|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bz3PZSLjhmA hrm
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2016 04:01
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 11:12 |
|
|
Hrmmm.....
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2016 04:05
|
|
|
I'm going to repeat myself for the new page. Ron Paul was and is against the decision of Lawrence v Texas, even though Lawrence was one of the people he had been elected to represent.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2016 04:05
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:No "society" doesn't "ask" me to pay my taxes to give medical care to others. I don't understand why clear language is so hard for some of you to grasp. If I don't have the option of saying "no" without being forcefully thrown in a cage, you are not "asking" me anything. You are threatening me and using violence to fund your idea of social welfare. Just leave the United States.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2016 04:07
|
|
|
And never come back.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2016 04:08
|
|
|
And kill yourself on the way out so no one else has to put up with your psychotic episodes you call a political philosophy.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2016 04:15
|
|
|
Wanamingo posted:I'm going to repeat myself for the new page. Ron Paul was and is against the decision of Lawrence v Texas, even though Lawrence was one of the people he had been elected to represent. Just because I don't support the federal government stopping states from throwing gay people in a cage, doesn't mean that I don't support civil rights for gay people. Just like Bastiat, I support the right of gay people to live free in principle, just not any actual tangible results in their favor nor any actual power to resist the local fag-bashing posse that wants to string them up with the tacit approval of the town sheriff (the highest moral lawmaker and executive in the land)
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2016 04:15
|
|
|
fade5 posted:You could totally respectfully decline to participate in all of these things. That reminds me, whatever happened to that Libertarian paradise some guy set up on a river island in Croatia? Are they still truckin' along or have they been forced out yet?
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2016 04:22
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:My tax dollars go towards overthrowing and occupying Iraq and Afghanistan for a decade, to subsidizing Big Agriculture, Big Pharma and bailing out the banks on Wall Street. It goes towards drone bombing third world nations, inciting hatred and blowback which results in a rise in terrorism against us. It goes towards military industrial complex boondoggles like building unneeded and unused fighter jets, bombs and artillery. This attempt to outflank me on the left with "Oh well I would gladly donate to SNAP if only the US government didn't use my tax dollars for violence and war and oppression" would be a lot more convincing if you hadn't approvingly quoted a right-wing think tank rating the UAE and Qatar as freer then the USA because they don't interfere with businesses who want to use slave labor and then doubled down defending de facto legal slavery in those countries. We're well aware that you approve of and even prefer states built on violence, oppression, domination, and slavery so long as their taxes are a bit lower and their slave-owning plutocrats don't have to contribute to social welfare.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2016 04:32
|
|
|
I guess that's an answer to the thread title. You should care about the property rights (of slaveowners) if you want to be considered an economically free country.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2016 04:40
|
|
|
It strikes me as a bit inefficient to distribute things based entirely on people's past success at receiving things, but what do I know? I haven't read Hoppe. Speaking as someone who has done project management before, ignoring something and then hoping it solves itself never really works on any serious problem.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2016 04:41
|
|
|
Panzeh posted:It strikes me as a bit inefficient to distribute things based entirely on people's past success at receiving things, but what do I know? I haven't read Hoppe. Ethics shouldn't be based on "lifeboat situations", since they are unrealistic and don't correspond to how the world actually operates. Now I want to talk about homesteading...
