Post Archive

Region: Libertatem

History

How about the right to earn the full value of your labor? I think that is a right.

Republic Of Minerva wrote:How about the right to earn the full value of your labor? I think that is a right.

It is not a pre-requisite for being alive.

That's a luxury, not a right.

(equally in my previous post, I wasn't clear when I mentioned that education and liberty (of though and movement) are bastions of civilization, not rights per say)

Pax Osca wrote:It is not a pre-requisite for being alive.

That's a luxury, not a right.

(equally in my previous post, I wasn't clear when I mentioned that education and liberty (of though and movement) are bastions of civilization, not rights per say)

Yet you cannot survive without part of your labor being seized under the justification that you didn't earn it. While this may be true if the government controlled everything, it doesn't have to be. Therefore if you cannot own the products of your labor, you do not own yourself in which your labor is derived. You are not free.

Republic Of Minerva wrote:Yet you cannot survive without part of your labor being seized under the justification that you didn't earn it. While this may be true if the government controlled everything, it doesn't have to be. Therefore if you cannot own the products of your labor, you do not own yourself in which your labor is derived. You are not free.

And you're dead if you don't have a roof over your head, food to eat and enough health to be able to work in the first place.

Rights. Not luxury.

Rights are meaningless. If you have the freedom to pursue your rights, you will gain a roof, food, and good health.

Republic Of Minerva wrote:Rights are meaningless. If you have the freedom to pursue your rights, you will gain a roof, food, and good health.

Why should you have to "pursue" rights!? Rights are inalienable - what you need and deserve to stay alive. The things you fight for if you're being denied them. How you can rationalize that these things are "meaningless" is beyond me.

I claim France, Spain, and Belgium.

I claim Eastern Canada, Greenland, and Newfoundland.

Pax Osca wrote:Why should you have to "pursue" rights!? Rights are inalienable - what you need and deserve to stay alive. The things you fight for if you're being denied them. How you can rationalize that these things are "meaningless" is beyond me.

Rights are a social construct, are they not? Therefore why are we basing everything on that social construct?

So if someone could consolidate all the actual claims for me, that'd be great. I'm just way out of it today.

Of course I'll still color stuff in, but I'm not rummaging through hours of posts to find claims.

Eastern Canada is taken

The Amarican Empire wrote:Eastern Canada is taken

ok...Iceland then.

The Amarican Empire wrote:I claim every state east of Nevada , Canada and Mexico

And yes the grammar was off.

I shall conquer the icy cold north. Hahaha

No war Libertatem needs unity.

Republic Of Minerva wrote:I claim Eastern Canada, Greenland, and Newfoundland.

Already had Greenland, try again.

Bah.

you know what I'll just take Antarctica.

Miencraft wrote:So if someone could consolidate all the actual claims for me, that'd be great. I'm just way out of it today.

Of course I'll still color stuff in, but I'm not rummaging through hours of posts to find claims.

I had United Korea and Japan.

Miencraft wrote:So if someone could consolidate all the actual claims for me, that'd be great. I'm just way out of it today.

Of course I'll still color stuff in, but I'm not rummaging through hours of posts to find claims.

The Marshall Islands, please.

Muh Roads wrote:I had United Korea and Japan.

You know when I asked for everyone's claims to be in one place I kind of didn't expect people to go right after and give me individual claims again.

Pax Osca wrote:1. 97% is not universal healthcare. Hate to be a stickler, but that 3% at the bottom, in modern day America, would be about 9 million people that's unacceptable to me.

2. Having health insurance is not the same as having comprehensive healthcare. Time and time again, people who assume they're covered because they have healthcare insurance find out that the insurer is not willing to pay out because what they have is not on the list of what they cover. State systems see a patient that needs to be cured with the funds they've already been given. Insurers see a chance to make a profit.

3. You graph uses bad statistics. The note on the bottom warns you of this. While it may appear to illustrate privatized industries to cause cheap prices while nationalized or "government interfered" industries to be increasing in prices, it actually illustrates, largely, how consumer goods have increased in quality over time and how we've developed processes to make them more cheaply in the last 10 years while an increasing population has lead to an increase in prices for services. Take education; more people are going to college than did before. Prices have risen accordingly until supply can be satisfied (and may keep rising if places like colleges realize that people value an education more than they value $120k).

Could you send me some links for these?

