If you are a Libertarian and hold liberty as your core value, why do you not believe in universal healthcare? Nothing impacts liberty more than sickness and death.
As an American man I only have a 40% chance of developing cancer in my lifetime, but with universal healthcare there’s 100% chance I will have to pay for it.
What the hell man.. The guy is just sharing his view on what OP asked..
Just because you disagree with the guy doesn't mean you need to wish cancer upon him.
A risk assessment is a normal part of gambling. You’re just describing games, like the one you’re playing now to rationalize your gambling with your own life by avoiding getting any sort of health insurance.
They are when you bet something on the outcome— ya know, gambling… like how you risk both your financial future and your life when you choose to not have health insurance.
Insurance is by definition not gambling. It is only indemnity. The reality is that without insurance you are gambling that you'll get to keep the money you didn't spend on insurance and not be financially ruined.
Insurance companies to turn a profit will be charging more then they pay out, but as a single policy-holder there is a good chance they will pay me more then I pay out making it gambling.
but as a single policy-holder there is a good chance they will pay me more then I pay out making it gambling.
But the risk isn’t health insurance vs gambling. That’s a straw man, as not having health insurance is already gambling, and you’re trying to change the argument because your previous reasoning was shown to be faulty.
You’re “beliefs” - as you’ve explained them - appear to be based on a complete lack of knowledge of what insurance is, what it’s for, or how it works as well as several attempts to redefine the word “gambling” tp what fits your “beliefs.” None of your “beliefs” are supported by the facts— they’re complete contradicted by them.
What are you getting out of this, by telling me I’m wrong in my beliefs and expanding the definition of gambling to literally anything?
you’re spreading false information (your “beliefs”) as fact which could be harmful to others of they’re foolish enough to believe you. I don’t have to gain something in return just to do the right thing by posting the correct information on response. Life isn’t some zero-sum game where I have to be motivate by personal gain simply because your feelings got hurt.
Oh, and I didn’t define gambling— the dictionary did. Blaming me for pointing that out is juvenile. Your interpretations of those definitions are entirely on you.
If I was changing the subject it would be the first time as I already clarified that I was clarifying my previous comment while saying the exact same thing, just dumbing it down a bit so it would be easier to understand.
I’m just asking why you put beliefs in quotation marks because it felt like you think those beliefs are not good enough to be considered actual beliefs.
That is the entirety of my side of this conversation to you so far.
Except for when you tried to change the subject to unemployment insurance, crossing the road, or my usage of quotation marks.
You are telling me that I’m wrong to believe what I do and you seem very invested in doing so.
I have told you - repeatedly - that your “beliefs” are clearly (based on everything you keep saying) based on a complete lack of understanding as to what insurance is, what it’s for, and how it works as well as not really knowing the definition or the word “gambling”. If you heard something other than what I’ve said, that’s on you.
I don’t want to walk away from this conversation because I feel like it might be rude and that you might actually need someone to talk to.
Is everything going well in your life?
Oh, more ad hominem attacks and deflection. Seems like you’re all out of arguments.
In your very first comment on this post, you clearly lay out the risk (and hopeful outcome).
As an American man I only have a 40% chance of developing cancer in my lifetime, but with universal healthcare there’s 100% chance I will have to pay for it.
Seems like your memory problems are getting worse… too bad you don’t have health insurance, or you could go see a doctor to have that checked out ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Gee, those memory problems seem to be getting worse. Seems pretty foolish to have gambled on not getting health insurance when you appear to be in such need.
I asked about your usage of the quotation marks because it seems like you feel like my beliefs are less then.
A straw man and deflection. Your insecurities about your “beliefs” has nothing to do with health insurance.
This is totally bringing me back to my Reddit days, so thank you for that!
Yeah, people here usually don’t use so many obvious logical fallacies and circular arguments like you do. Most people know better.
I don’t know your definitions of these words, because I’m having a friendly conversation with you, but you feel it’s a debate that’s causing you anguish.
Once again (because of your amnesia), I don’t define words. The dictionary does. Children understand this concept. Why do you struggle so much with it?
And of you don’t know what the words “friendly” and “debate” mean, then you shouldn’t be using them in a sentence.
