It’s not just other people, you Randian douche. It’s also you.
The problem with private health insurance is not just that everyone doesn’t have it and can’t get it - it’s also that lots of people who do have it find that it doesn’t or won’t cover them when they actually need it.
Sure, you can take them to court, but even if you’re going to win you’re still being forced to make a financial choice without knowing if you can actually pay for it or not. Surely even you can see that this is an untenable position.
Hell, by the time litigation concludes, you might already have lost your car, home and job.
In an article on Barry Commoner’s third-party run for president in 1976, Robert Anton Wilson commented, “Politically I suppose I should have supported Ed Clark, but I’m not that kind of Libertarian; I don’t hate poor people.” (The Libertarian nominee that year was Roger MacBride; but Wilson was writing early in the year.) I’ll give Wilson the benefit of the doubt there because he was so awesome, but from what I’ve seen, there are very few self-ID’d Libertarians who can honestly say that. And Rand Rover definitely is not one of them.
Yeah, but owning something doesn’t mean that the state doesn’t interfere in how you can use it and derive in income from it. The state interferes with our economic property rights all the time. So why is ownership actually so important? It might be better to have fewer things you can own but have greater rights to them.
Being able to own anything and do anything with it might be nice, but I agree with you that this has to be limited to keep people from hurting others. But if the fact that you own something might be a symptom of a greater problem that does hurt others, what then? I just don’t think that in these cases, maximizing ownership is a very good guide to either the utility of the owners or the utility of the people who might benefit from some redistribution.
Since you’ve had these views for awhile, they may not be influencing you. However, they are, by popularizing those notions for small, angry people, making you seem like less of a fringe whackjob. So in this case I suppose they’re helping you. Most people have to be massaged into your special brand of stupidity, but I guess you’re a natural.
To reiterate. The teapartiers who talk about taxes being violence are being used by anti-regulation, pro business cock-suckers like Dick Armey. It’s a simplistic chant to get people angry and ready to vote.
You’re just helping because you aren’t smart enough to know the difference. I stand corrected.
Bricker, I know you are a sharp guy, but let me point out the exceedingly obvious: Rand Rover doesn’t insult and name-call because it backs up his argument, he does it because that is his argument. Rand really thinks calling someone “mentally disordered” or “liberal douchebag” are the debating equivalent of a slam-dunk, an “I win” button for playing on the internet.
And he’s going to keep hitting Plan A because there is no Plan B. As Maeglin rightly pointed out, he’s got nothin’. In fact, it’s precisely because he knows next to nothing that he thinks he knows everything–the smartest people on earth are the ones that are the first to say they’ve still got a lot to learn. That is, of course, unless one has learned everything they already can in life, which suggests that RR’s last years on earth will be rather dull.
It amuses me that RR couldn’t stay away from this place. You’d think if he hated us all so much, thought we were mentally disordered or liberal douchebags, that he’d just stay away. It takes a certain kind of obsessive monomania to hang out with those you hate for…well, what, really? “After work, I’m going to sit around in this old, dirty bar with $9 beers and greasy, belching cigar-smokers. The place sucks, but I can’t stay away!”
I disagree. I care enough about poor people that I want them to be treated as humans and not as pets. The liberal position of absolving poor people from responsibility for themselves treats them as inhuman.
Tough love. Cut every program to the poor and those who survive will be so much better.
Who absolves the poor for their own responsibility? There you go again, making shit up. The poor have kids. They are not responsible for being poor. Many poor are sick. Sorry but lumping the poor into a group that wants Rover money and will not work is so easy to do. It is wrong though. It is revitalizing the anti black arguments of the past. You should be ashamed.
Wrong again, bub. I am willing to pay whatever it costs, including 100% of my income, in tax if that is what it takes to pay for those things that I believe are a legitimate function of government (assuming the tax burden is distributed fairly).
On the first part, you sure about that? I’ve said some pretty hateful stuff about liberal douches around here. You may want to do a search before deciding that that is the most hateful.
On the second part, sorry the truth bothers you. Liberal douches like to pat poor people on the head and say “there there dear, let me make it all better.” That’s not how one adult treats another.
So how exactly is this different from what a charity does? Does the charity you claim should help people who make $20k per year not treat the poor like adults? Are people who support these charities just eleemosynary douches?
Aww, hell, Rand, don’t back down now! At least your stance as a spiritual vacuum has a certain panache, a certain…oh, I don’t know…je ne sais quoi? But if you start pretending to give a rat’s, then you have to pretend that ruthless indifference is some form of tough love, and, jeez, we can get that from any other dollar store Republican!
Only thing makes you remotely interesting is your reptilian emptiness, don’t start diluting the cyanide in your Kool-aid!