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2016 04:44
|
|
|
When someone asks me for a stapler, I write out a rental contract for them with specific penalties for going over the lease's limit.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2016 04:46
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:Ron Paul is no racist you loving disingenuous lunatic. Ron Paul in fact is a massive racist. Non-racists oppose genocide. Non-racists are not friends with David Duke. Non-racists do not meet with A3P members. As for the newsletter, this too is evidence of his racism. Even if he did not write it, he allowed his name to be attached to it and is responsible for its content.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2016 04:56
|
|
|
Ron Paul approves racial segregation. He, just like you and the rest of the libertarian establishment, would like to have a lunch counter ya'll can eat at without being around minorities. He is a white supremacist just like you and every other libertarian, Jrod.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2016 05:04
|
|
|
I love this insistence on the right that a false accusation of racism is the worst crime ever, and we all need to be politically correct and maintain that confederates, plantation owners, KKK members, authors of white supremacist newsletters, etc must be given every benefit of the doubt lest we impugn them. We can call EPA regulators and IRS agents skull-cracking babykillers, we can accuse the FDA of scheming to murder Americans by withholding miracle cures as a twisted power play, but when someone publishes a newsletter for decades with articles signed with his name that support apartheid, Jim Crow, segregation, and whatever else "oh well maybe he had a ghost writer and he just never ever read anything he published I'm sure he wouldn't have approved it, but you know how easy it is to just give someone else the rights to your name and never read a word of what they print and sign your name to for decades and decades, oh and it's just a coincidence that he's on record opposing the civil rights act even into the 21st century"
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2016 05:04
|
|
|
Ron Paul literally grabbed me by the dick at a rally in Ohio and pulled me close enough to whisper in my ear how much he hated black people. Jealous, Jrod?
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2016 05:12
|
|
|
When's the fight scheduled for, dickeye?
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2016 05:24
|
|
|
paragon1 posted:When's the fight scheduled for, dickeye? as soon as chickenshit babyman grows a pair
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2016 05:25
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:So why don't people do this already? A large part of the problem is that people have been indoctrinated into the erroneous belief that charity and social welfare are the job of government. Those of you who insist that private efforts will always be grossly insufficient have fallen into a self-defeating trap. I don't believe this is the case whatsoever. So rely on private charity if you need an expensive medical treatment? Do you not think that relying on such a thing is impractical in any way? quote:What would make you assume that because I don't support the State providing social welfare for the poor, that I don't support social welfare? And making the claim that you think I'd be "fine" with people needlessly dying is a ridiculous accusation and serves to purpose other than to stir the pot. We can debate issues without resorting to impugning the motives of our opposition. If there's a person who can't come up with the money for a life threatening disease, are you okay with forcing doctors to help them out?
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2016 05:32
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:I'm down with abolishing the State. I, too, deeply lust for the distruction of private property, contracts, and everything that makes the Free Market work.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2016 06:42
|
|
|
He noticed me! He noticed me! I am awaited in Valhalla!jrodefeld posted:Never heard that expression? The joke is that there is no beachfront property in North Dakota, but if you are gullible enough to believe the poo poo you believe, then you might be gullible enough to think that there is. Another variation is "if you believe that, I've got a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you". Did you click the link? Beach, NoDak? Maybe if you bothered to click the link you would've gotten the joke, or did that fly over your head like a government satellite spying on you? Also, if you noticed any of my previous posts (lol, not likely) I lived in loving NoDak. But congrats at baby's first cheap shot, I guess?  I love the comparison of "not able to secede" or "paying your taxes before revoking your citizenship" to that of oppression of dissenters and literally being shot at for defecting from the Soviet Union. Like the IRS saying "hey, you still owe taxes, we can't let you absolve your citizenship" is political oppression by THE STATE. jrodefeld posted:To take another example, would you agree that in today's economy, not having access to a cell phone and the internet puts you at a massive disadvantage compared to the rest of the population? You could therefore argue that having a smartphone and a computer connected to the internet is absolutely essential for a human being to compete. Yet, the free market with its limitation and rationing based on "ability to pay" has provided cell phones and computers to literally every single person in the United States. I don't think there is even a single person who could not get a cell phone or computer if he wanted one in the United States today. This has been hammered on before, but there are lots of people who can't afford new (or used) cellphones, computers, or TVs. Do you know why libraries have computers? It's