Nice diversion try on your part, but since Israel is nowhere near a Libertarian society why not try for an example that is?
Are you aware that the Israeli government has tight gun control laws with limits on who can own weapons, how many weapons they can own, and what type of weapons they can own? So is gun control part of your libertarian ideal?
There were people in this thread who could not believe that a heavily armed society would be peaceful. I disabused them of this notion.
Israel is a really, really, really unusual example of libertarianism to bring up repeatedly. Are you really sure that Israel is what you want to hang your libertarian hat on?
Gun ownership in Israel is fairly strictly regulated. You pretty much have to be a member of the military, to live in certain hot spot regions, or to be a driver of a public vehicle, like a bus, or to run a jewelry store. Otherwise, not so much gun having for you.
So - mandatory military service, strong limits on individual gun ownership…
How deep do you intend to dig this hole?
The limits are not a big deal. I am Israeli, I lived in Israel, I had a handgun, and for a while, depending on where I lived, I had an automatic weapon.
And I never claimed that Israel is libertarian. What I did claim, and is the truth, is that it is a heavily armed peaceful society. The kind that people in this thread refused to believe existed.
No, there were (and are) people in this thread who believe that a heavily armed populace in a Libertopia where every individual is permitted, even expected, to decide for him/herself when shooting another person is an acceptable act rather than functioning within a societally agreed government structure providing regulations guiding the making of such life and death decisions would be considerably less than peaceful.
Count me not disabused.
Wrong. First of all, almost everyone is a “member of the military”, you probably meant “be in active service”. Second, if you’re a member of “mishmar ezrachi” - the Civil Guard - you get a license for a weapon. A lot of people do that. Third, if you are an officer in reserves - even a lieutenant - you get a license. That’s a LOT of people.
As I pointed out above, with cites, quite a few terrorists in Israel were stopped by passerbys that shot them.
And I never once claimed that Israel is a libertarian society. That’s your invention.
Suuure. Cuz armed people just shoot each other at slightest provocation, right?
One example is by the innovation of technology. We now have antibiotic regimens (like Z-Pak) that only consist of 6 pills, over 5 days and packaged in a way that’s clear what to take and when. This makes sticking to the regimen and following through much easier than a 30 day course.
But, if these class of medications became available OTC, how many people are going to buy 30 pills which cost ~$10, over Z-Pak which cost ~$50?
Also of the population at large, it’s hard to know what percentage of these are going to be more frugal, and/or less educated on the matter, since 1) They’re not seeing a doctor, and 2) even general education isn’t mandatory or equal.
But how are you going to force people to stick to the regimen and not just stop after the symptoms go away (they usually do in a couple of days)? I mean you’re SO worried about incorrect use of antibiotics. It is REALLY dangerous thing. Supposedly hundreds of thousands of people will be dying because of it. Why not suppress a little more freedom and save all those people?
So then why in the world do you keep going on about them. You seem to get really fixated on an issue and lose sight of why you brought it up in the first place. Face masks, antibiotics, Israel… you appear to careen from issue to issue with no coherence for a larger point.
Someone claimed that in a heavily armed society people would be shooting each other at the slightest provocation. I will quote from “kenetic”: “Right, because a society where everyone’s heavily armed and doesn’t hesitate to start shooting at the slightest provocation would be so peaceful.”
I showed Israel as an example of a heavily armed peaceful society. People who “keep going on” about it are you and others. Apparently it just sticks in your craw.
I enjoy guns, I enjoy shooting guns, and I enjoy owning a number of guns myself. (Does this make me an unusual retired hippy?) I have little problem with other people (assuming law abiding, non-psychotic, reality grounded people) having guns too.
I am too lazy to go back and cite all of the so called justifications you have offered in this thread for shooting other people, especially but not exclusively those involving your rather unusual notions of property ownership and self defense. My bad.
Nevertheless, your straining at gnats and swallowing camels approach to rationalizing your brand of Libertopia still leaves me unconvinced of its superiority to the system we have in place in the US of A right now. I’ll take some consensus based regulatory system (even though I personally may not agree with the existence or the breadth of every single regulation) over your fantasy world without hesitation.
Because, short of hospitalization for every infection, there’s no way to do so, even if you were to assign an antibiotic police. So, the next best thing, after weighing the risks, is to try to shorten the regimen so it’s easy and convenient for the patient, and get a proper prescription from the doctor (since there’s all sorts of antibiotics) as to greatly mitigate overuse and to educate the patient per infection about the consequences of stopping half way through: e.g. “You’ll be increasing the risk of developing a strain of bacteria that we won’t be able to fight with antibotics, from this very infection.”
See that? I employed common sense.
n/m
It doesn’t stick in my craw in the least, for a number of reasons. Primary among them is that you are attempting to wield a dead lamprey as a cudgel. Not only does pointing to Israel severely undermine whatever argument you were trying to make about libertarianism for all manner of reasons, but you haven’t even chosen a good example to support your tangential argument.
In terms of the general populace, Israel isn’t particularly heavily armed. People are only allowed guns there if they fall under certain circumstances, so their gun ownership appears to be quite a bit more restricted than our own.
Further, as others have noted, they do not particularly enjoy a peaceful existence, and in fact most of the criteria that allow individuals to own guns are a reflection of that - e.g. if you live in a conflict laden region of the country, then you get to have a gun.
Finally, not only is it a poor argument, but it is an anecdotal argument. If I wanted to chase you down this rabbit hole of a tangent throwing anecdotes around, all I need do is ask you to compare the homicide rate of Israel with that of Japan.
Why “hospitalization”? You can just detain people and force feed the antibiotics until the course is over. You say that’s a violation of their freedom? Sure, but we already established, in the other example, that it’s ok to violate people’s freedom in order to improve public health.
When I pointed to Israel, that was not an “argument about libertarianism”. That was an argument that a heavily armed peaceful society exists.
Except those “circumstances” are wide enough that almost anyone who wants a gun can get one. Well, a Shenkin-dwelling liberal who avoided army service can’t - but then he probably won’t want one.
WAY more peaceful than in the US. On the level of New Zealand. NZ is quite peaceful, wouldn’t you say?
And like other solutions to real life problems, it did not involve black and white thinking like “no regulations” on the one hand, and “total regulation of everything you do” on the other hand.
This is why no one takes you seriously.