Here come the UK SWAF teams!

[Seth]

Society interferes with the rights of individuals in many areas.

Yes, it certainly does.

It can easily be done to excess, but a certain amount simply needs to be accepted for pragmatic reasons.

Why? Why can we not demand a sound rational and logical basis for such interference in each and every instance?

Societies need to have a serious debate about the extent of the reduction in liberties for the greater good, and I would like them to be on the minimum side, but there is no point in a romantic delusion that we will eliminate any restrictions whatsoever.

No such expectation has ever been voiced by me.

Each country will find its own "equilibrium position" on the spectrum of individual rights and restrictions imposed by society.

Ah, tyranny of the majority, I see.

You have a legitimate voice in such a debate as a representative of one side of the spectrum, perhaps MrJonno has a voice for the other extreme. But don't pretend that your voice has a moral imperative that supercedes the considered views of the population as a whole, unless you want to be an elitist, sneering absolutist...

I'm simply asking you to provide a detailed rational and logical argument that supports the idea that my liberties need to be interfered with to the extent of forcing me to wear seat belts or motorcycle helmets. I'm not asking you if it's possible to create such laws, I'm asking you to specifically justify why such laws should infringe on my right to suffer horrific injury if that is my free choice? What interest does society legitimately have in restricting my liberties in that manner? Can you describe this interest and support it with reason and logic?

[Seth]

Actually, preventing other people being injured is important to everyone. When your neighbour gets injured, the harm is far beyond just that neighbour. In medical costs. In loss of productivity costs. In emotional costs. These things always affect a lot more people than just the victim.

Well, there's the beginnings of a rational argument anyway.

So, let me address them.

Medical costs: Who asked you to treat me? If I choose to expose myself to injury and I do not request medical treatment for a resulting injury, why should society force that treatment on me, much less try to charge me for providing something I did not want or consent to have performed for me?

Productivity costs: What gives you the right to treat me as a commodity and a slave to your productivity needs? If I choose to injure myself so I cannot work, and I demand nothing of you or society by way of support, what is your rationale for treating me like your chattel and denying me my liberty to injure myself just so I can be "productive" for your or society's benefit?

Emotional costs: By what right or rationale do you presume to bind me and my liberties to your emotions? Your emotions are your own. I am neither in control of them nor responsible for them in any way. If you choose to place emotional value on my safety. that's your problem, not mine. Why should my liberty be constrained to pander to your emotional needs?

Everything you posit is a form of imposing a burden or obligation on the individual to satisfy some need of other individuals or society which directly opposes and disrespects individual liberty and sovereignty. Please explain in detail how you come to the conclusion that your interfering with my liberty to take risks is morally justifiable, given my rebuttals of your theses.

[Seth]

We've explained this to you hundreds of times over the years at the various fora. Why should we explain it again when you are wilfully ignorant of the answer?

Because you've never managed to concoct any sort of rational argument supporting this claim. The best you've ever been able to come up with is a wordy version of "just because."

But, hey, one more time for the shits and giggles. In societies that have socialised medicine, said injuries cost taxpayers money. And in all societies a sick and injured population of workers is a negative hit to economies. This is basic stuff. I wish you would fucking get it.

I'm not your slave. I'm not society's slave. I owe nothing to the economy unless I voluntarily undertake to shoulder a burden that requires my labor to compensate those who provide that benefit. If I do not make use of that benefit, I owe society nothing at all.

Just because you choose to have socialized medicine doesn't mean that my liberties can justifiably be curtailed based on a self-serving and specious economic argument. But I'm glad you mention that particular point because it's the prime example of WHY socialized medicine is a dangerous and evil thing. It's dangerous and evil because its existence allows people like you to rationalize literally any interference with individual liberty and choice on the basis that a "bad decision" by the individual will cost society money to ameliorate the "harm" caused to the individual that has to be paid for by society as a result of that bad decision making.

That, my good sir, is a recipe for despotic tyranny of the worst sort. For when you give the government the power to control every aspect of your life through making it the arbiter of your health decisions and every action you take based on the rationale that what you do might impose costs on the treasury, it is absolutely certain that government will continually expand the degree of power and control it exercises over the individual until there is no liberty whatsoever remaining.

We see that in action today in the US with that cunt Michelle's interference with state school lunch programs, among other intrusions on personal liberty and parental authority perpetrated by Progressives over the last century.

My life decisions are not up for review by the government. If they result in someone other than me forming the opinion that public funds should be expended to relieve me of the consequences of my personal life decisions, that's not my problem, it's the nanny-stater's problem and they can pay for whatever they care to pay for, but I'm neither going to amend my behavior to lessen the economic impact on them nor am I going to repay them for anything they might provide to me which, in their opinion, they think I need that I did not explicitly request and contract to pay for in advance.

If that means that I bleed to death on the side of the road because I refuse to pay for services offered to me by an ambulance crew which they therefore withhold, that is my absolute sovereign right as a free individual. If they treat me anyway, then I consider it a gift and will NOT pay any bill submitted to me. If I want treatment, I will make that desire manifest and I will be bound to pay for that service if I choose to do so. If I don't, then anything society gives me is a freely-given gift.

That, good sir, is true liberty in action, and I demand and require nothing more or less.

[Blind groper]

To Seth

Your ideas of libertarian principles are just principles. That is, they have no practical benefit. Principles, like rights, are arbitrary and variable. Each time society changes, so do those rights and principles.

But a person lying at the side of the road bleeding and in pain is a reality. Nothing arbitrary or variable there. The need to help such people is always there.

Experience tells us that the best way to provide such help is to have taxpayer funded facilities like ambulances and hospitals. There is nothing more cruel and callous than a paramedic asking a person who is screaming with pain, to show his health insurance card.

Here in NZ, we have universal health care, except for non New Zealanders. But that does not stop injured tourists being rescued by paramedics and brought to hospitals, and treated, even if they cannot pay. Each year, the NZ taxpayer loses millions of dollars as non payers return to their home countries. Theoretically illegal, of course, but humane.

The choice is between airy fairy, arbitrary, and ultimately changeable libertarian principles, and providing immediate care for those injured and in pain. I will always opt for a system that cares for those who need the care.

[piscator]

Fatenpolezi may be fine in a little wool colony the size of Indianapolis - and by all means suit yourselves in that regard - but Americans will never stand for something so insulting to our conceptions of individual liberty.

[pErvinalia]

We've explained this to you hundreds of times over the years at the various fora. Why should we explain it again when you are wilfully ignorant of the answer?

Because you've never managed to concoct any sort of rational argument supporting this claim. The best you've ever been able to come up with is a wordy version of "just because."

But, hey, one more time for the shits and giggles. In societies that have socialised medicine, said injuries cost taxpayers money. And in all societies a sick and injured population of workers is a negative hit to economies. This is basic stuff. I wish you would fucking get it.

I'm not your slave. I'm not society's slave. I owe nothing to the economy unless I voluntarily undertake to shoulder a burden that requires my labor to compensate those who provide that benefit. If I do not make use of that benefit, I owe society nothing at all.

Just because you choose to have socialized medicine doesn't mean that my liberties can justifiably be curtailed based on a self-serving and specious economic argument. But I'm glad you mention that particular point because it's the prime example of WHY socialized medicine is a dangerous and evil thing. It's dangerous and evil because its existence allows people like you to rationalize literally any interference with individual liberty and choice on the basis that a "bad decision" by the individual will cost society money to ameliorate the "harm" caused to the individual that has to be paid for by society as a result of that bad decision making.

That, my good sir, is a recipe for despotic tyranny of the worst sort. For when you give the government the power to control every aspect of your life through making it the arbiter of your health decisions and every action you take based on the rationale that what you do might impose costs on the treasury, it is absolutely certain that government will continually expand the degree of power and control it exercises over the individual until there is no liberty whatsoever remaining.

We see that in action today in the US with that cunt Michelle's interference with state school lunch programs, among other intrusions on personal liberty and parental authority perpetrated by Progressives over the last century.

My life decisions are not up for review by the government. If they result in someone other than me forming the opinion that public funds should be expended to relieve me of the consequences of my personal life decisions, that's not my problem, it's the nanny-stater's problem and they can pay for whatever they care to pay for, but I'm neither going to amend my behavior to lessen the economic impact on them nor am I going to repay them for anything they might provide to me which, in their opinion, they think I need that I did not explicitly request and contract to pay for in advance.

If that means that I bleed to death on the side of the road because I refuse to pay for services offered to me by an ambulance crew which they therefore withhold, that is my absolute sovereign right as a free individual. If they treat me anyway, then I consider it a gift and will NOT pay any bill submitted to me. If I want treatment, I will make that desire manifest and I will be bound to pay for that service if I choose to do so. If I don't, then anything society gives me is a freely-given gift.

That, good sir, is true liberty in action, and I demand and require nothing more or less.

Seth moving the goalposts again... what a surprise. You said:

You don't explain why or how society is better off

I explained how society is better off.

[Blind groper]

I pointed out to Seth that if human nature was different, libertarian principles could work. But people are essentially selfish. For every Good Samaritan who will self sacrifice to help those in need, there are a whole heap of others who will ignore the need.

History shows what happens when there is no strong central government forcing society to help. Through most of recorded history, those who were sick and dying were left unattended unless they had close family or friends. Those not so lucky were just left to die.

Society is far better off by having legal mechanisms that require people to pay taxes that are used to help those in need.

[pErvinalia]

I don't think humans are inherently selfish, unless we are talking about struggling for survival. A capitalistic society conditions us from birth to be selfish and treat our fellow humans as competitors to dominate.

[Hermit]

Yes we are inherently selfish. Socialism is just being more intelligently selfish than lolbertardianism. Look at the ultimate rationale for altruism, for instance: Do not treat others in a way you don't want to be treated yourself. In other words, treat others well in the expectation that this behaviour is reciprocated. If it is not, reactions can be harsh. At the extreme end it leads to the death penalty.

[pErvinalia]

How can you be sure we are inherently selfish and not conditioned to be selfish?

[Hermit]

Maybe something to do with the survival instinct.

And it's not an either / or matter.

