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.

(Washington Post)   This just in: The more you personally rely on the US government to take care of everything in your life, the more likely you are to be a raging libertarian   (washingtonpost.com) divider line 339
    More: Obvious, GOP, Kentucky Republican, Justin Amash, pork barrel spending, expediencies, libertarians, Rand Paul  
•       •       •

7936 clicks; posted to Main » on 01 Aug 2013 at 9:10 AM (37 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-08-01 03:06:21 PM

ghettodwarf: mrshowrules: Revek: I have strong libertarian leanings but receive nothing from the government.  I get no money for my autistic son.  No money for my disabling medical condition  including no medical help at all.  I make half the median income for the state.  The removal of responsibility for ones own life has been the biggest detriment to this countrys prosperity.  We now live in a world where every time something unpleasant happens  people feel it a right to blame others rather than accepting it and dealing with it themselves.  They expect someone else to pay for it.  Thats not a true libertarian trait, it is however the primary method of conservatives and liberals.

I have none of your problems. I feel bad about them BTW.  You are not personally responsible for all your problems.  Sometime they are just shiat that happens.  I make a good living and my family is very healthy.  We all get free health care (Canada) and I would have no issue having my tax dollars going to people like you that need a helping hand.  If I fall flat on my face in life do to illness or other tragedy, I do infact expect some help/support from my countrymen.

Regardless of social benefits/tax, the quality of your life is directly related to being born in a rich and democratic society.  If you make enough to contribute to it, you should count yourself lucky.  If you are so unfortunate, that you need support, count yourself lucky as well.

Regardless of anyone's rugged individuality, your prosperity is on the backs of others before you.

That's one of the most eloquently patriotic things I've heard in a while...you dirty Canadian.


My idiot father in law tells me all the time about how absolutely horrible your healthcare system is....apparently you poor people wait for months upon months for any specialized tests (MRI, ultrasound, etc)
And apparently if you are not a connected govt official you make almost no money and have no prospects for upward social mobility.
He thinks he knows this because he lives close to Canada and has taken a few ski vacations there.
 
2013-08-01 03:23:33 PM

rustypouch: So basing an opinion on a self-identified group, based on their words and actions, now counts as an ad-hom?


If you want to belive that liberals are socialist, environazi, abortion-hungry, family-hating, sex-craved moonbats, I guess that is your prerogative.

I try to take each argument on it own merits and try not to pidgenhole the discussion from he politicial bent that it originates.  Though in all honesty, I sometimes fail that test.

Using the ad homs in this and the upthread post is a good way to shut down any honest discussion on any topic and reduce it to your standard Policits Tab thread.  But who am I to stand in the way of a good ol' flamewar.  We are not in the policits tab to compliment the other side on thier good ideas.
 
2013-08-01 03:29:46 PM

GoldSpider: LasersHurt: It's better when it's harder, because of... morals?

If you're content with living as a pet, than who am I to judge?


Here in Nevada, we have a mandatory class on the Constitution as part of our freshman college year. It's very enlightening, especially the parts about social contracts. I think you'd rather enjoy learning that participation in social contracts does not make you a 'pet'.
 
2013-08-01 03:30:22 PM

LouDobbsAwaaaay: What I learned from this thread: "Libertarian" means letting your autistic child suffer so you can chest-thump on the internet about your bootstraps.


This.
 
2013-08-01 03:32:36 PM

PsiChick: Here in Nevada, we have a mandatory class on the Constitution as part of our freshman college year. It's very enlightening, especially the parts about social contracts. I think you'd rather enjoy learning that participation in social contracts does not make you a 'pet'.


I never signed no "social contract"!
 
2013-08-01 03:33:32 PM

drp: Fark's libertarian hate is easy to understand, but disappointing nonetheless.

The Republicans hate us because we don't hate gay people and the 1st & 4th Amendments like they do.  They want big government and police-state powers when it's convenient for them, and a drug war to pander to their small-minded constituents who want toughness on crime.

The Democrats hate us because we don't hate corporations and the 2nd Amendment like they do.  They want big government and police-state powers when it's convenient for them, and a drug war to pander to their small-minded constituents who want toughness on crime.


If I "hate" you it's because you're either too stupid to understand, or too dishonest to admit, the real reasons why people don't agree with Libertarianism.  But it's interesting that you express everything in terms of people you don't agree with "hating" everything.  I'd wager that says a lot more about you than about any political philosophy.
 
2013-08-01 03:40:00 PM
Probably because most libertarians are about as bootstrappy as Craig T Nelson.
 
2013-08-01 03:41:16 PM

HeadLever: rustypouch: So basing an opinion on a self-identified group, based on their words and actions, now counts as an ad-hom?

If you want to belive that liberals are socialist, environazi, abortion-hungry, family-hating, sex-craved moonbats, I guess that is your prerogative.

I try to take each argument on it own merits and try not to pidgenhole the discussion from he politicial bent that it originates.  Though in all honesty, I sometimes fail that test.