not so you can look at anime websites, it's so that everyone has access to a computer and internet. Many libraries these days have a certain number of computers set aside for job seekers, with all of the job websites bookmarked, and staff who are trained to assist with using those websites. STATIST OPPRESSION HELPING POOR PEOPLE FIND JOBS! jrodefeld posted:The trade-off in your mind is that forcing people who have non-life threatening medical conditions to wait longer for treatment or heaping a greater burden of the cost on the "rich", artificially limiting the supply of medical goods deemed "less urgent" is deemed fair as long as you can ensure that the poorer people who have a life-threatening condition are able to afford treatment regardless of their ability to pay. You have failed to prove why this is a bad thing. Not everyone in this world has a rich family member who is willing to pay for whatever medical emergencies come along. Or, there's some emotional baggage that would be attached to trying to access that care from said person. Most private charities are singular in nature - I might be able to find a charity to help me fight cancer, but not pneumonia. I can ask my church, but my church is full of self-entitled Libertarians such as yourself and would either refuse because "why should I take what they earned", "you should work more", or "sure I can loan you the money, sign this contract and if you don't pay me back in a year I'll take you to small claims court." The church itself isn't going to give me the money because that's not part of their mission, especially if all their money is tied up in other endeavors like their monthly "feed the poor and homeless so we feel like we're actually doing something" meal that they can never get enough volunteers for. So, I've got pneumonia, no rich family members, no charities to get money from, nobody willing to help me unconditionally. Should I go door to door? Would you give money freely to a complete stranger who needs medical care? Or should this stranger be left to die because the free market decided he wasn't worth it to anyone? The point you're missing is that your avocation for a free market is cold and callous, and does nothing to help anyone who desperately needs help. You think everyone can come up with $500 on the drop of a hat, when there are many people who (like myself at one point in my life) can't come up with $10 to put gas in their car. People are are tossed to the wayside through unfortunate circumstances beyond their control. Wal-Mart just closed 200 stores and laid of 10,000 people. If half of those people can't find new jobs, should we just shake our heads and say "it's your own fault", or should we find someway to help them? Most Americans are very insular and don't like dealing with other people, and close the door in the faces of most charities. Nevermind that many private charities are very corrupt, with very little of what's being donated actually going to help people. I think it's the American Red Cross where their CEO makes an annual salary somewhere north of a quarter million dollars. Or, think of it this way, before the Ice Bucket Challenge, hardly anyone gave money to the charity that started it. It took a stupid social media gimmick to draw awareness to them, but it still made most people think "oh, poo poo! If I don't get wet, I'll have to give money to some sick people! I'd rather get splashed with cold water!" I know, I'm starting to ramble, and I need to get going for work, and people have made my argument better than I can. Point is jrode, that a completely "free market" healthcare system is terrible. The American healthcare system is terrible. When tens of thousands of people die from treatable diseases because people are more afraid to go into debt than to die, that's a loving problem.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2016 07:10
|
|
|
Caros posted:What do you think are good reasons for abandoning libertarianism? I'm genuinely curious. From a while back but I think this is a legitimately interesting questions. What could possibly justify apostasy?
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2016 07:31
|
|
|
YF19pilot posted:So, I've got pneumonia, no rich family members, no charities to get money from, nobody willing to help me unconditionally. Should I go door to door? Would you give money freely to a complete stranger who needs medical care? Or should this stranger be left to die because the free market decided he wasn't worth it to anyone? Just put out tip jars at each of your three
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2016 07:41
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:All right, a written debate is what I am willing to do with you at this point. What should the topic be about? Let's have a relatively narrowly defined topic (not that it will stay that way) so at least we having a decent starting place. It is late so I am just going to quote myself from the last time you brought this up before you vanished into the loving ether for a solid two months: jrodefeld posted:Let's start with a written debate and see how it goes from there. A topic? Well, let's first figure out the logistics of how the debate would proceed. There are a million relevant topics we could discuss related to libertarianism and I'm sure regardless of the formal topic we decide upon, numerous other issues will no doubt intrude. Would we debate on this forum? I'm thinking that we set up a specific thread where we agree that only you and I will post. Maybe we set up a second thread where others can comment on our ongoing debate. Perhaps a moderator would be willing to ban people who intrude onto our thread to keep the rules established. This is just a thought. Well to be honest letting a million other issues intrude tends to make for a lovely debate in my experience. I'm biased due to my love of Oxford style debates, but I personally prefer debates with a stark motion. "We should