# libertarianism **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [September 27, 2005, 1:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/libertarianism/323663 "2005-09-27T13:51:39Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![tagos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bbe5ce/32.png) [@tagos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tagos)\ **Post date:** [September 29, 2005, 9:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/libertarianism/323663/61 "2005-09-29T09:51:12Z")
> [@cricetus](#): > > I think that it’s fair to question whether Libertarianism is less a political ideology than a personality disorder. Or c) Naked self-interest dressed up as principle. And colour me unimpressed with claims that character generalisations concerning unspecified libertarians in general count as a personal attack. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [September 29, 2005, 10:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/libertarianism/323663/62 "2005-09-29T10:37:27Z")
> [@ouryL](#): > > What you do is buy all the land around her and do not allow her to leave her property to go to the store. If you are not that mean, you charge her a thousand dollar, one-way egress/exit charge. When she no longer can afford your fee, sue her for her property. Problem solved. 😛 Ah, more supposin’! Okay, people don’t want to sell me the land all around her because I have demonstrated how incredibly insane I am, and they know that I might likely do the same thing to them. Instead, everybody buys all the land around me and charges me a million dollars to go anywhere. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [September 29, 2005, 10:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/libertarianism/323663/63 "2005-09-29T10:43:49Z")
> [@tagos](#): > > And colour me unimpressed with claims that character generalisations concerning unspecified libertarians in general count as a personal attack. Consider yourself thus colored. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [September 29, 2005, 10:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/libertarianism/323663/64 "2005-09-29T10:47:29Z")
> [@Raging Catfish](#): > > I agree that there would be negative consequences for businesses such as eminent domain, subsidies and the other things you listed. However, I think there would also be some benefits. There would be fewer restrictions on: environmental impact, collusion, who you can sell to and what you can sell. In some ways, there would be fewer such restrictions, but in other ways, there would be much more. For example, presently, government allows certain minimal levels of pollution of rviers and contamination of foods without requiring disclosure from the polluters and contaminators. A libertarian government would consider pollution of any amount to be vandalism, and contamination of any amount to be assault. Corportations, as presently structure, understandably prefer a government that will favor their interests over the interests of individuals. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [September 29, 2005, 11:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/libertarianism/323663/65 "2005-09-29T11:11:49Z")
> [@flaja](#): > > […snip…] Several other libertarians did a google search on my user name so they could follow me to other boards. How is this not belligerence? Let us give you that it is the very definition of belligerence. The question remains, why do you paint a whole group of people with a brush that applies to a few whom you’ve encountered? A couple of atheists have been mean to me. Ought I to register at boards and announce the moral depravity and foul character of atheists in general? I don’t think so. > [@](#): > > And in discussing the flu vaccine you yourself are displaying typical libertarian tunnel vision by failing to understand how an individual’s action can affect other individuals and society in general. How so? > [@](#): > > I am not making ad hominem attacks. My conclusions are supported by the beliefs and actions of various individual libertarians I have encountered on the internet. Every group has its share of black sheep. I’ve no doubt that you’ve encountered such people, but if you examine the demographics I gave above, you will see that, even among libertarians, there is much disagreement about specific issues. Perhaps it is the case that if you come charging like a lion, people will not lie down like lambs. > [@](#): > > What about the health care professionals who come into contact with flu patients? What about the people a flu patient comes into contact with in the course of going to the doctor? What about mothers who have to take care of children who have the flu? It is not all that easy to isolate sick people. Who said it was easy? > [@](#): > > And I doubt that many people who are carriers know to isolate themselves because they do not know that they are carriers. Fine, but what do you propose? Random traffic stops by teams of doctors? House