Why are you not anarchist or Libertarian?

page: 2
10
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 28 2010 @ 06:05 AM
link   
a) I'm not american
b) I'm not stupid enough to be an anarchist
c) I'm not selfish enough to be a libertarian.

Let me explain a). I'm not american, meaning that being a libertarian is not an option, and anarchy never crossed my mind because I live in a very normal country with a pretty good standard of life; MUCH better than in the US.

Let me explain b). b) means that I'm not stupid, plain and simple. Anarchists are stupid because half of them would never survive in an anarchy. They would be too weak to survive. Most anarchists don't function in society and are easily cast away. If they were real "strong" they would prevail right?

Let me explain c). c) means that I'm not selfish, plain and simple. This libertarian crap where I think about nobody but myself, I don't care about the sick guy next to me, other than how his death may leave me with something instead of how people can help each other to better everything. It's BS. People should be helping each other, not fending for themselves.

Magnum




posted on Dec, 28 2010 @ 06:13 AM
link   
It is an attractive idea to think that one can live as a free person with out any state or government. Unfortunately, life doesn't always go to plan. I need the assistance of state run medical services for my survival, without a nationalised health service, I would be dead now, so forgive me for not want to overthrow a system that helps keep me alive.

I believe it is possible to have a social democracy that ensures a level of security and prosperity to the citizens of a nation. Unfortunately the way the world is now, it is very difficult to operate any government without the external influence of other countries and other corporations.
edit on 28-12-2010 by woodwardjnr because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 28 2010 @ 06:31 AM
link   
reply to post by woodwardjnr
 


Again, a giant philosophical change is needed...why do you automatically assume that either of those things need a centralized state to exist, in the sense of financial and medical aid? And why do you think you would be left for dead if a state did not exist? You should probably answer those questions before questioning libertarian socialism itself.
edit on 28-12-2010 by Solomons because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 28 2010 @ 07:06 AM
link   
reply to post by Solomons
 


I have an answer as to why I'd be left for dead, it's very simple... No money = no treatment and nobody would be there to help in a libertarian or anarchist society. Look at what's happening now in the US, people are losing their homes and need 2-3 jobs just to support their hospital fees... Some even have to go bankrupt... This causes more stress which in turn causes more medical problems for which medicine is too expensive to get which in turn literally kills people!

Is that normal? How can an economy be healthy when it's people are not? Too many people are off work sick because they can't afford the simple yet expensive treatment!!

Instead of paying people to stay home and be sick (disability), perhaps the government should pay for their medicine and treatment so that they can work and be productive! Isn't that a logical answer?

Magnum



posted on Dec, 28 2010 @ 07:17 AM
link   
Anarchism means chaos.

Libertardists are idiots.



posted on Dec, 28 2010 @ 07:30 AM
link   
reply to post by Magnum007
 


Im replying to myself to add that an analogy to keep in mind is that the more you invest in your people, the more you can get out of them. The happier, healthier people are usually much more productive for the economy than those who aren't. It's in the interest of the government to keep it's people healthy and educated so that they can prosper, produce, and in turn spend money, driving the economy higher and higher...

The American non-regulatory policies, which were unfortunately adopted in some form or another all over or had a strong influence in the world, has brought the world nowhere but down. Sure it was good at first, but now look where the US is now and how the world is in turmoil... Greece, Ireland, England, and other countries who did what the US did are now paying for it!!

The best policy is care for the people, together we can achieve more than individuals can.

Magnum



posted on Dec, 28 2010 @ 07:32 AM
link   
When did "libertarian" become synonymous with selfish? There's never been a philanthropic libertarian? No libertarian has ever founded a charity?

As if the only way assistance can be provided is to arm a bunch of statists and have them kick in peoples doors and confiscate a sum of their property to be disseminated among others?

Sounds to me like too many are being brainwashed by popular factless opinion. Lifestyle marketing strikes again.


 
Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com
 



posted on Dec, 28 2010 @ 07:39 AM
link   
reply to post by thisguyrighthere
 


So the people will decide who lives and who dies? "I don't like you, you won't get my charitable help!"... Sounds terribly like those "death panels"... At least socialized healthcare doesn't discriminate... Everyone pays in, everyone gets treatment!

Since when is life saving medicine about charity or pity? It's a basic human right! Why do the people of Africa get free medical aid from the world, yet the supposed most powerful country in the world's people don't?

Make sense to you?



posted on Dec, 28 2010 @ 07:43 AM
link   
Reply to post by Magnum007
 


I dont see medicine as a basic human right. A need at one time or another perhaps but not a right.

So that ends that.


 
Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com
 



posted on Dec, 28 2010 @ 07:52 AM
link   
reply to post by thisguyrighthere
 


So you would be ready to go bankrupt for the rest of your life should you get sick because insurance is not available to you because the insurance company finds an excuse not to help you? Or perhaps even die because there is nobody toprotrct your right to life saving medicine?



posted on Dec, 28 2010 @ 08:00 AM
link   
reply to post by thisguyrighthere
 




I dont see medicine as a basic human right. A need at one time or another perhaps but not a right.


That explains it. Libertarians think that right to property is more important than right to life (which equals right to medicine). That is of course crazy.

TRUE natural law, not twisted by libertarian extremists states humans have the right to life, liberty and property. IN THAT ORDER. That means that some stealing (taxes) to pay for medicine is not only all right, it is REQUIRED by natural law.

