Collarspace Discussion Forums


Home  Login  Search 

RE: Why Libertarianism Wouldn't Work


View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: Why Libertarianism Wouldn't Work Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Why Libertarianism Wouldn't Work - 1/24/2011 8:14:40 PM   
Charles6682


Posts: 1820
Joined: 10/1/2007
From: Saint Pete,FL
Status: offline
Sorry Tazzy,I am just calling it as I see it.The truth does hurt.Dont worry,I will continue to know that the Northeast is the most progressive region in America.Especially on human rights and being socially progressive.

< Message edited by Charles6682 -- 1/24/2011 8:54:06 PM >


_____________________________

Charley aka Sub Guy

http://www.Facebook.com/SubGuy

https://Twitter.com/SubGuy6682

(in reply to Cato84)
Profile   Post #: 41
RE: Why Libertarianism Wouldn't Work - 1/24/2011 8:56:14 PM   
MrRodgers


Posts: 10542
Joined: 7/30/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHeretic

Just as Communism/socialism is fatally flawed in believing that humans will happily exist in a society where we are all sheep, Libertarianism holds the equally untrue belief that we can all be wolves.


Yep. Libertarianism takes to heart the original conservative philosophy that citizens form govt. as an evil necessity. The evil is in the potential of it power in the hands of very likely...wolves. But, LP platform splits with original conservative philosophy when it implies ALL things outside that govt. will work themselves out.

Libertarianism leaves way too much of life in the marketplace of risk...even lives. Libertarianism will also forever be marginalized in the media and propaganda because they do not comport with the capitalist, believing that wall street and all of those crooks, GM, Chrysler...everybody should have been allowed to fail. This would have finally sent the message that you cannot rely upon govt. and turning paper into money (monetarism)...to be legit.

(in reply to TheHeretic)
Profile   Post #: 42
RE: Why Libertarianism Wouldn't Work - 1/24/2011 10:00:55 PM   
Termyn8or


Posts: 18681
Joined: 11/12/2005
Status: offline
"Then, as I grew older, I came to realize that much of the Libertarian philosophy wasn't for me. "

It's for me, but admittedly it is not for everybody. People are not willing to live in a truly free society. I have that much figured out.

It all comes down to my basic assertion about most of the problems. They are caused by the simple fact that there are too many people.

Get rid of most of them and we can have Utopia, or Liberatari-whatever.

T^T

(in reply to Hippiekinkster)
Profile   Post #: 43
RE: Why Libertarianism Wouldn't Work - 1/24/2011 10:12:52 PM   
tazzygirl


Posts: 37833
Joined: 10/12/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Charles6682

Sorry Tazzy,I am just calling it as I see it.The truth does hurt.Dont worry,I will continue to know that the Northeast is the most progressive region in America.Especially on human rights and being socially progressive.


Then get your glasses fixed.

Lets look at your northern states and theur progressiveness...

Connecticut

1879: Military [Statute] Authorized state to organize four independent companies of infantry of "colored men". Companies were to receive same pay as other companies, including one company parade in the Spring and one in September.

1908: Miscegenation [Statute] Prohibited intermarriage between white persons and those persons having one-eighth or more Negro blood.

1925: Antidefamation [Statute] Prohibited motion picture theaters from showing any film which ridiculed the Negro race.

1933: Miscegenation [Statute] Miscegenation declared a felony.

1935: Education [Statute] Upheld school segregation as originally authorized by statute of 1869.

Maryland

"All railroad companies and corporations, and all persons running or operating cars or coaches by steam on any railroad line or track in the State of Maryland, for the transportation of passengers, are hereby required to provide separate cars or coaches for the travel and transportation of the white and colored passengers."

Michigan

1957: Adoption [Statute] required that race be used as a consideration in adoption petitions.

New Hampshire

1902: Voting [Constitution] A constitutional amendment passed in 1902 required voters to be able to read the constitution in English and to write. Exceptions made for those currently enfranchised; those 60 years old and those with physical disabilities.