I do not describe state-proscribed healthcare a human right. I describe proper, comprehensive healthcare a human right. It's source is irrelevant but inevitably must lie with the state as no intelligent entity driven by profit would provide it. Providing healthcare for people is an expensive process, and any entity that instinctively wants to skimp on how much they spend (so that they can make a profit) will therefore not always be inclined try to save as many people as possible. Rather, it will save those who can spend again above others.

The right to health, food and shelter are, in my opinion, inalienable rights. The very basics of survival. Coupled to this are the rights to liberty (of movement and thought) and education. Any civilized society can and should ensure that all and any of its people that constitute it are granted these rights.

1. But there can be universal healthcare under a free market system. Good ideas don't require force.

2. In the United States problems like this and ones related to pre-existing conditions have been spawned by intervention. Perverse incentives have been created by coverage mandates and other laws that stifle choice and hike costs. If healthcare markets were liberalised, we'd see costs decline rapidly. At the end of the day, stealing from someone and giving it to someone else is not compassion, it's morally indefensible. Another healthcare statisti: http://obamacarefacts.com/obamacarefacts-images/public-domain/healthcare-spending.jpg

3. As I've said, market principles apply in all cases. Education costs have soared partially due to increased enrolment, but also because of the overwhelming amount of federal intervention. Pell Grants, designed to make it easier for students to go to college and pay off loans, have in effect increased the price of higher education massively, as it enables colleges and universities to charge higher prices.

4. This is misleading. First of all, Germany is the strongest economy in the Eurozone, which has no general minimum wage law, and France's high minimum wage has contributed to it having one of the highest costs of living in the world (goods and services are about a third more expensive in France than they are in the United States). France is also known for suffering one of the poorest recoveries on the continent. Instead of enacting pro-market policies, it's followed a path of ballooning spending, taxes and regulations. It has suffered terribly for this. The unemployment rate is at a shocking 11%, GDP growth is at 0.25% (it was actually negative last year) and debt is at at 91% of GDP. (Sauces: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-25736590, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_france#Government_finance)

5. Perhaps not, but it's telling that since the enactment of a minimum wage law real wages have declined. (http://www.theguardian.com/business/2014/jan/31/real-wages-falling-longest-period-ons-record

6. Here: http://www.downsizinggovernment.org/unemployment-insurance-fraud-chile-has-solution, http://ftp.iza.org/dp4681.pdf. The latter study found that Chile's personal saving accounts approach to UI produced strong incentives to return to work that reduced unemployment.

7. And on rights: how do you know these rights exist? Why do we have 'rights' to healthcare and food and education? What makes these rights real?

Republic Of Minerva wrote:Rights are a social construct, are they not? Therefore why are we basing everything on that social construct?

Not to me. To me rights are what you need and deserve to survive as a human being. Basic human rights. The fundamentals that we should all be able to agree on.

The vast majority of people agree they've got the right to:

- Live

- Have food

- Be healthy

- Have Shelter

- Procreate

but those rights cost the freedom of the individual. If all those rights were freely provided, we'd be mutual slaves. Instead, let merit decide has food. Anyone can go to the store, buy a bag of seeds for a mere two bucks, and grow food. So why do we enable others to live freely off those who do work hard?

Republic Of Minerva wrote:but those rights cost the freedom of the individual. If all those rights were freely provided, we'd be mutual slaves. Instead, let merit decide has food. Anyone can go to the store, buy a bag of seeds for a mere two bucks, and grow food. So why do we enable others to live freely off those who do work hard?

So you're ok with letting people with disabilities - who can't work - die?

Some 'merit'.

yes, the weak must be weeded out for the stronk to prosper /sarcasm

Pax Osca wrote:So you're ok with letting people with disabilities - who can't work - die?

Some 'merit'.

This implies that the lack of some government or other force to help these people would automatically mean that they would get no help.

Generosity will naturally come out of a society when people have the money with which to be generous; force doesn't enter the equation.

Republic Of Minerva wrote:yes, the weak must be weeded out for the stronk to prosper /sarcasm

Answer my (indirectly worded) question. What do you do with people who can't work? Burden their families unfairly and unnecessarily?

Pax Osca wrote:Burden their families unfairly and unnecessarily?

But is it really a better option to put an unfair and unnecessary burden upon people who more than likely don't know the people that their taxes pay for, people who probably don't even care?

