An innate Kantian moral sense?

Libertarian arguments are very rarely called to task for the "what now?" aspect that they completely ignore.

Assume for a moment that we can somehow configure a society where opting out of, say, fire control, only puts your specific property at risk. (Put aside the inanity of that assumption.) A family makes the choice to opt out and pocket the savings. Their house, with all their worldly possessions, burns to the ground. *What Now?* The libertarian response might be "tough." But is that the society we want to create and inhabit? And, what about the collateral damage -- the children of that family didn't have the agency necessary to participate in the decision to opt out, and yet, they will be harshly penalized. *What Now?* A very similar argument can be made for healthcare. The Hobbesian fantasyland where there are these isolated choices that don't affect others simply doesn't exist.

We live in a society, where your choices affect me. Deal with it.

Most of the laws we're talking about don't involve right vs. non-right, but watered-down right vs. slightly different version of watered-down right.

As he handily demonstrates @261 and @291, David has no moral sense whatsoever. He's a 14 year old boy who never managed to develop into an adult.

Freedom in its purest form does in fact mean the freedom to make horrible tragic mistakes and live with them.

Don't you have someone to stab in the neck?

But, because leftists generally can't understand why anyone would prefer voluntary cooperation, charity, and mutualism to unbounded and unaccountable state coercion, we're left with sophomoric scenarios like this, where the heroic white knights of government ride in to save that poor family while their heartless neighbors stand by and pick their noses.

Spiel like this demonstrates why it's impossible to engage a dedicated leftist, as every leftist seems to hold the tribalistic belief that anyone who doesn't belong to their particular political clique is an ogre. To spell it out, virtually no libertarian, classical liberal, or anarchist believes that "tough" is the proper response to a luckless family who has lost everything. But, because leftists generally can't understand why anyone would prefer voluntary cooperation, charity, and mutualism to unbounded and unaccountable state coercion, we're left with sophomoric scenarios like this, where the heroic white knights of government ride in to save that poor family while their heartless neighbors stand by and pick their noses.

Spiel like this demonstrates why it's impossible to engage a dedicated leftist, as every leftist seems to hold the tribalistic belief that anyone who doesn't belong to their particular political clique is an ogre.

Libertarians can and do give plenty to charity

We've been asking "what now?" for the better part of forty years as debt, inflation, and the welfare/warfare state have expanded with no end in sight. Leftists don't get to play the responsible adult card on the only people who reason from first principles rather than stringing up an ad hoc spiderweb of authoritarian, unsustainable, and utopian policies.

In my experience, libertarians love to talk about giving to charity. Regardless, 10K years of human history indicates quite strongly that societies built on "charity" of the haves towards the have-nots isn't going to work out well.

To spell it out, virtually no libertarian, classical liberal, or anarchist believes that "tough" is the proper response to a luckless family who has lost everything.

We've been asking "what now?" for the better part of forty years as debt, inflation, and the welfare/warfare state have expanded with no end in sight.

All of your examples center around government action/expediture. Do you believe that humans have any rights that do not stem from the government?


History would say unequivocally no... The Vatican can claim otherwise with various myths and I'm sure other religions have theirs, too -- but since the dawn of time, only governments have been able to guarantee them.

Because we are talking about government and health care, and you brought up expenditures. I am interested in what human rights you were refering to. What differentiates them from health care as a right? How is it a category error?

Don't you have someone to stab in the neck?

To spell it out, virtually no libertarian, classical liberal, or anarchist believes that "tough" is the proper response to a luckless family who has lost everything.

In my experience, libertarians love to talk about giving to charity. Regardless, 10K years of human history indicates quite strongly that societies built on "charity" of the haves towards the have-nots isn't going to work out well.

The category error stems from making the assumption that stuff provided by the government is a human right.

OK. Take your ball and go home.

Is this a new drinking game? You keep repeating it.

The category error stems from making the assumption that stuff provided by the government is a human right.

Article 18
Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.

Article 22
Everyone, as a member of society, has the right to social security and is entitled to realization, through national effort and international co-operation and in accordance with the organization and resources of each State, of the economic, social and cultural rights indispensable for his dignity and the free development of his personality.

Article 25
(1) Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control. (2) Motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance. All children, whether born in or out of wedlock, shall enjoy the same social protection.

Tough is (I think) the correct governmental response. Sympathy and charity is the correct personal response. That is what I am guessing from what is said, but I am not libertarian.

Everything the Government does is not a right, but the Government should protect/provide for/enable human rights - else what the heck is it doing?