1910: Voting [Constitution] 1910 constitutional amendment excluded Indians not taxed from voting.

1955: Adoption [Statute] Race to be considered in adoption petitions.

New York

1908: Voting [State Code] In 1908 New York City held voter registration on the Jewish Sabbath and on the Yom Kippur holiday.

1921: Voting rights [Constitution] Required electors to be able to read and write in English. Did not apply to those with physical disabilities that prevented them from reading or writing, or those who were electors prior to January 1922. Prospective voters had to pass a stringent literacy reading and writing test or present evidence that they had at least an 8th grade education in an approved school. This statute had the potential to disfranchise countless foreign-born immigrants for whom English was not their native language. The law was backed overwhelmingly by upstate voters and received a majority in New York City.

1930: Education [Statute] Trustees of a school district had the authority to establish separate schools.

1947: Housing [Municipal Code] William Levitt, the developer of the nation's first modern-day suburb of tract housing in Long Island, NY, believed that segregation was good for business and used restrictive covenants to maintain racial homogeneity. Following the Federal Housing Administration's lead which recommended against "inharmonious racial or nationality groups," he used the following covenant in 1947 to create a segregated community: "The tenant agrees not to permit the premises to be used or occupied by any person other than members of the Caucasian race. But the employment and maintenance of other than Caucasian domestic servants shall be permitted." Although Levitt eliminated the racial covenants after the 1948 Supreme Court decision declaring such provisions as "unenforceable and contrary to public policy," he continued to practice discrimination in his housing developments in New Jersey and Maryland. The original Levittown never had more than a handful of black families well into the 1980s, and remains 97 percent white today. Ironically, though Levitt was the grandson of a rabbi, he also agreed to use restrictive covenants to ban Jews from his early developments. In his mind, it was strictly business. (LI History)

Ohio

Enacted a miscegenation statute in 1877 and a school segregation law in 1878. Segregation of public facilities was barred in 1884, and the earlier miscegenation and school segregation laws were overturned in 1887. However, in 1953, the state enacted a law requiring that race be considered in adoption decisions.

1877: Miscegenation [Statute] Unlawful for a person of "pure white blood, who intermarries, or has illicit carnal intercourse, with any Negro or person having a distinct and visible admixture of African blood." Penalty: Fined up to $100, or imprisoned up to three months, or both. Any person who knowingly officiates such a marriage charged with misdemeanor and fined up to $100 or imprisoned in three months, or both.

1878: Education [Statute] School districts given discretion to organize separate schools for colored children if "in their judgment it may be for the advantage of the district to do so."

1953: Adoption [Statute] Race to be taken into account on adoption petitions.

Buses were separated e.g.: One for white and one for Coloured

Pennsylvania

1869: Education [Statute] Black children prohibited from attending Pittsburgh schools.

1956: Adoption [Statute] Petition must state race or color of adopting parents

And lets not forget Washington, whish you earlier stated was part of the Northwest and therefor almost as progressive as the Northeast...

WashingtonEnacted a miscegenation statute in 1866 forbidding marriage between whites and Negroes or Indians. This law was repealed in 1887.

Six civil rights laws barring segregation were passed between 1890 and 1956.

1866: Miscegenation [Statute] Prohibited marriage between white persons and Negroes, Indians, or a person of half or more Negro or Indian blood.

1887: Barred anti-miscegenation [Statute] Repealed anti-miscegenation law.

1896: Voting rights [Constitution] "Indians not taxed shall never be allowed the elective franchise."

1896: Voting [Constitution] A constitutional amendment passed in 1896 requiring electors to read and speak English. In 1912 a statute was passed noting, "If naturalized, must furnish satisfactory evidence that he is capable of reading and speaking the English language so as to comprehend the meaning of ordinary English prose."