As for this “anguish” you keep fantasizing about, you really should see a doctor about that.
A psychotherapist would be able to help you with your fantasizing that internet strangers that hurt your feelings are, themselves, feeling the “anguish” you feel.
Psychologists call it “projection”.
And if you hadn’t gambled your health and well-being on not getting health insurance, you wouldn’t have to pay so much for that therapy. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
but you have said that I attacked you personally but your unwilling to say where or how.
I said every time I pointed out your ad hominem attacks. Your lack of/inability to understand is at the core of this debate, and still not my fault (nor my responsibility). Your failures are your own responsibility as are your foolish decisions when you gamble your health, well-being, and financial future by not getting health insurance.
It’s pretty irrational to blame others for your own words and actions.
I already answered this, but since you seem to have a terrible case of amnesia, here is the answer again:
you’re spreading false information (your “beliefs”) as fact which could be harmful to others if they’re foolish enough to believe you. I don’t have to gain something in return just to do the right thing by posting the correct information in response. Life isn’t some zero-sum game where I have to be motivated by personal gain simply to do the right thing or because your feelings got hurt.
You already produced that evidence when you commented…every time you comment. And I point it out every time. Just like the ad hominem attacks. But you seem to have serious memory problems.
It’s irrational to blame others for things you, yourself, do and say.
You lashing out with personal attacks when met with facts that debunk your beliefs is not the fault of others. And when you falsely perceive others as feeling the “anguish” (the word you chose) that you, yourself, feel in these moments, that’s psychological projection.
Nobody else is to blame for your inability to process rejection and the upending of your “beliefs” in a healthy manner; it’s yours and yours alone. Too bad you gambled your health and well-being on not getting health insurance, or you’d be able to work through such difficult emotions with a therapist.
You made this very clear, from the start, that this is - and always has been - about your “beliefs”. I have merely stated (and re-stated and re-stated) facts. Whether you believe those facts is irrelevant, and I don’t really care. I’m pretty sure that you’re so invested in your “beliefs” that no amount of facts would ever change your mind.
And I’m not here to change your mind— just to keep pointing out how, when, and why you’re wrong. See… I have no emotional investment here because these aren’t my “beliefs”…. They’re yours.
But I’m not trying to forcibly change your mind because I respect your freedom to make objectively wrong choices for yourself.
There’s that amnesia again! I just said that I’m not trying to change your mind, that I don’t care what you believe, and that I don’t even think I could change your mind if I tried because of how emotionally invested you are in them— hence your lashing out when they’re challenged.
I also clearly said that you’re free to your “beliefs”— but the facts and evidence contradict them. You have chosen to lash out because you object to me pointing that out.
Not a gamble that’s paid off for you, I would say…
There’s that amnesia again! You asked and I answered this question an hour ago:
You already produced that evidence when you commented…every time you comment. And I point it out every time. Just like the ad hominem attacks. But you seem to have serious memory problems.
It’s irrational to blame others for things you, yourself, do and say.
Sealioning (also sea-lioning and sea lioning) is a type of trolling or harassment that consists of pursuing people with relentless requests for evidence, often tangential or previously addressed, while maintaining a pretense of civility and sincerity ("I'm just trying to have a debate"), and feigning ignorance of the subject matter.[1][2][3][4] It may take the form of "incessant, bad-faith invitations to engage in debate",[5] and has been likened to a denial-of-service attack targeted at human beings.[6] The term originated with a 2014 strip of the webcomicWondermark by David Malki,[7] which The Independent called "the most apt description of Twitter you'll ever see".
Sealioning (also sea-lioning and sea lioning) is a type of trolling or harassment that consists of pursuing people with relentless requests for evidence, often tangential or previously addressed, while maintaining a pretense of civility and sincerity ("I'm just trying to have a debate"), and feigning ignorance of the subject matter.[1][2][3][4] It may take the form of "incessant, bad-faith invitations to engage in debate",[5] and has been likened to a denial-of-service attack targeted at human beings.[6] The term originated with a 2014 strip of the webcomicWondermark by David Malki,[7] which The Independent called "the most apt description of Twitter you'll ever see".
I just re-read all 127 comments in this thread and haven’t found any evidence that you’ve produced.
