why shouldn't they be required to insure themselves against that peril?

[MrJonno]

Worked fine for the first 150 years of this nation, right up until FDR, who is largely responsible for the economic ruin we face today.

150 years ago life was closer to that of the caveman that it is today, there was absolutely nothing then that was better than it is now. 150 years ago we just had fuck ignorant superstitious savages trying to lord it over even more fuck ignorant superstitious savages. Why it would even occur to anyone to want to emulate these people is mind blowing

[laklak]

Eurasia is at war with Oceania. Eurasia has always been at war with Oceania.

[Seth]

Worked fine for the first 150 years of this nation, right up until FDR, who is largely responsible for the economic ruin we face today.

150 years ago life was closer to that of the caveman that it is today, there was absolutely nothing then that was better than it is now. 150 years ago we just had fuck ignorant superstitious savages trying to lord it over even more fuck ignorant superstitious savages. Why it would even occur to anyone to want to emulate these people is mind blowing

Nothing except liberty and freedom and small, constrained and de-centralized government, which is how it should be.

Oh, and the notion that 150 years ago is "closer to that of the caveman than today" is patently absurd and ridiculous. "Cavemen" lived hundreds of thousands or millions of years ago you dunce.

[Blind groper]

To Seth

As I have told you before, I believe in balance, and I believe that extremism contains ruin.

If you are an extremist socialist, or an extremist libertarian, extremist right wing, or extremist left wing, you are believing bullshit, and your ideas, if applied, will lead to disaster.

There is a lot of good stuff in libertarian ideas, and there is a lot of good stuff in socialist ideas. Sometimes giving more freedom of choice is great. Sometimes a restriction in freedom of choice is great.

We restrict freeedom of choice in things like preventing drunk driving. That is great because it saves lives. In my country, we have laws that stop people travelling in cars without doing up their seat belts. The year after that law was implemented, the road toll dropped 25%. Obviously, that law, even if it seems totalitarian to idiots, is eminently sensible and beneficial.

On the other hand, I believe that legal prohibitions on human activities that cannot be policed is stupid. For that reason, laws to prevent abortions, prostitution, and smoking marijuana are just plain stupid. Whether legal or not, people will do those things. So keep them free.

A smart person does not adhere to any extreme view, whether libertarian, socialist, or any other damn thing, but creates a synthesis of all the best there is.

[Seth]

To Seth

As I have told you before, I believe in balance, and I believe that extremism contains ruin.

I don't disagree with the sentiment, I just disagree with the methodology.

If you are an extremist socialist, or an extremist libertarian, extremist right wing, or extremist left wing, you are believing bullshit, and your ideas, if applied, will lead to disaster.

Mmmmm, maybe.

There is a lot of good stuff in libertarian ideas, and there is a lot of good stuff in socialist ideas. Sometimes giving more freedom of choice is great. Sometimes a restriction in freedom of choice is great.

Sorry, there is absolutely nothing good about socialism. Period. It is founded in and inextricably bound up with coercion, enslavement and theft. Those are it's fundamental principles of operation, no matter what sort of nice bows and bangles you put on it. Socialism is about compulsory obedience to the collective based on the fundamental premise that the individual is the chattel of the State.

It's fucking evil from the get-go, and the fruit of the poisonous tree is always poisonous.

We restrict freeedom of choice in things like preventing drunk driving. That is great because it saves lives.

Libertarianism is no different. Libertarianism merely says "if you drink, drive and damage someone else, you will pay for it." It doesn't presume a priori that every person who takes a drink of alcohol is automatically unqualified to operate an automobile. It presumes that the individual is responsible for knowing when they are and are not able to safely drive and it holds them strictly and completely accountable if they make a mistake.

I believe it's Sweden that says "get caught ONE TIME with alcohol in your system while driving and lose your license FOREVER."

That's a perfect solution. Problem with socialists is that they are unwilling to be uncompromising in punishing bad behavior, lest it "unfairly" treat someone.

In my country, we have laws that stop people travelling in cars without doing up their seat belts. The year after that law was implemented, the road toll dropped 25%. Obviously, that law, even if it seems totalitarian to idiots, is eminently sensible and beneficial.

How many deaths of OTHERS have been caused by the OPERATOR of a motor vehicle choosing not to use a seat belt? Very damned few, though it does happen occasionally.

You know that airbags were supposed to REPLACE seat belts as passive restraint devices in accidents don't you?