1920: Restrictive Housing Covenants [Municipal Code] Beginning in the 1920s, Seattle realtors frequently discriminated against minorities. In November 1927 the Capitol Hill development used a covenant that read: "The parties...agree each with the others that no part of the lands owned by them shall ever be used or occupied by or sold, conveyed, leased, rented or given to Negroes or any person of Negro blood." An April 1928 covenant for the Broadmoor subdivision read: "No part of said property hereby conveyed shall ever be used or occupied by any Hebrew or any person of the Ethiopian, Malay or any Asiatic race..."

Until 1950, Article 34 of the Code of Ethics for realtors in Seattle included the following clause: "A Realtor should never be instrumental in introducing into a neighborhood a character of property or occupancy, members of any race or nationality, or any individual whose presence will clearly be detrimental to property values in that neighborhood." Voluntary agreements between realtors and homeowners continued well into the 1960s.

In 1964, Seattle voters rejected a referendum that prohibited housing discrimination. In April 1968, the city council passed an open housing ordinance, making restrictive covenants illegal.


There isnt a single state that didnt have such laws. All of them were wrong.. everyone of them. But to say one part of the country was wrong and the others were the example.... the example of what? More stupidity?

_____________________________

Telling me to take Midol wont help your butthurt.
RIP, my demon-child 5-16-11
Duchess of Dissent 1
Dont judge me because I sin differently than you.
If you want it sugar coated, dont ask me what i think! It would violate TOS.

(in reply to Charles6682)
Profile   Post #: 44
RE: Why Libertarianism Wouldn't Work - 1/24/2011 10:15:19 PM   
tazzygirl


Posts: 37833
Joined: 10/12/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Charles6682

Sorry Tazzy,I am just calling it as I see it.The truth does hurt.Dont worry,I will continue to know that the Northeast is the most progressive region in America.Especially on human rights and being socially progressive.


Here is a picture just for you, Charles.






I defy you to tell the mother of this 18 year old Performing Arts student in Pittsburgh that her son, Jordan Miles, ended up in the hospital after being arrested by 3 officers who were part of the "most progressive region in America.Especially on human rights and being socially progressive."



Attachment (1)

< Message edited by tazzygirl -- 1/24/2011 10:19:56 PM >


_____________________________

Telling me to take Midol wont help your butthurt.
RIP, my demon-child 5-16-11
Duchess of Dissent 1
Dont judge me because I sin differently than you.
If you want it sugar coated, dont ask me what i think! It would violate TOS.

(in reply to Charles6682)
Profile   Post #: 45
RE: Why Libertarianism Wouldn't Work - 1/25/2011 3:01:14 AM   
tweakabelle


Posts: 7522
Joined: 10/16/2007
From: Sydney Australia
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: TexasRogue


quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle


quote:

ORIGINAL: TexasRogue


quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

I find the sentiments articulated cold smug inhumane ugly devoid of compassion so utterly selfish and me me me - all serious flaws I hope I never possess and prefer not to discover in others.



It's easy to fling insults, tweaker. Care to explain how it's devoid of compassion to want someone to be self sufficient? How it's cold and inhumane? Handouts are never the answer to poverty. Education usually is. Did you miss the whole fishing analogy?


They aren't insults TR, they are descriptions of my reaction to the "sentiments articulated" in your post. To be an insult, it has to be directed at you personally, which is clearly wasn't. I don't like the philosophy you outlined. That says nothing about you as a person. Please note the difference.

quote:

TexasRogue
That argument about "what happens when the charities aren't enough" is a liberal idea that I reject. If they fail so completely that they can't even feed themselves, too bad. Starve.


Please point out the humane aspects or compassion in the quote above lifted directly from your post. Because I can't see any.


You took that out of context. It was immediately followed by "I've been homeless and have missed many meals in my time. Pull yourself up and move on. It can be done without relying on someone else to carry you." I was only faced with the shame of taking handouts if I hadn't pulled myself out of my situation. Others, apparently, need the threat of starvation to do the same. I believe you liberals call it "tough love".