to house medical inspections by the FDA? What are you arguing exactly? > [@](#): > > It is true that the medical technology of 1918 did give doctors the ability to identify the flu virus, but it was actually Pfeiffer’s bacillus that filled the lungs of many flu victims. And many other victims died even without having any trace of Pfeiffer’s in their lungs. Doctors did develop a vaccine against Pfeiffer’s, but no one had any real faith in it. > > The Spanish flu killed most of its victims simply by filling their lungs with fluid that was produced by an usually strong immune response. In a normal flu outbreak it is the very young and the very old that usually die. But the Spanish flu tended to kill people in their 20s and 30s. It is believed that children did not yet have a strong enough immune system while the elderly had already lost a strong enough immune system to trigger the drowning response. We can read all about the Spanish Flu on Wikipedia. What point are you making? > [@](#): > > What if insurance companies demand genetic screening so they can deny coverage to people who have genes that are likely to cause chronic or fatal diseases? Even the slightly regulated insurance industry we have now refuses to sell policies to some people. If you have had meningitis during the last year, you cannot get health insurance. And my mother is disabled with a form of arthritis that keeps her from getting health insurance. Again, why should Mr. Smith be forced to invest his money insuring against something that is sure to strike down Mr. Jones. It seems to me that you’ve confused and conflated two things, one a true premise and one false: (1) that libertarians do not advocate forced charity, and (2) that libertarians do not advocate charity. And how charitable are you that you are unwilling to contribute to higher premiums to get your mother covered? > [@](#): > > Before you begin postulating about what libertarian policies can do, perhaps you should make some effort to understand the damage that semi-libertarian policies have done. Well, if they are semi-libertarian, then they are also semi-authoritarian. Why do you default to bashing one over the other? ---
**Author:** ![flaja](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/e19b73/32.png) [@flaja](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/flaja)\ **Post date:** [September 29, 2005, 12:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/libertarianism/323663/66 "2005-09-29T12:51:08Z")
> [@Liberal](#): > > Let us give you that it is the very definition of belligerence. The question remains, why do you paint a whole group of people with a brush that applies to a few whom you’ve encountered? A couple of atheists have been mean to me. Ought I to register at boards and announce the moral depravity and foul character of atheists in general? I don’t think so. Until I encounter an equal number of libertarians who can have a conversation without being condescending or insulting to people who oppose their view and who can refrain from making idiotic statements such as “Dead bodies do not spread disease”, my conclusions stand. > [@](#): > > How so? In a previous post did you not say, “I’m sure it’s a fine defense, but either it’s over my head or I’m missing the point. If I opt out of a flu vaccine, how am I compromising those who had the forethought to become immunized? It is I, and not they, who is more likely to suffer from flu, isn’t it?” You gave no indication, until pressed, that you have any understanding that influenza is a contagious disease or is a disease that consumes copious amounts of medical resources which affect all other consumers in the medical market. I was simply pointing out how the issue is in fact either over your head or you are “missing he point”. > [@](#): > > Who said it was easy? Were you not showing typical libertarian naiveté when you claimed that people who had the flu would avoid coming into contact with people who do not in an effort to prevent spreading the disease? Such isolation would not be easy, and it would not be possible either. > [@](#): > > Fine, but what do you propose? Random traffic stops by teams of doctors? House to house medical inspections by the FDA? What are you arguing exactly? If it is a matter of public health, yes. Now what do you propose? > [@](#): > > We can read all about the Spanish Flu on Wikipedia. What point are you making? I was merely correcting your mistaken ideas regarding the effects of the Spanish flu. > [@](#): > > Again, why should Mr. Smith be forced to invest his money insuring against something that is sure to strike down Mr. Jones. It seems to me that you’ve confused and conflated two things, one a true premise and one false: (1) that libertarians do not advocate forced charity, and (2) that libertarians do not advocate charity. And how charitable are you that you are unwilling to contribute to higher premiums to get your mother covered? Now I will engage in what you will no doubt take as an ad hominem attack: You are a fool who does not understand what you are talking about. If no insurance company will take the risk of covering someone with a particular ailment, no amount of higher premiums will buy you a policy because no policy is offered for sale at any price. Deregulating the insurance industry will not have the results you libertarians say it would. People who do not need insurance (people in good health with no family history of debilitating illness) would not buy insurance while insurance companies would refuse to sell insurance to people who are likely to make a claim. > [@](#): > > Well, if they are semi-libertarian, then they are also semi-authoritarian. Why do you default to bashing one over the other? You are continuing to prove my conclusions. As a libertarian you are paranoid to the point that you see authoritarianism in any government action. ---
**Author:** ![Steve\_MB](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steve_mb/32/5339_2.png) [@Steve\_MB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steve_MB)\ **Post date:** [September 29, 2005, 1:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/libertarianism/323663/67 "2005-09-29T13:32:58Z")
> [@tagos](#): > > Naked self-interest dressed up as principle. A meaningless criticism, as it applies to **ALL** political ideologies. (Progressivism? The ideology of people who want free money from the gummint or who want to feel generous by giving away other people’s money. Social Conservatism? The ideology of people who want to enjoy seeing sinners punished and don’t want to wait until they’re in heaven looking down on hell. Communism? The ideology of people who want to assuage their resentment of the successful. Naziism? The ideology of people who want to feel like superior human beings without having to do anything to earn the acclaim…) ---
**Author:** ![Steve\_MB](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steve_mb/32/5339_2.png) [@Steve\_MB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steve_MB)\ **Post date:** [September 29, 2005, 1:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/libertarianism/323663/68 "2005-09-29T13:39:00Z")
> [@flaja](#): > > Until I encounter an equal number of libertarians who can have a conversation without being condescending or insulting to people who oppose their view and who can refrain from making idiotic statements such as “Dead bodies do not spread disease”, my conclusions stand. What a coincidence. I’ve been out with a lamp\* looking for a “Burkean conservative” who can explain why leftist government utopianism is bad but “statecraft as soulcraft” (or whatever the label is this week) is good. (\*Diogenes – er, not our DtC, the other one – wants to know when I’m giving it back, so I’m in sort of a hurry.) ---
**Author:** ![tagos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bbe5ce/32.png) [@tagos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tagos)\ **Post date:** [September 29, 2005, 1:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/libertarianism/323663/69 "2005-09-29T13:40:56Z")
> [@Steve MB](#): > > A meaningless criticism, as it applies to **ALL** political ideologies. (Progressivism? The ideology of people who want free money from the gummint or who want to feel generous by giving away other people’s money. Social Conservatism? The ideology of people who want to enjoy seeing sinners punished and don’t want to wait until they’re in heaven looking down on hell. Communism? The ideology of people who want to assuage their resentment of the successful. Naziism? The ideology of people who want to feel like superior human beings without having to do anything to earn the acclaim…) No, the specific argument can be made that because Libertarianism is such a self-evident pile of unworkable utopian tosh that no sane, intelligent adult can consider viable there has, by Occam’s Razor, to be another simpler, more likely explanation for why they hold and propagate these views. Delusion fits the bill too. Same for Communism. Not so of other workable and demonstrably working approaches to social organisation. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [September 29, 2005, 1:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/libertarianism/323663/70 "2005-09-29T13:46:24Z")