Regardless of what happens to the people who can't work (speaking of that, charity IS a thing, and it's more effective than welfare), one thing is clear to me:

Those who clearly have the opportunity to work, and turn it down, are not deserving of help. Doesn't mean they won't receive it, though.

Miencraft wrote:This implies that the lack of some government or other force to help these people would automatically mean that they would get no help.

Generosity will naturally come out of a society when people have the money with which to be generous; force doesn't enter the equation.

I've seen this time and time and time again. Where is this "generosity" that leaves thousands of New Yorkers on the streets? Sure there are some help programs, but there's only so much time that somebody - who is working their butt off anyway to stay competitive in a world where if you loose your job you're screwed - can give to these programs.

You've also mistaken rules ultimately backed up by force if you absolutely refuse to comply with actual force. Nobody is holding a gun against your head when you don't pay your taxes. That would be force. What the government does is enforce rules. You make not like the rules, you may not like how the rules are made (you can actually change that if you make your own party!) but there's no point in pretending they're holding a gun against your head when you break them. They're not.

Miencraft wrote:But is it really a better option to put an unfair and unnecessary burden upon people who more than likely don't know the people that their taxes pay for, people who probably don't even care?

Keeping people alive is an "unnecessary burden"?

I'm all for Darwinism, but even I think that is harsh. Compassion is what puts us apart from most of the animal kingdom.

Pax Osca wrote:So you're ok with letting people with disabilities - who can't work - die?

Some 'merit'.

Depends on their disability. If they are unable to take care of themselves ever then they are a waste of resources.

Conservative Idealism In Libertatem wrote:

Those who clearly have the opportunity to work, and turn it down, are not deserving of help. Doesn't mean they won't receive it, though.

Agreed. That's why you set up systems that are efficient at getting rid of corruption.

The Amarican Empire wrote:Depends on their disability. If they are unable to take care of themselves ever then they are a waste of resources.

*almost mentions something about the 1940s and Germany, thinks better of it*

Wow.

1940s Germany had free healthcare.

Therefore, free healthcare is Nazism.

I win, fascist.

Pax Osca wrote:Where is this "generosity" that leaves thousands of New Yorkers on the streets?

...

Compassion is what puts us apart from most of the animal kingdom.

It's right there, man.

Pax Osca wrote:

Keeping people alive is an "unnecessary burden"?

From the perspective of the guy paying for some random person's life somewhere miles away, yes.

Republic Of Minerva wrote:Therefore, free healthcare is Nazism.

I win, fascist.

Can't argue with that 5 star logic.

*bows down to obvious libertarian UberKnowledgeOfAll*

Miencraft wrote:From the perspective of the guy paying for some random person's life somewhere miles away, yes.

What gives him the monopoly on having a right to life?

Pax Osca wrote:What gives him the monopoly on having a right to life?

He never met the man, and for all he knew that man could hate his guts.

Minerva, every libertarian should believe in rights. Natural rights are the only rights that exist. How do they exist? Because every individual controls his body with his mind, so he has absolute ownership of it. His property rights over his own body extend to his labour and everything he does, as long as it's not harming anyone else. You need to read The Ethics of Liberty by Murray Rothbard.

Pax, how do these rights you describe exist? And how the hell is keeping what you earn a luxury while having the state provide you goodies is a right? o_0

Pax Osca wrote:What gives him the monopoly on having a right to life?

What gives the disabled man a monopoly on someone else's resources?

Pax Osca wrote:What gives him the monopoly on having a right to life?

See, I can respond to this the way I respond to issues like marriage equality and the like:

If it doesn't affect me, I don't care. I'm not going to solve someone else's problems when people who actually know that person are totally capable of helping with doing so.

Post self-deleted by Miencraft.

Similarly, if one of my neighbors was in need of aid I'd do what I could to help out, since I actually know them and know that they're not going to be just another drain on my resources.

Ronald Reagan and Rick Grimes hosted the "Epic Rap Battle Of History" where one of our leaders, Rick Grimes, took on famous crystal methamphetamine cook Walter White. Watch Rick Grimes' sick rhymes now.(yes, the rhyme was intended)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=krQHQvtIr6w

It's actually a good battle.

Pevvania wrote:Minerva, every libertarian should believe in rights. Natural rights are the only rights that exist. How do they exist? Because every individual controls his body with his mind, so he has absolute ownership of it. His property rights over his own body extend to his labour and everything he does, as long as it's not harming anyone else. You need to read The Ethics of Liberty by Murray Rothbard.