The debate surrounding Obamacare suffers from occurring in this environment. Why are liberals/progressives even engaging folks like RDP/DN in debates as silly as what "affordable" means, or whether this is wealth redistribution? Of course it is wealth redistribution...but why aren't we standing up, and proudly proclaiming, for all to hear, that yes, this is wealth redistribution.

So you're saying that if a right is violated, it's no longer a right?

Seriously, wasn't the quote given earlier in the thread $75/year? Any homeowner, or anyone with enough possessions to be worrying about fire protection in the first place, can afford that.

Because you'll lose elections?

Right. The conflation of "it's not the government's responsibility" with "it's not our responsibility" is mind-boggling.

...for government parasites.

Because you'll lose elections?

Just a wild stab in the dark.

Duh, its supposed to employ its police powers, to well, protect individual property rights...

The government is "us". That's the whole point of democracy.

No. The government is "everyone." "Our responsibility" refers to those of us who want to help the underprivileged.

It continues to amuse me to no end that people provide studies when David asks for them, but never demand he supply any data of his own... I'm developing a very strong suspicion that I might be finally getting to the bottom of the Six Sigma fad...

Ah, the "antebellum southern blacks weren't actually deprived of a right" argument. That's always a classic.

I think that's a pretty universal trait. I think I speak for the pro-ACA side of the argument that Ray and David's insinuation that we hate freedom is more than a little insulting, so hostility ensued because hostility always ensues when differing philosophies clash.

Remember: giving your own money is generous. Giving someone else's money is greedy.

In my experience, libertarians love to talk about giving to charity. Regardless, 10K years of human history indicates quite strongly that societies built on "charity" of the haves towards the have-nots isn't going to work out well.

You do hate freedom. Period times 10,000

But I don't view the government as some exogenous force that operates independently of us.

Ah, the "antebellum southern blacks weren't actually deprived of a right" argument. That's always a classic.

If anything, it is the charitable who get charity--in multitudinous tax breaks, that come in the form of property tax exemptions, income tax write-offs, tax-free and tax-evading foundations.

By voting for folks who vote for things like ACA I am helping the underprivileged. Not in a way you like, but to each their own.

How does one support the ACA and then claim with a straight face that they don't hate freedom?

So, you're either wrong, stupid, or racist, respectively. Go ahead and pick one, prove that you're not "all talk, no walk" for a change. I'm just playing your game by the rules that you laid out.

The government is an exogenous force that operates independently of us. You don't vote for very much of it -- nobody alive has; it's a self-perpetuating bureaucracy that only occasionally even answers to elected officials.

How does one support the ACA and then claim with a straight face that they don't hate freedom?

Whatever the merits of the ACA, it results in more control over people, not less. Are people now pretending that the mandate is not in the ACA?

Oh, I thought were were playing the "Let's Examine Sam's Argument On What He Said" game, not your usual "Make a Crack And Hide Behind the Smarter Liberals That Can Make a Coherent Argument" game. Which one is it now?

And people talk about libertarians as not engaging with the real world. The government is an exogenous force that operates independently of us. You don't vote for very much of it -- nobody alive has; it's a self-perpetuating bureaucracy that only occasionally even answers to elected officials. Who also are an exogenous force that operates independently of us.

Note how Morty conflates people keeping their own money as "charity."

You can tell this is the case because, up until that point, West African slaves were *slaves.*

Right, and that was wrong. Because slavery violated their rights.

How does one support the ACA and then claim with a straight face that they don't hate freedom?

How does one support the ACA and then claim with a straight face that they don't hate freedom?

So, your statement was either wrong, you're stupid, or you're racist, respectively.

No, it's the exact opposite of "to each their own." You're forcing others to participate in your personal compassion for the underprivileged.

Well, I gotta give you credit, I was absolutely wrong here. I didn't think you had the balls to admit that under your view, blacks didn't become people until December 6, 1865. But you did, so I apologize for any implication of your cowardice on my part as you've proved that unjustified.

3) You believe that blacks in 1850s Mississippi, Alabama, South Carolina, etc. had no inherent right to not be enslaved.

"Inherent"? What means that? Sounds like cloud talk.

Right, and that was wrong. Because slavery violated their rights.

Just for the record, when you get pissed off and storm out later,

I am forcing you to do nothing. We (and here I mean supporters of ACA collectively) voted and otherwise acted according to the rules of how we run our great nation. We won, again according to the rules. Now everyone has to function according to the outcomes of the process.

I invite you (and by you I mean all against ACA) to play by the rules and get what you want enacted. I woudl suggest you are acting against the movement of history, as shown in the fact that the entire industrial world is steadily moving in this direction (and is ahead of us).

