20th July 2015, 11:48 PM
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.
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.
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.
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.
Yes, contributing to society is way more than giving to the poor. Taking care of oneself is a great contribution: maintaining health, learning, using reason, and being a role model of these practices. Do you agree with this? I do not know because your final sentence says that expecting people fend for themself is the unreasonable thought of someone who's never done so.
If you disagree with my question, please let it be known in your reply.
Or rescind the final sentence of your post.
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.
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.
Great Rumbler: Dishonest business, criminals, and ignorant people will reap what they sow. What benefit would someone get for intentionally selling bad water?
I say government tricks less powerful people into thinking their violently enforced deeds are right and proper. "Patriot Act" "Freedom Act" Don't you think those are tricks? The reasoning behind the Mexican-American War was a trick. The ACA's establishment into law was a trick. A senator even said something like "You have to pass it to see what's in it." That is condescending trickery.
Labor movement: Heck yeah, people should definitely leave of abusive jobs. Or they should rally their coworkers to strong-arm the employer right back! Put abusive employers on blast! There's no slander when it's the truth!
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.
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.
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.
Yes, contributing to society is way more than giving to the poor. Taking care of oneself is a great contribution: maintaining health, learning, using reason, and being a role model of these practices. Do you agree with this? I do not know because your final sentence says that expecting people fend for themself is the unreasonable thought of someone who's never done so.
If you disagree with my question, please let it be known in your reply.
Or rescind the final sentence of your post.
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.
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.
Great Rumbler: Dishonest business, criminals, and ignorant people will reap what they sow. What benefit would someone get for intentionally selling bad water?
I say government tricks less powerful people into thinking their violently enforced deeds are right and proper. "Patriot Act" "Freedom Act" Don't you think those are tricks? The reasoning behind the Mexican-American War was a trick. The ACA's establishment into law was a trick. A senator even said something like "You have to pass it to see what's in it." That is condescending trickery.
Labor movement: Heck yeah, people should definitely leave of abusive jobs. Or they should rally their coworkers to strong-arm the employer right back! Put abusive employers on blast! There's no slander when it's the truth!