Trump takes the fight to ISIS

[SuburbanFarmer]

Hogwash

Enlighten me.

Your state is the enemy of the disabled, not freedom.


Just one obvious and quick example, if you'll take a moment: https://mises.org/library/doomed-special-rights

#NotMyState

I'm not necessarily on the opposite end of your idea. But it's still a fatal flaw in the ideology, that's generally hand-waved away by "charity".

[Fife]

Enlighten me.

Your state is the enemy of the disabled, not freedom.


Just one obvious and quick example, if you'll take a moment: https://mises.org/library/doomed-special-rights

#NotMyState

I'm not necessarily on the opposite end of your idea. But it's still a fatal flaw in the ideology, that's generally hand-waved away by "charity".

Pfft. "fatal flaw", OK. Your way is then, by default, the nanny state. Your state.

[SuburbanFarmer]

Your state is the enemy of the disabled, not freedom.


Just one obvious and quick example, if you'll take a moment: https://mises.org/library/doomed-special-rights

#NotMyState

I'm not necessarily on the opposite end of your idea. But it's still a fatal flaw in the ideology, that's generally hand-waved away by "charity".

Pfft. "fatal flaw", OK. Your way is then, by default, the nanny state. Your state.

No middle ground, no discussion, no compromise. Where have we seen this before...

[Martin Hash]

I'd just be content to bring back the draft for EVERYBODY who wants to vote and have them sign up at 18. If you don't want to vote, then don't sign up for the draft. Seems pretty simple to me.

And I say people have to have a PhD and be rich to vote. (Maybe we should vote on it?)

[Fife]

#NotMyState

I'm not necessarily on the opposite end of your idea. But it's still a fatal flaw in the ideology, that's generally hand-waved away by "charity".

Pfft. "fatal flaw", OK. Your way is then, by default, the nanny state. Your state.

No middle ground, no discussion, no compromise. Where have we seen this before...

Fuck if I know, you're the one bringing up "fatal flaws." Fuck that.

[SuburbanFarmer]

Pfft. "fatal flaw", OK. Your way is then, by default, the nanny state. Your state.

No middle ground, no discussion, no compromise. Where have we seen this before...

Fuck if I know, you're the one bringing up "fatal flaws." Fuck that.

So... no answer then? Just assume that it'll work itself out?

[Fife]

You've already been given the answer. But, pointing out to statists that their state crowds out positive human goodness is a tough row to hoe, given that the state is omnipresent. How can we expect feeble minds to be so imaginative as to even conceive of a world with out their cage?

You appear to be convinced that without the IRS knocking down doors and Fauxcahontas and Bernie distributing manna, there will be blood and dead bodies in the streets. IOW, the same pablum and kid stuff you have always dribbled down your leg.

zzzzzz

[SuburbanFarmer]

You've already been given the answer. But, pointing out to statists that their state crowds out positive human goodness is a tough row to hoe, given that the state is omnipresent. How can we expect feeble minds to be so imaginative as to even conceive of a world with out their cage?

You appear to be convinced that without the IRS knocking down doors and Fauxcahontas and Bernie distributing manna, there will be blood and dead bodies in the streets. IOW, the same pablum and kid stuff you have always dribbled down your leg.

zzzzzz

Well, you're certainly defensive about this. I'd honestly just like an explanation of how disabled people are handled in a libertarian system.

I consider myself a moderate libertarian, and it's a true question.

[Speaker to Animals]

You still need some organized system of welfare. Putting the state in charge of that I think was part of the Big Mistake of the 18th century.

For most of our history going back to the early medieval period, people of means were required to pay a tithe which (theoretically though not always strictly so) would go towards providing hospitals, hospice, orphanages, etc.


It might be possible to imagine something like that in our future where, instead of some single institution doing it all, it would be a collective of institutions such as most of the organized churches in America, the major charities, etc.

The problem with the government doing it is that they create a bureaucracy who's primary purpose is to maintain the bureaucracy, which means keeping people in poverty and dependent. Private charitable organizations have the opposite interest because their motive is to solve as many social problems as possible and they'd love to move along to new problems if they can solve some class of social problems.

[SuburbanFarmer]

You still need some organized system of welfare. Putting the state in charge of that I think was part of the Big Mistake of the 18th century.

For most of our history going back to the early medieval period, people of means were required to pay a tithe which (theoretically though not always strictly so) would go towards providing hospitals, hospice, orphanages, etc.


It might be possible to imagine something like that in our future where, instead of some single institution doing it all, it would be a collective of institutions such as most of the organized churches in America, the major charities, etc.

The problem with the government doing it is that they create a bureaucracy who's primary purpose is to maintain the bureaucracy, which means keeping people in poverty and dependent. Private charitable organizations have the opposite interest because their motive is to solve as many social problems as possible and they'd love to move along to new problems if they can solve some class of social problems.

They were able to do that, because the power of the state was directed by The Church. It was, effectively, a state-run tax, even though it was supposed to be for the Church.