The case against guns

[Seth]

I loathe Libertarianism as it wishes me and most of humanity dead so a tiny minority can be 'free', I live and have 'rights' because of the society I choose to live in. Attack that and you attack my survival.

I wish you dead? How so?

The only way 99.9% of humanity can survive is by strict controls and regulations on their behaviour, libertarianism wants to get of this so people can be 'free' to starve or be exploited.

See, I told you he was utterly ignorant of Libertarianism.

Fascism and communism attacked minorities and claimed to benefit majorities but libertarianism has nothing but contempt for most of humanity. It's the enemy of anyone who isn't not stupidly rich and has their own private island

Wrong. Libertarianism is the most generous and altruistic of political philosophies. It does, however, allow people to make their own mistakes and suffer the consequences of making those mistakes without imposing a burden on others to rectify such mistakes. This is based on two broad principles; first, that people become better individuals and are more able to care for themselves if they are required to suffer the consequences of their actions, which motivates them to make better decisions; and second because Libertarians believe in EVERYONE'S liberty and we do not believe it is just to forcibly impose a burden of supporting the dependent class onto others without their consent. This does NOT mean that Libertarians are not interested in charity, altruism or enlightened self interest. We are. Deeply.

But my liberty is more important than your dependency, and when you demand that I labor on your behalf and try to enforce that demand with the jackbooted thugs of government, I'm not only not going to labor on your behalf, I'm going to take action to put an end to such a government, because it is ipso facto a tyrannical despotism.

Ask nicely, however, and you'd be very surprised at how generous I can be.

[Seth]

Libertarianism, the set of political philosophies which uphold human liberty as a high or the highest political end, is the most evil ideology invented

Which is why it is so fundamentally wrong, 'liberty' is not a end point its an enabler in some circumstances to human happiness.

Human happiness is really the highest political end, if freedom in some circumstances helps then great but there is nothing good in freedom in itself

I don't care how 'free' I am to choose which private hospital to go to if I can't afford to go to any, I don't care about how free I am to choose where to work if I have no employee rights and wherever I go I will be treated appalling and struggle to survive. I don't care how free I am to own a gun if my neighbour is free to own one as well and use it on me.

The worship of anything is wrong and that includes 'freedom', its can be a nice luxury to have once you have more important things sorted out like food and shelter

We don't care if you don't care. You have not articulated any rational moral or ethical justification for enslaving other people to your support merely because you are having difficulties. Your rationale is that of the thief. You want what you want and you'll do whatever it takes to get it, including enslaving and killing others. Now THAT'S evil incarnate.

[Seth]

There is not much evidence that lacking freedom is a diminution of the human condition? That must be why people crave going to jail, where they get their three hot meals and a cot and have nothing to worry about in terms of survival, and they are supplied with a modicum of entertainment. That would be the best of all possible worlds, wouldn't it? Happiness achieved through maximum government intervention.

I don't think locking someone up in prison cheers most people up but you said loss of freedom sent then mad which simply isnt true, there is definitely a proportion of people in prison who are quite happy to be there for the reasons you mentioned. You can survive a loss of freedom you can't survive a loss of food or medical care

Which justifies enslaving others to your needs against their will how, exactly? Did they create your need? Are they responsible for you illness? On what ethical or moral basis do you assume that YOUR need for food or medical care is of greater value than another's liberty?

Pure selfishness? It appears so.

You've never bothered to try to justify your philosophy in a rational manner. You just assume a priori that you have a greater right to enslave others to your needs than their right to liberty and the willing allocation of their labor and property.

You don't ever explain how your position is any stronger or more morally correct than theirs.

Care to give it a go?

[Coito ergo sum]

There is not much evidence that lacking freedom is a diminution of the human condition? That must be why people crave going to jail, where they get their three hot meals and a cot and have nothing to worry about in terms of survival, and they are supplied with a modicum of entertainment. That would be the best of all possible worlds, wouldn't it? Happiness achieved through maximum government intervention.

I don't think locking someone up in prison cheers most people up but you said loss of freedom sent then mad which simply isnt true,

I said COMPLETE loss of freedom can drive people insane, and it can.

there is definitely a proportion of people in prison who are quite happy to be there for the reasons you mentioned. You can survive a loss of freedom you can't survive a loss of food or medical care

As for libertarian anarchists types I have one particular person in mind who is definitely of that nature, more often than not freedom can increase human happiness but where it doesnt there is absolutely nothing morally wrong in restricting it

You're just not understanding what libertarianism is. Here I am defending it, and I'm not even one. But, whatever.

[MrJonno]

A Human being survival is more important than any 'liberty', if someone needs medical care or they die whether you wish to pay for it or not through taxes is irrelevant you will do so in any civilized country. Your neighbours health is more important than your bank balance. Don't like it tough we live in a democracy and vote for uncivilized society.