Pax, how do these rights you describe exist? And how the hell is keeping what you earn a luxury while having the state provide you goodies is a right? o_0

Consequentials do not have to frame their support for libertarianism on natural rights. We know that the free market, in conjunction with negative liberties, creates the most amount of freedom and prosperity for the most amount of people. Natural rights can be a supplement, but as our social liberal friend here proves is too arbitrary to begin an argument alone, unless you want to debate the "wat about the starving poor people" schtick.

It's more of a question of values, imo.

The Amarican Empire wrote:What gives the disabled man a monopoly on someone else's resources?

A tiny percentage of your income is not a "monopoly".

The point of societies should be to do the most amount of good for the most amount of people (alternatively, to avoid the most harm for the most people). Everybody giving a tiny portion of what they earn, to me, is a far lesser harm than allowing somebody to die through inaction.

Pevvania wrote:

Pax, how do these rights you describe exist? And how the hell is keeping what you earn a luxury while having the state provide you goodies is a right? o_0

Hell I don't care if it's a state or a freaking unicorn riding a dragon providing "goodies".

I firmly believe every human being has the right to shelter, food and health. The essential to survive - these are rights, what you need to live - the rest is up to you to do what you like with your life.

You state that every individual has the right to his or her body. Yet, slavery can, has, and will continue to exist in humanity for a long time. Your rights are no more or less ludicrous than mine. Mine are the rights to life, yours the right to the body and mind and therefore products of labour. I consider yours somewhat secondary, seeing as you require the former for the latter to even matter.

Republic Of Minerva wrote:He never met the man, and for all he knew that man could hate his guts.

So? Assuming my "oh no muh income" hates him back - I hate a lot of people's guts. Doesn't give me the right to kill them through negligence and greed, much as I might like to.

Pax Osca wrote:So? Assuming my "oh no muh income" hates him back - I hate a lot of people's guts. Doesn't give me the right to kill them through negligence and greed, much as I might like to.

You are ignoring, however, the fact that people can and will continue to support people by their own good will even if it's not mandatory.

In fact, you even supported this yourself.

Pax Osca wrote:Compassion is what puts us apart from most of the animal kingdom.

Miencraft wrote:You are ignoring, however, the fact that people can and will continue to support people by their own good will even if it's not mandatory.

As long as they can afford to, yes. Will they always and in every case be able to though? Not without a centralized, planned and organized system. Something which most charitable organizations could not be father from.

Do you want to have to depend on a charitable organization happening to have the funds for your chemotherapy should you, <deity or other system of belief/fate> forbid, contract it at the ripe old age of 72?

Pax Osca wrote:So? Assuming my "oh no muh income" hates him back - I hate a lot of people's guts. Doesn't give me the right to kill them through negligence and greed, much as I might like to.

and what if he wanted to kill you, by chance?

You cannot kill him through negligence, as that would assume he hold no responsibility or power, and that your "compassion" entitles him to forsake providing the very force he receives. People can only neglect themselves, unless yes it is a dependent, but I do not see dependency as a inhibitor unless it is really bad.

Republic Of Minerva wrote:and what if he wanted to kill you, by chance?

You cannot kill him through negligence, as that would assume he hold no responsibility or power, and that your "compassion" entitles him to forsake providing the very force he receives. People can only neglect themselves, unless yes it is a dependent, but I do not see dependency as a inhibitor unless it is really bad.

You're going to need to rephrase that. I sincerely apologize but I cannot make head nor tails of what you're trying to say there.

People cannot be neglected because people are not morally obligated to serve each other except on a voluntary basis, permitting that the person has the ability to rely on themselves.

Would I be willing to aid truly inhibited people (e.g. The mentally or physically disabled?) yes. Should it be mandatory? No. Do I think a government can provide their people the basics needed to survive? Yes. Out of my tax money? No.

Republic Of Minerva wrote:People cannot be neglected because people are not morally obligated to serve each other except on a voluntary basis, permitting that the person has the ability to rely on themselves.

Yet any reasonable government should be morally obliged to ensure its citizens don't die - otherwise, what's the point of it...?

Republic Of Minerva wrote:Would I be willing to aid truly inhibited people (e.g. The mentally or physically disabled?) yes. Should it be mandatory? No. Do I think a government can provide their people the basics needed to survive? Yes. Out of my tax money? No.