abolish the death penalty" is a strong motion for example because it puts a vast gulf between the two sides and doesn't have too much room for intrusion on unrelated subjects. Again, just personal preference. Using multiple threads is pretty much a no-go in D&D unless Exclamation Marx decides he wants to allow it. To be honest the simplest way to handle it would be to include it in this thread or in another with a link to each post edited into the OP. Absent that I think the best alternative was one suggested by Who What Now wherein we use something along the line of an editable google doc that is linked to the thread so that we aren't cluttering up the forum with a useless argument. quote:I'd have to carve out enough time to dedicate to a debate as well but that shouldn't be too hard since I'll certainly have some free time this holiday season. There should be a reasonable time limit on the debate also. Since I have to sleep and will have some obligations during the day, something like a three day time limit seems reasonable to me. That way we can both say what we have to say but there is a finite limit. I assume by this you'd mean a limit between posts? Three days in total won't really allow for much to be done unless our schedules match up more or less exactly since we'd just be posting once or twice a day at max. quote:You play online role playing games so you'll probably appreciate this analogy. The reason I've never been able to get into those kinds of games is that I know there is always someone out there with less of a life than me who is willing to spend more time at the game, getting more experienced, more skilled and thus able to take advantage through sheer force of repetition and time invested. That is sometimes how I feel posting on these message boards. There are members on these forums who will end up spending a whole lot more time here than I am able to. In an open-ended debate, the poster who merely posts the most will feel as though they have won because the other person can't dedicate the same investment of time and therefore is not able to reply to each and ever post, read every link and source and so forth. So a hard time limit is a necessity to alleviate this problem. Frankly the simpler answer to this is to just limit the format. Written debates aren't something I have much, if any experience with in a formal setting to be honest. They aren't something you see much of at all because written debates pretty much neuter one of the main aspects of a debate, but even still we can work around that by using standard debate rules. Frankly Effectronica gave up his usual shitposting to even suggest some basic rules along the lines of a traditional debate, and in keeping with that I'll suggest a basic format if you'd like. I don't much care so pick what works for you. Opening Statement (One from each) Rebuttal Statements (One from each) Question Period (Several rounds. If we have someone moderating we can have him decide. Alternately we can ask the peanut gallery and/or simply pose questions to one another) Closing Statement (One from each each) Word count limits make a decent enough stand in for time restraints in a typical debate. If we did three rounds of questioning that would make it a six round debate which isn't unreasonable, but it is entirely up to you because as I said, I don't much care. The above rules would give us a functional debate format that isn't too cluttered and is fair to both parties. Word count limit is up to you but I highly recommend it because just as in a real debate it will force us to be succinct in our arguments rather than rewarding the person who can babble on the longest. Let me know if you think this format works and I'll expand on it with more details once I'm not sleepy as gently caress. For a few suggested propositions we could go with: "Taxation is Theft" "Universal Healthcare is a moral good"/"A Free Market Healthcare System is Preferable"/"Whateverthefuckabouthealthcare" "Libertarians are retarded" Or whatever really. I'm sleepy.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2016 07:48
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:I'm sure you're aware, but Mises.org has an explicit mission to literally collect and distribute ALL the major historical libertarian, anarchist and classical liberal books, essays and articles that have ever been published. Criticizing me for using their site for libertarian sources is like criticizing someone for using the library. The "library" is not a person or even a small group of people. Similarly, the Mises Institute website has an online library of hundreds of different authors, both contemporary and modern, who hold often very different views and many issues while still being roughly in the liberty tradition. The last time I went through your posts in the Libertarian thread fully half of all links you provided were links to Mises.org. By way of comparison I went through my own links and the links of two other posters and found that apart from wikipedia links there was almost no duplication of sources on the part of myself or others. That is to say, when you link something, you do so in an orthodox fashion. You pull your information primarily from a handful of sources that are completely separate from what I'm going to call 'the real world'. Which was sort of my point here. You didn't need to tell us that it was mises.org because there was a better than 50/50 chance that anything you cite is going to be coming from Mises.org. I'm sorry you don't see a problem with the fact that you get almost all of your information from one biased repository of 'knowledge' but you might want to seriously consider why it is that is one of the few places you use as a source for your arguments. Also I'm including this for shits and giggles here since I don't think you'll actually answer it but lets see: If the Oklahoma Surgery Center is such a model for success why is it basically the only one of its kind nationwide?
