CS314 - Unhealthy Numbers

[TheReal_ND]

I like how fife still doesn't offer an solution after all this wasted breath. Not an even means to an end. Zilch.

Well. You have the soapbox fife. Let's hear something. Other than calling us commie collectivists of course.

(I know fife doesn't have shit lol)

[Speaker to Animals]

Wow, the state has really beaten your butt into pulp.

When you see that "Helping your neighbor" is within the purview of the state only, your ass really is beat.

Sorry about that, man.

Where did I say that?

[MilSpecs]

Just man up and suffocate your parents already, boomer. Ffs you're making us all pay the price and threatening a resurgence of the democrats we just kicked out over this nonsense.

My elderly parents, your baby in the NICU. No one wants to make the decision to pull the plug on either.

[Fife]

I like how fife still doesn't offer an solution after all this wasted breath. Not an even means to an end. Zilch.

Well. You have the soapbox fife. Let's hear something. Other than calling us commie collectivists of course.

(I know fife doesn't have shit lol)

I always have the soapbox; that's not the problem.

Which "solution" are you looking for? I'll fill you in, as per the usual.

[Fife]

Just man up and suffocate your parents already, boomer. Ffs you're making us all pay the price and threatening a resurgence of the democrats we just kicked out over this nonsense.

My elderly parents, your baby in the NICU. No one wants to make the decision to pull the plug on either.

[Fife]

Wow, the state has really beaten your butt into pulp.

When you see that "Helping your neighbor" is within the purview of the state only, your ass really is beat.

Sorry about that, man.

Where did I say that?

Well, we are in agreement, then. Why do you still think we need state "healthcare," or do we agree on that also?

[Speaker to Animals]

Wow, the state has really beaten your butt into pulp.

When you see that "Helping your neighbor" is within the purview of the state only, your ass really is beat.

Sorry about that, man.

Where did I say that?

Well, we are in agreement, then. Why do you still think we need state "healthcare," or do we agree on that also?

My point was that your brand of individualism cannot be separated from state centralization. If you want to go back to a society where we deal with these things at local, community, and family levels, then you need to accept a ton of social obligations and duties. If you want to see how that plays out in our own era, then look at some of the Amish and Mennonite communities, where people help build one another's homes, feed each other in hard times, and they all pool their resources to provide one another with health care.


The idea that you can be an extreme individualist, beholden to no-one, but that you can also live in a society with a decentralized state, plainly put, is utter nonsense. If you want individualism in the sense that libertarians define it, then you need a strong centralized state that deals with all the shit you don't do for your family, friends, and neighbors. I don't know how else to spell it out for you.

As for my interests, you already damned well know I am a reactionary that wants to go back. I would rather not have state centralization and I would rather live in a tightly-bound, high-trust community where everybody works together and helps one another out. I don't see that as an infringement on my liberty. In fact, I would see that as a sense of well-being that was robbed from my by the centralized state and the multiculturalist alienation it has created for us. But if you want zero social obligations, then stop bitching about single payer health care. There's no other way to make this work but some form of state co-opting of health care. Individualists are those who create this, not me.

[Martin Hash]

I guess it depends upon how you conceive of liberty. It doesn't necessarily infringe on my personal sense of liberty to have social obligations to help my community, my family, the people in my parish, my neighbors, etc.

I agree, you can do that with like-minded people. I'm not interested but I support your liberty to do so.

[Fife]

Where did I say that?

Well, we are in agreement, then. Why do you still think we need state "healthcare," or do we agree on that also?

My point was that your brand of individualism cannot be separated from state centralization. If you want to go back to a society where we deal with these things at local, community, and family levels, then you need to accept a ton of social obligations and duties. If you want to see how that plays out in our own era, then look at some of the Amish and Mennonite communities, where people help build one another's homes, feed each other in hard times, and they all pool their resources to provide one another with health care.


The idea that you can be an extreme individualist, beholden to no-one, but that you can also live in a society with a decentralized state, plainly put, is utter nonsense. If you want individualism in the sense that libertarians define it, then you need a strong centralized state that deals with all the shit you don't do for your family, friends, and neighbors. I don't know how else to spell it out for you.

As for my interests, you already damned well know I am a reactionary that wants to go back. I would rather not have state centralization and I would rather live in a tightly-bound, high-trust community where everybody works together and helps one another out. I don't see that as an infringement on my liberty. In fact, I would see that as a sense of well-being that was robbed from my by the centralized state and the multiculturalist alienation it has created for us. But if you want zero social obligations, then stop bitching about single payer health care. There's no other way to make this work but some form of state co-opting of health care. Individualists are those who create this, not me.

Where do you get my "brand of individualism"?

As you know, I believe in a federal government. How is a federal government properly involved in "healthcare?"

[Martin Hash]

My point was that your brand of individualism cannot be separated from state centralization. If you want to go back to a society where we deal with these things at local, community, and family levels, then you need to accept a ton of social obligations and duties. If you want to see how that plays out in our own era, then look at some of the Amish and Mennonite communities, where people help build one another's homes, feed each other in hard times, and they all pool their resources to provide one another with health care.

The idea that you can be an extreme individualist, beholden to no-one, but that you can also live in a society with a decentralized state, plainly put, is utter nonsense. If you want individualism in the sense that libertarians define it, then you need a strong centralized state that deals with all the shit you don't do for your family, friends, and neighbors. I don't know how else to spell it out for you.

As for my interests, you already damned well know I am a reactionary that wants to go back. I would rather not have state centralization and I would rather live in a tightly-bound, high-trust community where everybody works together and helps one another out. I don't see that as an infringement on my liberty. In fact, I would see that as a sense of well-being that was robbed from my by the centralized state and the multiculturalist alienation it has created for us. But if you want zero social obligations, then stop bitching about single payer health care. There's no other way to make this work but some form of state co-opting of health care. Individualists are those who create this, not me.

Awesome self-understanding. Liberty allows for you to choose to live as you want, and me to live as mine. It's when some people decide that everyone live by their values that liberty is violated.

p.s. If you're not willing to move be physically close to people who think like you, you'll need to use the virtual community, like this one.