Using the ad homs in this and the upthread post is a good way to shut down any honest discussion on any topic and reduce it to your standard Policits Tab thread.  But who am I to stand in the way of a good ol' flamewar.  We are not in the policits tab to compliment the other side on thier good ideas.


My point is that it's not an ad-hom to say that right wingers and teabaggers are women-hating and gay bashing, because they actually do these things, and have passed laws to that effect.
 
2013-08-01 03:57:28 PM

rustypouch: My point is that it's not an ad-hom to say that right wingers and teabaggers are women-hating and gay bashing, because they actually do these things, and have passed laws to that effect.


And you could use that same talking point an apply it to my rant on liberals. Using this talking point does nothing for honest arguments and is just another easy way out to dismiss or debase those that you generally oppose.
 
2013-08-01 03:58:19 PM

PsiChick: GoldSpider: LasersHurt: It's better when it's harder, because of... morals?

If you're content with living as a pet, than who am I to judge?

Here in Nevada, we have a mandatory class on the Constitution as part of our freshman college year. It's very enlightening, especially the parts about social contracts. I think you'd rather enjoy learning that participation in social contracts does not make you a 'pet'.


Good teaching there.

Did they cover Lysander Spooner?

Did they actually tell you what a contract was?

Did they tell you that the SCOTUS has repeatedly ruled that the govt has no duty to protect you?

Did they mention that not everyone alive in 1789 supported or signed the Constitution?

Did they discuss who gets to interpret, enforce, and alter this "social contract"?
 
2013-08-01 04:07:29 PM

iawai: PsiChick: GoldSpider: LasersHurt: It's better when it's harder, because of... morals?

If you're content with living as a pet, than who am I to judge?

Here in Nevada, we have a mandatory class on the Constitution as part of our freshman college year. It's very enlightening, especially the parts about social contracts. I think you'd rather enjoy learning that participation in social contracts does not make you a 'pet'.

Good teaching there.

Did they cover Lysander Spooner?

Did they actually tell you what a contract was?

Did they tell you that the SCOTUS has repeatedly ruled that the govt has no duty to protect you?

Did they mention that not everyone alive in 1789 supported or signed the Constitution?

Did they discuss who gets to interpret, enforce, and alter this "social contract"?


Are you actually complaining that you get roads, fire departments, education, and the benefits of civilization but  didn't sign a specific piece of paper or get voted on whether or not you wanted to be part of it?

Of  course no one ever asked if you wanted to be part of it.  Life's not fair. But you've got a fark-ton of a better deal here in the US than in, say, Saudi Arabia.
 
2013-08-01 04:11:53 PM

Garble: The fundamental lie of modern libertarianism is that you can cleanly divide all issues between "social" and "economic". But economic injustice is and has always been the largest social issue in existence.


/money is power

//the purpose of government is to prevent the powerful from abusing the powerless


You've got it backwards.

"Civil government, so far as it is instituted for the security of property, is in reality instituted for the defense of the rich against the poor, or of those who have some property against those who have none at all."

-Karl Marx...no, wait, that was Adam farking Smith.
 
2013-08-01 04:12:58 PM

EWreckedSean: youncasqua: EWreckedSean: Garble: //the purpose of government is to prevent the powerful from abusing the powerless

When did that start happening? Seems to me government is bought, owned and controlled by the wealthy, and generally tends to promote what they want.

About three thousand five hundred years ago, when Hammurabi's code announced its purpose was:

"To bring about justice in the land, so that the strong shall not harm the weak."

I'm sorry, I thought we were talking about what government actually does, not some propaganda written 3500 years ago that was as untrue then as it is now...


1) Your particular rhetorical question in response to that particular remark demanded a citation to Hammurabi's code. Admit it. You would have done the same.

2) Government does primarily benefit the wealthy and powerful, but that isn't all it does. It also limits the wealthy and powerful, whether you care to admit it or not. For example:

a) Government forbids slavery; Hammurabi's code, in fact, even limited the rights of slave owners to harm their slaves.

b) Government mandates worker safety protections, and a minimum wage.

c) Government forbids sexual harassment in the workplace.

d) Government forbids racial discrimination in various spheres of life.

In addition to these various ways government limits the strong to protect the weak, government:

e) Provides food stamps to those unable to feed themselves.

f) Provides income security for retired and disabled persons.

g) Provides health insurance for retired and disabled persons, and lesser health insurance for the indigent.

f) Will soon if it hasn't already start subsidizing individuals to buy their own health insurance.

Overall, I'd say the aspiration of Hammurabi's code has succeeded beyond anyone's wildest dreams. We've still problems, and social and economic injustice. But you gotta give us some credit.
 
2013-08-01 04:16:46 PM

Pocket Ninja: I like to speak in sweeping generalizations and imply that willful ignorance of ways by which I might benefit my family makes me a stronger person.


No I don't douchebag I tried to get help for my son and was rejected for making to much money.  I didn't qualify for limited medical assistance since I was to far from the state capitol.  I quit asking for help since none was forthcoming.  Anyone who has ever noticed knows you always get your panties in a twist when the word libertarian comes out.  Its one of those things that make you so predictable.
 
