Man 'too fat' to live in New Zealand

[Seth]

It's not a joke. That's anarcho-capitalism for you. I'm surprised you aren't fully aware that these are the views he holds. It's the same shit he's been sprouting since the rdf days.

Except it's not. You are simply incapable of understanding Libertarian philosophy because you don't want to, so you just disrespect it at every turn while deliberately and maliciously refusing to learn anything about the subject.

In other words, you're just an ignorant troll.

So why don't you just shut the fuck up and go back to swilling the beer the public paid for.

I'm a left libertarian, Seth. I know what libertarianism is. And I know exactly how your version differs from other versions and why it is ultimately fascistic.

You have never, in all the years I've known you, shown any evidence whatsoever of either being a Libertarian of any sort or of being in the least bit interested in having a rational discussion of Libertarianism much less having any accurate understanding of Libertarianism.

Your stock version is a ridiculous Alinsky-style Marxist fraud and you know it.

Therefore I deem it true that you are lying.

[mistermack]

You have never, in all the years I've known you, shown any evidence whatsoever of either being a Libertarian of any sort or of being in the least bit interested in having a rational discussion of Libertarianism much less having any accurate understanding of Libertarianism.

Not surprising. There's only one rational one available :
" Libertarianism's bollocks ennit?"
" Yeh "

[Seth]

You have never, in all the years I've known you, shown any evidence whatsoever of either being a Libertarian of any sort or of being in the least bit interested in having a rational discussion of Libertarianism much less having any accurate understanding of Libertarianism.

Not surprising. There's only one rational one available :
" Libertarianism's bollocks ennit?"
" Yeh "

That's exactly the sort of opinion a mindless, ignorant, mentally and emotionally crippled dependent-class fuckwit who has bought the Marxist propaganda he's been fed on his whole life would be expected to give.

Well done playing that role for the purposes of argument Rum! It was a pitch-perfect and flawless performance.

[Blind groper]

To Seth, regarding law suits, and especially malpractice law suits.

I think your comments are based on the assumption that law suits are all done correctly. From my reading, this would appear not to be the case. There appear to be at least as many frivolous, or self serving law suits, as genuine need based ones. This trend seems to be supported by a very greedy litigation industry, who induce people into taking out law suits on a no-win no-pay basis, but where the lawyer shares in massive pay outs when they win.

I have read of numerous law suits alleging whip lash injuries, and damaged back injuries, when the 'victim' could very easily (and apparently often does) fake it.

The motive for suing in these cases is pure greed - an intent to get rich quickly and without working for those riches. These fraudulent and expensive law suits will not help most people. Indeed, they raise the cost of medical care, sometimes to the point of making it impossible for many people to get essential care. There are better ways of coping with the problems that law suits are supposed to fix. I have described one way that works very well here in NZ.

[Seth]

To Seth, regarding law suits, and especially malpractice law suits.

I think your comments are based on the assumption that law suits are all done correctly.

You're wrong.

From my reading, this would appear not to be the case.

That's evidence of a cognitive malfunction on your part.

There appear to be at least as many frivolous, or self serving law suits, as genuine need based ones. This trend seems to be supported by a very greedy litigation industry, who induce people into taking out law suits on a no-win no-pay basis, but where the lawyer shares in massive pay outs when they win.

I have read of numerous law suits alleging whip lash injuries, and damaged back injuries, when the 'victim' could very easily (and apparently often does) fake it.

The motive for suing in these cases is pure greed - an intent to get rich quickly and without working for those riches. These fraudulent and expensive law suits will not help most people. Indeed, they raise the cost of medical care, sometimes to the point of making it impossible for many people to get essential care. There are better ways of coping with the problems that law suits are supposed to fix. I have described one way that works very well here in NZ.

Yes, that is a problem, but its an easily solved problem for Libertarians. You see, when the case comes to the jury, the jury decides who, if anyone, is at fault and who, if anyone is initiating force or fraud upon another, and therefore who is responsible for compensating for that injury, and to what extent. It's a sovereign and unappealable decision for the jury and the jury alone to make. And this includes ANYONE involved in the case, be it Plaintiff, Defendant, Counsel, Judge or witnesses.

You step or drag others into the arena at your own personal peril, so it behooves you to try to mediate a dispute outside of the courts or risk being bankrupted yourself if your case is not strong enough to prevail.