> [@flaja](#): > > Until I encounter an equal number of libertarians who can have a conversation without being condescending or insulting to people who oppose their view and who can refrain from making idiotic statements such as “Dead bodies do not spread disease”, my conclusions stand. Then your conclusions are fallacious. You would do well to say that most of the libertarians whom you’ve encountered are belligerent or condescending or what have you, rather than simply blanket statements like “Libertarians are belligerent”. But honestly, it would seem to me that if you want to make a case for insults from your opposition being something bad, you yourself should not use insults — at least not without explaining why it is bad that they insult you but not bad that you insult them. > [@](#): > > In a previous post did you not say, “I’m sure it’s a fine defense, but either it’s over my head or I’m missing the point. If I opt out of a flu vaccine, how am I compromising those who had the forethought to become immunized? It is I, and not they, who is more likely to suffer from flu, isn’t it?” Yes, I did. > [@](#): > > You gave no indication, until pressed, that you have any understanding that influenza is a contagious disease or is a disease that consumes copious amounts of medical resources which affect all other consumers in the medical market. I was simply pointing out how the issue is in fact either over your head or you are “missing he point”. Ah. Then you missed _my_ point. It was not the case that I was unaware of the flu being contagious. In fact, no matter how dumb I thought my opposition was, I’m pretty sure I would stipulate that they are aware that the flu is contagious. My point was what I stated, namely, that those who are immunized would be less likely to suffer from flu than those who are not. Given your expertise in biology, you will correct me if I’m wrong. > [@](#): > > Were you not showing typical libertarian naiveté when you claimed that people who had the flu would avoid coming into contact with people who do not in an effort to prevent spreading the disease? Such isolation would not be easy, and it would not be possible either. I made no such claim. > [@](#): > > If it is a matter of public health, yes. Now what do you propose? I propose that people with their wits about them get flu vaccinations. > [@](#): > > I was merely correcting your mistaken ideas regarding the effects of the Spanish flu. I stated no mistaken ideas regarding the effects of the Spanish flu. I even gave citation for my statements about it. > [@](#): > > Now I will engage in what you will no doubt take as an ad hominem attack: You are a fool who does not understand what you are talking about. Yes, in fact I do consider that to be an ad hominem attack. Perhaps even Tagos would consider it to be one. > [@](#): > > If no insurance company will take the risk of covering someone with a particular ailment, no amount of higher premiums will buy you a policy because no policy is offered for sale at any price. Deregulating the insurance industry will not have the results you libertarians say it would. People who do not need insurance (people in good health with no family history of debilitating illness) would not buy insurance while insurance companies would refuse to sell insurance to people who are likely to make a claim. Lots of carriers offer high-risk policies. And people in good health buy health insurance all the time. Because your premises are false, your argument is moot. > [@](#): > > You are continuing to prove my conclusions. As a libertarian you are paranoid to the point that you see authoritarianism in any government action. No, I see authoritarianism in something that is only partially libertarian, given that libertarianism and authoritarianism are opposites. You selected the phrase “semi-libertarian policies”. The very phrase itself suggests that the same policies are also semi-authoritarian. ---
**Author:** ![Scott\_Plaid](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/258eb7/32.png) [@Scott\_Plaid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scott_Plaid)\ **Post date:** [September 29, 2005, 2:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/libertarianism/323663/71 "2005-09-29T14:41:00Z")
> [@Steve MB](#): > > (\*Diogenes – er, not our DtC, the other one – wants to know when I’m giving it back, so I’m in sort of a hurry.) He’s blind, isn’t he? Just give him an older, broken one. He won’t know the diffrence. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [September 29, 2005, 3:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/libertarianism/323663/72 "2005-09-29T15:52:04Z")
> [@flaja](#): > > Now I will engage in what you will no doubt take as an ad hominem attack: You are a fool who does not understand what you are talking about. I not only consider this an _ad hominem_, I see it as a direct personal insult which is forbidden in this Forum. Do not do this again. I would also ask you to ratchet down your general approach. While you have raised points worth discussing, you have issued a number of broad generalizations attributed to how “the other side” sees things without supplying any reference to support that characterization. A gratuitous assertion may be gratuitously denied. To keep this discussion moving, stick to addressing remarks made in this thread or provide citations for the assertions you make about others’ beliefs. [/Moderator Mode] ---