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2016 07:55
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:So why don't people do this already? A large part of the problem is that people have been indoctrinated into the erroneous belief that charity and social welfare are the job of government. Those of you who insist that private efforts will always be grossly insufficient have fallen into a self-defeating trap. I don't believe this is the case whatsoever.  I love that the answer to "if charity is sufficient to provide for everyone in the absence of an adequate tax-funded safety net, why isn't it doing it right now when we don't have an adequate tax-funded safety net yet a superabundance of food and housing" is "statists brainwashed everyone into thinking it's impossible so no one tries." Is capitalism fuckin Tinkerbell, people starve amidst plenty because we don't clap our hands and believe? Did statist indoctrination trick the top 1% into buying yachts-inside-yachts and car elevators instead of solving hunger in America and thereby obsoleting SNAP? This free market ideology must suck rear end if it can be defeated in its mission of universal prosperity and benevolence to mankind by the pessimistic pronouncements of a few doom-and-gloom ivory tower liberals.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2016 09:26
|
|
|
Despite the obvious logically derived from objectively correct first principles superiority of mutual aid and charity in the absence of State handouts, for some reason public services and government welfare have supplanted them. Two theories appear to explain this: 1. My ideas are dumb and busted. 2. There is a massive brainwashing conspiracy to fool people into thinking the first theory is true. I think we all know that the correct explanation is the one that could be an episode of "The X-Files" if you add some aliens or something.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2016 09:39
|
|
|
Caros posted:
"The fuckability of watermelons"
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2016 10:28
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:
Are there still debtor's prison in the US?
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2016 10:36
|
|
|
Alhazred posted:Are there still debtor's prison in the US? No, worse thing is they'll garnish your wages after tacking on a bunch of fines that you can usually negotiate down anyways. In the case of my parents having owed taxes one year, they got slapped with a $100 fine and pretty much every return afterwards has just gone into paying down what they owed until it was off the books. E: only way to actually go to prison is for tax fraud or RICO violations, and the IRS has to prove intent. Even then, you're going to a country club, not never-see-the-light-of-day-pound-you-in-the-rear end max security. CovfefeCatCafe fucked around with this message at 10:46 on Jan 19, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2016 10:43
|
|
|
It's a small point to bring up in the sea of other points but arguing that food is efficiently provided by the free market in spite of being essential as an argument that health care can be provided for efficiently is really disingenuous. People starve in Western nations all the time and people in extreme poverty can often end up doing some pretty horrendous things to keep themselves fed. The dumpster behind the convenience store near my last apartment had people scrounging food from it every night until they put a lock on it. My university runs an anonymous food pantry program where students are allowed to take food as needed by entering an office from the student commons (the food is on a shelf behind a wall so no-one can even see you take it) and, having worked there before, I can promise that we had to stock it every night. To say that food scarcity isn't a thing in Western nations requires you to be either terribly ignorant or so privileged that this sort of poverty escapes your notice. I actually do wish that food was nationalised because I agree with the point being asserted; that food is just as much an essential component of life as medical care and the free market distribution of food is leaving a lot of people without. But one of the differences between food and medical care is that, if you're desperate enough, you can often find food in landfills or in garbage cans. You cannot find a flu vaccination or a heart transplant or a metformin prescription at the bottom of a dumpster.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2016 10:44
|
|
|
Serrath posted:It's a small point to bring up in the sea of other points but arguing that food is efficiently provided by the free market in spite of being essential as an argument that health care can be provided for efficiently is really disingenuous. People starve in Western nations all the time and people in extreme poverty can often end up doing some pretty horrendous things to keep themselves fed. The dumpster behind the convenience store near my last apartment had people scrounging food from it every night until they put a lock on it. My university runs an anonymous food pantry program where students are allowed to take food as needed by entering an office from the student commons (the food is on a shelf behind a wall so no-one can even see you take it) and, having worked there before, I can promise that we had to stock it every night. Aside from that when you look at how America is set up right now people with money can literally hold the lives of people without money hostage. This is another reason why lolbertarianism as it exists right now is just sickeningly despicable. If you are not rich you must sell your time to somebody who is in order to get money to buy stuff from those same rich people. If government assistance all goes away then you must enrich somebody else or starve if you're 99% of people. If you don't have a job you don't get food, a place to sleep, or medical care. Given that "job" basically always means somebody is paying you for less than you produce, especially for menial minimum wage work, income inequality and poverty are absolutely not helped by eliminating taxes. More importantly the day you quit being profitable you get thrown to the elements to starve to death in libertopia. It doesn't even need to be your fault. Hey, you got hit by a bus and can't work now? Well, I hope you know somebody who likes you enough to feed you or else you're totally hosed.