Is your point that the invasion of Iraq was justified? If not, why would you use that as an analogy?
“Initiating force”. If you decide that every action you can possibly do “initiates force”, then the words lose their meaning.
In this case, it would be the collective deregulation of antibiotic use over a population of millions that would and should be a cause for public concern. I still know fairly intelligent people who seek out antibiotics for a cold, ferchristsake.
Anyhow, my major point is our technology (that is, applied science in all facets of our life) has created a world that couldn’t function without at least a robust federal government. And even at this point, I feel our current federal and state organizations seem crippled or even paralyzed by cumbersome and tedious bureaucracy or pathetic partisan spite to respond fast enough to an ever increasing pace and complexity of the modern world.
I can’t speak for Chronos, but I think his point was that by ignorance alone, thousands/millions of people have died, whether by indirect or direct initiation.
Any self-proclaimed libertarians want to actually answer the question? Or is this going to be another example of libertarians arguing against the question because they don’t want to admit they don’t have a good answer to it?
Once again: people who use antibiotics when they have no need to cause diseases to become resistant to antibiotics. This is an incontrovertible scientific fact. These antibiotic-resistant diseases are a danger to everyone in the community.
So would a libertarian society allow people to use antibiotics whenever they want to? Or would it regulate the use of antibiotics and tell some people they cannot use them when the medical consensus is that they are unnecessary?
Nm
So basically we have outgrown freedom. We must ignore our individualistic and clannish instincts, that have served to bring us to the advanced state of being we call humanity, for the benefit of the species. Individualism is an era, an epoch, an age to be studied by students of history out of the official U.S. Government distributed textbook. We must stifle our primitive urges to exercise what feels a lot like free will.
In short we must all do our best to beehive.
I guess the next step is genetic modification of the fetus to prevent antisocial behavior? Bring on the soma.
No, but most of us have outgrown government by slogans.
It’s a complicated world. Simple ideas don’t work.
We haven’t outgrown our freedom at all. We’ve outgrown our capacity to effectively implement a free market, charity and nation-wide scale, common welfare projects to support our numbers and whatever the future may hold.
Libertarianism sounds a lot like taking a step backwards. Absolute freedom sounds great, but at what cost? What do you seek to gain from this system? There’s no such thing as a free lunch, can you fathom what you’d risk, and probably even lose?
Why not pay into social services that keep our nation strong, smart, safe and healthy? If you’re not paying taxes, you’ll just be paying up your nose for something else in some other way, anyhow.
Yes.
Then it is a society as flawed as any other that has been thought up, having shown it is incapable of making rational decisions. I picked that example for a reason. Its something small, something most people don’t need, and something most people can’t know if they need or not. Its something that people don’t want or need for any other reason. It has a single use, to fight bacterial infections, and misuse has some serious detrimental effects on society.
Its pretty much an ideal candidate for something that should be regulated, and can be effectively regulated. If libertarians can’t agree to that, I cannot imagine what other amazingly bad ideas you’d come up with.
Do you support this point of view?
The decision is entirely rational.
Absolutely.
Then I need no other reason to oppose Libertarians. I am hard put to think of anything more ridiculous and dangerous than the “right” to create and spread new diseases.
As long as people look to the government to make more and more decisions for them, freedom will become a thing of the past.
Whether it is a step back or step forward is of no consequence. It is a step towards being a human being. Millions of years of evolution has made man what he is today. Now you want us to abandon our individualistic tendencies and think abstractly about what will benefit all 7 billion of us? That’s gonna be harder than you think to pull off. That’s going to take social engineering on an incredible level.
Yeah I understand that. Like I said, maybe this is the inevitable progression of societal order at work here. All I know is the eventual outcome of authoritarianism looks a whole lot different than humanity.
If its slogans you have outgrown wait til they try this one on you: “Everyone belongs to everyone else”
It’s a complicated world and we need government to figure it out for us.
WE are the government. We can figure it out, without having the answer thrust on us by the wealthy property owners.
Maybe you should let them know that, because the government I’m familiar with is pretty much in the breast pocket of the wealthy property owners. It has been since the beginning, and it always will be. That is why we should place strict limits on its power.
This is why we must limit the size and scope of the federal government. That is what libertarianism is all about imo. Libertarians understand that when there is power to be wielded, there is power to be bought.
Rational by what definition?
Is it rational for a person to take antibiotics when they have a viral infection, so the antibiotics are completely useless at making them better? Have they made a rational decision? What about if they take dirt pills, which some idiot “guarantees” will make them better? Is this rational?
Is it rational to allow someone to cause me harm, because they do not understand how the germ theory of medicine works?
Or do you simply not believe the premise, which is that those who take antibiotics needlessly are causing harm to others? If you do believe this, do you think that in a Libertarian society, it’s OK to do whatever the hell you want, even if it causes harm to others?