Well how the hell else are they going to fund it? Money doesn't appear on trees.

I'll reply to y'all tomorrow, but in the meantime read this article by Keynesian economist Paul Krugman. It's very good, and explains why moral attacks on cheap labour industries in Third World countries are foolish.

http://www.slate.com/articles/business/the_dismal_science/1997/03/in_praise_of_cheap_labor.html

Charity, people don't need to be forced to do everything.

Pevvania wrote:I'm gonna continue the Land Grab AT RP, starting from the Fall of Rotgeheim. I hereby declare war on Northern Prussia, and in accordance with RP rules will likely overrun all of Prussian Europe in approximately 20 minutes.

Pevvania, I would like autonomy again :(

Pax Osca wrote:Yet any reasonable government should be morally obliged to ensure its citizens don't die - otherwise, what's the point of it...?

Well how the hell else are they going to fund it? Money doesn't appear on trees.

No they shouldn't. Government exists to keep order. Not to make sure everyone's boo-boos get patched up. If they do not have the funds to purchase the privilege of a doctor, how is that the concern of the average taxpayer who actual can pay for a doctor? Why should I care? It's not my problem. It's certainly not the government's problem.

Money basically does appear on trees. Have you ever heard of the Federal Reserve?

"What's that Barack? You need 100 billion dollars? Ok you have the money now and we'll go ahead and add a 90% interest rate on that. Good luck paying it back within the next century. And don't you dare to try and go back to the gold standard!"

Pax Osca wrote:Yet any reasonable government should be morally obliged to ensure its citizens don't die - otherwise, what's the point of it...?

Well how the hell else are they going to fund it? Money doesn't appear on trees.

1.) exactly but this is based on a flawed system that assumes you have consented to theft by mobocracy. (government enforcement of the social contract)

2.) Charities...i also like the idea of a negative income tax enough to cover the general welfare...

Ronald Reagan And Rick Grimes wrote:No they shouldn't. Government exists to keep order. Not to make sure everyone's boo-boos get patched up. If they do not have the funds to purchase the privilege of a doctor, how is that the concern of the average taxpayer who actual can pay for a doctor? Why should I care? It's not my problem. It's certainly not the government's problem.

This is just the most dystopian hell I've ever...

Avoidable, life threatening diseases are not "boo-boos" and a doctor is only a "privilege" in the most twisted views of society I can imagine.

If keeping people alive isn't part of the order then the government really is pointless. I mean, why stop the serial killers? Stopping them is infringing on their rights to plunge knives into jugular veins! All that hard work and planning, the fruit of their mind and body - their labour. To think you'd be punishing them for doing what they want to do. The horror!

Republic Of Minerva wrote:1.) exactly but this is based on a flawed system that assumes you have consented to theft by mobocracy. (government enforcement of the social contract)

2.) Charities...i also like the idea of a negative income tax enough to cover the general welfare...

1. "Muh incomez" - debated this too many times with too many people.

2. Because paying people money that you don't have to spend it a great idea -.-

Pax Osca wrote:As long as they can afford to, yes. Will they always and in every case be able to though? Not without a centralized, planned and organized system. Something which most charitable organizations could not be father from.

Do you want to have to depend on a charitable organization happening to have the funds for your chemotherapy should you, forbid, contract it at the ripe old age of 72?

1) Wait. Back up a second. You're saying that strict regulation actually makes people wealthier? I'd like to see that in action.

2) It would be nice, but if I do come down with some terrible disease I'd definitely keep euthanasia as an option. At an old age like that I think death would really be the easiest solution for myself, personally. If other people don't feel the same then they're the ones who should pay for the medicine and treatment, not I.

1.) I've debated the social contracted with Stalinists. Come at me bra

2.) Provided if we were in a surplus, this would be more feasible then spending billions on food stamps.

Muh roads should change his name to "muh incomes."

Pax Osca wrote:This is just the most dystopian hell I've ever...

Avoidable, life threatening diseases are not "boo-boos" and a doctor is only a "privilege" in the most twisted views of society I can imagine.

If keeping people alive isn't part of the order then the government really is pointless. I mean, why stop the serial killers? Stopping them is infringing on their rights to plunge knives into jugular veins! All that hard work and planning, the fruit of their mind and body - their labour. To think you'd be punishing them for doing what they want to do. The horror!

1. "Muh incomez" - debated this too many times with too many people.