And if we couple this with logic and utilitarianism, as in this great post above me:



Im replying to myself to add that an analogy to keep in mind is that the more you invest in your people, the more you can get out of them. The happier, healthier people are usually much more productive for the economy than those who aren't. It's in the interest of the government to keep it's people healthy and educated so that they can prosper, produce, and in turn spend money, driving the economy higher and higher...


it is clear that in the end its better for ALL to act sooner and preventivelly, than paying only for basic lifesaving medicine from taxes.

Extreme libertarianism is not only unempathic and selfish, it is illogical, internally inconsistent and against prosperity.
edit on 28/12/10 by Maslo because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 28 2010 @ 09:06 AM
link   
The idea that the state can confiscate wealth with the threat of force, and then distribute it better than if it is done locally is wrong. Medicine being a right is dangerous ground. I would love to see everyone have long healthy lives. Arresting and imprisoning people to pay for it is hardly moral though. Anyways it is unsustainable. If everyone knows that they will receive medical care for free there is no reason to not drink yourself to death, be unemployed, or remain an non-citizen. This inevitably leads to a decline in medical care for all people. How can any system continue to provide more services with less productive capacity? It is happening all around the US right now. In my area it it illegal to deny emergency care to anyone. What does that mean? Illegals mainly, but anyone else who has the desire gets medical care for free. How can a hospital do this? It raises medical costs for everybody else, and this leads to the debt that people must endure for medical care. In reality, the state ensuring medical care as a right leads to WORSE care for everybody. This is just one example of many where the state harms all it touches. We can live in fantasy land of state indoctrination or we can look at how reality is.



posted on Dec, 28 2010 @ 09:07 AM
link   
Reply to post by Maslo
 


That's interesting. So the base state of existence has doctors and medicine running around keeping people alive?

So right along with habilis to floresiensis there were these doctors carrying medicine and working with all of the medical knowledge available keeping them alive?

If "life" as you seem to put it were a natural right there would be no death as death would run contrary to nature.


 
Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com
 



posted on Dec, 28 2010 @ 09:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by stephinrazin
there is no reason to not drink yourself to death, be unemployed, or remain an non-citizen.


Is that why Canada, Germany, and other socialized countries have higher unemployment rates, bankruptcies, crime, preventable deaths, as well as economic and social problems than the US??


Give me a break...



posted on Dec, 28 2010 @ 09:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere
Reply to post by Maslo
 


That's interesting. So the base state of existence has doctors and medicine running around keeping people alive?

So right along with habilis to floresiensis there were these doctors carrying medicine and working with all of the medical knowledge available keeping them alive?

If "life" as you seem to put it were a natural right there would be no death as death would run contrary to nature.


 
Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com
 



Doctors and medicine did not exist then, so thats kind of stupid analogy. Of course, it was perfectly OK under law of nature for example to steal someone elses food if you were hungry and had opportunity or power to do so. Now modern society respects this basic natural law, but we dont want to have poor people running around violently stealing from those better off. Thats why it is done through more peaceful institutions, and because we are not on the level of animals in the jungle obeying only natural laws, such welfare is provided to everyone in need, not just those that can violently take it anyway.



posted on Dec, 28 2010 @ 09:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere
Reply to post by Maslo
 


If "life" as you seem to put it were a natural right there would be no death as death would run contrary to nature.


That's what differentiates anarchists and libertarians from social conscious people, the lack of care for others on the basis that people should just die because it's the way it is... I'm sure you wouldn't think that way should you be refused medical care because you couldn't pay for it and nobody would want to help...

Scenario (don't wish this on you of course!!)

You have 2 kids and one gets sick, you mortgage the house and get a second job because the insurance company won't pay... Then you find out your second child is sick also and you can't afford the care needed to save their life... What do youtell them? "sorry w libertarians believe that people die so too bad, don't have the money to pay and that's the way it is!"

Come on!!! You can't tell me that common sense doesn't prevail!!!



posted on Dec, 28 2010 @ 09:52 AM
link   
Reply to post by Maslo
 


But it is being violently taken away.

When a person or persons come to take your property, your food, you have a right to defend yourself and your property.

When a government, who somehow became the granter and revoker of all rights, comes to take your property you cannot defend yourself or that property without being imprisoned or killed by that government.


 
Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com
 



posted on Dec, 28 2010 @ 09:53 AM
link   
Reply to post by Magnum007
 


Over the years family has been in those situations on more than one occasion.

Our principles remain unchanged.

Extortion is wrong. Always.


 
Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com
 



posted on Dec, 28 2010 @ 10:06 AM
link   
reply to post by thisguyrighthere
 





When a person or persons come to take your property, your food, you have a right to defend yourself and your property.


Or in other words, might makes right. Thats the law of nature (natural law) when you strip down the ideological hogwash.




When a government, who somehow became the granter and revoker of all rights, comes to take your property you cannot defend yourself or that property without being imprisoned or killed by that government.


In government, the granter and revoker of all rights are (or should be) people and legal experts. In natural law based society, or anarchy, the granter and revoker of all rights is who can shoot better.



posted on Dec, 28 2010 @ 10:09 AM
link   
Reply to post by Maslo
 


Essentially it's the same way with the government.

The government has taken "might makes right" and moved it to levels where the person has no chance of defending himself against it or changing it to work in his favor.

The government have monopolized might makes right.

As long as you're with the mob it's fine. Take a step outside of the mob and you see the cage around you.


 
Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com
 






top topics



 
10
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join