If I want to not wear a seat belt and get thrown from and rolled-over by my vehicle and killed that is my sovereign and absolute individual right. I'm not hurting anyone else, just myself. The government has no authority to keep me from hurting myself because if we grant government that authority (as we seemingly have) there is quite literally NO END to what government can and will do to protect us from ourselves.

Government's role might extend to protecting OTHERS against us in some ways, but there is no excuse at all for the infringement on personal liberty posed by Nanny-state regulations like seat belts.

That being said, I wear my seat belts religiously, and they have saved my life at least three times, including when crashing a light aircraft. I think it's stupid not to wear them, but you can't (and should not try to) legislate against stupidity. Stupid people need to suffer the consequences of their actions so they don't breed more stupid people.

On the other hand, I believe that legal prohibitions on human activities that cannot be policed is stupid. For that reason, laws to prevent abortions, prostitution, and smoking marijuana are just plain stupid. Whether legal or not, people will do those things. So keep them free.

I agree except for abortion, where there is a valid argument that it harms another living human being. But that's a whole 'nother thread. And I wouldn't say keep them "free," which implies government subsidies, I'd say "keep them legal," and I agree with that. So do most Libertarians.

A smart person does not adhere to any extreme view, whether libertarian, socialist, or any other damn thing, but creates a synthesis of all the best there is.

I think I challenged you before to cite a specific example or two of a situation where socialism is a better solution than Libertarianism and you declined the challenge.

Would you care to give it a bash now?

The problem is that you, and rEv, and most other liberals have a very distorted vision of what Libertarianism actually is and how regulates behavior of the individual to create a harmonious, peaceful and prosperous society. You stereotype me as an "extremist" only because you are unwilling to even think about the idea that perhaps Libertarianism is just as flexible and non-extremist as socialism is, just in different ways, to different extents, and for different philosophical reasons.

[pErvinalia]

Worked fine for the first 150 years of this nation, right up until FDR, who is largely responsible for the economic ruin we face today.

150 years ago life was closer to that of the caveman that it is today, there was absolutely nothing then that was better than it is now. 150 years ago we just had fuck ignorant superstitious savages trying to lord it over even more fuck ignorant superstitious savages. Why it would even occur to anyone to want to emulate these people is mind blowing

Yep. And the UK was Dickensian. What a fucking nightmare of a society.

[Warren Dew]

Worked fine for the first 150 years of this nation, right up until FDR, who is largely responsible for the economic ruin we face today.

150 years ago life was closer to that of the caveman that it is today, there was absolutely nothing then that was better than it is now.

Among other things, 150 years ago the earth was less overpopulated than it is now. That's one thing that was definitely better back then.

[Seth]

Worked fine for the first 150 years of this nation, right up until FDR, who is largely responsible for the economic ruin we face today.

150 years ago life was closer to that of the caveman that it is today, there was absolutely nothing then that was better than it is now.

Among other things, 150 years ago the earth was less overpopulated than it is now. That's one thing that was definitely better back then.

Well, that's EASY to fix. Mother Nature appears to be trying very hard to concoct a highly contagious and fatal bird flu virus in her Chinese virology lab.

The Red Chinese may cease to become a threat to world peace thanks to an invisible microbe.

[pErvinalia]

Seth, I think you should be in charge of depopulating the planet. Evolution wants us to have less population. You have your moral authorisation.

[Blind groper]

To Seth

Re socialism as a good.

Socialism sometimes is the best way. Not always. As I said, it is a matter of balance.

All western nations, including the USA, are socialist to some degree, and that is the way it should be. This includes taxpayer funded support for people who cannot hold down jobs. If you go all libertarian on that, and refuse to assist those people, they turn to crime. Then either they are free and causing hundreds of thousands of dollars of damage to society every year, or in prison and costing the taxpayer anything up to $100,000 per year to keep them in prison. It is actually a lot cheaper to provide a small degree of financial support so that they are not forced to turn to crime.

It is worth remembering that tose guys are not alwsy making choices not to hold down jobs. Sometimes they are defective physically or mentally in a way that prevents them being able to keep a job. If unsupported by social welfare, they turn to crime.

It is also frequently good to support someone who has been a good worker, and has lost his job. In due course he gets another job, and goes off social welfare. The taxpayer support to help him and his family survive until that new job will be an investment to permit a future in which that guy is a tax payer and contributing positively.