Sealioning is when you’ve already produced it and I ask for it again or more, not when I ask for evidence that you’re not producing because you never have and it doesn’t exist.
I just re-read all 127 comments in this thread and haven’t found any evidence that you’ve produced.
In the past three or so minutes since your last comment? That’s an obvious lie.
Sealioning is when you’ve already produced it
I have. There’s that amnesia again!
and I ask for it again or more
Which is exactly what you keep doing
not when I ask for evidence that you’re not producing because you never have and it doesn’t exist.
This is a scenario that you just invented and which didn’t happen. The evidence in the comments here confirms this. Your failure to accept the evidence and the fact is not evidence that I did not present facts and evidence. You’re in inability to understand that is also not my responsibility.
Circular reasoning (Latin: circulus in probando, "circle in proving";[1] also known as circular logic) is a logical fallacy in which the reasoner begins with what they are trying to end with.[2] Circular reasoning is not a formal logical fallacy, but a pragmatic defect in an argument whereby the premises are just as much in need of proof or evidence as the conclusion, and as a consequence the argument fails to persuade. Other ways to express this are that there is no reason to accept the premises unless one already believes the conclusion, or that the premises provide no independent ground or evidence for the conclusion.[3] Circular reasoning is closely related to begging the question, and in modern usage the two generally refer to the same thing.[4]
You told me I couldn’t read 127 comment in the nearly seven minutes between comments.
No I didn’t. I said that your claim was an obvious lie. You’re welcome to prove otherwise with evidence, but, given the body of your behavior here during this discussion, I’m certain you would lie in order to “win” or “score points” in this argument, regardless of how silly or pointless the lie. your entire comment history here represents a dishonest representation of yourself when convenient.
I did and had time to respond to you but you don’t believe me because you must read slower.
There’s that zero-sum worldview again, where the only way you could do better is if someone else does worse. That’s the zero-sum bias
Zero-sum bias is a cognitive bias towards zero-sum thinking; it is people's tendency to intuitively judge that a situation is zero-sum, even when this is not the case.[4] This bias promotes zero-sum fallacies, false beliefs that situations are zero-sum. Such fallacies can cause other false judgements and poor decisions.[5][6] In economics, "zero-sum fallacy" generally refers to the fixed-pie fallacy.
Do you often invent fantasies about strangers online when you’ve gambled foolishly on an argument you can’t win? Seems like a coping mechanism with very little payoff and a lot of toxicity.
You’re acting like the anti-abortion activists right now, being completely unable to hear the other side of the conversation.
I’m acting like the pro-choice people putting out well thought out arguments backed up by facts and logic and a heathy dose of freedom and personal responsibility.
There’s that amnesia again! I’ve provided evidence repeatedly. All you can do is sealion.
You’re acting like the anti-abortion activists right now
More personal attacks because you have no rational response.
being completely unable to hear the other side of the conversation.
Except when I read and responded to every single thing you said. Just because I used evidence to prove you wrong over and over and over again - and you ignored it every time - doesn’t mean I didn’t listen to you— it proves that I did.
I’m acting like the pro-choice people putting out well thought out arguments backed up by facts and logic and a heathy dose of freedom and personal responsibility.
Another coping mechanism fantasy you”ve invented; this didn’t happen. But, if your “beliefs” still hold that this happened, please link to the facts and evidence and so-called “logic”. This should be interesting considering that you don’t even understand how health insurance works, what it’s for, or the definition of the word “gambling”.
As I’ve said several times before: you’re free to your “beliefs”, but the facts and evidence contradict them.
Insurance of any sort is a gambling as Ned from The Simpsons proves in his quote from the 8th episode of the 8th season of The Simpsons.
Fictional characters in a cartoon are not a source of reliable, verifiable facts, especially regarding healthcare and/or economic advice. And, wow, if you’re telling me that you base your financial and healthcare decisions (not to mention your religious convictions) based on a line from The Simpsons, then don’t simultaneously claim that you’re making a rational argument based on logic and facts. “Ned from The Simpsons said it” is a claim so ridiculous it really proves how desperate you are to hold onto your “beliefs” in the face of facts, evidence, and actual logic.
Now, you’re free to disagree but you haven’t been able to disprove either of those facts that together form an air-tight case for what I’m saying.