Some things are too important to be left to individual choice

[Coito ergo sum]

A Human being survival is more important than any 'liberty',

Meh. Some things are worth dying for, or risking ones life for. The truly fearful and craven, of course, have always chosen capitulation and serfdom to independence, dignity and self-respect.

if someone needs medical care or they die whether you wish to pay for it or not through taxes is irrelevant you will do so in any civilized country. Your neighbours health is more important than your bank balance. Don't like it tough we live in a democracy and vote for uncivilized society.

Some things are too important to be left to individual choice

Which are the civilized and which are the uncivilized countries, pray tell?

I bet you don't practice what you preach in terms of your generosity toward your neighbor. You probably leave that up to the government. It's not really any sort of reaching in your own pocket that you're talking about. You're one of the getters/takers no doubt, so of course you would deem in generous and kind for others to be compelled to take care of you.

And, underlying your assumption regarding medical care is that the system provided by the government is going to meet your neighbor's needs. From the news stories out of the UK I've been following over the last several years, I'd much rather get sick here in the US. Prompt treatment occurs here, insurance or no insurance, money or no money. I know people illegally in the US who have gotten medical care when needed. And, one guy in particular -- illegally in the country and received top, life saving treatment for a near fatal illness in which he spent about 30 days in a hospital before being released. No insurance.

So, we may be an uncivilized country, but I can guarantee you I can get an MRI and CAT Scan and a battery of other tests tomorrow if my doctor prescribed it. If I was rushed to an emergency room, I'd get them all that day.

But, whatever floats your boat, man. If you think it's a civilized country if they have a national health care system funded by taxpayer dollars as the exclusive source of medical care, that's your view of it. Sounds like a dopey system to me, and I'd not want to live in it. But, if you like it, more power to you.

[MrJonno]

I bet you don't practice what you preach in terms of your generosity toward your neighbor. You probably leave that up to the government. It's not really any sort of reaching in your own pocket that you're talking about. You're one of the getters/takers no doubt, so of course you would deem in generous and kind for others to be compelled to take care of you.

I play plenty of taxes, earn above average wages and are probably 'middle class'. Taking into account I've had no major medical illnesses (in the UK), had a free university education, have a pretty much solid 20 year career history after graduating with no more than 3 months unemployment I would guess I'm pretty much covered my cost to society. My wife due to illness almost certainly hasn't. Other people will pay more taxes, some less. No idea what my neighbour health bills have been and don't really care

Now if you want a real drain on the medical services there is my cat who within 2 months of me taking out vet insurance (alas no NHS for pets) got hit by a car and landed the insurance company with a $2000 bill to save his life after only about being paid $30 in premiums

[Coito ergo sum]

I bet you don't practice what you preach in terms of your generosity toward your neighbor. You probably leave that up to the government. It's not really any sort of reaching in your own pocket that you're talking about. You're one of the getters/takers no doubt, so of course you would deem in generous and kind for others to be compelled to take care of you.

I play plenty of taxes, earn above average wages and are probably 'middle class'. Taking into account I've had no major medical illnesses (in the UK), had a free university education, have a pretty much solid 20 year career history after graduating with no more than 3 months unemployment I would guess I'm pretty much covered my cost to society. My wife due to illness almost certainly hasn't. Other people will pay more taxes, some less. No idea what my neighbour health bills have been and don't really care

Now if you want a real drain on the medical services there is my cat who within 2 months of me taking out vet insurance (alas no NHS for pets) got hit by a car and landed the insurance company with a $2000 bill to save his life after only about being paid $30 in premiums

They don't have free university education in the Uk anymore, do they? How uncivilized if they don't...

I also don't know or care what my neighbor's health bills have been. So, we're even there.

No NHS for pets? How barbaric!

However, that insurance anecdote you mentioned is not a "drain on medical services" -- insurance covers the cost based on pooling premiums, so factored into the actuarial tables are the accidents and other occurrences. So, the insurance company's premiums cover the costs. You having purchased insurance was a benefit to you, because the statistics lottery went your way. However, the insurance company calculates the premium based on an amount that they expect would ultimately fully cover insurance claims, plus profit and overhead.

[MrJonno]

They don't have free university education in the Uk anymore, do they? How uncivilized if they don't..

That is because we have the most nasty right wing libertarian government in British history and its the worst decision any British government has made since appeasement. Even appeasement wasn't a black and right issue and bought some time for rearmament. Charging commercial rates for education is just a way of keeping the proles under control , either by keeping them uneducated or in permanent debt so they won't get too uppity with anyone who employs them

[Coito ergo sum]

They don't have free university education in the Uk anymore, do they? How uncivilized if they don't..