On the seat belt thing.
Unlike you, Seth, my focus is not on stubborn ideas that are totally inflexible. My focus is on the practicalities of giving people more life and better lives. Making seat belt wearing compulsory in cars reduced the road toll by 25%, and that is its innate justification. The minor reduction in liberty is inconsequential against that saving of human lives.

[Seth]

Seth, I think you should be in charge of depopulating the planet. Evolution wants us to have less population. You have your moral authorisation.

A little genetic tweak here and there and a targeted virus that only affects those with the dependent-class gene and the Marxist gene and bingo, heaven on earth!

[Seth]

To Seth

Re socialism as a good.

Socialism sometimes is the best way. Not always. As I said, it is a matter of balance.

Are you going to take on the challenge of defending socialism at last?

All western nations, including the USA, are socialist to some degree, and that is the way it should be.

Yes they are, and no it's not.

This includes taxpayer funded support for people who cannot hold down jobs. If you go all libertarian on that, and refuse to assist those people, they turn to crime. Then either they are free and causing hundreds of thousands of dollars of damage to society every year, or in prison and costing the taxpayer anything up to $100,000 per year to keep them in prison.

Experience shows us that they turn to crime anyway, even if we give them money. The solution to those who CANNOT hold down jobs (for legitimate physical or psychological or even societal reasons) as opposed to those who WILL NOT do so is for the enlightened Libertarian to see that it is in his rational best interests to VOLUNTARILY donate part of his labor and/or property to supporting those who for various reasons are incapable of work. And this is exactly what happens all the time when private charity groups and individuals donate to good causes that support people who are worthy of that support. The government's role in that process should be limited to being an ADVOCATE for the needy. It should spend its time and money explaining to people why it is in their rational self-interest to make sure that the indigent and incapacitated are cared for, not that it's really necessary in a society filled with mature, rational, sane adult personalities (which let's out liberals all together, because they are psychologically stunted and have immature, flatly infantile personalities that leave them incapable of surviving without the welfare state, as the good Dr. Lyle Rossiter explains quite well in his book "The Liberal Mind - The Psychological Causes of Liberal Madness."

A rational, sane, adult personality will recognize that what you say is true in some cases and will be willing to support systems that keep people from resorting to crime motivated by destitution and desperation.

On the other side of the coin we have those who are simply criminal predators. They may have lots of money, but they are psychopathic and simply enjoy victimizing and hurting others.

The best and only really effective and fiscally sane solution to those sorts of persons is to kill them, as quickly as it can be managed, to prevent them from predating on others as soon as it becomes evident that's what they intend to do.

And the very best way to achieve this goal is for the citizenry to be well armed at all times so that the FIRST time some wannabe predator threatens a citizen he gets dead immediately. Cost-effective, certain and morally correct. Nobody should get even one chance to brutalize or kill another person if it can be avoided and the crook terminated before it happens.

Oh dear, does that sound too harsh to your poor little abused liberal ears? Suck it up, buttercup, that's life.

So, as we see, your implication that government coercion to extract money and labor from unwilling individuals to support those who are truly in need of charitable and altruistic rational assistance is just so much bilge. The problem is of course that Marxists see every problem as a tactical problem and every citizen as an enemy to be beaten down with the Mace of State rather than the appropriate method of persuading people to do what's best for everyone and depending on natural, mature, sane rational self-interest, charity, compassion and altruism that all well-formed adults personalities contain.

I don't mind helping those in trouble who are worthy of my labor, but I strongly object to being forced to support crack whores, drug dealers, gang members and welfare mamas (among others) who are not UNABLE to work, but are simply UNWILLING to work. They can starve in the ditch before they get a dime of my money for all I care.

is actually a lot cheaper to provide a small degree of financial support so that they are not forced to turn to crime.

Why yes, it is, but only under certain circumstances. And because it's cheaper, and it's obvious to see that it's cheaper, and more humane, and more compassionate, and more charitable and more altruistic to support those in need to keep them from being forced to turn to crime a la "Le Miserables." Therefore it is in the rational self-interest of Libertarians to donate part of their labor and property VOLUNTARILY (as very many people already do who aren't technically Libertarians) to assist such people.

The difference is that in a Libertarian society the person donating the labor and property gets to choose not only WHEN he will donate, and HOW MUCH he will donate, but also TO WHOM he will donate his time and money.

