Man 'too fat' to live in New Zealand

[mistermack]

Of course, being inured can give a real sense of security, at least till you need to claim :

[Seth]

Seth, you're a fucking joke.

You are arguing for a system that is so shit, you don't even want it yourself.

And justifying it to yourself by the stupid " it might never happen to me " argument.

That's about as dumb as it gets.

I wouldn't even buy a cat, if I couldn't afford the health insurance.

Goody for you. That's a choice YOU get to make and YOU get to pay for.

What you don't get to do is decide that you want ME to pay for it.

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.

[Animavore]

I think there's something missing in all these arguments.... We've never had a Libertarian society.
It's all well Libertarians pointing at Communist and socialist societies and saying, "Well look how shit they turned out." But of course they can. Those societies happened, and they turned out shit.
I'd like to see a Libertarian society actually happen. But not to the large scale Communism happened because that turned out shit for an awful lot of people. Maybe we should start out small. A country with about four or so million (not fucking Ireland, though. Fuck off) and see how it works for them. And if it works out or not then, and only then, can Libertarians claim the world would be a better place under their system.

[Seth]

I think there's something missing in all these arguments.... We've never had a Libertarian society.
It's all well Libertarians pointing at Communist and socialist societies and saying, "Well look how shit they turned out." But of course they can. Those societies happened, and they turned out shit.

Understatement of the century.

I'd like to see a Libertarian society actually happen.

All you have to do is look at the United States prior to about 1910, when the Progressives came to power. Virtually all of the leftist progressive ideas were implemented beginning with Woodrow Wilson (the asswipe) and have been carried on since.

But not to the large scale Communism happened because that turned out shit for an awful lot of people. Maybe we should start out small. A country with about four or so million (not fucking Ireland, though. Fuck off) and see how it works for them. And if it works out or not [i[then[/i], and only then, can Libertarians claim the world would be a better place under their system.

The problem is that once the dependent class can outvote the productive class, as has happened, the nation is doomed because as Alexander Tytler aptly said, once the people discover that they can vote themselves largess from the public treasury they will always elect the candidate who promises them the most largess, and the nation will soon fail on loose fiscal policy. And that's exactly what's happening now, worldwide, including the US.

To make Libertarianism work you have to have the courage and fortitude to tell people that there's no such thing as a free lunch and that if they don't work, they starve. And you have to let them starve rather than burdening the public purse, leaving them to depend on charity, altruism and enlightened self-interest by the public. Soon enough they get hungry enough that they will do whatever work is available, even that which they find "beneath" their dignity. And if they can't, and they are honest, humble and worthy, then people will voluntarily support them. If they are evil, lazy fuckers who want to leech off society, they starve in a ditch.

[Animavore]

All you have to do is look at the United States prior to about 1910, when the Progressives came to power. Virtually all of the leftist progressive ideas were implemented beginning with Woodrow Wilson (the asswipe) and have been carried on since.

You mean back to pre-workers unions when employers could just walk over everyone and pay people pittance for working dangerous jobs and a few deaths on the building site or in the bottom of the foundations of a bridge meant nothing?

The problem is that once the dependent class can outvote the productive class, as has happened, the nation is doomed because as Alexander Tytler aptly said, once the people discover that they can vote themselves largess from the public treasury they will always elect the candidate who promises them the most largess, and the nation will soon fail on loose fiscal policy. And that's exactly what's happening now, worldwide, including the US.

To make Libertarianism work you have to have the courage and fortitude to tell people that there's no such thing as a free lunch and that if they don't work, they starve. And you have to let them. Soon enough they get hungry enough that they will do whatever work is available, even that which they find "beneath" their dignity.

Good luck with that.

[pErvinalia]

I think there's something missing in all these arguments.... We've never had a Libertarian society.
It's all well Libertarians pointing at Communist and socialist societies and saying, "Well look how shit they turned out." But of course they can. Those societies happened, and they turned out shit.
I'd like to see a Libertarian society actually happen. But not to the large scale Communism happened because that turned out shit for an awful lot of people. Maybe we should start out small. A country with about four or so million (not fucking Ireland, though. Fuck off) and see how it works for them. And if it works out or not then, and only then, can Libertarians claim the world would be a better place under their system.

Somalia?

[Animavore]

I think there's something missing in all these arguments.... We've never had a Libertarian society.
It's all well Libertarians pointing at Communist and socialist societies and saying, "Well look how shit they turned out." But of course they can. Those societies happened, and they turned out shit.
I'd like to see a Libertarian society actually happen. But not to the large scale Communism happened because that turned out shit for an awful lot of people. Maybe we should start out small. A country with about four or so million (not fucking Ireland, though. Fuck off) and see how it works for them. And if it works out or not then, and only then, can Libertarians claim the world would be a better place under their system.

Somalia?