That is because we have the most nasty right wing libertarian government in British history and its the worst decision any British government has made since appeasement. Even appeasement wasn't a black and right issue and bought some time for rearmament. Charging commercial rates for education is just a way of keeping the proles under control , either by keeping them uneducated or in permanent debt so they won't get too uppity with anyone who employs them

What a load of steaming shit. Now we're expected to believe that you have a "libertarian" government in the UK?

They should come to the US for college, then. There are plenty of colleges here that one can pay for making a modest income, especially given the Pell grants and other aid available to those on a sliding scale based on income. It's nice to live in a civilized country.

[Rum]

I think it is fair to say with have far right politicians with yearnings for libertarianism, but they, as well as you know that it is wildly unrealistic and as idealistic in fact as those wishing for any other utopian perfection in society. It won't happen.

[MrJonno]

What a load of steaming shit. Now we're expected to believe that you have a "libertarian" government in the UK?

They should come to the US for college, then. There are plenty of colleges here that one can pay for making a modest income, especially given the Pell grants and other aid available to those on a sliding scale based on income. It's nice to live in a civilized country.

I believe a few have but a lot have gone to Europe where many degrees are now taught in English and the universities under EU law have to charge fellow EU citizens the same as residents which is often nothing or very little.

The UK currently has a very nasty right wing government who make the usual shit claims about 'freedom'

[Coito ergo sum]

What a load of steaming shit. Now we're expected to believe that you have a "libertarian" government in the UK?

They should come to the US for college, then. There are plenty of colleges here that one can pay for making a modest income, especially given the Pell grants and other aid available to those on a sliding scale based on income. It's nice to live in a civilized country.

I believe a few have but a lot have gone to Europe where many degrees are now taught in English and the universities under EU law have to charge fellow EU citizens the same as residents which is often nothing or very little.

The UK currently has a very nasty right wing government who make the usual shit claims about 'freedom'

Right wing =/= libertarian. Libertarians are typically not in much agreement with the "right wing," except perhaps on economic freedom grounds. Libertarianism requires much more than mere adherence to the concept of a free market.

I highly doubt Englishmen can go to France and get free college, but, I can't really be arsed to check it out. However, if someone is going to go to Germany or France or whatever for college, they're going to need to support themselves in the meantime, aren't they?

Fuck - if they provided free college anywhere, I'd think of moving there. I'd just get degree after degree, and drink and party for the rest of my life.

[Seth]

A Human being survival is more important than any 'liberty',

It is? So the murderer's survival is more important than the victim's right to be free from victimization?

Your survival is not more important than my survival, or my liberty. This is why if you crash your car, which explodes into flames with you trapped inside, absolutely nothing in the law, common or codified, requires me or anyone else, including police and fire personnel, to put or lives at risk to save you.

The same applies to medical care. If you get cancer, no concept in the history of law requires that I take any action whatsoever to help you survive. You're on your own, bud. I didn't give you cancer and I'm not financially responsible for your treatment or your life.

if someone needs medical care or they die whether you wish to pay for it or not through taxes is irrelevant you will do so in any civilized country.

Everybody dies, Jonno. Everybody. Some just die sooner than others. That's life, get used to it. Nobody guaranteed you a long and happy life free from disease, injury or disability. You pay your nickle, you take your chance.

Your neighbours health is more important than your bank balance. Don't like it tough we live in a democracy and vote for uncivilized society.

No it's not. And I don't live in a democracy, thank God. Of course in a democracy of the sort you are referring to, which is an absolute tyranny of the majority, the majority can just as easily tell YOU that you're too expensive and too much trouble to keep alive and it can therefore withdraw ALL assistance, including food and water, so that you will die quickly. Many societies in history have taken it one step further and decided when whole groups of people are unnecessary and undesirable and have rounded them up and murdered them wholesale.

That's what you're advocating.

No thanks.

Some things are too important to be left to individual choice[/quote]

[MrJonno]

An EU country has to change the same fee's to any citizen in the EU except it may discriminate between its own locals.

If Germany charges E1000 per year for a German student , it has to charge the same for a British one , how Germany could charge £2000 if it wanted for someone from say Western Germany but only £1000 to an Eastern Germany student (no idea if that happens in Germany), this does lead to the very silly Scotland situation where if you are 'Scottish' you pay £1800, if you are German and want to study in Scotland you pay £1800 as they can't discriminate but if you are English you pay £9000 as Scotland can discriminate internally even through Scotland isnt an independent country.

It's gets even sillier if you are from Northern Ireland, as the Republic will grant anyone Irish citizenship is from there and they can them claim foreign low fees in Scotland

The Tory decision to introduce £9000 fees for England only could quite literally destroy the country, are there any restrictions in the US on when you count as a 'resident' in an individual state, you need to live for a few years in Scotland to count as 'Scottish'. Getting a degree isn't really optional as you will struggle to even get a job as a waiter without one these days

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/un ... rmany.html