My state's governor has lost it

[Weltall]

Weltall: Don't insult me with that "You probably think" non-sense. Yes, my accomplishments are 100% of my efforts. And if something wasn't 100% my effort then it's not my accomplishment.

Yeah? You grow your own food? Make your own clothes? Construct your own vehicles? Provide your own education?

Of course not. And, you think that because you paid some money for these things, that the efforts of the countless people who had to deliver all these things to you somehow do not contribute to whatever success you have achieved. You are nothing on your own. You are just one grain of sand. You've had the good fortune to have (presumably) a good job, and the physical and mental health to allow you to do it.

Your successes are the result of many people's work, plus a lack of disastrous bad luck.

That Obama quote sounds like a critique of the Republicans, who lead the corporate welfare state. I'm against them too. I don't think his quote is any sort of attack on libertarianism.

Libertarians want a minimized government that 'can't interfere with the freedom to conduct commerce'. Which is only going to make sure that the wealthiest people won't need to worry about bribing government. They will, essentially if not literally, be the government. It's pretty much where we are right now.

Is that a list of Bernie Sanders contributors? So he's supported by Big Labor? Labor unions are essentially corporations (except in legalese): separate legal entities intending to benefit their stakeholders. They sell labor. Don't get me wrong I'm for the freedom to organize, but it looks like Sanders is supported by some wealth.

I can't discuss the finer points of labor with someone who seems to know virtually nothing about it. The man, himself, is worth about $300,000 and the vast majority of his campaign funds come from personal, small donations.

Lack of government =/= death & starvation. Nature = death & starvation. I don't see how pre-20th century is any argument because there was government then. n the 1800s, the Mormons trekked out west without government aid and established cities that thrive today. Even earlier the Mayflower pilgrims went on their own. The farther you go back the deadlier such expeditions were ... due to lower tech.

Lack of government = death and starvation for anyone who lacks the means to provide for themselves, or defend themselves. It has always been true.

Or you can agree with both of of our propositions. Mine: Taking care of oneself is a contribution to society, and Yours: no one can reasonably expect people to do so. The people that do not contribute to society by being self-sustainable deserve everyones' contributions via a strong aparatus (government funded, I presume?). Without this aparatus, people will starve and die, because like you said, we can't expect people to keep themselves alive.

..

You make this insane assumption that people who don't fend for themselves do so by choice. And you make that assumption because you have to. The entire fundament of libertarianism rests upon the assumption that everybody is fully capable and the losers are losers entirely by choice. There isn't enough time in the day to explain all of the nuance of this reality, but it wouldn't matter. You're an entitled individual who has clearly never faced any real hardship. Or, you have, and you've made it out for reasons entirely different from what you believe they are.

It is getting difficult to converse with you. I have to respond to each sentence individually because they don't build to any point or the are contradictory.

They build to the point that libertarianism is an unrealistic, childish and psychopathic fantasy that seems to be really popular only by people who would benefit from it.