You were insulting because of the latter half of your statement - "...all serious flaws I hope I never possess and prefer not to discover in others" - in which you implied heavily that I possess "serious flaws". Nice try with the semantics, though.

None of that actually answers the questions asked of you. I'll restate them for you. Care to explain how it's devoid of compassion to want someone to be self sufficient? How it's cold and inhumane? Did you miss the whole fishing analogy?


Sorry Texas, I am still unable to detect even the slightest hint of compassion or humanity in your post (either the excerpt or the full quote). Guess it just isn't there.

As for your cherished fishing analogy: If someone is starving and there's fish about my idea of a compassionate/humane response would be to feed them first - to deal with the immediate issue of starvation. I'd keep feeding them and teaching them how to fish until they no longer needed any help, until they were self sufficient. Not exactly a taxing puzzle to figure out is it? (pardon the pun)

Not everything is open to the kind of simplistic either/or approach or 'solution' you proposed. (Note I am talking about the 'solution' you proposed - not you personally) But if someone is starving, no matter who they were, friend or foe, it would be inhumane not to feed them in my scheme of things. Keep them alive and worry about the rest later.

For me human life is precious but please feel free to disagree if you like.

Perhaps you could be kind enough to answer DomKen's question (post # 38) now ......

_____________________________



(in reply to TexasRogue)
Profile   Post #: 46
RE: Why Libertarianism Wouldn't Work - 1/25/2011 6:00:56 AM   
Charles6682


Posts: 1820
Joined: 10/1/2007
From: Saint Pete,FL
Status: offline
Tazzy,wasn't the Civil War about states right?Thats what the South claims.Yet,when Northern states ended slavery,the Southern states claimed that the Northern states did not have that right?Really,states rights though?Right?Not.The Civil War was about the institution of Slavery.The South was willing to sacrifice itself for the skae of Slavery.I know and any true Southerner will always know,that the Civil War for the South,was about preserving the institution of slavery.The South never really cared about "states rights".Thats just excuse to try and make the South look innocent.It does not fool me.

_____________________________

Charley aka Sub Guy

http://www.Facebook.com/SubGuy

https://Twitter.com/SubGuy6682

(in reply to tweakabelle)
Profile   Post #: 47
RE: Why Libertarianism Wouldn't Work - 1/25/2011 6:11:51 AM   
tazzygirl


Posts: 37833
Joined: 10/12/2007
Status: offline
quote:

Thats what the South claims.Yet,when Northern states ended slavery,the Southern states claimed that the Northern states did not have that right?


No, thats not right. The Southern states claimed, right or wrong, that the Northern states did not have the right to tell the Southern states what they must or must not do.

quote:

I know and any true Southerner will always know,that the Civil War for the South,was about preserving the institution of slavery.The South never really cared about "states rights".Thats just excuse to try and make the South look innocent.It does not fool me.


And true southerner? I grew up in the south. My father's family always has, and still does, live in the south. What would a yankee boy like you know about being a "true Southerner"? You are just making yourself look incredibly uneducated about this whole matter.

Lets say the State of California decided to ban cars. No one could own a car in that state, everyone has to just leave their keys in the ignition, the state will be along shortly to pick them up. There will be no compensation... its just made illegal.

How long before a massive scream is heard from car owners in that state?

How long before its heard from other states?

Regardless of you liking slavery or not, at that time, it was legal. Now here comes the North telling the South they just have to give up their property.

You want to place the North on a pedestal when it comes to the slavery issue... when it all began in the North.

http://www.slavenorth.com/emancipation.htm

A pretty interesting web site.... something you may want to read up on.

_____________________________

Telling me to take Midol wont help your butthurt.
RIP, my demon-child 5-16-11
Duchess of Dissent 1
Dont judge me because I sin differently than you.
If you want it sugar coated, dont ask me what i think! It would violate TOS.

