The following is a reply to Rob Kall's reply to one of my comments at "Parasites: Real and Imagined". Rob's words are in bold.
Your lame analogy to a restaurant is a joke, right? It has nothing to do with reality.
Exhibit #1 in the court of bad logic. No, it's not a joke. Of course, it's not real because nobody would tolerate it. That was my whole point. Why do you not only tolerate, but advocate that the government operate in such a thuggish fashion?
So, you didn't vote for the government? So, you didn't approve the original tax laws or vote for the people who enacted them. Don't like it, don't live here.
The problem here are the thugs who call themselves government not the advocates of liberty such as myself. "NO TREASON" explains it well.
Move to some other place where you get more rights and opportunities, with lower taxes. Oh, there aren't any?
I tried that & ended up with Hugo Chavez so I had to come back.
Then suck up, stop being a greedy, selfish parasite and pay for the resources you use.
This is another exhibit in the court of bad logic. For some odd reason progressives just can't get past the idea that if the government isn't doing something then nothing's being done. Private solutions are invisible to progressives.
BTW, I do pay taxes (though only because of the threat of force being used against me) & pay for everything I use.
Jos. Kennedy jr. refers to polluters who don't clean up after themselves as parasites too-- they leave their mess for others.
I agree. There should be sanctions against polluters. Libertarians have been advocating this for years. See here & here.
I repeat my argument, which you have left totally unscathed, wealthier people use more of the resources of the US, that help them attain, maintain and protect their assets. That should not and does not come cheap. Judges, civil courts, enforcement of contract, regulation of financial institutions-- these high cost government operations, including bailouts,
Bailouts? Since when do progressives support corporate welfare? I thought that opposition to such things was something we had in common. I guess not.
are highly expensive and should be paid for by the people who benefit from them.
I'll be charitable & assume that you either haven't seen or don't get what I've posted on this subject. To repeat, repeat, repeat let's start with "The Voluntary City". Just read the summary it explains a lot. Let's move on to a comment I posted replying to you, "Lastly, your point about paying for roads & other infrastructure is a strawman. I don't know about the conservatives, but the libertarian view is that infrastructure should be privatized & paid for, repeat paid for, like any other service you need."
Let me add that I firmly believe that there are plenty of libertarians who would, without a concern, let poor people starve to death or die for lack of adequate health care.
Another exhibit in the court of bad logic. We are the ones that advocate solutions to these problems. Progressives advocate policies & support governments implementing the policies that cause the shortages of food & healthcare.
To explain, progressives advocate government control of healthcare in one form or another. Yet for some odd reason they ignore the fact that the government already controls healthcare in the US. The medical, pharmaceutical, & insurance industries are among the most highly regulated. The gov already pays for 1/2 of all medical care. It is the government that has already failed to deliver healthcare, not some nonexistent free market. Yet what do progressives advocate? More government involvement. Why? So people can have even less healthcare? When someone messes up you fire them, not give them more responsibility. Get the government out of healthcare, implement a real free market & you'll see the healthcare situation improve dramatically.
Every country around the world that has tried regulating food production & distribution has only produced hunger. In the USSR & India, for example, they had to abandon much of the government's control of agriculture to reverse their famines. Zimbabwe is another example of the governments failure in this regard. Mugabe's land reform (which included raping & murdering) has only lead to starvation. Yet many progressives still cheer him on.
Who is it that cares about the sick & hungry now?
Before "civilization" primitive tribes took care of each other. Tribal members who acted like libertarians would be treated as insane and shunned for failing to share in the responsibilities of taking care of the familial tribe.
Talk about a strawman. It was libertarian ideas that lifted us out of primitivism & allow us to live in society. There is no civilization without voluntary cooperation. When you introduce force you’re taking us back to the jungle.
That’s the puzzling thing about progressives. They seem to think that modern society should be run like a clan of primitives. If you want to live that way, fine. I’ll take the 21st century, thank you.
I guess it bears repeating that I’ve already made clear how libertarians advocate handling taking care of the sick & less fortunate.
I don't want to call names, but did I hear oinks?
What’s next, boy? Virtual spit balls?