Socialists simply assume a priori that the proletariat is too stupid, selfish and self-centered to "do the right thing" and so they must be DRIVEN TO IT using the Mace of State and the inherent power of government so that the State, which the State itself arrogantly judges to be the best and only arbiter of "from each according to their ability" as well as "to each according to their need", has complete control and dominion over the labor and property of EVERYONE so that it can exercise "necessary" control.

It is worth remembering that tose guys are not alwsy making choices not to hold down jobs. Sometimes they are defective physically or mentally in a way that prevents them being able to keep a job. If unsupported by social welfare, they turn to crime.

And those who are legitimately ADJUDICATED to be mentally defective in such a way as to keep them from holding down jobs should be supported...in public asylums where they can receive treatment, training and can be kept safe and safely away from the general population until they are mentally and emotionally prepared to take on the burdens of living autonomously.

It is also frequently good to support someone who has been a good worker, and has lost his job. In due course he gets another job, and goes off social welfare.

This too is both rational and compassionate. Why is it that you refuse to believe that sane, healthy adults understand this and see that it's in their rational self-interest to take care of such people until they can once again become productive citizens? Why do you insist that the government has to use coercive force rather than persuasive methods to get people to support such people? We have unemployment insurance set up for just that eventuality which the worker himself pays into that's a dandy and fully Libertarian way of dealing with temporary and short-term unemployment.

The taxpayer support to help him and his family survive until that new job will be an investment to permit a future in which that guy is a tax payer and contributing positively.

Indeed. What makes you think that a rational, adult Libertarian with a well-formed and healthy personality disagrees with you in the least bit? Why do you (like rEv) simply assume without any evidence at all to support that assumption that Libertarians are idiots and cruel, evil, selfish bastards who care for no one but themselves and who are unwilling to donate their time and labor for the public good?

Stupidity and willful ignorance is my guess.

The only real difference between Socialism and Libertarianism is the use of coercive force by the State rather than the use of persuasive tactics by the State to achieve exactly the same objective.

Someday one of you nitwit socialists is going to understand this vital point and the light bulb will go off in your head and you'll become a Libertarian because YOU don't like thugs with machine guns coming to YOUR door to demand that you fork over your labor and property to support some lazy, indolent, slothful dependent-class layabout who CAN work but games the system because he does not WANT to work...and we allow him to do so.

Or maybe not. I've been making this point to socialists for 20 years now and not one socialist I'm aware of has ever even understood the basic principles involved and the vast majority of them remain obstinately, deliberately, wantonly and willfully ignorant by choice.

On the seat belt thing.
Unlike you, Seth, my focus is not on stubborn ideas that are totally inflexible. My focus is on the practicalities of giving people more life and better lives. Making seat belt wearing compulsory in cars reduced the road toll by 25%, and that is its innate justification. The minor reduction in liberty is inconsequential against that saving of human lives.

[/quote]

I neither want nor need you to play State Nanny. Stay the fuck OUT of my life unless and until I do something to initiate force or fraud upon another. It's not your job, and it's certainly not the State's job to regulate my liberty in a short-sighted and intrusive attempt to be a do-gooder nanny who destroys my liberty in order to try to give me a "better life." Fuck you and fuck the State. It's my life and I'll either make it good or I'll make it lousy and I'll accept full responsibility for the decisions I make in life and suffer the consequences thereof. Freedom is more important to me than your totalitarian, arrogant, smug and dismissive desire to meddle with my life so it will be what YOU think is "better."

If I want to live through a car crash, then I'll wear a seat belt. If I don't care, then it's none of your or anyone else's business if I choose to voluntarily assume that risk.

My life and liberty are not fodder for your statistical analysis. If I die, I die, and I accept that as a natural and inevitable consequence of living, so fuck off and mind your own business and tend to your own knitting and quit being such a meddlesome prick.

[JimC]

I wonder if the guy looked like the chef in "Pie in the Sky"...

[Animavore]

Free choice my man. People are allowed to choose to work at dangerous jobs at wages that they deem acceptable. It is not the role of government to interfere in the employment contract between workers and employers.

Is this a fucking joke? Please tell me it is.

If capitalists had their way we'd still be sending children up fucking chimneys. Of course workers should have rights which should be enforced by the government. They have a right not to get abused, used, and work in shitty, unhealthy environments.

If you disagree with that there's something wrong with your head.