A "Libertarian" is nothing but a trumpublican who wants to smoke pot and have premarital sex. They're in no way fit to lead this country.To be fair I agree with libertarians on freedom. Ron Paul telling those fake moral crusaders in the GOP debates that he supported legalization of drugs was priceless and I am grateful he did that because now weed is now legal in several states.
My issue with libertarians was clearly spoken when I saw Ayn Rand speak at the UW in 1976. She clearly stated that poor people, the elderly and the sick where leeches and she did not care if they lived or died if they needed public assistance. Sorry libertarians. I respect your right to brlieve as you please but the political equivalent of Satanism or Manifest Destiny is just not this liberals style. Where is the compassion? Thank God they are of minority opinion.
Libertarian need to learn to Respect Regulatory Governance .... there is no such thing or place within any form of governance on the planet, were anyone can do anything they want, except by and through what is permissible within abiding by Regulatory Governance and Law.A Libertarian believes in individual freedom to live one's own life as one choses as long as one does not intentionally act to harm other's or the property rights of other's. This allows for willing cooperation with a group as long as such cooperation is not turned into compulsory obligations to sacrifice more than originally contracted.
Thus an individual can be compassionate if one so choses, or selfish if one so choses, as long as one's actions aren't deliberately intended to cause harm to other's or their property.
This idea of "compulsory compassion" you argue is a moral construct used by those who think they have both a right and a duty to compel other's to submit themselves to the group and "share" in the fruits of their labor. Based on the weird idea that simply by existing one may demand to be taken care of by everyone else. That is the foundation of Socialism and it's extreme of Communism, i.e. that the group has the right to compel individuals to work as hard as possible and then "share" the bulk of their production with those less capable or less willing to put in the same effort.
Your fallacious use of both religious and economic demonization of the inherent individual rights to preserve one's own life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness reflects a typical attempt to claim some "moral high ground" as justified in every ideology arguing "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one."
We NEED laws and we NEED governments to make and enforce laws. Libertarians lose all possible credibility when they say we don't need any governments at all, and we don't need laws or military defense.
Or better yet if you think the intersection needs a traffic lights, install them. Besides people around the world do just fine going through busy intersections all the time, many of them are in the united states. By the way on occasion those lights lose power and people manage to use the intersections just fine.
You need to really think before you throw examples.
I didn't say we don't need laws or don't need government, just that government should be seen as what it truly is, a necessary evil to be absolutely minimalist in nature. We should be responsible for ourselves and solving problems amongst ourselves. Our government should be primarily interested in our common defense, foreign affairs, internal regulation of commerce only such that it is free flowing between the states and encourages fair dealing, maintaining a stable currency and most of all refereeing disputes between ourselves. Everything else should be for the most part left to the individual.
Imagine two restaurants in town. Both are competing for customers. Restaurant A donates 10 Thousand dollars to build a homeless shelter. Restaurant B uses that 10k to extend their dining room or build a nice outdoor patio.Your example of losing market share is horseshit. What the hell does a homeless shelter have to do with market share?
Because my higher taxes benefit both of us equally. The fact that you cannot grasp why homelessness, poverty, and lack of access to basic health care for others negatively impact your life, in the long run, does not change the reality that it does.I still don't get why you don't pay higher taxes if you think you should.
I didn't say we don't need laws or don't need government, just that government should be seen as what it truly is, a necessary evil to be absolutely minimalist in nature. We should be responsible for ourselves and solving problems amongst ourselves. Our government should be primarily interested in our common defense, foreign affairs, internal regulation of commerce only such that it is free flowing between the states and encourages fair dealing, maintaining a stable currency and most of all refereeing disputes between ourselves. Everything else should be for the most part left to the individual.
Because you were the one who most directly benefits from it. If the benefit was shared more equally you would not.The point was, I didn't wait for some government wog to put one in.
And I'm sure all your "associates" are so happy to have their children indoctrinated by you instead of the nation as a whole.Yes it is a pretty cool story. Best decision I ever made with the education at the workplace.
Translation: To do only the things that directly benefit you, and none of the things that might help someone else level the playing field against you.I didn't say we don't need laws or don't need government, just that government should be seen as what it truly is, a necessary evil to be absolutely minimalist in nature.
I thought Ayn Rand followers were Neo-conservatives.To be fair I agree with libertarians on freedom. Ron Paul telling those fake moral crusaders in the GOP debates that he supported legalization of drugs was priceless and I am grateful he did that because now weed is now legal in several states.
My issue with libertarians was clearly spoken when I saw Ayn Rand speak at the UW in 1976. She clearly stated that poor people, the elderly and the sick where leeches and she did not care if they lived or died if they needed public assistance. Sorry libertarians. I respect your right to brlieve as you please but the political equivalent of Satanism or Manifest Destiny is just not this liberals style. Where is the compassion? Thank God they are of minority opinion.
Huh?Here's the logic. If children are starving under capitalism, somebody in the private sector will volunteer to feed them. If they do not, then feeding hungry children is by definition not such a very high social and cultural priority as we may wish, and we ought to wait until there are enough somebodies in the private sector who change their priorities and do a better job of finding those starving kids and serving them food. It will all work out in the wash.
installing a traffic light without strict enforcement is pretty useless. Who’s going to enforce it?
Are you now disputing the fact that traffic lights at busy intersections are critical for safety?
Imagine two restaurants in town. Both are competing for customers. Restaurant A donates 10 Thousand dollars to build a homeless shelter. Restaurant B uses that 10k to extend their dining room or build a nice outdoor patio.
Restaurant A has done something that will keep both restaurants from having to deal with homeless people hassling their guests, begging for food, or breaking in at night to get out of the cold. Restaurant B has increased its
profits. Now able to seat more guests Restaurant B can lower their prices as they don't need to make as much profit off each guest. Lower prices lure customers away from Restaurant A cutting into their profits.
Overtime Restaurant A is forced to close while Restaurant B is making enough to open a second location. The nice thing that Restaurant A did for the community ends up destroying them while the selfish thing restaurant B did
gives them a competitive advantage.
This is called a Nash Equilibrium. It is one of the most fundamental principles of modern Economics and it is the reason Libertarianism is a delusion.
Because my higher taxes benefit both of us equally. The fact that you cannot grasp why homelessness, poverty, and lack of access to basic health care for others negatively impact your life, in the long run, does not change the reality that it does.
I mostly agree, except that there are people who cannot help themselves and have no one to help them. You can't let an old disabled person starve to death in the street.
Because you were the one who most directly benefits from it. If the benefit was shared more equally you would not.
What you have essentially done is created a privately owned commons. Privately owned or not it still suffers from the same problems as any other tragedy of the commons.
So long as the public can reap the benefits of it without being required to contribute it will suffer the same fate. All it takes is for you to see one neighbor using it or abusing
it in a way that you don't like and not contributing their fair share to maintain it and we will see how generous you continue to be.
And I'm sure all your "associates" are so happy to have their children indoctrinated by you instead of the nation as a whole.
Tell me, if they asked to send their children to a private Muslim school would you still be so happy to pay for it?
Translation: To do only the things that directly benefit you, and none of the things that might help someone else level the playing field against you.
Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!!!Lets take your example and say said restaurant invest in a homeless shelter with 10,000 dollars in cash to support the local community. People will get wind of that, and just doing that will drive more people to your business because people like charitable businesses
You say that because as a communist, you hold in contempt the very thing that made up the foundation of her philosophy--the defense of individual liberty and individual rights.
The Fountainhead is actually a great book. You hate it because it is about the triumph of the individual. Commies want the individual crushed beneath the mob and the state. AS, though, is not something you read for the story. So in that regard its not a great book. But it still stands far and above anything you could cobble together if you lived a thousand years.I say that because as someone who reads books, Atlas Shrugged, and The Fountainhead are two of the worst books I possibly have ever read.
Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!!!
Yeah, now I'm just full-blown calling bullshit on your whole entire story. You clearly know nothing about business or economics whatsoever. People are not paying an extra $3 for the same quality sandwich just because the owner donated money to a charity.
When the majority of people go out to eat they don't have the foggiest ****ing clue what charities the business donated to nor do they care. Hell, I have liberal gay friends who still eat at Chick Fil A because it's cheap, convenient, and they love the chicken.
Some businesses with sponsor a sports team or put some B.S. deal on a booster card because it's free advertising, but nobody is choosing Jersey Mike's over Subway because they donated to the March of Dimes.
You obviously have a negative or pessimistic bias A, B you have not been in business for yourself because what you describe is purely theoretical, reality is much messier. Your example has way too many assumptions. If you want charitable works done, then you do them and should do so without exceeding your means, irregardless of what others do. You cannot control what others are going to do and you shouldn't try. What you can control, control, what you cant dont worry about it. If you think it needs done, and you have the capacity, then do it.
Lets take your example and say said restaurant invest in a homeless shelter with 10,000 dollars in cash to support the local community. People will get wind of that, and just doing that will drive more people to your business because people like charitable businesses, have you noticed near every business supports some charitable organization. If investing 10,000 dollars is too much for you to risk in light of your competition, you can still support your local shelter by donating the food you would thrash anyhow to the homeless shelter, something many restaurants do and the homeless shelters depend on. You can join with your competitor and see about splitting the costs of the homeless shelter. Thereby possibly generating good press for the both of you and helping keep the homeless from harassing your customers. There is not just one way. One size does not fit all.
What makes you think you are not just swapping one necessary evil for another?I didn't say we don't need laws or don't need government, just that government should be seen as what it truly is, a necessary evil to be absolutely minimalist in nature. We should be responsible for ourselves and solving problems amongst ourselves. Our government should be primarily interested in our common defense, foreign affairs, internal regulation of commerce only such that it is free flowing between the states and encourages fair dealing, maintaining a stable currency and most of all refereeing disputes between ourselves. Everything else should be for the most part left to the individual.
What makes you think you are not just swapping one necessary evil for another?
Where as I have some control over government which has an undeniable obligation to be open about its business , I have no control over what or who control a private business.
Here is the deal. Libertarians have never been the majority anywhere. We really do not know if it works. They clsim it does but I do not see how.To be fair I agree with libertarians on freedom. Ron Paul telling those fake moral crusaders in the GOP debates that he supported legalization of drugs was priceless and I am grateful he did that because now weed is now legal in several states.
My issue with libertarians was clearly spoken when I saw Ayn Rand speak at the UW in 1976. She clearly stated that poor people, the elderly and the sick where leeches and she did not care if they lived or died if they needed public assistance. Sorry libertarians. I respect your right to brlieve as you please but the political equivalent of Satanism or Manifest Destiny is just not this liberals style. Where is the compassion? Thank God they are of minority opinion.
Then don't, feed them, help them, you don't need a government to be compassionate.
You need a government to not have the streets lined with beggars.
Seattle and Portland come to mind, would you like to withdraw your statement?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?