Free economic exchange is absolutely essential to true liberty.

If you don't control the means to sustain yourself, how could you ever be free?

Imagine it's 1887 and a federal agent strolls up to your farmer right after it's been determined that pasteurization is "Better".

"What do you mean I can't sell raw cow's milk anymore? I have lots of customers and none of them have ever complained. I can't afford to pasteurization hundreds of gallons of milk."

Now think of the thousands of other similar scenarios where you're not allowed to make an income because someone else says you shouldn't.

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:
Free markets have nothing to do with free people.

>> ^braindonut:

The argument that I heard being made (that I don't necessarily agree with) is that making services a "right" means that somewhere, somehow, someone is paying for it, who may not necessarily want to have to bear that responsibility. If he had made that argument, it might have been a discussion worth having. Instead he went to crazy town and missed his chance.


I know you don't necessarily agree with the viewpoint, but I still don't see how it could have been a discussion worth having. How could you possibly sustain a modern society if people don't have to pay for things that they don't feel are their responsibility?

I hear elderly people in the U.S. sometimes complaining that they don't want to pay for education since they don't have any kids or grandkids in school anymore. Other people complain about their taxes subsidizing freeways since they don't own a car (apparently believing that food just magically arrives at the grocery store rather than being trucked in on a semi). Hell, I complain about how much we waste on "the war on terror"--a war which I was against from the start and wanted absolutely no responsibility for.

But can you imagine a world where people could just opt out of paying for things that they didn't feel they were responsible for? It would be sheer chaos--budgeting would be a nightmare because you'd never know how much money was coming in from year to year. Freeloaders would opt out of paying for anything. And doing your taxes would take the entire year as you had to decide how to mete out what you owe.

Basically, as far as I can tell his argument was not against universal health care, but against taxes. And the slavery quip was just downright silly--if you follow that logic then all lawyers are slaves because the sixth amendment guarantees the right of everyone who is accused of a crime to an attorney (can't take credit for making that observation... read it on Gawker).

>> ^srd:

So to reduce Pauls standpoint to its essence: if it isn't explicit in the constitution, then it's evil. Human decency and common sense can go love off.

Hey, you want to provide goods and services to everyone for sake of "human decency and common sense", then fine. Amend the constitution, and have at it.

But unless you can obtain a 2/3 majority vote in Congress, and ratification by 3/4 of the states, you're bound by the constitution to find other _voluntary_ means of providing those goods and services.

>> ^imstellar28:

So... dinner and drinks on you?
>> ^EMPIRE:
"(...)you have a right to water, you have a right to food" .... huuuuhh... YEAH you do, you fucking stupid dip shit.


If a starving or thirsty person came up to you on the street begging for food and/or water would you deny it? I certainly wouldn't.

We aren't talking about taxes we are talking about human rights. If it is human right you have an obligation to me that extends beyond any form of government, yes?

So, do you want my PayPal address?
>> ^NetRunner:

>> ^imstellar28:
Also, I'm feeling a little under the weather today. Can you guys go ahead and send $100 my way so I can pick up some medicine at the store?

Yes, as long as what we're really talking about is me paying my taxes, and that gets used to pay for your (and my) medical bills.

>> ^imstellar28:

Also, I'm feeling a little under the weather today. Can you guys go ahead and send $100 my way so I can pick up some medicine at the store?


Yes, as long as what we're really talking about is me paying my taxes, and that gets used to pay for your (and my) medical bills.

*news
*health
*money

So... dinner and drinks on you?
>> ^EMPIRE:

"(...)you have a right to water, you have a right to food" .... huuuuhh... YEAH you do, you fucking stupid dip shit.

lol. I'm happy to explain myself to anyone, anytime. My belief system depends on my ability to articulate it.

>> ^Yogi:

>> ^GenjiKilpatrick:
Care to explain?
>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:
There is nothing libertarian about Rand or Ron Paul. They are capitalist fundamentalists.


No he doesn't...Fuck Off!

Traditional libertarianism is about liberty, not partisan economics. The recent American free market reboot of libertarianism uses "liberty" as an ideological shield from criticism. Free markets have nothing to do with free people.

Also, I think Paul's comments are ironic, considering that it was free markets that allowed slavery in this country in the first place, and government regulation that brought about an end to the practice. Wasn't it Ron Paul that said Lincoln should have bought back the slaves instead of fighting the civil war? Yikes.


>> ^GenjiKilpatrick:

Care to explain?
>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:
There is nothing libertarian about Rand or Ron Paul. They are capitalist fundamentalists.

>> ^GenjiKilpatrick:

Care to explain?
>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:
There is nothing libertarian about Rand or Ron Paul. They are capitalist fundamentalists.



No he doesn't...Fuck Off!

Care to explain?

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

There is nothing libertarian about Rand or Ron Paul. They are capitalist fundamentalists.

>> ^braindonut:

Hardly a slap down. Not that I agree with Rand Paul, but he certainly wasn't slapped down.
He needs to learn how to make less bombastic arguments. It gives his opponents an excuse to focus on the wrong aspects of his argument, specifically the sensationalist and extreme aspects, rather than focusing on the real substance of what he was trying to communicate.


What exactly was "the real substance" that he was trying to communicate then? All I saw and heard was him setting a straw-man argument that equated universal health care with slavery, and Sanders rightly pulling the rug out from underneath that argument.

Hardly a slap down. Not that I agree with Rand Paul, but he certainly wasn't slapped down.

He needs to learn how to make less bombastic arguments. It gives his opponents an excuse to focus on the wrong aspects of his argument, specifically the sensationalist and extreme aspects, rather than focusing on the real substance of what he was trying to communicate.

So what you're saying is that he's a standard person. Some things you agree with...some things you don't.

Wow...its a good thing we have this system where there are checks and balances in place so that the president has limited power.

There are things he's absolutely dead on about, but there are things he's an absolute nutcase about. The fact that he sired Rand Paul scares me a bit. but right now I'm totally for his anti-war stance so if he can get us out of three wars..I'll gladly put up with his nonsense about the gold standard and de-regulation.

>> ^MaxWilder:

I don't know about the truth of his numbers, but he speaks some truth here. The government needs to make cuts to all areas of spending, especially the defense budget.
And if we don't get a government that can track it's own spending, we are doomed as a nation.


Wow. You and I finally agree on something.