**Author:** ![Steve\_MB](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steve_mb/32/5339_2.png) [@Steve\_MB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steve_MB)\ **Post date:** [September 29, 2005, 3:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/libertarianism/323663/73 "2005-09-29T15:54:26Z")
> [@tagos](#): > > No, the specific argument can be made that because Libertarianism is such a self-evident pile of unworkable utopian tosh that no sane, intelligent adult can consider viable there has, by Occam’s Razor, to be another simpler, more likely explanation for why they hold and propagate these views. Delusion fits the bill too. Same for Communism. > > Not so of other workable and demonstrably working approaches to social organisation. Again, this applies to every other political ideology (not one of which has ever been, **in pure form** , demonstrated to work). ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [September 29, 2005, 4:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/libertarianism/323663/74 "2005-09-29T16:04:17Z")
TO ALL THE POSTERS ON THIS THREAD: We all know that this topic evokes strong feelings from everyone who gets ensnared by it. However, if having responded to the urge to comment you, review your post and discover that you have keyed nothing more substantial than “those guys are dumb” (with fancier words), then accept that you now have gotten that bile out of your system and **Do Not Post It**. Broad characterizations of what the “other guy” believes, with no corresponding support from actual words from the “other guy” are better reserved to the **BBQ Pit**. This is a Forum for debate, not a place to make snide remarks about people whose views you do not share. [/Moderator Mode] ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [September 29, 2005, 4:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/libertarianism/323663/75 "2005-09-29T16:16:30Z")
> [@flaja](#): > > One libertarian replied that dead bodies do not spread disease. > [@](#): > > who can refrain from making idiotic statements such as “Dead bodies do not spread disease”, Are you refering to the following medical authorities as idiots? [Myth of disease threat posed by dead bodies after natural disasters unfounded](http://www.news-medical.net/?id=2069) [Dead Bodies & Risk to Health](http://menshealth.about.com/od/diseases/a/bodies_risks.htm) [Dead bodies pose no epidemic threat, say experts](http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn6849) [Epidemics caused by dead bodies: a disaster myth that does not want to die](http://publications.paho.org/english/editorial_dead_bodies.pdf) (.pdf) [Infectious disease risks from dead bodies following natural disasters](http://publications.paho.org/english/dead_bodies.pdf) (.pdf) Now, a couple of those articles mention _specific instances_ where the bodies of people who have died of disease may still be capable of providing a source for contagion, but I would have hoped that since you have a degree in biology, we would not need to lecture you on disease. ---
**Author:** ![flaja](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/e19b73/32.png) [@flaja](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/flaja)\ **Post date:** [September 29, 2005, 6:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/libertarianism/323663/76 "2005-09-29T18:32:14Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > I not only consider this an _ad hominem_, I see it as a direct personal insult which is forbidden in this Forum. > > Do not do this again. > > I would also ask you to ratchet down your general approach. While you have raised points worth discussing, you have issued a number of broad generalizations attributed to how “the other side” sees things without supplying any reference to support that characterization. > A gratuitous assertion may be gratuitously denied. To keep this discussion moving, stick to addressing remarks made in this thread or provide citations for the assertions you make about others’ beliefs. > > [/Moderator Mode] So I cannot call a fool a fool? So much for freedom of speech. ---
**Author:** ![Stonebow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ed8c4c/32.png) [@Stonebow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stonebow)\ **Post date:** [September 29, 2005, 6:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/libertarianism/323663/77 "2005-09-29T18:42:40Z")
> [@flaja](#): > > So I cannot call a fool a fool? > > So much for freedom of speech. As someone that agrees with a lot of your points and frustration with Internet Libertarians, I’m going to ask you to just stop now. _sigh_ Whatever I feel about \*\*Liberal’s \*\* ideas (and make no mistake, I find Libertarianism abhorrent, and anathema to modern civilization), you were over the line with your remark. As a guest, you’re given a small amount of slack- please don’t squander it. And, I’m sure someone else will be around to say it (if they haven’t already by the time this post makes it)- this has nothing to do with freedom of speech. This is a message board owned by a private entity, with clear guidelines of behavior. If you don’t like it, go away. But ‘letting people say whatever they want to’ will sometimes run afoul of this board’s mission to maintain a civil discourse for the purpose of fighting ignorance. When that happens, I’ve found it best to let the latter prevail. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [September 29, 2005, 6:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/libertarianism/323663/78 "2005-09-29T18:54:30Z")