It’s your responsibility to prove your claims, not for me to disprove them, and you haven’t done that at all. Oh, and some throwaway joke from a fictional cartoon - on its own - isn’t proof of anything other than that your “beliefs” have a fictional (and very silly) basis.
A straw man fallacy (sometimes written as strawman) is the informal fallacy of refuting an argument different from the one actually under discussion, while not recognizing or acknowledging the distinction.[1]One who engages in this fallacy is said to be "attacking a straw man".
No, you keep trying to change the subject, and I keep calling it out while staying on the subject of health insurance and the meaning of the word “gambling.” Again, blaming me for your words and actions.
You’re free to your “beliefs”, but the facts and evidence contradict you.
You were using straw man because you had no rational response to a discussion about health insurance.
A straw man fallacy (sometimes written as strawman) is the informal fallacy of refuting an argument different from the one actually under discussion, while not recognizing or acknowledging the distinction.[1]One who engages in this fallacy is said to be "attacking a straw man".
Just because you ignore the facts and evidence does not mean that they aren’t there. Everyone else but you can see them, apparently. And I really don’t care whether you believe me or not. I only care that others don’t believe you.
And only you are convinced by your arguments. You, and a fictional cartoon named Ned.
Do you think people are going to read 151 comments and think anything besides you are a little obsessive about this topic?
My parents didn’t raise me, they did drugs and drank until they passed out and woke up and did it all over again.
Ned from The Simpsons raised me in half hour increments that have shaped my entire life and given me a life long lust for the lord’s love and a respect for my fellow man and their opinion that apparently you do not.
somebody has made it this far to upvote my comments….
if you hadn’t gambled your health and well-being foolishly by not getting health insurance, you could afford to work through these troubling issues with a trained psychotherapist rather than… this
And, again, you make a personal attack because you have no rational response.
Overall, I rate this a 7/10 troll. 5 base points, plus 1 for sticking with it and another bonus point for that shit about Ned Flanders. That made me laugh so hard, I almost broke character and called you out, but I wanted to see how far you’d take it.
Thanks for the practice. I haven’t had a good one of these since my Reddit days.
Not if you lose your bet that anyone is willing to pay you your desired wage. Then it’s unemployment because you gambled and lost. And even if they do agree, it’s just luck that you won— but it’s still a gamble.
Good thing it’s typically mandated by state law. You don’t have a choice when it’s deducted from your paycheck in most cases, and you’re automatically enrolled. (In some states and situations, it’s paid for by the employers). Whether you ever take advantage of that is another matter.
However, that’s irrelevant. All you’ve done here is demonstrate poor decision-making skills, and a profound misunderstanding of the concepts of both insurance and gambling.
Then that’s foolish, but not really relevant to this discussion about health insurance… Unless your point is to illustrate that you have no real idea about what insurance is or how it works.
Coming from the person who doesn’t “get” what insurance is or the meaning of the word “gambling” means until I had to post the definition from a dictionary.
I’m talking about being against gambling and you are trying to define gambling as doing anything because it might have an outcome - this isn’t a good-faith stance in this conversation which we are having.
I didn’t define gambling— the dictionary did. Blaming me because certain words have certain meanings is irrational, and is certainly not good-faith. And attacking me personally just because you have no other argument is just an Ad hominem.
I am not responsible for your actions nor for helping you to gain absolution or forgiveness. If you lack the self-awareness to realize what you’ve said or have a such a poor memory that you can’t remember from one comment to the next, then perhaps you should be tending to those issues rather than arguing with strangers online.
So, in addition to your evident memory problems, you have sadistic fantasies in which you imagine the people you lose arguments to in “anguish”? Yikes! Too bad about that health insurance you don’t have, as you’d be able to talk about that with a therapist.
Shouldn’t have gambled your health on your ignorance of what insurance is and what the word “gambling” mean… ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
You told me I was personally attacking you so I figured it must be a big deal to you if you are bringing it up.
But you won’t tell me what I did that you feel was attacking you so I can apologize to you and not repeat the words that are causing you as much anguish.
You told me I was personally attacking you so I figured it must be a big deal to you if you are bringing it up.