Nope. Though it may be "social-Darwinian". Or just some egregious system hard to classify.

[pErvinalia]

Somalia is the logical extension of Libertarianism. They just have a different definition of what constitutes "harm" and "force" from what Seth's version of Libboism would be, which has a different set of definitions from what other libbos use. It's the same principle of selfishness and dog eat dog.

[Animavore]

The only similarity I see is a similar, unjustified assertion, that one should be a part of the army, against their will, while equally avoiding taxes. At least Libertarians are also subjected to 'jury duty'. Something which the Somalians aren't.

See? They are different.

[pErvinalia]

I don't know what you are trying say.

[mistermack]

Libertarianism is very like young earth creationism.
It's for loonies.

It doesn't work in little bits, and it most certainly doesn't work as a system for a country.
It's very like communism in a way. It relies on people being much nicer, and fairer, and more intelligent than they really are.
If people were perfect, you wouldn't need libertarianism anyway, as in that case, communism would be better.

In the real world, both are bollocks, but bits of both work ok in certain situations.

The armed forces are the most communist part of society, blended with a bit of big brother.
The financial markets are probably the most libertarian part.

But both need constant intensive scrutiny, and neither is a suitable model for the rest of society to live by.

[mistermack]

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

[Svartalf]

Somalia is the logical extension of Libertarianism. They just have a different definition of what constitutes "harm" and "force" from what Seth's version of Libboism would be, which has a different set of definitions from what other libbos use. It's the same principle of selfishness and dog eat dog.

It's not a libertarian society, it's nearly pure anarchy, and not the kind intellectual anarchists wish for, the real stuff.

[Seth]

All you have to do is look at the United States prior to about 1910, when the Progressives came to power. Virtually all of the leftist progressive ideas were implemented beginning with Woodrow Wilson (the asswipe) and have been carried on since.

You mean back to pre-workers unions when employers could just walk over everyone and pay people pittance for working dangerous jobs and a few deaths on the building site or in the bottom of the foundations of a bridge meant nothing?

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. The fact that unions came into existence amply demonstrates how the market responds in Libertarian fashion to inequities or wrongdoing. Unions are legitimate bargaining tools for workers when they do not become tools of Progressive Marxists government. The problem began with the development of the National Labor Relations Board and associated bureaucracies which in effect made the unions de facto organs of the government because supporting and favoring unions over employers benefits Marxism and Progressivism both by centralizing power in the government.

Prior to the NLRB unions were in the position of using group strength to negotiate for better working conditions, but employers were free to refuse to negotiate if the demands of the unionists were excessive or harmful to the profits of the company. Labor negotiations are always a delicate balance of finding the point where the costs of production can be balanced with the market demand and the need for profit to repay investors, expand the business, and compensate those who take the most risks in any company: the investors.

Marxism, which is very closely linked to unionism uses unions as a tool to suppress profit because Marxism does not recognize profit of the business owner (capital) as a legitimate pursuit. Marxism holds that those who "labor" should get a full share of the market value (profit) merely because they labor. This discounts the fact that financial risk is legitimate "labor" and that the larger the financial risk that the business owner takes, the more of the profits he is entitled to. In fact he's entitled to ALL the profits because the whole point of labor negotiation, at any level, is for the employer and employee to come to a mutual, voluntary agreement (contract) defining what the value of the worker's labor is to the employer. That is Libertarianism, even when unions are involved. But only if government keeps it's fingers out of the pie. What government does now is strongly skew the entire labor market in favor of the unions, grossly and obviously so, because doing so favors politicians who can garner votes by writing legislation that benefits the more numerous workers, which causes them to vote favorably for the politician who does so (thus Obama's election and reelection).

The problem is that once the dependent class can outvote the productive class, as has happened, the nation is doomed because as Alexander Tytler aptly said, once the people discover that they can vote themselves largess from the public treasury they will always elect the candidate who promises them the most largess, and the nation will soon fail on loose fiscal policy. And that's exactly what's happening now, worldwide, including the US.

To make Libertarianism work you have to have the courage and fortitude to tell people that there's no such thing as a free lunch and that if they don't work, they starve. And you have to let them. Soon enough they get hungry enough that they will do whatever work is available, even that which they find "beneath" their dignity.

Good luck with that.

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.

[Seth]

Somalia is the logical extension of Libertarianism. They just have a different definition of what constitutes "harm" and "force" from what Seth's version of Libboism would be, which has a different set of definitions from what other libbos use. It's the same principle of selfishness and dog eat dog.

It's not a libertarian society, it's nearly pure anarchy, and not the kind intellectual anarchists wish for, the real stuff.

Correct. This is just a canard that rEv likes to toss out to evade the debate because he knows he can't defend Marxism or defeat Libertarian philosophy.

Anarchy and Libertarianism are two entirely different things.