> [@flaja](#): > > So I cannot call a fool a fool? > > So much for freedom of speech. **Stonebow** has addressed this, but I will make it official. The issue is not one of freedom of speech. It is an issue of maintining a respect for the Forum. No discourse is possible without some level of civility. Namecalling is a direct breach of civility. If you need to demonstrate that an _idea_ is foolish, then feel free to provide evidence of that point. Simply calling people names does nothing to prove your point and does everything to inhibit genuine discussion. At the top of this Forum are a couple of threads, “stickied” for easy reference, indicating the sort of behavior that is not permitted. Please take the time to read them. If you have an absolute need to resort to name-calling to express yourself, you may open a thread in [The BBQ Pit](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/forumdisplay.php?s=&daysprune=&f=5) where name-calling is the rule of the day. [/Moderator Mode] ---
**Author:** ![ouryL](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ouryl/32/6067_2.png) [@ouryL](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ouryL)\ **Post date:** [September 29, 2005, 7:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/libertarianism/323663/79 "2005-09-29T19:04:56Z")
> [@Liberal](#): > > In some ways, there would be fewer such restrictions, but in other ways, there would be much more. For example, presently, government allows certain minimal levels of pollution of rviers and contamination of foods without requiring disclosure from the polluters and contaminators. A libertarian government would consider pollution of any amount to be vandalism, and contamination of any amount to be assault. Corportations, as presently structure, understandably prefer a government that will favor their interests over the interests of individuals. Since breathing produces carbon dioxide, which is a waste product, breathing is an assault of your fellow human beings. :smack: ---
**Author:** ![ouryL](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ouryl/32/6067_2.png) [@ouryL](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ouryL)\ **Post date:** [September 29, 2005, 7:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/libertarianism/323663/80 "2005-09-29T19:07:01Z")
> [@flaja](#): > > Until I encounter an equal number of libertarians who can have a conversation without being condescending or insulting to people who oppose their view and who can refrain from making idiotic statements such as “Dead bodies do not spread disease”, my conclusions stand. > > In a previous post did you not say, “I’m sure it’s a fine defense, but either it’s over my head or I’m missing the point. If I opt out of a flu vaccine, how am I compromising those who had the forethought to become immunized? It is I, and not they, who is more likely to suffer from flu, isn’t it?” > > You gave no indication, until pressed, that you have any understanding that influenza is a contagious disease or is a disease that consumes copious amounts of medical resources which affect all other consumers in the medical market. I was simply pointing out how the issue is in fact either over your head or you are “missing he point”. > > Were you not showing typical libertarian naiveté when you claimed that people who had the flu would avoid coming into contact with people who do not in an effort to prevent spreading the disease? Such isolation would not be easy, and it would not be possible either. > > If it is a matter of public health, yes. Now what do you propose? > > I was merely correcting your mistaken ideas regarding the effects of the Spanish flu. > > Now I will engage in what you will no doubt take as an ad hominem attack: You are a fool who does not understand what you are talking about. > > If no insurance company will take the risk of covering someone with a particular ailment, no amount of higher premiums will buy you a policy because no policy is offered for sale at any price. Deregulating the insurance industry will not have the results you libertarians say it would. People who do not need insurance (people in good health with no family history of debilitating illness) would not buy insurance while insurance companies would refuse to sell insurance to people who are likely to make a claim. > > You are continuing to prove my conclusions. As a libertarian you are paranoid to the point that you see authoritarianism in any government action. Typhoid Mary said words to the effect, “How can I be making other people sick? I’m not even sick myself.” [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/libertarianism/323663.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/libertarianism/323663.md?page=5)