I keep mentioning it because you keep doing it. I am not responsible for your actions, so it pretty absurd to blame me for the things you keep doing— especially when you put the responsibility of doing the work to address it on me.
But you won’t tell me what I did that you feel was attacking you so I can apologize to you and not repeat the words
Perhaps you shouldn’t have gambled on personally attacking me if you don’t like the outcome.
that are causing you as much anguish.
You seem to be obsessed with imagining me in “anguish”. Do you often fantasize about strangers in anguish? Do such thoughts give you pleasure? They must because you can’t seem to stop…
You’re expressing your anguish and redefining everything to gambling again.
Once again, I don’t define words, the dictionary does. I simply used the word “gambling” correctly. Blaming me for using a word correctly is irrational.
It’s like our whole conversation distilled into one sentence
And that sentence is: Your “beliefs” are based on ignorance, and you keep attacking everyone who points that out rather than to simply admit that you’re wrong.
My belief in Christianity says that gambling is a sin and that why I dont use insurance.
So how is it a straw man argument or irrelevant subject?
Considering that you only mentioned this in response to my pointing out that your “beliefs” in Christianity are irrelevant to a debate over health insurance is gambling, it’s pretty clear that you’re lying in order to conflate the two.
And, considering how obviously dishonest you’ve been in almost every comment you’ve made here, my conclusion that you’d resort to lying rather than lose an argument is well-supported by the available evidence.
Argumentum ad populum (Latin for "argument to the people") is a logical fallacy that occurs when something is considered to be true or good solely because it is popular. Undoubtedly many popular notions are true, but their truth is not a function of their popularity, except in circumstances where other factors ensure that popularity is related to truth. The fallacy is the opposite of an appeal to the minority.
This is a bit of a loaded question and very poorly written. Bad troll is bad.
The problem stands that modern "Libertarians" have been corrupted by corporations and conservative bigots to mean "elimination of government and regulation" and not "government to uphold liberty" like it originally did. A correctly Libertarian government would write laws that solely uphold the power of the individual's self determination, which inherently requires restriction of the power of capital.
I consider myself Libertarian, but I feel there now has to be a distinction made between "Capital Libertarians" and "Individual Libertarians". One wants the liberty of capital, the other wants the liberty of the individual. I find myself in the latter. Corporations can go fuck themselves, the individual is paramount.
"Socialist" things like public infrastructure, and yes, public healthcare, would be supported by individual libertarianism. Social support structures like these support individual liberty but restrict capital liberty by requiring taxes to support them, whereas supporting capital liberty by making it "pay as you go" does nothing but remove the individual liberty of the population that finds themselves without any capital through no fault of their own. I absolutely support universal healthcare.
A capital libertarian government would not fund public roads. You would need to pay a toll to drive on every privately built road, because your capital is free to move. But roads to certain places would cost more than others, thus restricting the individual's liberty to their ability to pay.
A individually libertarian government funds public roads. Individuals then retain the right to self-determination to decide where they want to go without restriction. How they go on those roads might be subject to their capital restrictions- whether they walk, bike, drive, rollerskate, or whatever. But they are at least allowed to use those roads.
Certain things will always be needed in our society for humans to function. If humans are not functioning correctly, they are not free to self-determine their path. Gating such a simple thing as healthcare, which again, humans absolutely need to function, behind the ability to pay is inherently restricting their individual liberty in an immoral way.
100% Libertarianism originated as a left wing movement in the 19th century. Right wing libertarianism didn't ooze out of the swamp till nearly a century later. In the mid 20th century. Post red scare when actual leftist were keeping their heads down due to fascist witch hunts. And unable to really call out the posers.
Real libertarians don't have a problem with government. They just believe that it should be focused on maximizing freedom, and access to it. Where the larpers are all about maximizing their personal freedom (privilege) and don't care if others have access.
"Left wing", and "right wing" are far too nebulous to really have any continuous historical use. Even in current parlance they are borderline useless terms.
This is probably where I align economically, but I support statist mandates that are inconsistent with "individual libertarianism" or "civil libertarianism."
For example, we should decriminalize drug use, but there should absolutely be a strong statist intervention where people are forced to stop using drugs.
I feel there now has to be a distinction made between “Capital Libertarians” and “Individual Libertarians”.
