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.
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.
Consider yourself thus colored.
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.
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.
How so?
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.
Who said it was easy?
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?
We can read all about the Spanish Flu on Wikipedia. What point are you making?
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?
Well, if they are semi-libertarian, then they are also semi-authoritarian. Why do you default to bashing one over the other?
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.
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…)
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.)
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.
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.
Yes, I did.
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.
I made no such claim.
I propose that people with their wits about them get flu vaccinations.
I stated no mistaken ideas regarding the effects of the Spanish flu. I even gave citation for my statements about it.
Yes, in fact I do consider that to be an ad hominem attack. Perhaps even Tagos would consider it to be one.
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.
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.
He’s blind, isn’t he? Just give him an older, broken one. He won’t know the diffrence. 
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 ]
Again, this applies to every other political ideology (not one of which has ever been, in pure form, demonstrated to work).
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 ]
Are you refering to the following medical authorities as idiots?
Myth of disease threat posed by dead bodies after natural disasters unfounded
Dead Bodies & Risk to Health
Dead bodies pose no epidemic threat, say experts
Epidemics caused by dead bodies: a disaster myth that does not want to die (.pdf)
Infectious disease risks from dead bodies following natural disasters (.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.
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.
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 where name-calling is the rule of the day.
[ /Moderator Mode ]
Since breathing produces carbon dioxide, which is a waste product, breathing is an assault of your fellow human beings. :smack:
Typhoid Mary said words to the effect, “How can I be making other people sick? I’m not even sick myself.”