So, just because you're the plaintiff in a case that you've filed to torment an enemy with false allegations or for frivolous reasons does not save you from a jury verdict that YOU are the initiator of force or fraud and punishing you appropriately and sternly for both that fraud and force and for wasting the time of the courts and the jury, which is a fraud upon them.

So, filing a frivolous case could result in YOU being bankrupted by the jury because you abused the system. That's a pretty stern admonition against such frivolity don't you think? And I'd especially extend that punishment to any LAWYER who presents a frivolous case in court. He should be doubly punished and bankrupted because as a professional he knows exactly what he's doing.

Or, the jury could decide to bankrupt EVERYBODY involved in the case for being obnoxious pissants and wasting their time.

See, Libertarianism is really quite simple if you take the time to examine it. Lots of checks and balances that do not involve big government and burdensome regulation.

One pretty simple basic rule: "Do not initiate force or fraud upon another."

What the definition of "force or fraud" is is up to the community, in the persona of a jury of one's peers selected entirely at random from the community to decide. You pays your nickle, you takes your chances, and that is that.

Very good reason to be an honest broker with integrity and a healthy enlightened self-interest, because your future depends on the good opinion of your neighbors if you can't get along.

What company or doctor is going to risk having everything they own taken and turned over to their victim for being greedy or evil? Say what you'll do, do what you say you'll do, treat people honestly, fairly and with respect and you won't have a problem. Try to cheat, steal or harm them and you could lose absolutely everything and end up cast out of the community without so much as a pair of undershorts and be denied any succor or assistance from anyone in the community.

Strong motivators for good behavior I think.

[Blind groper]

The problem with that, Seth, is that it just does not happen. Lawyers induce people into taking out fraudulent law suits. If they win, they make $$$$$. If they lose, they go their merry way without penalty.

I remember the Erin Brockovitch story. She led a team of lawyers into a class action against a utility company on the grounds that their irresponsible dumping of pollutants was causing loads of people to get cancer. The company lost and paid out (IIRC) something like $US 200 million.

The problem is that, after it was all over, epidemiologists doing a cancer map of the USA found that the area affected had no more and no less cancer cases than anywhere else. In other words, the utility company was not responsible for the cancers they were sued over. Yet there was no redress. And Eric Brockovitch ended up both wealthy, and a hero to people who hate corporates.

The American tendency to sue at the drop of a hat, as a method of getting rich quick, and without working, is very harmful to society at large.

[mistermack]

You have never, in all the years I've known you, shown any evidence whatsoever of either being a Libertarian of any sort or of being in the least bit interested in having a rational discussion of Libertarianism much less having any accurate understanding of Libertarianism.

Not surprising. There's only one rational one available :
" Libertarianism's bollocks ennit?"
" Yeh "

That's exactly the sort of opinion a mindless, ignorant, mentally and emotionally crippled dependent-class fuckwit who has bought the Marxist propaganda he's been fed on his whole life would be expected to give.

Well done playing that role for the purposes of argument Rum! It was a pitch-perfect and flawless performance.

You're the fuckwit. Super gold plated.
You don't even know who posted what.
You quote my post, and slag off Rum. Your comprehension appears to be at infant level.
So you are making SOME progress.

[Seth]

The problem with that, Seth, is that it just does not happen. Lawyers induce people into taking out fraudulent law suits. If they win, they make $$$$$. If they lose, they go their merry way without penalty.

That's because the legal system encourages them to do so. Change the legal system as I suggest and that will end very, very quickly.

I remember the Erin Brockovitch story. She led a team of lawyers into a class action against a utility company on the grounds that their irresponsible dumping of pollutants was causing loads of people to get cancer. The company lost and paid out (IIRC) something like $US 200 million.

The problem is that, after it was all over, epidemiologists doing a cancer map of the USA found that the area affected had no more and no less cancer cases than anywhere else. In other words, the utility company was not responsible for the cancers they were sued over. Yet there was no redress. And Eric Brockovitch ended up both wealthy, and a hero to people who hate corporates.[/quote]

Seems to still be some controversy about that, and the epidemiological report has been disputed and allegedly "debunked." Still, the jury heard the evidence and handed down a ruling, and PG&E settled the Kettleman Hills suit for $335 million.

The American tendency to sue at the drop of a hat, as a method of getting rich quick, and without working, is very harmful to society at large.

Which is why the system needs to be changed as I suggest.

Which means that your entire post is a non-responsive strawman argument.

[Seth]

You have never, in all the years I've known you, shown any evidence whatsoever of either being a Libertarian of any sort or of being in the least bit interested in having a rational discussion of Libertarianism much less having any accurate understanding of Libertarianism.

Not surprising. There's only one rational one available :
" Libertarianism's bollocks ennit?"
" Yeh "

That's exactly the sort of opinion a mindless, ignorant, mentally and emotionally crippled dependent-class fuckwit who has bought the Marxist propaganda he's been fed on his whole life would be expected to give.

Well done playing that role for the purposes of argument Rum! It was a pitch-perfect and flawless performance.

You're the fuckwit. Super gold plated.
You don't even know who posted what.
You quote my post, and slag off Rum. Your comprehension appears to be at infant level.
So you are making SOME progress.

Ah well, mistakes happen and I do owe Rum an apology, that was merely an oversight. The point remains and is transferred to you instead.

Sorry Rum!

[Blind groper]

Seth

My post was not a strawman. It was, however, directed at the American system as it stands, rather than your libertarian alternative.

[Seth]

Seth

My post was not a strawman. It was, however, directed at the American system as it stands, rather than your libertarian alternative.

Which is why it was a non-responsive straw-man. Even I agree that the current system is corrupt and unworkable. You neatly evaded discussing the proposed SOLUTION to your complaint by simply repeating the complaint as if the solution had never been proposed. This is setting up a strawman you can knock down again and it's also dishonest argumentation.

I suspect because you don't have a reasoned rebuttal to my Libertarian proposal and so you cannot stand to admit that I'm right and you're wrong.

[mistermack]

Ah well, mistakes happen and I do owe Rum an apology, that was merely an oversight. The point remains and is transferred to you instead.

Sorry Rum!

Except that there is no point.
Libertarianism is about as relevant as young-earth christianity. It's so shit, nobody on the planet has even wanted to try it.
At least communism managed to convince SOME people, before falling flat on it's face. Libertarianism hasn't even got as far as that.

When the whole world, even the loonies, reject it, doesn't that make you wonder, at all, that maybe they have a point, and that you're a bit out of touch with reality here?

[Seth]

Ah well, mistakes happen and I do owe Rum an apology, that was merely an oversight. The point remains and is transferred to you instead.

Sorry Rum!

Except that there is no point.
Libertarianism is about as relevant as young-earth christianity. It's so shit, nobody on the planet has even wanted to try it.

Except all those Libertarians out there. But I note that you are unable to provide a rational argument once again.

At least communism managed to convince SOME people, before falling flat on it's face. Libertarianism hasn't even got as far as that.

That's because Marxism recognizes that it's easy to convince the lumpen proletariat that it's in their best interests to get something for nothing.

Libertarianism is much harder because it requires actual intelligence, a mature, healthy adult personality and a set of ethics that doesn't include stealing from and enslaving others. That doesn't make it an unworkable system, it just makes it difficult to achieve. The first step is to let the dependent class exterminate itself by cutting off their goodies.

When the whole world, even the loonies, reject it, doesn't that make you wonder, at all, that maybe they have a point, and that you're a bit out of touch with reality here?

No, because you're wrong and I'm not.

[mistermack]

Libertarianism is much harder because it requires actual intelligence, a mature, healthy adult personality and a set of ethics that doesn't include stealing from and enslaving others. That doesn't make it an unworkable system, it just makes it difficult to achieve. The first step is to let the dependent class exterminate itself by cutting off their goodies.

You sound remarkably like Hitler when you get going.

But I don't think you've got any of his charisma.

You know that he was mad, don't you?

[Blind groper]

Comment to Seth about his libertarian approach to lawsuits.

As I understand it, you are suggesting that the person bringing suit could end up punished if that law suit is seen as trivial, or self serving rather than genuine?

If so, I really do not think the system could work, or even get passed into law. It could not work for the reason that proving beyond reasonable doubt that a law suit is inappropriate would be next to impossible, and it would never get passed into law because there are too damn many lawyers in government, and they always look after their own profession.

Either way, your suggestion is kinda pointless.