You might be interested in Isaiah Berlin's "Two Concepts of Liberty".
Basically, there is no absolute thing called "liberty", because anything you do changes the material world and the state of the material world also shapes what you're able to do. So you can't talk about simply "liberty", and must always describe it in terms of those two relationships. What Berlin calls "freedom to" and "freedom from".
For instance, I might consider my liberty to mean that I have the "freedom to" shoot a gun in the air. My neighbors might consider their liberty to mean that they have the "freedom from" falling bullets.
We can't create a policy which guarantees both "freedom to" and "freedom from" for all people. But we can create a policy that guarantees both for some people. We just have to allow that some people get to enjoy both the rights and the protections, while other people lack the rights and must suffer the consequences of others' actions.
And that might be why the contemporary conservative version of so-called "libertarianism" plays so well with a notion of a superior social class, whether that's economic, religious, or racial. You can invoke the word "liberty" in support of your attempts to bully others, and then you can invoke it again as a protection against others' attempts to bully you.
Roads? Slave labor. Taxes? Slave labor. Taxes that fund the police? Somehow not slave labor.
Like you're not wrong, democrats do advocate slave labor in the form of supporting the prison-industrial complex, but I know you're not talking about that.
I don't think libertarians really see wage slavery as the worst thing.
I think the fundamental difference is that libertarians don't care about outcomes. Or, at least they don't think that they do as long as they have food in their stomach and a barrier against the cold.
In their minds, it's all about them not being compelled to partake in anything they don't want to. If that means starving, fine (so they say, and I'm very suspicious of this claim), but at least there was no authority over them.
Most sane people strike a balance between valuing good practical outcomes, and more abstract notions like liberty and justice.
Full authoritarians say that only outcomes are important, that abstract notions like freedom are impediments to the greatest good, and you end up with things like the USSR.
So you're right that there wouldn't be a minimum wage... But you're wrong to appeal to the concept of wage slavery because it presupposes a libertarian values satisfactory outcomes. They don't.
Honestly there is no talking down a libertarian without first convincing them their lives are worth more than some definition of liberty.
Glad you brought that up. The US Dollar hasn't meant anything since coming off the gold standard, and we can't control it's value so long as the Federal Reserve controls interest rates, and the government has a monopoly over what currencies we can and can't use. (No this isn't advocation for company script, if you can't spend it anywhere else it's not currency)
With actual competition between companies, the laborer could actually compete for the best jobs and get the best compensation for their labor.
Libertarians usually define liberty narrowly as "freedom from government".
Freedom does not mean the ability to do as you please, but rather the ability to not be told what not to do, or to be made to do something you do not wish to do.
A libertarian usually does not object to wage slavery, and would disagree with the concept of wage slavery entirely, on the grounds that you were not forced to work a job you dislike, since you could always choose to starve instead.
What you're looking for is one of the schools of anarchism.
Although usually painted as "anti-government, anti-society", it actually derives from being against hierarchy, and is characterized generally (there are many schools) as being opposed to involuntary power hierarchies.
Sometimes government is the best way to reduce the total amount of coercion in the system, since forcing a lot of people to pay a little can free many, many people from being forced to do stuff they loath to survive.
Libertarians aren't pro-liberty they're anti-government, and anarchists aren't pro-chaos they're anti-coercian.
They're both entire political schools of thought, so I've obviously not encapsulated them entirely in two paragraphs.
However, you are on Lemmy where the vast majority of users are from the US which means they have their own weird skew on libertarianism and liberalism, thanks to their media and social media. Somehow it's distinctly Republican, conservative (lol, yes), and pro-capitalism, which obviously isn' correct because of their many, many, many, anti-liberal views.
Only in the US can socialists be mad about a school of thought that values social equality and welfare, because a form of media informed them it's pro-capitalism and the red-cap redneck that cries "Liberty!" with their AR-15 must be liberalism or libertarian.
So far, outside of a classroom, the only “Libertarians” I’ve seen in real life are people who vote republiQan and refuse to take accountability for it.
Or people who don’t vote, and allow republiQans to rule while taking no accountability for it.
So, they don’t support universal healthcare because republiQans don’t, and that’s what they really are.