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2016 10:48
|
|
|
ToxicSlurpee posted:Aside from that when you look at how America is set up right now people with money can literally hold the lives of people without money hostage. There was a debate in Australia recently because the ruling conservative party wanted to pass a law which would have charged consumers of medical services a $5 co-pay for any doctors visit. I won't get into the reasons why they wanted to do this but the argument went something along the lines of what JRod was saying... The politicians trying to pass this law compared the $5 fee to the cost of a beer at a bar. Right wing columnists compared it to the cost of a meal at McDonalds. I read one article where the author compared the $5 cost to see a doctor to the amount of change they had in their car's ashtray. The problem is, a lot of people are so insulted from extreme poverty that they cannot even conceptualize a state of affairs where even $5 is an unreasonable impost. I even knew socioeconomically disadvantaged people who took up the same argument... "$5? Even <I> can afford that" because, even when we're poor, we tend to compare our purchasing power to our neighbors and, when you are poor, it can be difficult to conceptualize someone poorer. It's the same thing. Food is cheap! I can grab a burger from a fast food joint for $2! I've have more than enough change in my couch cushions to buy a sack of flour! Even low cost doesn't mean "free" and even with the systems of social support we have, for all of the social welfare that libertarians want to repeal, we still have people within our society who cannot afford even these low-cost options. Simply making things cheaper is not a solution! I confess, making things cheaper will makes things awesome for those who us who can afford stuff because, yay, we'd have more money to throw around. It would even make things better for those of us without much purchasing power; I imagine the family on $10,000 per year would be thrilled if their groceries cost half as much! But when you're purchasing power is effectively 0, a $5 medical co-pay is just as out of reach as having to pay $1,000 for a GP visit and a suite of medical tests. Groceries that cost half as much still cannot feed a family that have no money... I think I asked this previously and the answer was to just die, but I'll ask again... even in magical libertarian land where the free market has provided so much competition for every vital service that we're paying pennies to the dollars we're paying now, how are the homeless and most destitute supposed to contribute to the economy? If we take away all social safety nets to lower the cost of all services, how are we going to provide a means for those people solely supported by those safety nets to participate in the economy and not die? If insurance and buying into co-ops and paying the Oklahoma Surgery Center is supposed to provide for all of our needs, what of those people who cannot afford even these small costs because they're disabled or old or have come down with some catastrophic illness? Making things cheap does not make them free. It is absolutely impossible to make a society so low cost that anyone can participate, to claim otherwise is extraordinary
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2016 11:21
|
|
|
I think the libertarian answer is that under their regime, you'd only be poor because you were lazy, that jobs would be plentiful and would pay higher wages so that only
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2016 11:29
|
|
|
YF19pilot posted:I think the libertarian answer is that under their regime, you'd only be poor because you were lazy, that jobs would be plentiful and would pay higher wages so that only The libertarian answer is really dumb. A lot of people don't work because they're unable to; creating more jobs won't help this. The problems of charity have been addressed already in this thread. What a sociopathic political philosophy... It would pretty directly and assuredly kill the most disadvantaged in society and I cannot help but conclude this is by design, not some side effect.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2016 11:35
|
|
|
Even ignoring the logical bankruptcy of "do nothing about this problem which will solve it", charity is inherently an activity of power. Reading that Bastiat again is hilarious because it basically says this: "I am not against solving the problem, but I am against everything that could possibly do anything toward solving it."
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2016 11:38
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 11:12 |
|
|
Where does national identity, or the concept of belonging to a greater society fit into an an-cap worldview?
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2016 11:39
|
|
