Announcement

**chequita guevara** · November 5, 2003, 15:45

Originally posted by Caligastia
Rich folks don't get that way because of the government.

True 'nuff. They are born that way. However, if there was no government, they wouldn't be rich. They'd be robbed.

**NeOmega** · November 5, 2003, 15:50

However, if there was no government, they wouldn't be rich. They'd be robbed.

robbed: the forceful taking of ones income for the use of another.

taxes: the forceful taking of ones income for the use of another.

**Caligastia** · November 5, 2003, 15:52

Originally posted by chegitz guevara

True 'nuff. They are born that way.

Not true. The vast majority of the rich in America didn't start out that way.

However, if there was no government, they wouldn't be rich. They'd be robbed.

Somehow I get the feeling that that is something you'd like to see happen.

**Whaleboy** · November 5, 2003, 16:03

Well by definition if one sees oneself as an individual, and the outside world composed of individuals, then you have the main elements of libertarianism in place!!

**MikeH** · November 5, 2003, 16:18

Originally posted by Caligastia

This is a very well beaten path on this forum...in fact I think it may have become a major interstate freeway by now. Are you saying you want to go for a drive?

Nah, I've never been in the libertarian threads before other than briefly. The Libertarian point of view is so selfish, alien and annoying it makes me angry very quickly and I leave.

**Sandman** · November 5, 2003, 16:29

Originally posted by MikeH
It seems a very American concept. I've never heard the term 'libertarian' used other than in the context of a discussion of US politics.

Absolutely. A large section of their argument is based on fallacious appeals to authority and nationalism, asserting that the American constitution and the Founding Fathers 'really' wanted the US to be libertarian. As if they actually matter.

Originally posted by NeOmega
That is just a dumb, baseless comment.

How so? Freedom is only worth something if satisfies my needs and desires. It is a means to an end, nothing more.

**Caligastia** · November 5, 2003, 16:32

Originally posted by MikeH

Nah, I've never been in the libertarian threads before other than briefly. The Libertarian point of view is so selfish, alien and annoying it makes me angry very quickly and I leave.

Selfish? Sorry, but I don't think wanting to help others with someone else's money is particularly generous.

**MikeH** · November 5, 2003, 16:32

The world of the founding fathers was very different to the world of today.

**MikeH** · November 5, 2003, 16:36

Originally posted by Caligastia

Selfish? Sorry, but I don't think wanting to help others with someone else's money is particularly generous.

I'm a tax payer, it's my money.

**Bugs ****ing Bunny** · November 5, 2003, 16:40

Originally posted by Caligastia

I don't think it's unfair for parents to be allowed to help their children financially.

I can't believe you took 15 words to say "Meritocracies? Pah!". Bloody timewaster.

**Whaleboy** · November 5, 2003, 16:42

Cali:

**Kidlicious** · November 5, 2003, 16:47

@ Che

**Bugs ****ing Bunny** · November 5, 2003, 16:52

Pay yer taxes and stop moaning, yer big girl's blouses.

**Solly** · November 5, 2003, 18:37

Well in that case how's about making that apple at the market cost the same percentage of a rich man's income as a poor man's?

Assuming your apple on the market is an analogy for all goods..?

Because then there'd be no incentive at all to create wealth. And creating wealth for yourself is by no means a zero-sum game, or even necessarily a game where others need to pay for your benefit.

**Juggernaut** · November 5, 2003, 18:43

Originally posted by Berzerker

Sure, freedom includes helping those you believe are worthy of help, just don't steal from others.

We must also make sure that this help will be uniformly handed out, with exactly the same amount each month. I would like to see how this would be guaranteed by charity.

You think the state (politicians) owns your body? Would you maintain that view if the state was banning products you like to use? Calling other people's freedom "BS" and adding "no offense" is... BS, offense intended.

Oh, and drugs are dangerous? No, over-indulging can be dangerous, but I see nothing inherently dangerous about drugs. Now, if you say some people can't help but over-indulge, that's true. And using them as an excuse to "punish" everyone else who doesn't over-indulge is immoral. It's called punishing the innocent because of the "guilty" and you sure wouldn't extoll the virtues of such a principle if you were punished because I committed murder...

Why should anyone be punished? And why should anyone use drugs at all? It provides an unnatural and possibly harmful escapism and the two substitutes are much better:
1). Medical attention with therapy and possibly medication treatment from a physician who knows exactly what different drugs will help you.
2. ) Getting a controlled high with nice people in a bar and perhaps alcohol. Hypocrite, why alcohol and not "softer" drugs you say? Because "soft drugs" leads to "hard drugs", whilst alcohol is many times less likely and we have to draw the line somewhere. Believe me, I've seen my best friends been sucked in to this pile of **** and hearing your friend tell you "I have ****loads of fun!!!" while his swollen, black and scared eyes are telling you a totally different story is still darn creepy.

Announcement

Every individual should be a libretarian at heart

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment