SCL forum members

[Equiliari]

Flippers on the end of its tentacles? There's no way that would function right.

It would function just fine.

[Quirel]

You of course. But if we're gonna start talking about this; I'd like you to clearly define the boundaries of what libertarianism is for you. Why? Because social sciences are unfortunately not like natural sciences where words have a strict meaning attached to them. I swear, if you just go in a class of political thinkers and ask ''what's nationalism?'' everyone is gonna go ape shit and come up with their own definition.

Meh. I can't claim any unified political outlook, but I guess my beliefs can be summarized as "A lot of what the federal government does should be left to the states" and "When a branch of government does more harm than good, that is reason enough to eliminate it."

The government should provide the following:
Courts and judicial arbitration, military/police, roads, fire protection, education, very basic healthcare.

There may be some stuff in there that I'm missing, but not much.

In addition, the government's police power should be curbed. The TSA needs to be abolished, surveillance programs need to be shut down. Locally, the trend of American police toward militarization needs to be reversed.

And yes, I'll admit, my philosophy is fairly limited to the United States. I haven't the foggiest of what Canadian government is like, though I congratulate you on finally getting rid of the firearm registry.

I'm honestly not sure how adequate funding for basic social services like Universal Health Care would be detrimental to the USA, TF. That's all "socialism" is, its not Communism and I know you know that.

First, state why "Universal Health Care" is a basic social service.

[TheFunnyOne]

Wow this thread went south

[TheEconomist]

Yeah, ummm, Quirel, not one of those opinions was really anything close to libertarianism. A lot of that was more general Republicanism than libertarianism and, for the most part, what intelligent humans call common sense, reasoning based on facts, or just plain old left hemisphere logic.

First, state why "Universal Health Care" is a basic social service.

Because the alternative is working harder, which cuts into gaming and online rants time.

I, myself, am paying the medical bills of an uninsured veteran who had a stroke at age 68. I am 23 years old, still in college, running 40+ apartments, and managing assets in various classes, and I still have yet to take any medical money from the government to pay for the massive amounts of bills I have to pay and will be paying for many years to come. My father receives some veterans' disability given that his stroke was caused by Agent Orange exposure in Vietnam, but that is it. Why would someone go through their whole lives without health insurance? A sense of self-sufficiency which has gone out of style but is almost universally characteristic among the (ever decreasing) successful people. Go figure. I will instill these sames values which will hopefully result in my children carrying on the tradition of self-sufficiency and success for future generations, and, when I'm old and die early because I couldn't force myself to take the easy way and I have some kind of cardio/pulmonary event, my children will carry the same "burden".

Fret not for me Squibb for I still have plenty of gaming time.

Meanwhile, France and Greece will riot because a politician suggested that their precious 35-hour work week might possibly have to be increased to the normal 40 hours due to, well, insurmountable financial problems.

Wow this thread went south

Your time away has not done wonders for your memory. Topics here have always devolved into some kind of political rant, usually involving Squibb saying something incredibly stupid and me having to bring forth graphs and fact to counter his moral pleas and emotional blathering. That is, of course, only after myself taking about three years of abuse for suggesting that Europe would have a crisis worse than America's and that America would not collapse, and, in fact, would be doing better than Europe in a few years time. Not to mention problems in China, spreading to Australia and Canada. How abooooot that. Funny how that all came true, EH?

[DemolitionSquid]

First, state why "Universal Health Care" is a basic social service.

By basic I meant the reasons government was created in the first place: to provide and enforce laws, and provide social services that are too important and open to abuse for the private sector; ie. basic health care, standardized primary education, police and firefighting, poverty relief. Safety nets to maintain an acceptable, universal base standard of living for the populace. I am not, nor have I ever, advocated giving everyone everything so they never have to do anything. Everyone should be free to succeed or fail on their own, but not to the point of living in a cardboard box in an alley.

Children should not suffer in poverty for the mistakes of their parents. People should not be tens of thousands in debt because of some random health condition.

Of course, obviously everyone disagrees with me because you're all heartless bastards.

[TheEconomist]

Of course, obviously everyone disagrees with me because you're all heartless bastards.

What percentage of your wealth have you donated? You keep calling me a heartless bastard yet whenever a measurement for one's caring is reached, I surpass you by a large margin.

[DemolitionSquid]

See, what I don't understand, is how you can support charity when charity is basically socialism. There is literally no difference between giving money to a cause and taxes except taxes go to more specific causes.

And I give what I can, which is not as much as you because I don't make as much, obviously.

[TheEconomist]

See, what I don't understand, is how you can support charity when charity is basically socialism.

Then why all the "heartless American" bullshit? No one is more charitable than America. No one. Not even close. European socialism is alive today because of American charity after WW2. I don't even need to bring up Korea or Japan. Indeed, using your metric, America following WW2 was by far the most socialist nation in human history, eclipsing even the Soviet Union.

Because socialism does not equal charity. I would explain the differences to you, but I have already, numerous times, and you clearly are unwilling to learn or unable to comprehend. So I suggest you Google the tenants of socialism for yourself. You might not be as socialist as you thought. In fact, what you're describing is exactly what liberal capitalism is which is free market capitalism with an emphasis on social programs. Socialism, without bring up Communism, is an entirely different beast.

And I give what I can, which is not as much as you because I don't make as much, obviously.

The wealth I was referring to was my fathers', which I feel no right to benefit from because I did nothing to create it. What money I make is made from investments bought with a salary I get from management, nothing else. I was simply pointing out that there is an easier way out of my "predicament" that I refuse to take, just like my father.

Actually, when we get right down to it, I am dedicating my life to the creation of economic models that have the potential to greatly improve people's standards of loving. What do you do? I've tried to engage you several times to try to make a difference but all you do is bitch and moan that nothing can be done. I am doing something, you are not. Where can you argue that you are more ethical than I am?

[Quirel]

Yeah, ummm, Quirel, not one of those opinions was really anything close to libertarianism. A lot of that was more general Republicanism than libertarianism

Give me a break.
Republicans only care about the little police state because they aren't the ones in the White House. They're the ones who passed the Patriot Act and created the TSA. They did jack squat about Social Security and our debt. They aren't even remotely a good alternative to the Democratic party.

I could rant about how the Fed needs to be abolished, but I don't know enough about economics to know how that will affect... anything.

Also, I could mention that every gun control law up to and including the National Firearms Act needs to be stricken down, and the ATF needs to be let go.

Anything else I'm forgetting?

for the most part, what intelligent humans call common sense, reasoning based on facts, or just plain old left hemisphere logic.

Well, yeah.

By basic I meant the reasons government was created in the first place: to provide and enforce laws, and provide social services that are too important and open to abuse for the private sector;

Call me a fool, but I'm pretty sure that government wasn't originally created to provide social services.

And what's so special about government that it won't abuse these social services just like the private sector will?

Safety nets to maintain an acceptable, universal base standard of living for the populace. I am not, nor have I ever, advocated giving everyone everything so they never have to do anything. Everyone should be free to succeed or fail on their own, but not to the point of living in a cardboard box in an alley.

Pshh. If we were only helping the people in danger of living in cardboard boxes and foraging out of McDonalds dumpsters, we'd be spending a hell of a lot less on welfare.

[TheFunnyOne]

Oh hell no guys
go to the Economy thread...

...I like food from McDonald I really do, cheeseburgers and chickenburgers with that spicy sauce are my favourite
yummy