(in reply to Charles6682)
Profile   Post #: 48
RE: Why Libertarianism Wouldn't Work - 1/25/2011 6:14:09 AM   
Charles6682


Posts: 1820
Joined: 10/1/2007
From: Saint Pete,FL
Status: offline
I know there was racial discrimnation all over the country.I wont dispute that.Interracial marriage was illegal in many states,including the Northeast.However,what I am pointing out,is that the "Jim Crow" were far more restrictive in how someone of color had to live their life.It was the entire regions mindset.White Power and stupid trash like that were the laws of those days.While some states and cities outside the South certainly had their own laws,I cant see how any of it can even compare to the way the Southern states were.

_____________________________

Charley aka Sub Guy

http://www.Facebook.com/SubGuy

https://Twitter.com/SubGuy6682

(in reply to Charles6682)
Profile   Post #: 49
RE: Why Libertarianism Wouldn't Work - 1/25/2011 6:22:32 AM   
Charles6682


Posts: 1820
Joined: 10/1/2007
From: Saint Pete,FL
Status: offline
Interesting site.

< Message edited by Charles6682 -- 1/25/2011 6:23:43 AM >


_____________________________

Charley aka Sub Guy

http://www.Facebook.com/SubGuy

https://Twitter.com/SubGuy6682

(in reply to Charles6682)
Profile   Post #: 50
RE: Why Libertarianism Wouldn't Work - 1/25/2011 6:23:07 AM   
tazzygirl


Posts: 37833
Joined: 10/12/2007
Status: offline
Seattle Washington

In 1964, Seattle voters rejected a referendum that prohibited housing discrimination. In April 1968, the city council passed an open housing ordinance, making restrictive covenants illegal.

This isnt telling people how they can live?

_____________________________

Telling me to take Midol wont help your butthurt.
RIP, my demon-child 5-16-11
Duchess of Dissent 1
Dont judge me because I sin differently than you.
If you want it sugar coated, dont ask me what i think! It would violate TOS.

(in reply to Charles6682)
Profile   Post #: 51
RE: Why Libertarianism Wouldn't Work - 1/25/2011 6:52:24 AM   
MrRodgers


Posts: 10542
Joined: 7/30/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

quote:

ORIGINAL: TexasRogue
That argument about "what happens when the charities aren't enough" is a liberal idea that I reject. If they fail so completely that they can't even feed themselves, too bad. Starve.

If this is the authentic voice of American libertarianism, then I am so delighted libertarianism is completely absent here. Long may it remain so
I find the sentiments articulated cold smug inhumane ugly devoid of compassion so utterly selfish and me me me - all serious flaws I hope I never possess and prefer not to discover in others.

I am unable to see how such disturbing drawbacks might be a positive in any society. Nor can I say I have any desire to understand how they might be seen as such.

Ughhhh! Repulsive. Sick.

The concept of libertarianism is self-sufficiency which we have never seen on the business side in the entire history of this country. Most businesses realized from the beginning and has always had the upper hand when seeking the attention of govt. and has enjoyed favors. The creation of something called the corporation comes to mind. Unnecessary to ALL of our founding fathers at the start, except Hamilton.

The problem with libertarianism and the term I am not seeing here is the...Laissez Faire economy. It is their choice of capitalism which Chomsky correctly points out is an economic regime that instructs and is essentially true now...that either you produce a profit for yourself or for somebody else or you can just go ahead and go to jail...or die.

Drugs would be pulled according to the number of people it kills. Jobs would not be determined to be unsafe (requiring no laws) until enough people die and even that isn't enough now for some.

Lead would have been taken itself out of say paint and fuel...ALL by itself. Asbestos and Thalidomide surely would only have to kill and deform 1000's (it did)...then we take it off the market, which we did ex-post.