2013-08-01 04:26:12 PM

JerkyMeat: Modern libratarians Liberals and GOPers are a cancer to society.


FIFY
 
2013-08-01 04:27:26 PM

Thrag: This quote from TFA made me facepalm:

"Many of the members in our group [Young Americans for Liberty] were not even 10 years old when 9/11 happened," Frazee said. "They've grown up with war, and they are war-weary."

I'd like someone to explain how the fark someone who was 10 years in 2001 is "war weary"?

Is it the draft? Can't be that since there's no draft.

Is it the rationing? Nope, no rationing either. We have vast amounts staples and cheap consumer goods. We exist in a time with levels of consumerism that are unprecedented in human history. There's barely even any price inflation. The war has not interfered in any way with young people's ability to get the latest iPhone.

Is it the constant news focus that every day brings a brutal view of war and the toll it takes on soldiers and civilians into all of our living rooms? Nope, the wars we engage in are barely ever mentioned. We don't even have to hear about them.

In what possible way do the wars we fight effect college age kids who are not in the military? What sacrifices have they been forced to make for the war?

The only way someone who was 10 on 9/11 could possibly be "war weary" is; a) if they are actually a soldier or b) if they are the biggest farking pussy in the world who doesn't have even the slightest clue what war weary really means. Let me guess which of those categories most of these young libertarians fall into. My mother in law, who as a child lived through the Siege of Leningrad, has a right to use the term "war weary". An American twenty something who's never been in the military does not.


Can I be weary of having my tax money used for mass murder overseas, instead of having actual infrastructure?
/Young Americans for Liberty are jackasses, as are libertarians generally; I'm just sick of having to finance massive terrorist campaigns is all.
 
2013-08-01 04:27:32 PM

dmaestaz: JerkyMeat: Modern libratarians Liberals and GOPers are a cancer to society.

FIFY


NO U - the pinnacle of argumentation.
 
2013-08-01 04:35:01 PM
I have to pay for my utilities.  I have to pay for my food.  I have to pay taxes for my roads 10% sales tax here.  I pay all the time in spite of what some of you have spouted.  None of the public utilities around here are government owned.  The local municipal water systems are not regulated by the public service commission in this state.  So go on tell me how the government is supplying me with so much and how i'm not paying for it. I pay taxes to pay for single moms who get 600 bucks a kid from the state,  free healthcare, rental assistance, assistance on their utilities and so on.   I filled out forms time and time again to get some kind of assistance for my son.  The simple fact despite everyone's ignorance is that I wold have make less than 20,000 a year to qualify for anything other than some pathetic program called tefra which guess what costs $75 a month and doesn't cover shiat.   I get it that you all think its some weakness on my part but your wrong end of story.  I will make on allowance I do have police and fire protection.  Of course right now 1% of that 10% sales tax I'm paying is going to build a new fire station.
 
2013-08-01 04:37:12 PM

Usurper4: mithras_angel: LasersHurt: SovietCanuckistan: I have always wondered why all the Libertarian threads on Fark  go so long and get so many reactions.

Because for Years now Libertarians have tried to "educate" everyone on what Libertarians really are, since we keep insisting on judging them by the actions and words of the people who call themselves Libertarians.


This.

Every time someone calling themselves a libertarian does something dumb in the news, I ask my libertarian friends, "What do you think of this?"

And, consistantly and unanimously they say, "Oh, [that person] isn't a ~real~ libertarian."

Well, isn't this true with almost any group? "Lieberman isn't a real Democrat", "Spector's a RINO"...Christians and Moslems do it all the time, saying that somebody's not a true believer due to their actions. Hell, even Alcoholics Anonymous does it, claiming a near 100% success rate because if you have a drink of alcohol, you're no longer a member of AA.


Ah, the "No True Libertarian" argument, then.
 
2013-08-01 04:41:14 PM

Aristocles: ciberido: Revek: I have strong libertarian leanings but receive nothing from the government.  I get no money for my autistic son.  No money for my disabling medical condition  including no medical help at all.  I make half the median income for the state.  The removal of responsibility for ones own life has been the biggest detriment to this countrys prosperity.  We now live in a world where every time something unpleasant happens  people feel it a right to blame others rather than accepting it and dealing with it themselves.  They expect someone else to pay for it.  Thats not a true libertarian trait, it is however the primary method of conservatives and liberals.

.... in the minds of idiots who don't understand liberals OR conservatives.

But that's ok.  After all, libertarianism makes you stupid.  It happens.

Libertarianism turns you into a demonrat Farklib?


I understand that this is difficult, but there was a link you were supposed to click on.
 
2013-08-01 04:42:00 PM
You know that kid in high school who'd ask for his dad's car keys, but never refilled the tank? That kid grew up to be a libertarian.
 
