The question libertarians just can’t answer

[Bfgrn]

No. I'm just trying to get at the heart of our disagreement. Do you agree that if an action doesn't harm (or threaten to harm) others, the state should stay out of it?

I don't know if there is a disagreement. I also believe if an action doesn't harm (or threaten to harm) others, the state should stay out of it.

Ok, good. I'm certainly not trying to 'trick' you into conceding anything. But the proposition that the state knows better what's good for us, and should supersede our personal decisions when we 'err', indicates an entirely different argument.

Where I think we may have a difference is the 'consequences' part.

Exactly. Once we agree that actions that don't harm others aren't any of the government's business - the debate centers around what constitutes harm. And that can run the gamut from the position that nothing outside of serious physical injury should be considered harm, all the way to vague notions like the idea that actions harm the 'moral fabric' of society.

And, yeah, to proceed with that debate it's probably best to look at specific examples. I'll start with the health care regulation debate. How would you say it harms others if I contract the services of a quack? As long as I'm not asking anyone else to pick up the pieces when things go awry, why should the government tell me which doctors I can see? Besides me, who would be harmed in such a case?

Let's start her:

What part of 'the health care regulation' say(s) it harms others if I (you) contract the services of a quack?

 

[kaz]

Do you even know who Harry Browne is? BTW, the only drug I do is caffeine in the morning.

I was referring to your complete inability to post a coherent thought or respond in any logical way to the discussion. That wasn't written being high on life.

You may have heard of Harry Browne, but to say that you think anything significant with what he does is as delusional as everything else you write.

Thanks for answering my question. It is no longer what Harry Browne 'does', it is now what he 'did'. Harry died on March 1, 2006.

No shit Dick Tracy. So that's your argument, you used the wrong TENSE on that word!

I stand corrected, you do admirably defend and justify liberalism, I'm convinced now.

Now if I hadn't known he died, I see your point. Wow, there's no way I could be a libertarian.

Drugs dude, just say no.

 

[dblack]

I don't know if there is a disagreement. I also believe if an action doesn't harm (or threaten to harm) others, the state should stay out of it.

Ok, good. I'm certainly not trying to 'trick' you into conceding anything. But the proposition that the state knows better what's good for us, and should supersede our personal decisions when we 'err', indicates an entirely different argument.

Where I think we may have a difference is the 'consequences' part.

Exactly. Once we agree that actions that don't harm others aren't any of the government's business - the debate centers around what constitutes harm. And that can run the gamut from the position that nothing outside of serious physical injury should be considered harm, all the way to vague notions like the idea that actions harm the 'moral fabric' of society.

And, yeah, to proceed with that debate it's probably best to look at specific examples. I'll start with the health care regulation debate. How would you say it harms others if I contract the services of a quack? As long as I'm not asking anyone else to pick up the pieces when things go awry, why should the government tell me which doctors I can see? Besides me, who would be harmed in such a case?

Let's start her:

What part of 'the health care regulation' say(s) it harms others if I (you) contract the services of a quack?

Not sure what you mean. I'll rephrase my question. Why should it be illegal for me to contract the services of an unlicensed doctor? If we're agreeing it shouldn't be illegal unless it harms others, then how is it harming others?

 

[kaz]

What I constantly hear from you folks who claim to be 'libertarians', is identical to the same ignorant faux news talk radio propaganda right wing conservatives parrot. I never hear anything that could be mistaken as coming from the sphere of thinking Harry had.

Yes, a liberal lecturing me on what Harry Browne thinks. Very persuasive.

What you're doing is parroting the other liberals who moronically don't know the difference between a libertarian and a conservative either. So I'll give you the 411.

We're against the wars, we're against foreign involvement in other people's business and wouldn't have the military permanently overseas anywhere. We support massive defense cuts and a military that is defensive in nature only. We would pull way back our State department's involvement in other people's shit.

We're pro-choice, anti-war on drugs, anti-war on terror and oppose government restrictions on gambling, prostitution, euthanasia and other morality laws.