Actually, not voting is one of the most ideologicaly consistent things someone who is extremely libertarian could do. Because if you voted for something and got it passed. Technically your will could be used to infringe against perceived rights of others. So by rights any true ideological libertarian should never vote. But you'll almost never see that on the right.
This is the problem with "ism"s. At whatever point you decide that philosophy X is the answer to everything, you start being wrong about a lot of the world, because whatever it is, there's at least like 30% of situations (and potentially a lot more) that your particular ism actually isn't the answer to.
Libertarianism or anti-imperialism or ACAB or socialism or pro-the-Democrats or anarchist or whatever it is, it's never always the answer. Trying to hold a debate about, well is it philosophy X or philosophy Y that's always right about everything, or any other discussion that feeds into the basic wrong premise, is just compounding the imaginary non-situation-dependent way of looking at it.
Although yes some of them are wrong a lot more of the time than some others.
Actually, education and health are the 2 things I think the government should take care of in a serious way. That said, I still Believe people should be able to pay for alternative education or health care if they wish, I just think I should never see a bill for either of those two ever. Especially for children. Wtf are we doing if we as a society cannot afford for children to be healthy or educated?
the issue is that everyone needs to have equal opportunity.
Is it okay for parents to purposefully give their kids a worse opportunity for education and health than every other American? (I know homeschooling is a controversial topic, but sadly the vast majority are just dumb as a box of bricks religious nut jobs)
I'm sorry, I genuinely don't understand the question of, is it right to give a worse education. Are you saying that homeschool is worse? Sorry not trying to deter from the topic, but I might just not be reading it right.
I will say this in response though, I don't agree that everyone should be given a completely equal opportunity. What I do think is that everyone should be given a very superior baseline of opportunity.
Chasing completely equal opportunity seen like a fools errand. But we really should be putting education and health first, unfortunately we just don't.
homeschooling: absolutely, because of the quality of the vast number of 'teachers' (in the USA). You should read about how batshit insane they are. And lets not get started on the rampant child abuse.
it sounds like you're trying to confuse equality and equity. But yes, same baseline = equal baseline, which is not what they're getting in the slave states.
Libertarians don’t give a flying fuck about liberty. It is an authoritarian movement that aims to eliminate any force standing in the way of their organizing society into a rigid hierarchy predicated upon wealth. A government that is answerable to the people is a countervailing force against the formation (or re-formation I suppose) of such a system. That was indeed the whole reason such a government was invented in the first place.
I don't think it's quite so organized as this mindset leads to extremely self-absorbed and selfish people who arent good at organizing en masse. Multiple times now, libertarians have tried to form their own communities on land and sea and it always falls apart once they actually try to form the communities as it just turns into government rules and taxes like we have now. They don't even want to live by their own group's authority.
I'm really upset that the coinbro boat didn't actually get to set sail. That article was insane. Reading it was like watching a pilot episode to one of the finest shows ever conceived, then learning the show got canceled.
Libertarians are political extremists who hate anything related to the government but don't care about being oppressed by private businesses, or they think that it simply won't happen in their utopia. Libertarians are everything they hate about the woke left, only applied to the government.
My anecdotal experience is 'temporarily embarrassed millionaires' lean Libertarian and imagine they'll be young and healthy until they're old and wealthy.
Libertarians only care about 2 things: lowest taxes possible and legal weed, and they would gladly sacrifice the latter in favor of the former. Anything else is nothing more than lip service.
Universal healthcare means taxes, and that is the one thing Libertarians hate above all. Never mind that it would be cheaper than private insurance. They relish in the fact they can skip buying insurance, and if they get hurt, ERs are required to treat them anyway.
I think there are roughly three subgenres of libertarian; the two you identify (wants hierarchy with warlords and wants public heroin use without jail time) but then there is also a third group that has focused a lot of rage on age of consent laws for some reason.
Libertarian care about maximizing social and economic liberties. Liberty being defined as freedom from authority. Taxes are forced on citizens so libertarians generally want to limit taxes to a minimum. I see no reason to believe that universal healthcare would be cheaper than insurance. The government is an inefficient monopoly where private insurance companies have to compete for the lowest rates.