2. Because paying people money that you don't have to spend it a great idea -.-

Dystopian? Oh really? Making people pay for a SERVICE is somehow dystopian? The government already researches and finds vacccines for most mass diseases which is a good thing because that effect the welfare of everybody. Not just one person here or there. ANd even then we still must pay. Those people that found the virus put time and money into discovering it. For them to not ask for money in return for their ability to research while the public decided to do nothing about it and wait would be criminal to themselves. We should have to pay. A vaccine is a good. This country is capitalist. We must all pay our fair share. Only those capable of paying should be aloud to receive it. Otherwise we are just socialist pigs that let's the weak gain in unchecked ways from the strong. Natural Selection must be aloud to happen in order to weed out the weak and make room for the deserving.

Your analogy sucks. Other humans killing other humans is more of a threat than diseases. It's much harder to stop than disease. We have cured Polio and other disastrous diseases but have yet to find the cure to make people stop killing each other. It's going to happen either way. It is best to lighten the amount of people that die, is it not? This is not a good thing to do. Not paying for someone's medicine is not killing them. It is totally different chief.

Republic Of Minerva wrote:Muh roads should change his name to "muh incomes."

I second^^^^^^^^^^^^

Republic Of Minerva wrote:1.) I've debated the social contracted with Stalinists. Come at me bra

2.) Provided if we were in a surplus, this would be more feasible then spending billions on food stamps.

Not a stalinist, Bra (and panties?).

I've heard every argument on your side of the fence, and would rather spend my time doing other things than listening to them again.

Ronald Reagan And Rick Grimes wrote:-snip-

"Weak" and "Strong" are incredibly poorly defined terms. One person's weakling is another's walking deity.

You say that "It is best to lighten the amount of people that die, is it not?" yet contradict this with all of the paragraph above it, saying you'd quite happily see people die if they can't pay up (often through no fault of their own).

Republic Of Minerva wrote:Muh roads should change his name to "muh incomes."

Third'd :3

No but I don't believe in throwing people out to the dogs, just I want want to make a non coercive system of taking care of people by their needs while keeping the free market, well free.

[quote=ronald_reagan_and_rick_grimes;6246800]Dystopian? Oh really? Making people pay for a SERVICE is somehow dystopian? The government already researches and finds vacccines for most mass diseases which is a good thing because that effect the welfare of everybody. Not just one person here or there. ANd even then we still must pay. Those people that found the virus put time and money into discovering it. For them to not ask for money in return for their ability to research while the public decided to do nothing about it and wait would be criminal to themselves. We should have to pay. A vaccine is a good. This country is capitalist. We must all pay our fair share. Only those capable of paying should be aloud to receive it. Otherwise we are just socialist pigs that let's the weak gain in unchecked ways from the strong. Natural Selection must be aloud to happen in order to weed out the weak and make room for the deserving.

Your analogy sucks. Other humans killing other humans is more of a threat than diseases. It's much harder to stop than disease. We have cured Polio and other disastrous diseases but have yet to find the cure to make people stop killing each other. It's going to happen either way. It is best to lighten the amount of people that die, is it not? This is not a good thing to do. Not paying for someone's medicine is not killing them. It is totally different chief./quote

You saying that the ability to live is something that should be bought and that I should die because my parents lot there jobs in a recession? And its my fault for being weak? Not everyone can be rich, trying to get rid of the working class because there "weak" is rediculus. There can not be rich without poor, even if everyone was the pinicle of humanity (let's say the Borg) then its ether everyone gets some or some get everything. I don't support strait up communism but giving to the working class is just logical! Everyone can live, and the rich can still drive 11 cars, as apposed to 20. Also poverty breeds crime, and do you know what happens i crime? Death, lots.

[quote=ronacria;6247136][quote=ronald_reagan_and_rick_grimes;6246800]Dystopian? Oh really? Making people pay for a SERVICE is somehow dystopian? The government already researches and finds vacccines for most mass diseases which is a good thing because that effect the welfare of everybody. Not just one person here or there. ANd even then we still must pay. Those people that found the virus put time and money into discovering it. For them to not ask for money in return for their ability to research while the public decided to do nothing about it and wait would be criminal to themselves. We should have to pay. A vaccine is a good. This country is capitalist. We must all pay our fair share. Only those capable of paying should be aloud to receive it. Otherwise we are just socialist pigs that let's the weak gain in unchecked ways from the strong. Natural Selection must be aloud to happen in order to weed out the weak and make room for the deserving.