We'd also actually eliminate social security, medicare, welfare, the department of energy, the FCC and a plethora of agencies the Republicans propose to grow year after year while talking about reducing.

Since Fox is conservative, why they are instructing those things they disagree with is someone paradoxical, don't you think? Why are they doing that? Telling us to think things they disagree with.

Your user name should be Borg as you're incapable of an independent thought. Harry, Barry and Nancy say to think it and like a good little liberal automaton, you think it.

 

[Bfgrn]

I was referring to your complete inability to post a coherent thought or respond in any logical way to the discussion. That wasn't written being high on life.

You may have heard of Harry Browne, but to say that you think anything significant with what he does is as delusional as everything else you write.

Thanks for answering my question. It is no longer what Harry Browne 'does', it is now what he 'did'. Harry died on March 1, 2006.

No shit Dick Tracy. So that's your argument, you used the wrong TENSE on that word!

I stand corrected, you do admirably defend and justify liberalism, I'm convinced now.

Now if I hadn't known he died, I see your point. Wow, there's no way I could be a libertarian.

Drugs dude, just say no.

I have clearly and intelligently stated many of my beliefs on this thread. I didn't hear your replies, or your beliefs. It seems your beliefs are to just deride and disparage anyone who is a liberal. Sure SOUNDS like the exact same bluster that comes from right wing turds on this board.

Which makes me question if you really are a libertarian. Because Liberals and libertarians have a lot in common in the realm of civil liberties.

 

[kaz]

Thanks for answering my question. It is no longer what Harry Browne 'does', it is now what he 'did'. Harry died on March 1, 2006.

No shit Dick Tracy. So that's your argument, you used the wrong TENSE on that word!

I stand corrected, you do admirably defend and justify liberalism, I'm convinced now.

Now if I hadn't known he died, I see your point. Wow, there's no way I could be a libertarian.

Drugs dude, just say no.

I have clearly and intelligently stated many of my beliefs on this thread. I didn't hear your replies, or your beliefs. It seems your beliefs are to just deride and disparage anyone who is a liberal. Sure SOUNDS like the exact same bluster that comes from right wing turds on this board.

Which makes me question if you really are a libertarian. Because Liberals and libertarians have a lot in common in the realm of civil liberties.

Libertarians and liberals have zero in common.

1) Look at all the liberals on the board who lost it over W's privacy policies who fell right in line behind Obama doing it. That shows their actual belief on the subject is zero.

2) Liberals don't even recognize the greatest threats to our privacy. The IRS, the war on drugs, Social Security, Obamacare. You go hyper (when a Republican is in power) over the arrangement of the deck chairs on the Titanic while steering us straight into the iceberg of real threats to privacy.

What you said is a joke. Though your claim to be making points "clearly and intelligently" did make me laugh so hard I couldn't see straight for a minute.

BTW, Borg. What's even funnier is you're parroting every view of Obama while accusing me of parroting Fox, which I don't and gave a long list of differences.

Then while you're parroting Obama and accusing me of parroting, you actually criticize me of NOT parroting Browne.

You're a hoot. I was kidding about quitting drugs. Please don't.

 

[dblack]

No shit Dick Tracy. So that's your argument, you used the wrong TENSE on that word!

I stand corrected, you do admirably defend and justify liberalism, I'm convinced now.

Now if I hadn't known he died, I see your point. Wow, there's no way I could be a libertarian.

Drugs dude, just say no.

I have clearly and intelligently stated many of my beliefs on this thread. I didn't hear your replies, or your beliefs. It seems your beliefs are to just deride and disparage anyone who is a liberal. Sure SOUNDS like the exact same bluster that comes from right wing turds on this board.

Which makes me question if you really are a libertarian. Because Liberals and libertarians have a lot in common in the realm of civil liberties.

Libertarians and liberals have zero in common.

They have a lot in common. It's no coincidence they share the same root word. You're confusing the modern statist Democrat with the actual definition of liberalism. Obama and his cronies are neo-cons, every bit as much as Bush's crew were.

 

[Pop23]

The whole argument about Doctors being regulated by the Government is absurd.