Lastly, I did not say I was sure about it.

[pErvinalia]

You said we are inherently selfish.

Anyway, I'd assume we are selfish in conditions where we are struggling for survival. But if everyone had what they needed, would there actually be a significant number of humans who would inherently want more? It would be hard to tease out capitalist conditioning from any inherent traits, but if we look to our history as a species it seems that we are more than happy to share with extended family and even communities if resources are plentiful.

[Hermit]

Ah. I see. You are talking about a particular manifestation of selfishness. Greed, unwillingness to share, possessiveness. In that case I agree with you. We are not inherently selfish in that regard, although there are exceptions. Apparently I am one of them.

[Seth]

To Seth

Your ideas of libertarian principles are just principles. That is, they have no practical benefit. Principles, like rights, are arbitrary and variable. Each time society changes, so do those rights and principles.

And therefore principles are of no benefit? Then why the hell are you talking about them?

But a person lying at the side of the road bleeding and in pain is a reality. Nothing arbitrary or variable there. The need to help such people is always there.

Indeed.

Experience tells us that the best way to provide such help is to have taxpayer funded facilities like ambulances and hospitals.

Does experience tell us that? I don't think so. In fact, in most parts of the US, outside of urban areas, such services, including firefighting, are provided by community volunteers who get paid nothing and do it because it's in their rational self interest and it satisfies their instincts for altruism, charity and compassion.

There is nothing more cruel and callous than a paramedic asking a person who is screaming with pain, to show his health insurance card.

Which is why only government-employed paramedics do so. No volunteer firefighter, EMT or paramedic ever asks any victim for anything. Only bureaucrats and their minions at hospitals do that, and the most avid and zealous of these exist at government-funded hospitals precisely because government-funded healthcare is expensive, far more expensive and far less excellent than private care, including care offered by charitable hospitals that neither ask nor charge for their services because they are paid for by *gasp* theistic religious believers who tithe and donate to their churches.

Here in NZ, we have universal health care, except for non New Zealanders.

Then it's not universal, is it?

But that does not stop injured tourists being rescued by paramedics and brought to hospitals, and treated, even if they cannot pay. Each year, the NZ taxpayer loses millions of dollars as non payers return to their home countries.

Exactly the same thing happens here, to both foreign tourists, illegal immigrants and citizens alike. Nobody is denied emergency medical care here based on an inability to pay. Nobody.

Theoretically illegal, of course, but humane.

I'm betting that the NZ government sends bills to the tourists anyway.

The choice is between airy fairy, arbitrary, and ultimately changeable libertarian principles, and providing immediate care for those injured and in pain. I will always opt for a system that cares for those who need the care.

So do I. The question is, however, is big government administered health care and taxation the only way to achieve that goal, and the answer is categorically and obviously "no", as the American health care system, which is the best in the world, proves.

[Seth]

I pointed out to Seth that if human nature was different, libertarian principles could work. But people are essentially selfish. For every Good Samaritan who will self sacrifice to help those in need, there are a whole heap of others who will ignore the need.

Let's see your statistical research on this assertion. The fact of the matter is that the number of people who refuse to help others in need is quite a small minority of the population, mostly restricted to welfare-state urban populations who have been carefully indoctrinated into selfishness and greed by the welfare state. People in the Bronx will walk right past a man dying on the street. Nobody does that in Colorado, particularly not in suburban and rural areas.

History shows what happens when there is no strong central government forcing society to help.

Let's see your evidence of this rather remarkable statement of non-fact.

Through most of recorded history, those who were sick and dying were left unattended unless they had close family or friends. Those not so lucky were just left to die.

Even when there were "strong governments" called "Kings and Emperors" bursting at the seams with wealth. So much for your "strong government" theory.

Altruism, charity and compassion are not sold at the government store, they are natural parts of mature adult personalities, and they are what cause people to care for those in need even when there is no government around, as in the case of the refugees of every world war ever fought.

Society is far better off by having legal mechanisms that require people to pay taxes that are used to help those in need.

Your opinion is noted, as is your repeated evasion of the essential question, which is how you morally and ethically justify stealing from one person to give to another rather than using the power of government to appeal to the altruistic, charitable and rational self interest instincts of the populace who have, throughout history, responded positively in assisting those in need.

You see, the problem is that you fail to distinguish between someone who is in genuine need and someone who just wants the government (ie: everybody else) to support them for no better reason than that they think they deserved to be supported at government expense.

It is those leeches on society that Libertarianism refuses to support, not the people who are ill or in genuine need. Libertarianism merely recognizes that the vast majority of people are rational, compassionate, caring and interested in bettering society through personal sacrifice without being coerced to do so by the power of the state. That's why religions exist. That's why people of faith are the biggest donors of charity and assistance to the needy that exists. They do it because they want to do it, not because some government bureaucrat tells them they have to do it. And private charitable organizations of every stripe make far better and more efficient use of charitable donations than any government agency, especially those who coerce money from the public through compulsory taxation. This is because the prime motive and directive of all government agencies is to perpetuate the existence of the agency as a means of perpetuating the paychecks of the bureaucrats who run the agency, and to hell with the people they are supposed to be serving.