I think if you asked you’d find all of the people disagreeing with you are in favor of freedom as well. Just a version freedom that’s actual guaranteed by society, not a version of freedom that’s theoretically possible but practically impossible unless you’re extremely rich and powerful.
This doesn’t add anything to the argument. You’re not in the Pit, so please keep your tone GD-worthy.
The freedom of those born into power and money to exploit those without power and money.
The freedom of those born on third base and thinking they hit a triple to lord their position over those who were born at home plate and are still just trying to get into the game. Or don’t know how to play in the first place.
The freedom of selfish exploitation of the weak.
Those are freedoms that a civilized society can do without.
Sorry
I’m sorry - I see where that’s your opinion. I gather that’s what you think will happen. Are you an epidemiologist? No? Do you have any training in this area at all? No?
Then do you have a cite from someone who does who says that masks on people who sneeze will cut the death rate from influenza by 50%?
LOL. Yes. You know, the freedom to ingest anything you want, or grow anything you want - that needs to be “guaranteed by society” and is practically impossible unless you’re extremely rich and powerful.
I showed you a study that it would reduce infections by 50%. You reduce infections by 50%, you reduce fatalities by 50%.
I have no idea what you’re trying to say. Is this something about drugs? You know lots of non-libertarians support legalization, right?
Drugs, medicines, plants, foods, whatever you want. It’s your body, you’re allowed to ingest whatever you want. Unless you think that you have to be “extremely rich and powerful” to do that.
You (plural) keep throwing up examples that you think are “gotchas” that can easily be handled by voluntarily signed contracts in a libertarian society. But that’s not enough for you. You need it to be involuntary, forced, government laws that regulate people’s behavior. I suspect it’s because deep down you have contempt for the “hoi polloi” that don’t know what’s good for them and the government needs to be the Big Daddy. Of course, YOU, personally, don’t need the government’s restrictions. But the other people do. Those poor stupid schmucks.
Didn’t that study say that was in communal living situations?
In any case, you’re only distracting from the fact that Libertarianism is an utterly worthless ideology. Your silly tangent about facemasks in no way touches on the many failures of Libertarianism and even if your laughable understanding of antibiotic resistance were correct, it wouldn’t make Libertarianism any less shitty.
Again, lots of non-libertarians support legalization of drugs.
And again, what’s the actual benefit of ignoring the possibility of sexual harassment simply because it “can easily be handled by voluntarily signed contracts”? Why not just make it illegal so that everyone, even those who aren’t in a position to negotiate contracts benefit? How much “freedom” is gained at that cost, and why should reasonable people accept that trade-off?
Libertarians are seriously fighting for the “freedom” to demand sexual favors from their workers unless the worker is smart enough to negotiate the right contract or in good enough financial shape to refuse a contract that doesn’t rule it out?
Seriously? This is your example of a “freedom” that you think is overly-regulated? The freedom to not be coerced into sex by someone who pays your salary?
So, yes or no on the mercury pool? I’m a one-issue voter.
It’s not just drugs. You are willing to restrict access to antibiotics for example. Or to all other “prescription” medicines. So, no, you don’t “support legalization of drugs”. You support the current setup, with just a bit of shuffling of drugs from one to another category.
Because it is not your or government’s place to tell people whom they can and cannot hire or fire. It is their money that they are paying, and unless it is a breach of contract they should be able to hire or fire people for whatever reason they like. It’s that pesky “freedom” thing.
Why in Libertopia, you can have your sprinklers shoot mercury!
Inject mercury into hot dogs, and give them out at the BBQ. If they didn’t ask you if you had mercury in your hot dogs, they can go straight to hell!
I wasn’t one of the people arguing with you on that point, and I in fact support full legalization of drugs.
See? Not everyone who disagrees with you is part of some monolithic anti-freedom conspiracy.
Sexual harassment laws (as well as heath and safety regulations and other labor laws) don’t “tell people whom they can and cannot hire or fire”. They make it harder for employers to exploit their workers. Resulting in more freedom for everyone except the ones who want to do the exploiting.
Why are you against freedom?
In a Libertarian society, Grreenspan would still be running the Fed or treasury . Unless of course, we hadn’t gone to bartering yet.
Full? As in all drugs are OTC, no prescriptions? Then sorry for addressing it to you.
Ultimately, they do. You can’t deny it. I have been hiring (and thank God not firing many) people for a couple of decades. Unfortunately, because of government interference, there are all kinds of considerations other than purely professional that are forced on businesses.
Instead of the government setting those parameters, like sexual harassment, it needs to be done in a contractual manner. And no, each worker won’t have to “negotiate” it. It would be mainly boilerplate. If you don’t like the contract, do not sign it.
I have been in the work force for 30+ years. Every employer (not that many) that I felt was trying to take advantage of me stopped being my employer pretty quickly. I don’t need the Big Daddy’s help in that department.
You seem to be labouring under the misapprehension that if you repeat something incorrect often enough, it becomes the truth.
Knock yourself out.
I can and do deny it. It’s mind boggling to me that you could consider things like considering the health and safety of employees as some onerous restriction placed on otherwise well-intentioned employers.
As has been pointed out multiple times, not everyone is in a position of being able to quit their jobs whenever they want. If you are, then more power to you. Why do you want to deny others the same freedoms you enjoy?