You clearly don't like this fact, but that is OK. But no, I am not forcing you, we all are as instantiated by the government (which according to some upthread is some sort of exogenous force and not us at all, which confuses me because much of democracy is then really pointless).

This is power illiterate-- it makes the common libertarian mistake of assuming that the absence of government power equals the presence of freedom. The ACA circumscribes the power your insurance provider has over your health care.

When you get sick in this country, the experience of dealing with your insurance and medical bills is almost worse than the illness itself. They will do everything in their power to deny coverage and shift as much of the cost of your care onto your shoulders.

"Inherent"? What means that? Sounds like cloud talk.

As I said, I was wrong, and I apologize. I didn't think in a hundred years, you would actually come out and state your belief that blacks only became people fairly recently.

So your argument is "those are the rules." Well, no ####. Do you have an argument on the merits?

Don't you mean when he takes his ball and goes home?

I'm curious exactly what Dan, David, et al would have done had they lived in pre-Civil War America... Would you have seized Harper's Ferry with John Brown? Joined an emancipation/anti-slavery cause? Voted for abolitionist candidates? Refused to purchase any goods or services that could be traced to slaveholders? Risked imprisonment or penalty to be a stop on the Underground Railroad?

I imagine that to a chimpanzee, the laws of thermodynamics sound like something similar.

I'm curious exactly what Dan, David, et al would have done had they lived in pre-Civil War America... Would you have seized Harper's Ferry with John Brown? Joined an emancipation/anti-slavery cause? Voted for abolitionist candidates? Refused to purchase any goods or services that could be traced to slaveholders? Risked imprisonment or penalty to be a stop on the Underground Railroad?

Or start randomly deleting posts he finds disagreeable. A true champion of free expression!

I'm curious exactly what Dan, David, et al would have done had they lived in pre-Civil War America... Would you have seized Harper's Ferry with John Brown? Joined an emancipation/anti-slavery cause? Voted for abolitionist candidates? Refused to purchase any goods or services that could be traced to slaveholders? Risked imprisonment or penalty to be a stop on the Underground Railroad?

That's most certainly not a frame meant to be another strawman about competing ideologies - I honestly have no idea how I would react under such circumstances. I just think we could all agree that pontificating in a parlor about the 'rights' of slaves would have had virtually, if not utterly, no material impact on the existence of slavery.

So Good Face, where you ever going to list some human rights for me? I really am curious as to what you think the correct human rights are and the difference between them and Health Care.

I am forcing you to do nothing. We (and here I mean supporters of ACA collectively) voted and otherwise acted according to the rules of how we run our great nation. We won, again according to the rules. Now everyone has to function according to the outcomes of the process.

I invite you (and by you I mean all against ACA) to play by the rules and get what you want enacted. I woudl suggest you are acting against the movement of history, as shown in the fact that the entire industrial world is steadily moving in this direction (and is ahead of us).

You clearly don't like this fact, but that is OK. But no, I am not forcing you, we all are as instantiated by the government (which according to some upthread is some sort of exogenous force and not us at all, which confuses me because much of democracy is then really pointless).

Over/under on the July OTP thread surviving the 4th?

Why would I storm out? You on this page is like a late birthday present. Guy who makes snarky content-less comments on libertarians for 4 pages forced to admit he thinks blacks are people only when enough whites think so? If this thread was food, I'd be heating up some hot fudge and slowly savoring every delicious bite.

Yet, you're the one who just said a black laborer, sold as cattle to spend a life of toil with no more legal recourse than a plow, did not have any of his rights violated. Why would I want to close a thread in which you so gleefully step in the mess you made?

Well, first, I have absolutely no idea what I 'would have done' had I lived then, just like I have no idea what I would have done if I were born a goy in Germany in the 1930s. Maybe I'd have been a Nazi, like Sam. All I can say is what I think I should have done. Which is pretty much all of the things you describe, except perhaps Harper's Ferry, just because that was so unlikely to be productive. Also, posting on BBTF about the evils of slavery.

Second, I don't agree with your premise that ideas don't matter, though. I mean, yes, a single individual 'pontificating in a parlor' is unlikely to solve a big problem all by himself, just as a single individual voting or taking up arms or engaging in an economic boycott is unlikely to solve such a problem. But spreading ideas is important. (What's that line Lincoln used regarding Harriet Beecher Stowe? "Is this the little woman who made this big war?" Which I'm sure he didn't say, and it would be an oversimplification anyway.)