I do. I work. I earn. I pay for doctors. I buy insurance for catastrophic illness.
Which you do because you were fortunate enough to get by. Plenty of people as smart and as hard working as you have stumbled. Not because of personal failure, but because of the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune.
Do you honestly think that there are zero people who are out of work through no fault of their own? Do you really think that you’re superior to everyone who doesn’t have a job or prosperity?
Wow, where did you find insurance you could afford for $100?
Hey? Why should that be his problem?
Funny - I know probably a hundred+ immigrant families that came in at the same time I did - around 1980. All came in with no money, and overwhelming majority with no English. EVERY one today is comfortably upper middle class, with some in the 1% area.
Was everyone “lucky”?
But covering your expenses does not restore opportunity. If you are laid up or disabled, you lose opportunity to excel in your profession, even though you are wiiling to work hard.
Then you switch professions. There is also disability insurance you can buy.
I “stumbled” a lot of times. Hell, about 15 years ago I was in the hospital for 9 months. I lost jobs. I got into car accidents. I got divorced once. So what? You get up, dust off, and get back into the game. Or you give up, tell everyone how “unlucky” you were and live the rest of your life in poverty off the state teat.
Thanks for proving my point.
You did well, through hard work. You don’t believe you had any advantages at all. You think everyone had identical experiences to you.
Anyone who does not succeed JUST LIKE YOU did, must therefore have done something wrong. There is nothing bad (illness, fired by a vindictive boss, injury, robbed, evicted for no good reason) that could happen to anyone, because it did not happen to you personally.
This is how many libertarians think.
Often, it seems that it is those who succeed from very modest roots who are also those who cannot conceive that someone may have different experiences.
“I did it, so they could too” is their mantra. I think it might have deeper psychological roots, possibly based in a fear that they DID get their success through (in part) a lucky break. They live in fear of being “found out” to be a fraud, to not deserve their success, and lose it all.
Not a reasonable fear, but deep rooted and unexamined.
Or, there is the excluded middle ground of someone who stumbles, struggles, falls, and benefits from societal assistance for a period of time in order to assist them in getting up, dusting off, and getting back in the game.
There is a vast range between “no one ever needs any assistance ever, because I didn’t” and “everybody should get all assistance all their lives.” You’re arguing for the first and you think that everyone else is arguing for the second.
If “societal assistance” is voluntarily-donated charity, I’m all for it. Hell, I have given money to people before to help them get back on their feet (and never gotten it back in most cases). If the “society” forcefully removes money from my pocket in order to “assist” someone, I object.
The thing is, depending on charities only when you’re truly experiencing hardship, is not a good idea.
While I personally donate to charities, many of them have trouble with funding, meeting the needs of their base in which they are providing relief, or can be overwhelmed by any rise in that base due to a number of factors, like a rise in poverty/homelessness due to a hurricane.
And most of the impetus in keeping a majority of these charitable organizations afloat during the “good times” is tax-exemption and huge write-offs for the philanthropic organizations & the rich. How would this be addressed if the income tax were dissolved?
But you’ve benefited from “assistance” that was, according to your definition, forcefully removed from other people’s pockets. Roads, libraries, police, schools, etc., are all benefits that you’ve received by government entities pooling your taxes with other people’s taxes to provide a level of civilization that makes your accomplishments easier to reach.
What you’re saying now is that you don’t want to participate in providing those benefits to others, after you’ve received those benefits.
And please answer my question about why outlawing sexual harassment is an onerous burden on employers.
Again, the mafia argument. “You benefit from our neighborhood protection, although you haven’t asked for it, so pay your protection money now.”
Because it involves government interference in how I can hire or fire people I am paying.
Ah, the selfish argument. “I didn’t ask for all of these benefits I used, so I shouldn’t have to participate in the social contract and help provide them for others for the betterment of society as a whole.”
It’s at this point that there’s really no more use for debate. You believe in a philosophy that codifies taking without giving back. I do not, and the gulf between those is too vast to be crossed. I continue to reject your philosophy as morally bankrupt, and there’s no further use for pursuing that line of discussion.
Being able to demand sex from your employees is important enough to you, as an employer? How, exactly, does NOT being able to coerce sex from your employees affect your business’ competitiveness?
As I pointed out to you, the mafia has exactly the same argument.
The government’s job is prevent/punish crimes that involve initiation of force. If I physically force someone to have sex with me, that’s the crime and it should be illegal. If I negotiate with someone to have sex with me in return for some kind of compensation, that’s prostitution and should not be illegal.
Which does not, in itself, make it bad policy.
Ah good. Mafia-style-protection racket is not bad policy.
How is “have sex with me or you’re fired” not an initiation of force? You do know there’s plenty of ways to coerce someone besides physical threats, right?
And why is it the “government’s job is prevent/punish crimes that involve initiation of force” in the first place? If I’m stronger and bigger than other people should I be able to take their stuff? If they don’t like they should just exercise more. Why should I be punished simply for being bigger and stronger? That’s restricting my freedom.
Before you try and say “that’s totally different” think about it for a moment. All freedom is negotiated and you’ve chosen some arbitrary framework and declared it to be some universal principle. It isn’t. If you’re willing to concede that we need a government to prevent/punish certain crimes because there’s a societal benefit that’s unevenly shared, then why can’t we have public schools?