2013-08-01 04:49:50 PM

GoldSpider: Deucednuisance: I see. Another one whose firmly-held, obviously correct and simple to grasp opinions are misunderstood by all and sundry and its everyone else's fault, because, lord knows, you explained yourself clearly enough, over and over again.

No, it's that people THINK they know what I believe without bothering to ask me.  It's practically the engine that runs the Politics tab, an engine that runs on straw.


How about you stop whining about how nobody understands you and put that effort into responding to criticism with specific arguments?
 
2013-08-01 04:50:27 PM

PsiChick: GoldSpider: LasersHurt: It's better when it's harder, because of... morals?

If you're content with living as a pet, than who am I to judge?

Here in Nevada, we have a mandatory class on the Constitution as part of our freshman college year. It's very enlightening, especially the parts about social contracts. I think you'd rather enjoy learning that participation in social contracts does not make you a 'pet'.


- if force is involved, it's not "participation", it's survival
- contracts made under coercion are invalid
- you aren't bound by a contract made by your ancestors
- refusal to leave the land of your birth is not tacit agreement with all or part of such contracts

But since your class occurred in a college setting, I'm sure the above items were all thoroughly discussed, in the spirit of true intellectual honesty and curiosity.

Social cooperation and participation are important (there's an understatement), but beware the slippery nature of words. You've been intentionally misled, because the great thinkers that dared question divine right and the rule of kings were desperate to replace monarchy with *something* to justify the evolving social order.

Hence the tortured contract metaphor, and the fact that we're still ruled by the modern equivalent of armored knights on horseback, with the monarchy replaced by 51% of your neighbors at any given moment (in theory).

It's important to think this stuff through, because we haven't even begun to figure out how to justly interact and organize ourselves yet, it's all just a variant of "big man with club is leader". Anyone that dismisses this all as whackjobbery, isn't really thinking, they're just rearranging their existing prejudices.

"History is a set of lies agreed upon." -Napoleon Bonaparte-

/politically agnostic
//no I don't have an answer
///yes I know we're a farking republic
 
2013-08-01 04:51:02 PM

plewis: Revek: I have strong libertarian leanings but receive nothing from the government.  I get no money for my autistic son.  No money for my disabling medical condition  including no medical help at all.  I make half the median income for the state.  The removal of responsibility for ones own life has been the biggest detriment to this countrys prosperity.  We now live in a world where every time something unpleasant happens  people feel it a right to blame others rather than accepting it and dealing with it themselves.  They expect someone else to pay for it.  Thats not a true libertarian trait, it is however the primary method of conservatives and liberals.

I like how YOU decided to harm your son in the long term by not getting offered treatment early in his life when it could have made a difference.  I too have an autistic son.  You know what I would do to get him even slightly closer to mainstream so he can have a happy and healthy (and ultimately more productive) life?  ANYTHING.  I'll take from the government, borrow against my house, take money from my aged parents, strangers.  Want to see me streak?  Pay for my son's therapy and I'll even let you spank my bare ass.

So I'm going to say it.  Your libertarian principles broke libertarian principles.  You, by your neglect, harmed another.  You HARMED your own SON!  That makes you a highly principled monster and if your son later is not able to function, we the people have to care for his well being after you are gone.

There is a role of the state.  One of those roles is to keep me from punching you in your evil face and taking your son away from you because you are a neglectful mouthbreather.  Hope your piety keeps you well in your old age, because your son will be too busy struggling to help you.


Wow, farklibs sure get mad when you point out that everyone else isn't a mooching deadbeat like they are.
 
2013-08-01 05:02:34 PM

Revek: I have strong libertarian leanings but receive nothing from the government.  I get no money for my autistic son.  No money for my disabling medical condition  including no medical help at all.  I make half the median income for the state.  The removal of responsibility for ones own life has been the biggest detriment to this countrys prosperity.  We now live in a world where every time something unpleasant happens  people feel it a right to blame others rather than accepting it and dealing with it themselves.  They expect someone else to pay for it.  Thats not a true libertarian trait, it is however the primary method of conservatives and liberals.


You are posting on th Internet

QED you are wrong. And kind of silly to the point of absurd.
 
2013-08-01 05:08:42 PM

UndeadPoetsSociety: Can I be weary of having my tax money used for mass murder overseas, instead of having actual infrastructure?


They say that taxes are the price of living in a civilized society.

But it is civil to force someone (under threat of violence) to pay for something they consider morally reprehensible?

If you should withhold that portion of your taxes that goes to our continual campaigns of mass murder, in what way will things start to become uncivil? Armed agents pointing their shotguns at you and your family, demanding payment...that's how.

Taken this way, taxes are "the price of civility" in more ways than one.
 
2013-08-01 05:11:29 PM

Lawyers With Nukes: Hence the tortured contract metaphor, and the fact that we're still ruled by the modern equivalent of armored knights on horseback, with the monarchy replaced by 51% of your neighbors at any given moment (in theory).


Again: You get roads. You get education. You get wildfires put out for you. And in return, society asks you follow the speed limit and not punch people in the face.