Your analogy sucks. Other humans killing other humans is more of a threat than diseases. It's much harder to stop than disease. We have cured Polio and other disastrous diseases but have yet to find the cure to make people stop killing each other. It's going to happen either way. It is best to lighten the amount of people that die, is it not? This is not a good thing to do. Not paying for someone's medicine is not killing them. It is totally different chief./quote

You saying that the ability to live is something that should be bought and that I should die because my parents lot there jobs in a recession? And its my fault for being weak? Not everyone can be rich, trying to get rid of the working class because there "weak" is rediculus. There can not be rich without poor, even if everyone was the pinicle of humanity (let's say the Borg) then its ether everyone gets some or some get everything. I don't support strait up communism but giving to the working class is just logical! Everyone can live, and the rich can still drive 11 cars, as apposed to 20. Also poverty breeds crime, and do you know what happens i crime? Death, lots.[/quote]

My quote broke

Republic Of Minerva wrote:No but I don't believe in throwing people out to the dogs, just I want want to make a non coercive system of taking care of people by their needs while keeping the free market, well free.

An admiral ideal. I just don't see it happening for a good long time.

Same as communism, many (right and left wing) anarchist systems etc. They're lovely political theories, but I can't see them being implemented in a nation within my lifetime.

Well, I tend to like alternate ideals Pax, such as Friedman's NIP, the idea of local based demarchies to get money out of politics, etc. I feel like the Fed's tendency to support the status quo is what keeps experiments preventing in a country that was basically an experiment (as an American), but neither i see it happening in my life either. At the very least i wish to see democracy and capitalism expand in my life, and that people are more considerate of others opinions even if they seem radical or contrary to the norm.

I'm gone be off line for a couple of day, with school work and my new job I will not find time on here. I'll be back in summer.

Be Happy wrote:I'm gone be off line for a couple of day, with school work and my new job I will not find time on here. I'll be back in summer.

Peace.

Pax Osca wrote:An admiral ideal. I just don't see it happening for a good long time.

Same as communism, many (right and left wing) anarchist systems etc. They're lovely political theories, but I can't see them being implemented in a nation within my lifetime.

*Admirable

Goddamn 1am.

Pax Osca wrote:Not a stalinist, Bra (and panties?).

I've heard every argument on your side of the fence, and would rather spend my time doing other things than listening to them again.

"Weak" and "Strong" are incredibly poorly defined terms. One person's weakling is another's walking deity.

You say that "It is best to lighten the amount of people that die, is it not?" yet contradict this with all of the paragraph above it, saying you'd quite happily see people die if they can't pay up (often through no fault of their own).

Third'd :3

Part of this is directed at Airship too I just didn't feel like quoting him for space issues.

To not allow people to die by other people would be idiotic to do. That serves all peoples interests and includes the government's main point to keep order, which entails protecting the people, from themselves too. Obviously I'm talking about US citizens. Perhaps your parents should have saved? Is it not impossible for them to get another or a few more jobs? I doubt it. All problems are solvable through work. Some people are just too lazy to except that, which is why we must not totally socialize healthcare. Should everyone get food for free too? I mean after all, that IS required to live?

"Walking Deity" is a poorly defined term. One person's walking deity is another person's weakling.

@Airship: Grammatical Errors. Grammatical Errors Everywhere.

Also this isn't even about class. Working class people are strong too. The hard working dignified ones at least. The ones that accept responsibility and don't suck off the government teet for their basic needs like so many others. It is a sad reflection on our society that people think they are intitled to everything without properly working for it or even deserving it. This is Merika. Anyone can succeed. It's just your fault for not coming up with a good idea or working your way to the top. That's life and it sucks. Deal with it. Accept reality.

So much for democracy when people aren't willing to listen to other's arguments. I think in the end, it is the natural bias for people to "stick to their own guns" e.g. opinions...

Post self-deleted by Republic Of Minerva.

Ronacria wrote:1) You saying that the ability to live is something that should be bought and that I should die because my parents lot there jobs in a recession? 2) And its my fault for being weak? Not everyone can be rich, 3) trying to get rid of the working class because there "weak" is rediculus. There can not be rich without poor, even if everyone was the pinicle of humanity (let's say the Borg) then its ether everyone gets some or some get everything. 4) I don't support strait up communism but giving to the working class is just logical! Everyone can live, and the rich can still drive 11 cars, as apposed to 20. 5) Also poverty breeds crime, and do you know what happens i crime? Death, lots.