1. Quacks exist even though there is Government regulation

2. The Government takes no responsibilty for licensing a Quack

3. The assumption that if the Government did not regulate that some private entity would not step into the void that would create a certification program that likely would better serve the public. At the same time could be held responsible for certifying a quack.

As I said before. Regulation makes people lazy

 

[Oddball]

Do you even know who Harry Browne is? BTW, the only drug I do is caffeine in the morning.

Yeah, well you should see a professional (no, seriously) and get on some kind of psychotropic regimen.

And, yes, it's safe to say that just about every libertarian here knows who Harry Browne is.

I don't believe it 'safe' to say any of you far right wing 'bitches for plutocrats' who call yourselves libertarians have a clue who Harry Browne was.

He was the first libertarian candidate I voted for....I've read his books...I know who he was.

I also know that your authoritarian central planner philosophy and his live-and-let live philosophy are oil and water.

Oh, and when you paint with the broad brush, it's most helpful if you hold it with the bristles pointing away from you.

 

[kaz]

I have clearly and intelligently stated many of my beliefs on this thread. I didn't hear your replies, or your beliefs. It seems your beliefs are to just deride and disparage anyone who is a liberal. Sure SOUNDS like the exact same bluster that comes from right wing turds on this board.

Which makes me question if you really are a libertarian. Because Liberals and libertarians have a lot in common in the realm of civil liberties.

Libertarians and liberals have zero in common.

They have a lot in common. It's no coincidence they share the same root word. You're confusing the modern statist Democrat with the actual definition of liberalism. Obama and his cronies are neo-cons, every bit as much as Bush's crew were.

I'm not confusing that, I'm referring to that. I am a classic liberal, I know what that means. Note I said "liberals" and "libertarians" I did not say liberalism and libertarianism. As actual definitions, they are actually the same. Liberals have nothing to do with liberalism.

 

[Bfgrn]

What I constantly hear from you folks who claim to be 'libertarians', is identical to the same ignorant faux news talk radio propaganda right wing conservatives parrot. I never hear anything that could be mistaken as coming from the sphere of thinking Harry had.

Yes, a liberal lecturing me on what Harry Browne thinks. Very persuasive.

What you're doing is parroting the other liberals who moronically don't know the difference between a libertarian and a conservative either. So I'll give you the 411.

We're against the wars, we're against foreign involvement in other people's business and wouldn't have the military permanently overseas anywhere. We support massive defense cuts and a military that is defensive in nature only. We would pull way back our State department's involvement in other people's shit.

We're pro-choice, anti-war on drugs, anti-war on terror and oppose government restrictions on gambling, prostitution, euthanasia and other morality laws.

We'd also actually eliminate social security, medicare, welfare, the department of energy, the FCC and a plethora of agencies the Republicans propose to grow year after year while talking about reducing.

Since Fox is conservative, why they are instructing those things they disagree with is someone paradoxical, don't you think? Why are they doing that? Telling us to think things they disagree with.

Your user name should be Borg as you're incapable of an independent thought. Harry, Barry and Nancy say to think it and like a good little liberal automaton, you think it.

You continue to imply that you are an intelligent independent 'thinker', and ALL ABOUT liberty.

So let's put your 'beliefs' to the test.

Let's start with 2 programs you would eliminate: social security and medicare.

What would you replace them with?

 

[Oddball]

What I constantly hear from you folks who claim to be 'libertarians', is identical to the same ignorant faux news talk radio propaganda right wing conservatives parrot. I never hear anything that could be mistaken as coming from the sphere of thinking Harry had.

Yes, a liberal lecturing me on what Harry Browne thinks. Very persuasive.

What you're doing is parroting the other liberals who moronically don't know the difference between a libertarian and a conservative either. So I'll give you the 411.

We're against the wars, we're against foreign involvement in other people's business and wouldn't have the military permanently overseas anywhere. We support massive defense cuts and a military that is defensive in nature only. We would pull way back our State department's involvement in other people's shit.

We're pro-choice, anti-war on drugs, anti-war on terror and oppose government restrictions on gambling, prostitution, euthanasia and other morality laws.

