If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(NPR)   Republican college students spell doom for the GOP: Many are leaning Libertarian because the GOP is medieval on social issues, and even those who parrot Fox News talking points admit the party may have lost voters for the next 50 years   (npr.org) divider line 467
    More: Obvious, Fox News, GOP, Republican, talking points, lecture hall, political parties in the United States, students  
•       •       •

3760 clicks; posted to Politics » on 01 Mar 2013 at 11:39 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



467 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-03-01 01:32:46 PM

skullkrusher: meat0918: I know I will never vote Republican again, and the nature of our voting system means I'll be voting Democratic for the foreseeable future because the reality of third parties is that you put the option you like least into power.

Sorry, that's just how it is.

Get some instant runoff voting in place, and I'd have put Jill Stein as my first choice and Obama as my second in 2012.

//Might have instant runoff voting confused with something else, my brain is burnt out after a long week of coding at the moment.

heh how does one go from being a Republican to voting for Jill Stein? :)


By spending a few years in college maybe? I was a Republican back when I didn't know dick about politics (teenager) because my parents were.
But when I started actually paying attention several years later, I realized I wasn't really a Republican at all.
 
2013-03-01 01:32:47 PM

slayer199: Social liberalism means you can do whatever you'd like so long as you don't infringe on someone else's rights to do whatever they'd like. Who you sleep with, who you marry, what drugs you like to do...is not a concern of a libertarian. An individual is ultimately responsible for the choices they make, NOT the government. That also extends to the poor choices as well. If an individual makes poor life choices, that's on them...not on other citizens vis a vis the government bailing them out (and it also applies to corporations).


So if a company sells a drug they know is more dangerous than they're advertising, should the CEO be held accountable under Libertarian philosophy?

Would you advocate, then, thousands of charges of reckless endangerment (and at the very least, negligent manslaughter) to, say, the CEO of Bayer for the stuff that happened regarding Yaz?
 
2013-03-01 01:33:49 PM

skullkrusher: well, anarcho-capitalists are pretty much the only "pure" right-libertarians. That is taking the ideology to the logical conclusion. They kinda have the right to call everyone who is not an AC not libertarian


True enough, but when your party is small and your influence is consistently below what you expect it to be, perfect is the enemy of the good
 
2013-03-01 01:36:05 PM

jigger: Mr_Fabulous: Please name for me the specific financial regulations whose elimination would result in a government less (not more) beholden to the banking industry. Pretty please. With mutherfarking sugar on top.

Oh you want a list? Here let me thumb through the Title 12 of the US Code.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/12

It's no sweat. I've got all day to hang out on Fark with you good people.

Chapter 3 would be a start though.


"Which regulations?"  "All of them."

Are you Sarah Palin?
 
2013-03-01 01:36:42 PM

Via Infinito: skullkrusher: meat0918: I know I will never vote Republican again, and the nature of our voting system means I'll be voting Democratic for the foreseeable future because the reality of third parties is that you put the option you like least into power.

Sorry, that's just how it is.

Get some instant runoff voting in place, and I'd have put Jill Stein as my first choice and Obama as my second in 2012.

//Might have instant runoff voting confused with something else, my brain is burnt out after a long week of coding at the moment.

heh how does one go from being a Republican to voting for Jill Stein? :)

By spending a few years in college maybe? I was a Republican back when I didn't know dick about politics (teenager) because my parents were.
But when I started actually paying attention several years later, I realized I wasn't really a Republican at all.


I got the impression that Meat had sworn off the GOP because they're off the deep end now, not that he had a radical reconsideration of his core political beliefs. Could be wrong.

my econ adviser in college was an anarcho-capitalist and he sold me. I've certainly reconsidered quite a bit since then and would definitely vote Dem over Rep for national office as things are currently going.

/was never a Randian
 
2013-03-01 01:37:13 PM
Who wants to play a one item scavenger hunt?  It goes like this: find a Libertarian website, literally any one, that doesn't have a loony conspiracy theory on it.  I don't think it can be done.  Here's a tip, try searching the site for "Agenda 21" first, just to save on time
 
2013-03-01 01:37:40 PM

slayer199: Ah, good to see all the Fark libs and conservatives hating on the LP.  Republicans hate us because of our social liberalism and Democrats hate us because of our fiscal conservatism.     Both sides do everything they can to exclude the LP (and the Green Party) from the process.  Why?  Fear.  A party that promotes social liberalism, fiscal conservatism, personal responsibility and smaller government will resonate with voters.


If libertarian-ism is so smart how come it loses so god damn always?
 
2013-03-01 01:37:52 PM

Felgraf: Would you advocate, then, thousands of charges of reckless endangerment (and at the very least, negligent manslaughter) to, say, the CEO of Bayer for the stuff that happened regarding Yaz?


was much more of a Erasure fan myself
 
2013-03-01 01:37:59 PM

verbaltoxin: slayer199: Wadded Beef: "F-you, I got mine" is social liberalism?

You're confused between social liberalism and fiscal conservatism.

Social liberalism means you can do whatever you'd like so long as you don't infringe on someone else's rights to do whatever they'd like.  Who you sleep with, who you marry, what drugs you like to do...is not a concern of a libertarian.  An individual is ultimately responsible for the choices they make, NOT the government.  That also extends to the poor choices as well.  If an individual makes poor life choices, that's on them...not on other citizens vis a vis the government bailing them out (and it also applies to corporations).

Fiscal conservatism relates to government spending.  Libertarians recognize the need for government when it comes to things like infrastructure, defense (though FAR smaller than it is now), and enforcement of laws/contracts.  The government is FAR too large, inefficient, and yes...we have a spending problem.

Your "Fark you, I got mine" is nothing more than an appeal to emotion.  Libertarians believe that people should be able to reap the rewards of success and if they so choose, donate their time or money to any cause they'd like.  Being are forced to do so at gunpoint (government) that is something libertarians would object to.  There will always be poor people but pretending that more government or government redistribution of wealth leads to prosperity is naive.  There's been a War on Poverty going on for 80 years and it hasn't made a dent in the average 14-15% that live in poverty.  In short, dramatically reduce spending and taxes across the board.

That is exactly what, "F*ck you, got mine," means. Someone's poor choices can add up and have catastrophic effects on others' well being. So after awhile, it can affect you and yours. Hence I do give a sh*t about people shooting themselves up with guns and/or heroin, or defaulting on their loans, because eventually those bad choices f*ck with everyone's abi ...


Not just that: If someone wants to get their life back together and being a productive member of society again, that attitude basically wastes an opportunity to do so.
 
2013-03-01 01:38:11 PM

hubiestubert: The sad fact is, many Libertarians are just Republicans who want to smoke pot


THIS. And I will also add: Libertarians are just Republicans who want to have sex.
 
2013-03-01 01:38:49 PM

slayer199: Ah, good to see all the Fark libs and conservatives hating on the LP.  Republicans hate us because of our social liberalism and Democrats hate us because of our fiscal conservatism.     Both sides do everything they can to exclude the LP (and the Green Party) from the process.  Why?  Fear.  A party that promotes social liberalism, fiscal conservatism, personal responsibility and smaller government will resonate with voters.


I am a libertarian (for lack of a more accurate description) and I hate the LP for the most part.
 
2013-03-01 01:38:50 PM

Car_Ramrod: College Republicans creep me out.

And they always remind me of PCU.



"Oooh madras ties....."
 
2013-03-01 01:39:28 PM

verbaltoxin: No, that's not what I said; it's what you pretend liberals think, like we're all one hivemind.

I can find you liberals that want to ban assault rifles, or what are really just semiautomatic rifles with high capacity magazines. I can also find you liberals that don't. It isn't hard to do. Advocating background checks, mental healthcare access for more people and things pro-gun advocates already agree with and aren't controversial at all is not, "We're gonna take your guns away."

In the end though, liberals tend to compromise and adjust as scenarios change.

I'd like for you libertarians to just ONCE explain to me how the buddy system would actually work in terms of governance.


Libertarians aren't a hive-mind either.  Some of us recognize a certain amount of government is beneficial to society on a holistic level.  It's just where the line is drawn is often different.
 
2013-03-01 01:40:11 PM

skullkrusher: was much more of a Erasure fan myself


I am assuming this was a music joke that I am missing.

/The question was serious, though. Suffice to say, I admit I have a rather *personal* reason for asking the question I did...
 
2013-03-01 01:40:27 PM

jigger: verbaltoxin: Legislative capture is bad. So let's make it easier and deregulate some more!

Make it easier to do what? Make regulations?


Dancing around that mine isn't going to make things easier.

verbaltoxin: If you want corruption ended, then you need laws that will punish the powerful. To enforce those laws, you need..............government.

I guess it's watchers all the way down.


Not necessarily.
 
2013-03-01 01:41:22 PM

shortymac: HMS_Blinkin: "May have" lost voters for the next 50 years?  I'm 24 years old, and I can speak for myself and the vast majority of my friends (most of whom weren't particularly politically inclined before) when I say that the GOP has, without question, lost voters for 50 years at a minimum.  I currently don't plan to vote for any Republican at any level of government for the rest of my life, period.   I'm not saying I'm an automatic Democratic vote, but I'll vote for anyone short of Neo-Nazis before I vote GOP.

The GOP is profoundly screwed when the old people start dying off in droves.

I dunno, poor white people tend to vote republican because Jesus, the illusion of being "middle class", and race issues.

Sadly there the ones that get farked the most from these policies but follow the new GOP like it was a religion.

/Democrats ain't better
//The banks have bought out congress and we're too socially isolated to give a damn


I'm gonna have to disagree there.  The Democrats, on the whole, ain't good, but they're a damn sight better than the GOP.
 
2013-03-01 01:42:06 PM

verbaltoxin: jigger: verbaltoxin: Legislative capture is bad. So let's make it easier and deregulate some more!

Make it easier to do what? Make regulations?

verbaltoxin: If you want corruption ended, then you need laws that will punish the powerful. To enforce those laws, you need..............government.

I guess it's watchers all the way down.

"Waa, I can't get my way whenever."

Welcome to being an adult. Your choices have consequences, and yes they affect others. When that happens, guess what? You face the consequences.

Unless you're a bank, apparently, and then in libertarian world, they should just get to do whatever they want.


Is it just me or Libertarianism just another buzzword for eugenics.
 
2013-03-01 01:42:31 PM

dittybopper: So remind me again why I shouldn't vote libertarian?


The same reason you shouldn't vote for your grandmother.
 
2013-03-01 01:42:47 PM

jigger: Mr_Fabulous: Please name for me the specific financial regulations whose elimination would result in a government less (not more) beholden to the banking industry. Pretty please. With mutherfarking sugar on top.

Oh you want a list? Here let me thumb through the Title 12 of the US Code.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/12

It's no sweat. I've got all day to hang out on Fark with you good people.

Chapter 3 would be a start though.



"All of them"

Yep. Totally not predictable in any way. No siree.

As I said... the "principled libertarian stand" never fails to evaporate when a single specific fact is requested.
 
2013-03-01 01:42:54 PM

partisan222: hubiestubert: The sad fact is, many Libertarians are just Republicans who want to smoke pot

THIS. And I will also add: Libertarians are just Republicans who want to have sex with women.


FTFA.
 
2013-03-01 01:43:08 PM

Mr_Fabulous: give me doughnuts: It might be refreshing to vote for a candidate, rather than vote against one.

Yeah, I thought it would be refreshing too. I once supported a guy who had no real chance, but he was a likeable guy with solid centrist ideas and a refreshing background story.

But then he got some traction, pulled an upset victory in the primaries and won the general election. So I've spent the past 4 years being labeled a thoughtless 'bot and a starry-eyed cultist. At best.

So, yeah... less refreshing than you might imagine.



But the more people who abandon the GOP for the Libertarians, the easier it is to unseat the GOP.
 
2013-03-01 01:43:39 PM

slayer199: Ah, good to see all the Fark libs and conservatives hating on the LP.  Republicans hate us because of our social liberalism and Democrats hate us because of our fiscal conservatism.     Both sides do everything they can to exclude the LP (and the Green Party) from the process.  Why?  Fear.  A party that promotes social liberalism, fiscal conservatism, personal responsibility and smaller government will resonate with voters.


AHAHAHA. Libertarians? Socially liberal? Your 'best' politicians are Ron and Rand Paul- the eldest of which is an ob-gyn who is anti-abortion. You can't call yourself 'socially liberal' if personal choice only extends to people with a penis.
 
2013-03-01 01:46:10 PM

Felgraf: skullkrusher: was much more of a Erasure fan myself

I am assuming this was a music joke that I am missing.

/The question was serious, though. Suffice to say, I admit I have a rather *personal* reason for asking the question I did...


heh Yaz was a euro-pop band in the 80s too
 
2013-03-01 01:48:40 PM

Lemurknits: slayer199: Ah, good to see all the Fark libs and conservatives hating on the LP.  Republicans hate us because of our social liberalism and Democrats hate us because of our fiscal conservatism.     Both sides do everything they can to exclude the LP (and the Green Party) from the process.  Why?  Fear.  A party that promotes social liberalism, fiscal conservatism, personal responsibility and smaller government will resonate with voters.

AHAHAHA. Libertarians? Socially liberal? Your 'best' politicians are Ron and Rand Paul- the eldest of which is an ob-gyn who is anti-abortion. You can't call yourself 'socially liberal' if personal choice only extends to people with a penis.


Also: People that call themselves "Libertarians" who start spouting theocratic propaganda...are no longer libertarian

So the Pauls are just closet neo-conservatives that start yelling "I'M A LIBERTARIAN" when people get wise to their BS.
 
2013-03-01 01:49:17 PM
I recall during the debate about HRC, every single libertarian I spoke to had these 2 talking points, and that's it:

1) I should be able to buy my insurance in a state where it's cheaper!
2) We need tort reform so those doctors don't have to pay anything for malpractice insurance.

Not a single one of them understood what risk pools were, or the repercussions of expanding the risk pool of a state by flooding it with more beneficiaries.

And they magically believed that health care costs would go down if a doctor wouldn't have to pay for malpractice insurance.  Sure, they wouldn't just pocket the difference, and besides, malpractice insurance is not the number one driving force in health care costs.

Really, that's the mental capacity of a libertarian.
 
2013-03-01 01:50:18 PM

Rwa2play: So the Pauls are just closet neo-conservatives confederates that start yelling "I'M A LIBERTARIAN" when people get wise to their BS.

 
2013-03-01 01:50:33 PM

Rwa2play: Is it just me or Libertarianism just another buzzword for eugenics.



Nothing wrong with eugenics as an idea. It's just the implementation that always gets screwed up.
 
2013-03-01 01:51:51 PM
Oh, yeah, I had another libertarian tell me that he 100% believed that "the poor" should be able to sell their organs.
 
2013-03-01 01:52:42 PM
verbaltoxin: slayer199: Wadded Beef: "F-you, I got mine" is social liberalism?

You're confused between social liberalism and fiscal conservatism.

Social liberalism means you can do whatever you'd like so long as you don't infringe on someone else's rights to do whatever they'd like. Who you sleep with, who you marry, what drugs you like to do...is not a concern of a libertarian. An individual is ultimately responsible for the choices they make, NOT the government. That also extends to the poor choices as well. If an individual makes poor life choices, that's on them...not on other citizens vis a vis the government bailing them out (and it also applies to corporations).

Fiscal conservatism relates to government spending. Libertarians recognize the need for government when it comes to things like infrastructure, defense (though FAR smaller than it is now), and enforcement of laws/contracts. The government is FAR too large, inefficient, and yes...we have a spending problem.

Your "Fark you, I got mine" is nothing more than an appeal to emotion. Libertarians believe that people should be able to reap the rewards of success and if they so choose, donate their time or money to any cause they'd like. Being are forced to do so at gunpoint (government) that is something libertarians would object to. There will always be poor people but pretending that more government or government redistribution of wealth leads to prosperity is naive. There's been a War on Poverty going on for 80 years and it hasn't made a dent in the average 14-15% that live in poverty. In short, dramatically reduce spending and taxes across the board.

That is exactly what, "F*ck you, got mine," means. Someone's poor choices can add up and have catastrophic effects on others' well being. So after awhile, it can affect you and yours. Hence I do give a sh*t about people shooting themselves up with guns and/or heroin, or defaulting on their loans, because eventually those bad choices f*ck with everyone's abi ...



Not just that: If someone wants to get their life back together and being a productive member of society again, that attitude basically wastes an opportunity to do so.

It's libertarian obfuscation. "Look, we're happy to give to charities of our choice for society! I just don't want the government to make us do it" translates to "I'm not going to do shiat. Let somebody else contribute. F-you...I got mine." That they bring up everyone having to contribute and pooling funds (re: healthcare) "by gunpoint" is the real culprit in an appeal to emotion.
 
2013-03-01 01:53:10 PM

tripleseven: Oh, yeah, I had another libertarian tell me that he 100% believed that "the poor" should be able to sell their organs.


I guess that does sort of fit in with the libertarian ideology, as you're not hurting anyone but yourself...
 
2013-03-01 01:54:03 PM

tripleseven: Oh, yeah, I had another libertarian tell me that he 100% believed that "the poor" should be able to sell their organs.


Agrees

houseofgeekery.files.wordpress.com
 
2013-03-01 01:54:16 PM
I've said it before and I'll say it again: My generation  does not like bigotry. Run on a platform that  earns you a reputation for bigotry, not to mention the nickname 'Party of Rape', and my generation will treat you like the walking jokes you are.
 
2013-03-01 01:54:25 PM

cchris_39: Noam Chimpsky: The only "libertarian" principles these Libertarians have is drugs and samer weddings.

And abortions


I think we've found a couple of good candidates for the RNC's new Youth Vote Outreach Program.
 
2013-03-01 01:54:52 PM

tripleseven: Oh, yeah, I had another libertarian tell me that he 100% believed that "the poor" should be able to sell their organs.


Sounds as if he already sold his brain.
Since it was unused, he probably got a good price for it.
 
2013-03-01 01:55:13 PM

tripleseven: I recall during the debate about HRC, every single libertarian I spoke to had these 2 talking points, and that's it:

1) I should be able to buy my insurance in a state where it's cheaper!
2) We need tort reform so those doctors don't have to pay anything for malpractice insurance.

Not a single one of them understood what risk pools were, or the repercussions of expanding the risk pool of a state by flooding it with more beneficiaries.

And they magically believed that health care costs would go down if a doctor wouldn't have to pay for malpractice insurance.  Sure, they wouldn't just pocket the difference, and besides, malpractice insurance is not the number one driving force in health care costs.

Really, that's the mental capacity of a libertarian.


Oh, and speaking of "personal responsibility":  One would think that tort reform wouldn't be necessary when individuals/corporations (instead of pocketing the money or spending it on less important matters) would actually go through with it when it comes to creating conditions that lead to lawsuits amirite?
 
2013-03-01 01:56:39 PM

tripleseven: Oh, yeah, I had another libertarian tell me that he 100% believed that "the poor" should be able to sell their organs.


and you presumably don't think people should be allowed to do this? Someone can volunteer to donate an organ but they cannot be compensated for it?
 
2013-03-01 01:56:48 PM
How can anyone be conservative, particularly in college? I was farking and taking bong hits and other drugs. Man, college was fun.
 
2013-03-01 01:58:29 PM

skullkrusher: meat0918: I know I will never vote Republican again, and the nature of our voting system means I'll be voting Democratic for the foreseeable future because the reality of third parties is that you put the option you like least into power.

Sorry, that's just how it is.

Get some instant runoff voting in place, and I'd have put Jill Stein as my first choice and Obama as my second in 2012.

//Might have instant runoff voting confused with something else, my brain is burnt out after a long week of coding at the moment.

heh how does one go from being a Republican to voting for Jill Stein? :)


I was very, very confused.

So much so, that when I first started caring about politics in 2000 (I was 20), I was under the impression Republicans wanted gun control (yes, even with the 1994 assault weapons ban; I wasn't paying attention at 14), you couldn't vote in an election unless you were a registered Democrat or Republican, and you also couldn't get an absentee ballot unless you'd voted in person at least once.

Although I was paying attention to the GOP tantrum over Bill's BJ/Perjury, and that was the start of my dislike of the GOP.

I've gotten better.

//I still don't know why I equated gun control with Republicans.
 
2013-03-01 01:59:53 PM
Saved this from a thread here almost a year ago, releveant as ever:

 AntiNerd                 2012-04-11 09:37:11 AM

The one thing that the libertarian free-market-solves-everything ideology never explains is how to deal with the powerful business interest that is ALWAYS willing to trade your long-term interests in exchange for their short-term interests.

Environment? Sure I'll extract a few billion out of that forest, that mine, that ocean and destroy it in the process. If you don't like it don't do business with me and I'll go out of business. In the mean time there are lots of hungry folk out of there that WILL do business with me because they don't know any better and they are as greedy as me. If you sue I'll be on the islands retired while you deal with my $500/hour lawyers. Good luck collecting if you win.
 
2013-03-01 02:01:47 PM

Rwa2play: Is it just me or Libertarianism just another buzzword for eugenics.


More generally it is a two step process - Libertarianism in part is an attempt to theoretically justify Social Darwinism while eugenics helps along the natural results of Social Darwinism by preventing the "un-fit" from wasting resources.
 
2013-03-01 02:04:47 PM

dittybopper: So remind me again why I shouldn't vote libertarian?


It's a retarded ideology that doesn't take into account human nature?
 
2013-03-01 02:06:15 PM

skullkrusher: tripleseven: Oh, yeah, I had another libertarian tell me that he 100% believed that "the poor" should be able to sell their organs.

and you presumably don't think people should be allowed to do this? Someone can volunteer to donate an organ but they cannot be compensated for it?


No, they should not, because it means the organ goes to the highest bidder.  Thereby skewing the recipients based on wealth.

Did you really need that explained to you?
 
2013-03-01 02:06:31 PM

hubiestubert: It's not just college kids, folks. Unless the party purges the Crazy Train, they're not going to get my vote either, and I'm in my early 40s. At this point, it's not just the social issues, but how economic issues are used to further those social issues, and how the refusal to contemplate prudent fiscal policy is draining the nation's coffers and impacting growth and opportunity. The party isn't just out of touch, the leadership is actively promoting an agenda that is curtailing the nation's future.

Not that a lot Libertarians are any better. The typical Libertarian candidate today promotes an agenda that is naught but a brand of NeoFeudalism that is even worse than their Republican counterparts. I had hopes for the Modern Whigs, but the TEA Party nonsense pretty much ate up their momentum, which is exactly what it was designed to do. The sad fact is, many Libertarians are just Republicans who want to smoke pot, and that is not the basis for real progress. We need better thinking, not just the same old, with a few whistles and bells to draw in the unwary...



ALL OF THIS!

I voted Libertarian in the last election only because I'm in Maryland, which there is no chance will go any way but Democrat, and wanted to take my usual dependable Republican vote and protest the insanity of the Republican party by giving it to the Libertarians.

Not to say I support the Libertarians... they're nuts too, in a different way and LESS than the Republicans. But I would really, really, really like a sane 3rd party to vote for, and I have other ex-Republican friends who would like to as well.
 
2013-03-01 02:06:50 PM
50 years from now, everyone calling themselves "libertarians" right now will belong to the democratic party, and those of us who self-identify as liberals will belong to some kind of yet-to-emerge labor and environmental coalition.
 
2013-03-01 02:07:43 PM

HairBolus: Rwa2play: Is it just me or Libertarianism just another buzzword for eugenics.

More generally it is a two step process - Libertarianism in part is an attempt to theoretically justify Social Darwinism while eugenics helps along the natural results of Social Darwinism by preventing the "un-fit" from wasting resources.


Ah, so that's how it works.  Yeah...I'll be happy being a Progressive Democrat, thank you very much.
 
2013-03-01 02:08:50 PM

thisisyourbrainonFark: How can anyone be conservative, particularly in college? I was farking and taking bong hits and other drugs. Man, college was fun.


Because some of us worked and commuted while going to college and didn't have that much time to do those sorts of things.

Some grow up and realize there is more than 'my interests' in the world and some become paranoid and cranky.  I have almost nothing in common with a friend of mine who went to college and worked when I did because he hasn't grown up yet.  He turned into a teatard and me into a dirty lib.
 
2013-03-01 02:08:51 PM

Crotchrocket Slim: dittybopper: So remind me again why I shouldn't vote libertarian?

It's a retarded ideology that doesn't take into account human nature?


*DING*DING*DING*DING*DING*DING*DING*DING*  We have a winnah!
 
2013-03-01 02:11:08 PM

tripleseven: I recall during the debate about HRC, every single libertarian I spoke to had these 2 talking points, and that's it:

1) I should be able to buy my insurance in a state where it's cheaper!
2) We need tort reform so those doctors don't have to pay anything for malpractice insurance.

Not a single one of them understood what risk pools were, or the repercussions of expanding the risk pool of a state by flooding it with more beneficiaries.

And they magically believed that health care costs would go down if a doctor wouldn't have to pay for malpractice insurance.  Sure, they wouldn't just pocket the difference, and besides, malpractice insurance is not the number one driving force in health care costs.

Really, that's the mental capacity of a libertarian.


What gets me about 1) is that it flies in the face of everything Republicans/libertarians claim to believe about federal vs. state power.  Don't they realize that insurance varies by state because states have had the *freedom* to make their own laws about insurance?  Are they really suggesting that the federal government nullify state law to make insurance cheaper?  Sounds not only like tyranny, but also socialism, if you ask me.
 
2013-03-01 02:12:24 PM

tripleseven: skullkrusher: tripleseven: Oh, yeah, I had another libertarian tell me that he 100% believed that "the poor" should be able to sell their organs.

and you presumably don't think people should be allowed to do this? Someone can volunteer to donate an organ but they cannot be compensated for it?

No, they should not, because it means the organ goes to the highest bidder.  Thereby skewing the recipients based on wealth.

Did you really need that explained to you?


Why should anyone but the donor or the recipient have any say in the matter?  If you want to donate your organs upon death, you can.  If someone else wishes to sell a kidney to pay for college, they should be allowed to as well.

Or do you think everyone should be forced to donate their organs into a shared pool?
 
2013-03-01 02:15:15 PM

dr_blasto: MisterTweak: dr_blasto: skullkrusher: you can't govern a large and diverse country with a anarchistic or even minarchistic government.

Anarchistic government? Is that where you vote for a president and he never shows up to work or immediately quits after election?

Rick Perry and Sarah Palin would like a word...

You're mistaking "Autistic government" for "Anarchistic government" it seems.


It's the price I pay for not cleaning my glasses more often. My mistake, Sir.
 
Displayed 50 of 467 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report