1) Recession does not necessarily imply that jobs are impossible to find.

2) Our argument is not against welfare. It's against government-funded welfare. These are two very different things.

3) Way to put words into a guy's mouth.

4) Giving your things to people is not logical. It completely defies all of human evolution. We would not be where we are now as a species if we gave things away. We got here with sweat, blood, and pure competition. I'm no proponent of a master race, but it's only natural for the better adapted to slowly but surely outphase those who aren't quite as adapted. And, really, my personal argument towards welfare as a whole is this: If there's some person hundreds of miles away dying of some disease, and their death or ill health doesn't affect me, why should I spend my hard-earned money on keeping that guy alive? It's on his friends and family to keep him alive if he wants to stay alive, not some random taxpayer who more than likely couldn't care less about his condition. If you couldn't afford it, well tough luck, because hospitals provide services, not charities.

5) Criminalization breeds crime if you really think about it. And I'm still scratching my head as to what this has to do with the discussion at hand.

Post self-deleted by Miencraft.

Stop spatting, you're never going to agree.

Oh and to add on to 2,

Yes. Everyone can be rich. With sufficient hard work and dedication, it is literally impossible to not do something in this country. The question remains is if they're entitled to be rich, or if they should be rich. Are they entitled to it? Well, if they didn't inherit it, not really. Should they be rich? Absolutely. They earned it. If they inherited it, someone earned it. America is fundamentally based on what you earn, not what you're given. We fought a whole war just to earn our right to self-govern.

Humpheria wrote:Stop spatting, you're never going to agree.

That's why it's fun!

Today I played the role of a minarchist in MUN. What a fun debate

Northern Prussia wrote:Today I played the role of a minarchist in MUN. What a fun debate

I had my eye on MUN in high school.

Shame I could never make the times they wanted.

Does anyone want to adopt some regions of mine. I have ton!

http://www.nationstates.net/nation=the_neo-confederate_states_of_america/detail=factbook/id=206268

Humpheria wrote:Stop spatting, you're never going to agree.

Miencraft wrote:That's why it's fun!

Yeah debates are fun!

Miencraft wrote:Oh and to add on to 2,

Yes. Everyone can be rich. With sufficient hard work and dedication, it is literally impossible to not do something in this country. The question remains is if they're entitled to be rich, or if they should be rich. Are they entitled to it? Well, if they didn't inherit it, not really. Should they be rich? Absolutely. They earned it. If they inherited it, someone earned it. America is fundamentally based on what you earn, not what you're given. We fought a whole war just to earn our right to self-govern.

While I agree with everything you're saying right now, I think that their main argument against this point is the problems that a top-heavy class society can cause. Like lower paying jobs are unappealing, relentless social competition, etc.

Republic Of Minerva wrote:Muh roads should change his name to "muh incomes."

Ronald Reagan And Rick Grimes wrote:I second^^^^^^^^^^^^

Pax Osca wrote:Third'd :3

But.. but.. Muh Name...

Ronald Reagan And Rick Grimes wrote:While I agree with everything you're saying right now, I think that their main argument against this point is the problems that a top-heavy class society can cause. Like lower paying jobs are unappealing, relentless social competition, etc.

Good thing I haven't actually focused on a top-heavy society.

If anything, my focus has actually been pretty neutral.

Ronald Reagan And Rick Grimes wrote:Yeah debates are fun!

I once spent a whole day arguing various aspects of politics with some guy I've known for years.

It was fun.

Muh Incomes wrote:Happy? :(

No I am never happy.

The Amarican Empire wrote:No I am never happy.

Quickly, Muh! The Free Land of Muh Happiness!

The Amarican Empire wrote:No I am never happy.

Well, i was hoping my poorly edited flag comic would at least make someone smile.

Miencraft wrote:Quickly, Muh! The Free Land of Muh Happiness!

Ask and you shall receive!

I have decided that communism is the only logical ideology in existence. Workers of the world Unite!

The Amarican Empire wrote:I have decided that communism is the only logical ideology in existence. Workers of the world Unite!

Why don't you just move to Somalia then?

Assembled with Dot's Region Saver.
Written by Refuge Isle.