Now, if your civil rights are being violated, you might have a valid complaint. Speaking as a bisexual, however, we also have a system that deals pretty well with it. No, it's not an idealized fairness that compensates for every special little snowflake's feelings, but you're never going to get it. Either move to Europe\Canada, where people seem to get better deals, or, in the words of my favorite gym coach, suck it up, Buttercup.
 
2013-08-01 05:15:46 PM

HeadLever: rustypouch: My point is that it's not an ad-hom to say that right wingers and teabaggers are women-hating and gay bashing, because they actually do these things, and have passed laws to that effect.

And you could use that same talking point an apply it to my rant on liberals. Using this talking point does nothing for honest arguments and is just another easy way out to dismiss or debase those that you generally oppose.


Then it would be easy enough for you to point out some family hating, socialist, enviro nazis, right?

Elected officials, not random people on the net, please. Just because it's easy to find elected conservatives who hold the positions you consider ad homs.
 
2013-08-01 05:27:00 PM

Revek: I have to pay for my utilities. I have to pay for my food. I have to pay taxes for my roads 10% sales tax here. I pay all the time in spite of what some of you have spouted. None of the public utilities around here are government owned. The local municipal water systems are not regulated by the public service commission in this state. So go on tell me how the government is supplying me with so much and how i'm not paying for it.


Nobody said that.  What they did say is that many of the things you take for granted were due to government infrastructure investment.

Revek: I pay taxes to pay for single moms who get 600 bucks a kid from the state, free healthcare, rental assistance, assistance on their utilities and so on.


Truly those people are living the life of luxury.  I'm sure you wish you were in there shoes amirite?

Revek: I filled out forms time and time again to get some kind of assistance for my son. The simple fact despite everyone's ignorance is that I wold have make less than 20,000 a year to qualify for anything other than some pathetic program called tefra which guess what costs $75 a month and doesn't cover shiat.


So you're blaming others for your failure to mention that you don't qualify for those programs, not that you were too bootstrappy to apply for them in the first place.
 
2013-08-01 05:29:09 PM

HeadLever: Phil


Ok, I'll just quit working or do something that pays much less than I make now, because it's entirely unfair that I make enough money to pay taxes.

/wut?
 
2013-08-01 05:30:19 PM
iawai: Yes, it's based on selfishness. But not Shortsightedness. EVERYONE, everywhere, acts selfishly. It's long been a philosophical quest to find the truly altruistic action.

No. Altruistic actions (such as giving money to charity) obviously DO happen.  I'm really not interested in philosophical mumbo-jumbo about whether or not giving to charity is "truly" optimistic.

And frankly, I don't care about your philosophical musings on the nature of humankind.  Stick to how Libertarianism will work IN PRACTICE, if you would please.

iawaiThere's already evidence that shows that private police, fire, medical providers, etc. will give the poor reduced rates or free service. The fact that these things are your hold-ups shows your willing blindness.

There is?  What evidence?  It what nation where only private police forces exist do these police give discounts to poor?  Where do private fire services offer free service to some people but charge their wealthy clients full price?  If I'm blind, it's not willing blindness (and fark you for that insult, by the way).  It's because I have honestly never heard of such things ever happening.  Drop the ad hominen attacks and give actual examples, rather than assert that it's only due to "willing blindness" that I don't already know of them.

It's not MY JOB to go looking for evidence to support YOUR CLAIMS.  Prove them or don't, but don't waste my time insulting me for not doing your work for you.  And if you do plan to reply again, I strongly urge you to drop the belligerent straw-men and actually cite actual facts.
 
2013-08-01 05:34:41 PM

BMFPitt: ciberido: Libertarianism, by contrast, seems like it would shut out in the cold anyone who wasn't born rich, regardless of how ardently the disenfranchised tried to follow it themselves.

It's unfortunate that you choose to believe this.


Perhaps. but it's even more unfortunate that you choose to lament my opinion rather than try to  explain to me  how Libertarianism WOULDN'T shut out in the cold anyone who wasn't born rich, regardless of how ardently the disenfranchised tried to follow it themselves.

Explain to me how someone how wasn't born wealthy would benefit under Libertarianism, or concede the point.
 
2013-08-01 05:38:58 PM

bopis: Liberal thinking:
Liberals agree with me 100% of the time and that makes them more highly evolved.
Conservatives disagree with me on pretty much 100% of issues, that makes them evil!
Libertarians agree/disagree with me on maybe 50% of issues, that makes them the worst!


You're half right
 
2013-08-01 05:42:24 PM

Revek: I have to pay for my utilities.  I have to pay for my food.  I have to pay taxes for my roads 10% sales tax here.  I pay all the time in spite of what some of you have spouted.  None of the public utilities around here are government owned.  The local municipal water systems are not regulated by the public service commission in this state.  So go on tell me how the government is supplying me with so much and how i'm not paying for it. I pay taxes to pay for single moms who get 600 bucks a kid from the state,  free healthcare, rental assistance, assistance on their utilities and so on.   I filled out forms time and time again to get some kind of assistance for my son.  The simple fact despite everyone's ignorance is that I wold have make less than 20,000 a year to qualify for anything other than some pathetic program called tefra which guess what costs $75 a month and doesn't cover shiat.   I get it that you all think its some weakness on my part but your wrong end of story.  I will make on allowance I do have police and fire protection.  Of course right now 1% of that 10% sales tax I'm paying is going to build a new fire station.


