Armed men will take my property and put me in jail if I don’t pay taxes. Ha, a punch in the face–what luxury!
Armed men will also take your property and put you in jail if you sell crack. What’s with that? You’re just providing a necessary service!
Who are these people and exactly how does my thinking serve their purposes? Please be specific.
It’s really funny that in some areas liberals love freedom and choice and hate coercion but in other areas they are essentially fascists who revel and delight in violence. Even though it was firstsaid by someone who’s not given much credence here, the idea that liberalism is a mental disorder does have some merit.
It’s even funnier how that sentence works equally well or better if you substitute “conservatives” for “liberals”.
No, only if you substitute in “people who are fiscal and social conservatives.” I was using liberal to mean “people who are fiscally and socially liberal,” thanks for the opportunity for me to clarify.
No, it doesn’t.
The essential debate between conservatism and liberalism amounts to one question: what is the proper role of government?
Obviously I have my own, strong ideas about the answer to that. And obviously Barack Obama and elucidator each have their own, different, answers to that question. It doesn’t make any of them mentally disordered.
I know this won’t sway you. But seriously – mental disorder?? C’mon.
This is absolutely true. But somehow this doesn’t stop you from holding forth on topics you don’t know much about and belittling what you perceive to be another’s lack of knowledge. Your opinions don’t exactly chafe the skin off my ass. So why try to pretend that they are based in anything other than your personal preferences? You’re not really kidding anyone.
Your “liberal douche” friends around here don’t do much better, but then again, they don’t try to pass themselves off as anything they’re not. Just try for a second to be more honest and less arrogant about your opinions and the state of your knowledge.
That’s like saying you know more about gravity than to say that shit just falls. The bar is pretty low there.
Bricker–it’s not just the difference of opinion on the role of government that raises the mental disorder issue, is the disparity in outlook that one person holds on related issues. I’m not just saying that anyone that disagrees with me is crazy.
Maeglin–I’ll thank you not to lecture me about appearing arrogant after your attempt upthread to dazzle us with your stunning economic knowledge. I never claimed to be an expert–your attempts to castigate me for doing so just look really desperate.
This logic does not produce well-defined outcomes. This might actually be worth taking to GD.
Private, voluntary exchanges frequently occur under the shadow of violence. This class of private exchanges would be either be suboptimal or would not occur altogether. If coercion weren’t a backstop to private exchange in spheres where the government performs worse than private actors, there would be no exchange in equilibrium.
You are claiming that any time private organization and exchange are possible, it is preferable to government action. This view of the provision of public goods is very simplistic. Goods aren’t just provided or they aren’t; they are provided at various quantities and at a given level of cost. If you refine your argument to suggest that private agency should provide the good as long as it is cheaper and more plentiful, then you have to accept a governmental solution whenever the government can provide more social welfare than private organization.
This makes any almost any a priori economic argument moot. So you can basically either be Bricker, whose opinions proceed from his personal principles or you can let your beliefs be shaped purely by the results. The facts, as you may know, are more complicated than your taxonomy of “liberal douche” v. everyone else would suggest. So either your opinions are based on your personal ideology or are based on a maximization of social welfare. The real world is too messy for you to have it both ways.
:rolleyes: IF ONLY! 
Desperate for what, exactly?
The great thing about a message board is that I can lecture you however long I want. I also get to show that you love to talk and call other people douches, but you really don’t know what the fuck you are talking about. You don’t even know what you don’t know. And for someone with a mouth as loud as yours, that’s pretty damn sad.
I don’t need to dazzle anyone with my knowledge. It pays my bills already. All I have to do is make sure that everyone who argues with you knows that you are talking way above your modest talents. So by all means, keep on going. Tell me I am looking desperate. Keep sounding off about how liberals are retarded or mentally ill or whatever. If you can live with being a shallow, superficial hack, it’s your life. But everyone who wants to spend time interacting with you should know what you are, too.
So you feel the same way about people who are socially and fiscally conservative too, I take it?
If you like dancing on graves, I’m not surprised you’re against extended health insurance coverage. It would limit your choices.
The thing about many libertarians is that they rarely think past the superficial “taxes are theft, government should not be involved, charities could handle healthcare for the poor”
There are implications if we were to go down a road like this. The systems in society are complex and interconnected, however Libertarians like RR either ignore or minimize the complexity involved. They go for the simple sound bite answer, and fail to recognize the vast implications of implementation.
For example (not an exhaustive list!)
- How would charities manage to raise the enormous amounts needed? Who would administer this?
- Would healthcare charities for the poor be vetted somehow? Who would make sure that corrupt people did not start a “charity” and fleece people?
- Given a finite amount of resources, how do these charities ration healthcare?
- What to do about “free riders” who give nothing to charity, but reap the benefits of a healthy, functioning society that provides them with customers, clients, and service people?
- What happens to private insurance companies when they are competing with tax-exempt charities? Is this fair?
-Is it OK if healthcare is vastly different in quality in different geographic areas due to economics? Would it be acceptable for average life expectancy in a poor state or city to be 45 years?
It is reasonable to expect everyone to “pay their own way” for healthcare, when a health crisis can occur at a young age, before you have been able to gather resources? For example, a 20 year old cancer patient - are they irresponsible for not having saved a nest egg of $100,000 for treatment? - Can everyone accept that begging a charity for your life is something that is reasonable or OK for our fellow citizens to have to go through? They’re not begging for a jet plane. They’re begging for their life. Does this fit with everyone’s moral code?
It’s complex. It’s interconnected, as we live in a thing called a society. Healthcare is not amenable to sound bite answers or simplistic mantras.
It’s been resurrected by late by teaparty morons. The teaparties of course, are corporate interests that are dragging the slow types, like you, and riling them up with inarticulate-moron-rage. Dick Armey is not grass-roots, he’s a corporate whore (and how!).
You want freedom, go to Somalia. They only rule there is what you can impose with your rifle and they loyalty of your men.
Allowing people to purchase health insurance doesn’t limit your freedom, moron. Any more than taxing you to fund a firehouse that you’ll never use limits your freedom.
Jesus, doesn’t it bother you to be constantly wrong?
Interesting post. I’ll start a GD thread tonight or tomorrow.
I’ll look out for it, thanks. Binding arbitration crosses my mind as an example of a private exchange that would never occur without a coercive backstop. I think that professional organizations like the bar or the AMA are also good examples. My understanding is that if you practice law or medicine without a license, it’s the government that steps in to coerce you and not other lawyers and doctors.
I haven’t been to a single teaparty event, or watched one on TV, or really know a great deal about them. I had my views long before the teaparty stuff started. So how are they working me and making me their pawn?
Right, but that is just coercion to stop people from hurting others, so ita the same as the police essentially. I’m fine with that coercion. I don’t like coercion that stops me from owning property just because the government decides that other people are in more need of it.