We'd also actually eliminate social security, medicare, welfare, the department of energy, the FCC and a plethora of agencies the Republicans propose to grow year after year while talking about reducing.

Since Fox is conservative, why they are instructing those things they disagree with is someone paradoxical, don't you think? Why are they doing that? Telling us to think things they disagree with.

Your user name should be Borg as you're incapable of an independent thought. Harry, Barry and Nancy say to think it and like a good little liberal automaton, you think it.

You continue to imply that you are an intelligent independent 'thinker', and ALL ABOUT liberty.

So let's put your 'beliefs' to the test.

Let's start with 2 programs you would eliminate: social security and medicare.

What would you replace them with?

Nothing.

 

[Bfgrn]

Yes, a liberal lecturing me on what Harry Browne thinks. Very persuasive.

What you're doing is parroting the other liberals who moronically don't know the difference between a libertarian and a conservative either. So I'll give you the 411.

We're against the wars, we're against foreign involvement in other people's business and wouldn't have the military permanently overseas anywhere. We support massive defense cuts and a military that is defensive in nature only. We would pull way back our State department's involvement in other people's shit.

We're pro-choice, anti-war on drugs, anti-war on terror and oppose government restrictions on gambling, prostitution, euthanasia and other morality laws.

We'd also actually eliminate social security, medicare, welfare, the department of energy, the FCC and a plethora of agencies the Republicans propose to grow year after year while talking about reducing.

Since Fox is conservative, why they are instructing those things they disagree with is someone paradoxical, don't you think? Why are they doing that? Telling us to think things they disagree with.

Your user name should be Borg as you're incapable of an independent thought. Harry, Barry and Nancy say to think it and like a good little liberal automaton, you think it.

You continue to imply that you are an intelligent independent 'thinker', and ALL ABOUT liberty.

So let's put your 'beliefs' to the test.

Let's start with 2 programs you would eliminate: social security and medicare.

What would you replace them with?

Nothing.

Why would you end them in the first place?

 

[Oddball]

Why would you end them in the first place?

1) They're Ponzi schemes that would be illegal to operate in the private sector.

2) It's not the business of the feds to be running insurance Ponzi schemes or any other redistributionist social welfare programs.

3) The premise that people are incapable of taking care of themselves.

4) The premise that if people didn't look after their own retirement and medical care later in life, that they would just be thrown into the streets.

5) They've become little more than big political slush funds and polarizing points of argumentation for petty demagogues.

Those are just off the top of my head.

 

[dblack]

Ok, good. I'm certainly not trying to 'trick' you into conceding anything. But the proposition that the state knows better what's good for us, and should supersede our personal decisions when we 'err', indicates an entirely different argument.



Exactly. Once we agree that actions that don't harm others aren't any of the government's business - the debate centers around what constitutes harm. And that can run the gamut from the position that nothing outside of serious physical injury should be considered harm, all the way to vague notions like the idea that actions harm the 'moral fabric' of society.

And, yeah, to proceed with that debate it's probably best to look at specific examples. I'll start with the health care regulation debate. How would you say it harms others if I contract the services of a quack? As long as I'm not asking anyone else to pick up the pieces when things go awry, why should the government tell me which doctors I can see? Besides me, who would be harmed in such a case?

Let's start her:

What part of 'the health care regulation' say(s) it harms others if I (you) contract the services of a quack?

Not sure what you mean. I'll rephrase my question. Why should it be illegal for me to contract the services of an unlicensed doctor? If we're agreeing it shouldn't be illegal unless it harms others, then how is it harming others?

Curious if you want to follow up on this?

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Let's start her:

What part of 'the health care regulation' say(s) it harms others if I (you) contract the services of a quack?

Not sure what you mean. I'll rephrase my question. Why should it be illegal for me to contract the services of an unlicensed doctor? If we're agreeing it shouldn't be illegal unless it harms others, then how is it harming others?

Curious if you want to follow up on this?