Profit margins are to keep a company out of debt and ensure it can grow as technology advances. Government would still need to pay employees and keep up with tech. But your right, government does need to avoid debt because it can just print money but that leads to inflation. There is no way to make cost just disappear.
You want to maximize liberty, but have a funny way of showing it. Libertarians vote for the most authoritarian they can, as long as they will cut taxes. Even if that means banning abortion, keeping marijuana prohibition, forcing religion on children in schools, supporting civil forfeiture, preventing people from choosing sustainable energy, and so much more.
As has famously been said, taxes are the price we pay for civilized society. The non-aggression principle I believe is absolute bullshit. Libertarian would happily screw over anyone, claiming they are simply exercising their personal liberty. They couldn’t care any less about the well being of anyone else but themselves. Absolute barbarians if you ask me. Personally, I’m happy to get good services for my taxes, and not see my money go to a greedy asshole CEO. Sure, politicians are also greedy assholes, but at least the people can vote them out.
It would cost less because a single entity, costing much less overhead. Also, a single entity would have far more buying power. Almost every doctor would have to accept them, eliminating out-of-network costs. And we wouldn’t have hundreds of overpaid executives that pat themselves on the back with multimillion dollar bonuses for denying sick people coverage. And we can see it in action. Most industrialized countries already have some form of universal healthcare, and they all cost less per capita. People that actually have universal healthcare generally love it. And don’t talk to me about waiting lists. I’ve been on plenty of waiting lists right here, and lots of people can’t even get on them because they can’t afford the care they need.
Competition simply does not work in the healthcare market. When people are sick, they are limited typically to one option. And it has inelastic demand, so changing prices don’t change demand, and thus hospitals and doctors can charge whatever. The system, built on the economic principles libertarians espouse, is god-awful.
How is having numerous private companies all concerned with billing in any way efficient? Imagine if everyone was covered and the money and time and intelligence used to decide how much they pay and how much you pay went towards actual healthcare. The whole existence of health insurance is an inefficiency.
Disclaimer, I am not a libertarian by a long shot.
But - there is a difference between freedom to and freedom from. I think in general libertarians believe in freedom to, not freedom from. So you are free to yell, but not free from noise. You are free to walk in traffic, not free from being run over.
It almost makes sense, I don't think people should be free from seeing things that offend them, right? Or free from consequences. So no, they don't think freedom from sickness is a right.
Libertarians are people who imagine living in their idea of personal, fictional, utopia. Their utopia is one where they pay for only what they want, nobody else gets any of their money, corporations will do no harm, and somehow, magically, they have all the conveniences of modern life.
They just completely ignore that their miserly financial outlook undoes centuries of understanding that an educated society reduces poverty, crime, and unrest, hence the need for public education. Corporations still cause environmental ruin and poison the land, sea, and air…as if giving them minimal or free rein would improve that. Usually their solution to anyone intruding on their ideal world is to shoot them, no need to pay for cops.
In other words, they’re all about their Liberty to do what ever they want. Their version of liberty for you is “You’re free to sink, swim, or die on your own.” They just assume they’ll always be fine or have enough money to do whatever they need. No need to chip in for anyone els’s health care if a) they can’t pay for their own or b) they have their money to pay for theirs, and you’re not getting any of it.
Libertarians are the right wing version of 20 year old socialists who want free stuff and have no understand of what really drives and motivates people.
I tend to lean left but I'm incredibly disappointed with the state of the political landscape.
Because someone needs to be enslaved to provide universial health care. If even one person wants to opt out, no matter how wrong their reason you if you allow don't allow it they are enslaved. (note that there have been many different systems of slavery, but even the best still remones choice from someone). as such I prefer other options if they exist.
There are other options and so I oppose universial health care. Do not confuse that with approving of the system we have.
Because someone needs to be enslaved to provide universial health care. If even one person wants to opt out, no matter how wrong their reason you if you allow don't allow it they are enslaved.
Congratulations, you just said the dumbest thing I've read on the Internet in a very long time. That's impressive!
I pay for the military, for roads, for schools, for police, for fire departments...and I can't opt out of any of that. So am I already a slave? If so, then I might as well get some healthcare out of the deal.
If I'm not already a slave then universal healthcare isn't making me a slave either. No one would be forcing you to use your healthcare either.