(in reply to tweakabelle)
Profile   Post #: 52
RE: Why Libertarianism Wouldn't Work - 1/25/2011 7:09:05 AM   
MrRodgers


Posts: 10542
Joined: 7/30/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

quote:

Thats what the South claims.Yet,when Northern states ended slavery,the Southern states claimed that the Northern states did not have that right?


No, thats not right. The Southern states claimed, right or wrong, that the Northern states did not have the right to tell the Southern states what they must or must not do.

quote:

I know and any true Southerner will always know,that the Civil War for the South,was about preserving the institution of slavery.The South never really cared about "states rights".Thats just excuse to try and make the South look innocent.It does not fool me.


And true southerner? I grew up in the south. My father's family always has, and still does, live in the south. What would a yankee boy like you know about being a "true Southerner"? You are just making yourself look incredibly uneducated about this whole matter.

Lets say the State of California decided to ban cars. No one could own a car in that state, everyone has to just leave their keys in the ignition, the state will be along shortly to pick them up. There will be no compensation... its just made illegal.

How long before a massive scream is heard from car owners in that state?

How long before its heard from other states?

Regardless of you liking slavery or not, at that time, it was legal. Now here comes the North telling the South they just have to give up their property.

You want to place the North on a pedestal when it comes to the slavery issue... when it all began in the North.

http://www.slavenorth.com/emancipation.htm

A pretty interesting web site.... something you may want to read up on.

Yes, interesting link although I do miss the point as well as the car analogy...to me, off point.

(in reply to tazzygirl)
Profile   Post #: 53
RE: Why Libertarianism Wouldn't Work - 1/25/2011 7:11:21 AM   
MrRodgers


Posts: 10542
Joined: 7/30/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Charles6682

Tazzy,wasn't the Civil War about states right?Thats what the South claims.Yet,when Northern states ended slavery,the Southern states claimed that the Northern states did not have that right?Really,states rights though?Right?Not.The Civil War was about the institution of Slavery.The South was willing to sacrifice itself for the skae of Slavery.I know and any true Southerner will always know,that the Civil War for the South,was about preserving the institution of slavery.The South never really cared about "states rights".Thats just excuse to try and make the South look innocent.It does not fool me.

Charles, it's the big bar at the bottom of your keyboard...called the space bar.

(in reply to Charles6682)
Profile   Post #: 54
RE: Why Libertarianism Wouldn't Work - 1/25/2011 7:25:30 AM   
tazzygirl


Posts: 37833
Joined: 10/12/2007
Status: offline
quote:

Yes, interesting link although I do miss the point as well as the car analogy...to me, off point.


How is legal ownership of property off point?

_____________________________

Telling me to take Midol wont help your butthurt.
RIP, my demon-child 5-16-11
Duchess of Dissent 1
Dont judge me because I sin differently than you.
If you want it sugar coated, dont ask me what i think! It would violate TOS.

(in reply to MrRodgers)
Profile   Post #: 55
RE: Why Libertarianism Wouldn't Work - 1/25/2011 7:40:47 AM   
MrRodgers


Posts: 10542
Joined: 7/30/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

quote:

Yes, interesting link although I do miss the point as well as the car analogy...to me, off point.


How is legal ownership of property off point?

Libertarianism is a ideology that instructs how people (presumably ALL people) are to exercise self-reliance. Not only is owning a slave not 'self-reliance' but the libertarian ideology does not serve any person...owned as chattel.

Rather for the 'owner' it is a reliance upon stealing another's labor who is by definition and by law...unable to realize the fruits of libertarianism. 

Slavery doesn't quite comport with the idea and is in fact...the antithesis of 'libertarianism.'

(in reply to tazzygirl)
Profile   Post #: 56
RE: Why Libertarianism Wouldn't Work - 1/25/2011 7:42:55 AM   
tazzygirl


Posts: 37833
Joined: 10/12/2007
Status: offline
Ohhh ok. My posts were only to Charles to try and clear up quite a few misunderstandings he seems to hold near and dear.