You'll destroy his argument. He dodged one of mine that would have destroyed his point of view as well. Dont expect an answer.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

How is consumer protection and environmental protection working out? Not as well as it should. WHY? Because corporations, monied interests and their lobbyists have achieved what is called 'regulatory capture'. What is regulatory capture?

Regulatory capture occurs when a regulatory agency, created to act in the public interest, instead advances the commercial or special concerns of interest groups that dominate the industry or sector it is charged with regulating.

And we face trying to stop REALLY ignorant regressive teabaggers that have infested Washington and have created The Most Anti-Environment House In History. House Republican leaders have pushed through an astonishing 191 votes to weaken environmental protections.

In other words, regulation agencies stemming from government are FAILURES. Yet you want to pursue even more of it and defend it as a realistic, efficient and workable concept.

You clearly are way more confused than previous assumed. You sit right there and show the failures of the State and then turn around and tell us that without this failure we'd all be poisoned by Joe the food guy because this failed regulatory agency wasn't there to fail.

The government is the problem in "regulatory capture", not the corp. that lobbied them. If the reg agency didnt exist, and the government wasn't in the business of dishing out favoritism in economic sectors, the only legs these corps would have to stand on is their own merit against competition.

It's clear that you have got your wires not only crossed, but not thoroughly tightened down either.

Such as this. He points to the failure of the state as evidence that we need it. Then just runs away from it completely. He's trying to sound as though he wants people to not be forced into regulation, whether in business or personally (such as a licensed doctor question) and at the same time telling us the State should in fact, intervene and knows better for us.

it's complete confusion on his part.

 

[Bfgrn]

Why would you end them in the first place?

1) They're Ponzi schemes that would be illegal to operate in the private sector.

2) It's not the business of the feds to be running insurance Ponzi schemes or any other redistributionist social welfare programs.

3) The premise that people are incapable of taking care of themselves.

4) The premise that if people didn't look after their own retirement and medical care later in life, that they would just be thrown into the streets.

5) They've become little more than big political slush funds and polarizing points of argumentation for petty demagogues.

Those are just off the top of my head.

Rather than address you list of total propaganda and lies, answer one question as a 'libertarian' who is ALL about LIBERTY. How would ending Social Security and Medicare make the lives of senior citizens better? How would it increase THEIR liberty and freedom?

 

[rightwinger]

The victim. What assumption is false? And what about my question? As long as I'm not asking anyone else to suffer the consequences, why should the state override my decisions about personal risk and safety?

Seat belts anyone?

Another libertarian failure

Please show how seat belt laws are applied on private property?

Before you strain your brain, I'll answer the question.

They are not.

Seat belt laws are only applied on roads that are build in common with others.

Ask Jeff Gordon or any Farmer you know if they were ever ticketed for not wearing a seat belt on PRIVATE PROPERTY.

You are welcome to try again

Never said they were Pops

Yet Libertarians whined about seat belt laws infringing on their LIBERTY

 

[kaz]

Why would you end them in the first place?

1) They're Ponzi schemes that would be illegal to operate in the private sector.

2) It's not the business of the feds to be running insurance Ponzi schemes or any other redistributionist social welfare programs.

3) The premise that people are incapable of taking care of themselves.

4) The premise that if people didn't look after their own retirement and medical care later in life, that they would just be thrown into the streets.

5) They've become little more than big political slush funds and polarizing points of argumentation for petty demagogues.

Those are just off the top of my head.

Rather than address you list of total propaganda and lies, answer one question as a 'libertarian' who is ALL about LIBERTY. How would ending Social Security and Medicare make the lives of senior citizens better? How would it increase THEIR liberty and freedom?

When government confiscates money from one person by force and gives it to another, we need to explain to you why the person getting the confiscated money is better off if the government stops giving them confiscated money. And you think you're libertarian and we're not. Got it. That's funny. As I said, drugs my friend, just say yes...

As to the answer to your question, no man is free unless all men are free. As long as government confiscates money and gives it to other people by force, sure, the people getting money they didn't earn like it. Wow, very clever of you to notice that. However, we are all under the threat that government has that power whether we happen to be on the losing or winning end. But why am I explaining this to you? You're the libertarian...