So in a nutshell, your backasswards hellhole of a state, working along libertarian principles, hasn't provided you with the services you want and would be helpful to your son. And you've turned that despair into the illusion that it's because you're all bootstrappy. Shouldn't you be happy that the state you live in allows that public infrastructure is in private hands? Isn't that part of the whole libertarian ethos? Shouldn't you be happy that you couldn't get the assistance your son needs through a social safety net? I would have expected you to say something along the lines of "my son was denied services for his autism! Outstanding, it gives him a chance to pull himself up by his bootstraps!" If the libertarian paradise you live in is so great, why do you sound so bitter?
 
2013-08-01 05:42:54 PM

Fart_Machine: there


their.

/shakes tiny fist
 
2013-08-01 05:53:40 PM
Another thread demonstrating once again that the reason people avoid and often mock libertarians is entirely do to libertarians themselves. Surely a long line of angry rants amounting to "If I don't get government assistance then nobody should!" will finally convince people that libertarian is not just a nice sounding code word for selfish prick.
 
2013-08-01 06:02:08 PM

Revek: I have to pay for my utilities.  I have to pay for my food.  I have to pay taxes for my roads 10% sales tax here.  I pay all the time in spite of what some of you have spouted.  None of the public utilities around here are government owned.  The local municipal water systems are not regulated by the public service commission in this state.  So go on tell me how the government is supplying me with so much and how i'm not paying for it. I pay taxes to pay for single moms who get 600 bucks a kid from the state,  free healthcare, rental assistance, assistance on their utilities and so on.   I filled out forms time and time again to get some kind of assistance for my son.  The simple fact despite everyone's ignorance is that I wold have make less than 20,000 a year to qualify for anything other than some pathetic program called tefra which guess what costs $75 a month and doesn't cover shiat.   I get it that you all think its some weakness on my part but your wrong end of story.  I will make on allowance I do have police and fire protection.  Of course right now 1% of that 10% sales tax I'm paying is going to build a new fire station.


Most Libertarians at this point would say that you bring this on yourself by continuing to live in such a shiathole of a state.
 
2013-08-01 06:15:46 PM
Quit thinking you understand what it means to be libertarian from Wikipedia articles.  Go read about John Locke look at the state he lived under and then look at the one you live under now in terms of who gets the advantages.  All of you are talking out your ass about that which you really have no idea about.  Oh and before one of you half wits talks about his investing in the slave trade understand so did most of the guys who have their face on the money.
 
2013-08-01 06:19:36 PM

Revek: I have strong libertarian leanings but receive nothing from the government.  I get no money for my autistic son.  No money for my disabling medical condition  including no medical help at all.  I make half the median income for the state.


The Median income in AR is ~$40,000, so that would put you at 20,000, which does make you eligible for some assistance.

You could get your kid medical insurance under the "ArKids B" plan. With only one child the income cutoff is $22,980.00. So at $20k you would be eligible.

While you make too much for SNAP, you are under the max income for the "national school lunch program", "summer food service program" and "child and adult care food program" which subsidize food for your child.

You would also likely qualify for the "Title V, Children with Special Health Care Needs" program.

The "Arkansas low income home energy assistance program" has a cutoff for a two person household at $22,695. So you are at the edge of eligibility for that one too.

You also qualify for (at least on the basis of income) your states weatherization assistance program that could help you save on energy bills.
 
2013-08-01 06:24:21 PM

rustypouch: Then it would be easy enough for you to point out some family hating, socialist, enviro nazis, right?


Easy peasy.
 
2013-08-01 06:25:27 PM

Thrag: Revek: I have strong libertarian leanings but receive nothing from the government.  I get no money for my autistic son.  No money for my disabling medical condition  including no medical help at all.  I make half the median income for the state.

The Median income in AR is ~$40,000, so that would put you at 20,000, which does make you eligible for some assistance.

You could get your kid medical insurance under the "ArKids B" plan. With only one child the income cutoff is $22,980.00. So at $20k you would be eligible.

While you make too much for SNAP, you are under the max income for the "national school lunch program", "summer food service program" and "child and adult care food program" which subsidize food for your child.

You would also likely qualify for the "Title V, Children with Special Health Care Needs" program.

The "Arkansas low income home energy assistance program" has a cutoff for a two person household at $22,695. So you are at the edge of eligibility for that one too.

You also qualify for (at least on the basis of income) your states weatherization assistance program that could help you save on energy bills.


Doesn't matter where you get your numbers it matters where Arkansas DHS get theirs. I don't even know why I bother responding to idiots like you.
 
2013-08-01 06:27:16 PM

Phil McKraken: Ok, I'll just quit working or do something that pays much less than I make now, because it's entirely unfair that I make enough money to pay taxes.


Not much in that figure had anything to do with making enough money to pay taxes.  We all pay some sort of taxes. Methinks that you completly missed my point.
 
2013-08-01 06:32:50 PM

Revek: Thrag: Revek: I have strong libertarian leanings but receive nothing from the government.  I get no money for my autistic son.  No money for my disabling medical condition  including no medical help at all.  I make half the median income for the state.

The Median income in AR is ~$40,000, so that would put you at 20,000, which does make you eligible for some assistance.

You could get your kid medical insurance under the "ArKids B" plan. With only one child the income cutoff is $22,980.00. So at $20k you would be eligible.

While you make too much for SNAP, you are under the max income for the "national school lunch program", "summer food service program" and "child and adult care food program" which subsidize food for your child.

You would also likely qualify for the "Title V, Children with Special Health Care Needs" program.

The "Arkansas low income home energy assistance program" has a cutoff for a two person household at $22,695. So you are at the edge of eligibility for that one too.

You also qualify for (at least on the basis of income) your states weatherization assistance program that could help you save on energy bills.

Doesn't matter where you get your numbers it matters where Arkansas DHS get theirs.


I am getting my numbers from the websites of the actual programs and/or Arkansas government websites.

For example, here's the ArKids First website

ARKids First Income Eligibility
Effective April 1, 2013 through March 31, 2014

Family SizeARKids AARKids BUnder Age 6Age 6 and Over
AnnuallyMonthlyAnnuallyMonthlyAnnuallyMonthly1

$15,281.76

$1,273.48

$11,490.00

$957.50

$22,980.00

$1,915.00

2

$20,628.36

$1,719.03

$15,510.00

$1,292.50

$31,020.00

$2,585.00


Though it does look like I read that wrong. It says family size and not number of children. So in your case if you are a single parent with one child the cutoff appears to be $31k.

I don't even know why I bother responding to idiots like you.

The feeling is mutual. Sorry for trying to give you useful information. I'm sure spending your time biatching on the internet will turn out to be a better way to improve your situation.

You are here slacking instead of working and complaining about not getting enough government assistance. The fact that you call yourself a libertarian is the funniest thing in this thread.
 
2013-08-01 06:38:47 PM
So, does everyone else hate fark's latest editor? I pasted in a table and it retained all the nice formatting in the editor, only to be completely stripped of formatting when posted.
 
2013-08-01 06:48:37 PM
GoldSpider:If you're content with living as a pet, than who am I to judge?

PsiChick:Here in Nevada, we have a mandatory class on the Constitution as part of our freshman college year. It's very enlightening, especially the parts about social contracts. I think you'd rather enjoy learning that participation in social contracts does not make you a 'pet'.


Lawyers With Nukes: - if force is involved, it's not "participation", it's survival


In theory I agree with you, but anyone reading your posts, or, for that matter, listening to any Libertarian, should be aware that "force" in Libertarian-ese is a term of art.  It does not mean what most people think of when they hear the word "force."  When used in Libertarian-ese, it pretty much means "anything Libertarians don't like."

Lawyers With Nukes- contracts made under coercion are invalid

In principle, yes, though again I suspect you have a rather quirky definition of "under coercion" in mind.  If you mean, "someone literally held a knife to my throat and swore he'd kill me if I didn't sign," sure.

Lawyers With Nukes- you aren't bound by a contract made by your ancestors

Not as such, no.  But see the next point.

Lawyers With Nukes- refusal to leave the land of your birth is not tacit agreement with all or part of such contracts

Here's where it all falls down.  By living in a country, you DO implicitly agree to play by the rules of that country.  Joining a society is not strictly a matter of opting in.  When you're born into a society, you're part of it, like it or not, until such time as you leave it.  Here are your only three options:

1. You can obey the rules of the society you're in, even the parts you don't like (such as paying taxes).
2. You can leave the society (but that will probably involve physically moving to a location outside the society).
3. You can break the rules and accept the consequences, be they fines, imprisonment, or whatever.

I'm sorry (well, no, honestly, I'm not), but there IS no fourth option.  You can say "well, I never SIGNED anything, so I'm not REALLY part of this society," but you're wrong.  Yes, like it or not, you "signed the contract" when you were born, and you signed it again every single day you remain in the society.  The GOOD news is, our society allows you to believe wrong headed things and say wrongheaded things, and you're free to THINK you're not part of society to your hearts' content, and you can CLAIM the laws don't apply to you if you like.  That's the joy of free speech.

But when push comes to shove, you WILL obey the rules or you WILL leave or you WILL get punished.  That is how it is, and how it should be.  And if you don't like it, tough.

You can also, I might add, try to CHANGE the society you live in, via the process the society has for change (such as voting, in the USA, or writing letters to your congressman, etc.)  Or you could try violent revolution, I suppose, if you're fully prepared to accept the likelihood that you'll die in the attempt.  But these are outside the scope of what I was talking about earlier.
 
2013-08-01 06:56:41 PM

iawai: What is libertarianism, to you? Is there an underlying philosophy, or is it just a set of policy prescriptions that can waver in the winds of current sentiment?


Are you asking about my view of libertarianism in general, or my own personal views?  "Libertarianism" is just a term that I find reasonably descriptive of what I believe, not some kind of ideology that I base my beliefs on.

I feel that the one-sentence definition of libertarianism is that the government should only do what it has to to protect citizens from each other and outside threats.  There is a lot of diversity of opinion on where to draw these lines.

Personally, I'd say the same - as well as to provide basic services that only a government can provide in a practical and cost-effective manner.

ciberido: Perhaps. but it's even more unfortunate that you choose to lament my opinion rather than try to  explain to me  how Libertarianism WOULDN'T  shut out in the cold anyone who wasn't born rich, regardless of how ardently the disenfranchised tried to follow it themselves.


Could you please define what you believe the bolded terms mean so that I can more accurately answer your question.  Also, what difficulties do you believe that these people would have in this "Libertarian" world that are different from now?
 
2013-08-01 07:02:22 PM

Revek: Doesn't matter where you get your numbers it matters where Arkansas DHS get theirs. I don't even know why I bother responding to idiots like you.


Neither do I.

You are getting called out as a liar, or too stupid to find out what you quialify for.  Something a random guy with no kid at stake could find out in a couple minutes.
 
2013-08-01 07:06:47 PM

Lawyers With Nukes: UndeadPoetsSociety: Can I be weary of having my tax money used for mass murder overseas, instead of having actual infrastructure?

They say that taxes are the price of living in a civilized society.

But it is civil to force someone (under threat of violence) to pay for something they consider morally reprehensible?

If you should withhold that portion of your taxes that goes to our continual campaigns of mass murder, in what way will things start to become uncivil? Armed agents pointing their shotguns at you and your family, demanding payment...that's how.

Taken this way, taxes are "the price of civility" in more ways than one.



If you do not pay your taxes, you are a thief.  You have stolen from your fellow citizens.  It is entirely right and proper that police should use force to apprehend thieves and see that they are punished from their crimes.  Using force to apprehend and punish criminals is absolutely part of a civil society.

No matter how "morally reprehensible" you think taxes are, you broke the law, you are a criminal, and yes I DO hope that big, burly men with big-ass shotguns arrest your skeeving, criminal ass and haul you away in handcuffs.  Ideally it should be a quiet arrest without the need to draw guns, but if you or any member of your family resist arrest or otherwise try to interfere, then they get to do whatever is necessary to put down such resistance, up to burning your house down and driving over the flaming rubble in radioactive tanks.  Repeatedly.

And  I will applaud them and buy them doughnuts for doing their job.

Now, if you truly believe that you were standing up for your rights by committing an act of civil disobedience, then live up to it by accepting your arrest, pleading guilty in court and taking your prison sentence with dignity like a true activist.  Follow in the footsteps of Martin Luther King, jr, and others by writing letters from jail.

/You could also try a slightly more low-key approach by, say, voting for Libertarian candidates in every election, but hey, since you decided to up the drama by talking about shotguns being pointed and your kids, I thought I'd play your game with you.
 
2013-08-01 07:13:53 PM

BMFPitt: iawai: What is libertarianism, to you? Is there an underlying philosophy, or is it just a set of policy prescriptions that can waver in the winds of current sentiment?

Are you asking about my view of libertarianism in general, or my own personal views?  "Libertarianism" is just a term that I find reasonably descriptive of what I believe, not some kind of ideology that I base my beliefs on.

I feel that the one-sentence definition of libertarianism is that the government should only do what it has to to protect citizens from each other and outside threats.  There is a lot of diversity of opinion on where to draw these lines.

Personally, I'd say the same - as well as to provide basic services that only a government can provide in a practical and cost-effective manner.

ciberido: Perhaps. but it's even more unfortunate that you choose to lament my opinion rather than try to  explain to me  how Libertarianism WOULDN'T  shut out in the cold anyone who wasn't born rich, regardless of how ardently the disenfranchised tried to follow it themselves.

Could you please define what you believe the bolded terms mean so that I can more accurately answer your question.  Also, what difficulties do you believe that these people would have in this "Libertarian" world that are different from now?


No.  And your troll-fu is weak.  You want to concern-troll, learn to do it better.

Take a stab at answering the question or not.  Don't waste my time.
 
2013-08-01 07:23:08 PM
Voiceofreason01: B: are greedy, selfish farkers who are looking for a way to justify not paying taxes

Pretty much. I have libertarian leanings, but those are more accurately summed up as wishing to exercise individual liberty, i.e. liberal. The libertarians I know simply don't want to pay taxes. Hardly anybody wants to pay taxes but these guys go out of their way to denigrate everybody who they think are unworthy of their tax dollars, and then jump to how they shouldn't pay taxes.
 
Displayed 50 of 339 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report