_____________________________

Telling me to take Midol wont help your butthurt.
RIP, my demon-child 5-16-11
Duchess of Dissent 1
Dont judge me because I sin differently than you.
If you want it sugar coated, dont ask me what i think! It would violate TOS.

(in reply to MrRodgers)
Profile   Post #: 57
RE: Why Libertarianism Wouldn't Work - 1/25/2011 7:48:18 AM   
Real0ne


Posts: 21189
Joined: 10/25/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Hippiekinkster


quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy


quote:

ORIGINAL: Cato84

Is there something you wanted to actually discuss with this article? 


HK doesnt discuss, he rants and runs.

Says the "man" who wouldn't know a source if it crawled up his ass and chewed holes in his colon.


nice drama troll post in support of your 2 party failure to keep the sleepers sleeping.

Anyone cannot see that the king in the name of "democracy" is running both sides commie and nazi is blind as hell.

When the king (democracy) is disconnected from the constituency there is NO difference than taxation without representation.

run for office do one trivial fucking thing they promised after promising the world trumpet it from the soap box as your star studded success.... 

the real question is why are you slamming those who would recognise this when the only thing to fall back on is your failed 2 party dicktatorship?








_____________________________

"We the Borg" of the us imperialists....resistance is futile

Democracy; The 'People' voted on 'which' amendment?

Yesterdays tinfoil is today's reality!

"No man's life, liberty, or property is safe while the legislature is in session

(in reply to Hippiekinkster)
Profile   Post #: 58
RE: Why Libertarianism Wouldn't Work - 1/25/2011 9:51:40 AM   
TexasRogue


Posts: 30
Joined: 1/9/2011
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

Let's say for instance that you aren't poor but something happens. Say for insatnce you're 43 with an $85k salary and nearly $100k in the bank and invested. Now ponder getting a serious kidney infection that forces you onto dialysis (3 times a week at $1500 per session or $234k per year). Should you simply die when your savings are exhausted? Or is it possible that society acting through its government should provide assistance?


Seriously? Making that kind of $$$, they didn't have health coverage? I would hope that someone so short-sighted would have to jump through enough hoops that they were financially devastated for years to come before they got assistance. Maybe that would teach them not to put the burden on the rest of society, but on themselves.

(in reply to DomKen)
Profile   Post #: 59
RE: Why Libertarianism Wouldn't Work - 1/25/2011 10:14:38 AM   
TexasRogue


Posts: 30
Joined: 1/9/2011
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Charles6682

Tazzy,wasn't the Civil War about states right?Thats what the South claims.Yet,when Northern states ended slavery,the Southern states claimed that the Northern states did not have that right?Really,states rights though?Right?Not.The Civil War was about the institution of Slavery.The South was willing to sacrifice itself for the skae of Slavery.I know and any true Southerner will always know,that the Civil War for the South,was about preserving the institution of slavery.The South never really cared about "states rights".Thats just excuse to try and make the South look innocent.It does not fool me.


Yes, slavery was at the core of the dispute but the underlying PRINCIPLE was states' rights. Eminent domain was established in the Bill of Rights, but the federal government wasn't willing to pay slave owners for the property they were taking. That was also a key principle.

Before you continue to paint the northeast as completely innocent, you DO know that the Emancipation Proclamation only outlawed slavery in the south, not the whole country, don't you? That's right...while the northern states fought to end slavery in the south, they enjoyed that institution in the north. Hypocrites, all.

Also, it was ruled by the Supreme Court that the laws passed to readmit the south into the USA were unconstitutional. Did that matter? NO. Troops came down to enforce them, anyway. The court ruled that the southern states were never not part of the USA, but were in a state of rebellion. How, then, could they be readmitted?

(in reply to Charles6682)
Profile   Post #: 60
Page:   <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: Why Libertarianism Wouldn't Work Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy

0.094