Libertarians are idealistic, unrealistic fantasizers. They have no idea how the economy actually works, much less human behavior. They want all the privileges and comforts of a civilized society. But none of the responsibilities.
Society has certain benefits. This means it also has certain rules. You need to start comprehending that society can offer these benefits only *because* it abides by these rules.
Society by necessity requires cooperation. It requires people not to commit crime. It requires people to exercise a great deal of self-restraint.
This is something that a lot of the so-called evolution proponents also do not seem to comprehend. They seem incapable of positively absorbing this notion. They seem incapable of making the connection that committing crime, that rape is NOT due to evolution.
In the libertarians' proposal that,, police,,, people can afford to hire body guards, top of the line defense forces to guard their homes. What about poor people who cannot afford to hire their own security guards? Even the vast majority of middle-class people sure as hell cannot afford to hire their own personal bodyguards that follow them around.
So what are you saying, that only people with money deserve the right to be protected from crime?
--
The atheist libertarian says "wellll why doesn't everyone just do what they want?"
Sorry, but that's not a society. No society or civilization in the history of this planet has ever flourished with everyone only looking out for number one. That means mere sheer competition. That is actually very primitive, unevolved approach to life. No cooperation, no working together, no organizing into larger-population towns, with dividing up of responsibilities, shared amongst the inhabitants.
You libertarian, you apparently seem to think that you should get all the benefits of society -- with none of the responsibilities.
You think that you should get the benefits of police and security force keeping people safe. I'm sure you think you should receive the benefits of a 911 dispatch emergency service, first response service, without the responsibilities of taxes.
you think people
Ah, but that's cruel. That is not how an interactive, complex interwoven society works.
Your libertarian ways sound like you want to do away with the state school education systems. But again, that is not what creates a society.
---
Man is inherently evil, sloppy, sociopathic. Name a single civilization that continues to progress forward that did not heavily invest in rigorous, strict, enforced behaviors. Not only in terms of technological advances, but also improvements in human interaction, including dropping crime rates. Reinforce good behavior, punish bad behavior.
I will demonstrate why your libertarian thinking is simplistic and naive. I know libertarians say that any acts that are not "both parties consenting" must be banned. That sounds good.
Let us consider the fact that there are several examples in which an act is *already* libertarian. I am talking about criminal acts that violate a person. R---, murder, child abuse, kidnapping, domestic violence.
These acts are already libertarian. If both parties do not consent, which they obviously do not, then by all moral human laws, they must not be allowed to occur. Yet they occur anyway.
So what can be done to prevent this? And god forbid, if these crimes do transgress, what can be done to punish the criminals?
A law enforcement system must be in place. A judiciary system must be in place. But where the hell are you going to get funding for an effective police force with the resources for swift response? You libertarians don't want to pay taxes. You say you want crime to be gone because at least you do admit that violent crime is most definitely non-consenting between the two "involved" parties. But how do you expect to punish criminals and get rid of criminal activity if tax money is not allocated towards prisons?
Now, those systems are merely reactionary damage control in response to criminal acts that have already happened. If we want to talk about actual *prevention* of crime, we need socialization and proper breeding of the population. That means grade school education, parenting classes, psychological counseling if necessary. It is incumbent upon all citizens of a society to contribute to these systems, because these systems maintain order and structure and safety.
But how do you expect to steeply curb criminal behavior unless enough funding is given to teachers and schools? Not to mention funding for sex education -- we don't want the teeming cesspool origins of these things to procreate.
Sorry, but if you want the benefits and advantages of a civilized society, then you are going to have to contribute. You cannot consume your sweets and [[[[[eat]]]]]]] it too.
----------------------------------
I suppose that I personally am the rarest of combinations. Socially conservative, fiscal liberal. Here is the logic behind that. People need to take responsibility for their own goddamn actions. Don't do stupid stuff. Don't blame the mystical ominous force that is "society" for your own stupid irresponsible choices. Don't max out your credit cards and then whine about how you don’t have any money. If you want to have s-x, buy your own damn birth control. If you create kids, raise them. Don't dump them on the rest of society. Don't dump it on public schools, or welfare, or dept of social services (child protective services).
Then there are the actual crimes that should not need any explanation. Don't murder. Don't r--. Don’t abuse children. Don't mug people. Don't carjack people. If people just followed those very simple, very straightforward mantras, we would not need taxpayer funding for jails and prisons, and cops. So there is the social conservative.
Now on to the fiscal liberal.
But also, people are human. They are going to make mistakes. (Just an aside, the violent crime instances are not "mistakes." Those are sociopaths whose actions have dangerous consequences to the population. They must be met with swift justice.) Back to the discussion. People are not perfect; they will make mistakes. So there must be a financial cushion. A barrier or buffer....... so that the economy, so that society at large, can absorb the few mistakes amongst the vast majority of reasonably intelligent people that make good choices. And sometimes it's not conscious bad choices. Things just happen. Life happens. That's life. People need a safety net cushion, reliable shelter.
Also, to keep teenage hormone-addled teenagers from doing drugs, knocking over a liquor store and/or shooting the whole entire school, or getting knocked up, they need some safe healthy crap to do. This means after-school extra-curricular activities. Again -- that is a need for funds.
There does need to be funding for all of this. Social conservatism requires money. Schools. health
Society has certain benefits. This means it also has certain rules. You need to start comprehending that society can offer these benefits only *because* it abides by these rules.
Society by necessity requires cooperation. It requires people not to commit crime. It requires people to exercise a great deal of self-restraint.
This is something that a lot of the so-called evolution proponents also do not seem to comprehend. They seem incapable of positively absorbing this notion. They seem incapable of making the connection that committing crime, that rape is NOT due to evolution.
In the libertarians' proposal that,, police,,, people can afford to hire body guards, top of the line defense forces to guard their homes. What about poor people who cannot afford to hire their own security guards? Even the vast majority of middle-class people sure as hell cannot afford to hire their own personal bodyguards that follow them around.
So what are you saying, that only people with money deserve the right to be protected from crime?
--
The atheist libertarian says "wellll why doesn't everyone just do what they want?"
Sorry, but that's not a society. No society or civilization in the history of this planet has ever flourished with everyone only looking out for number one. That means mere sheer competition. That is actually very primitive, unevolved approach to life. No cooperation, no working together, no organizing into larger-population towns, with dividing up of responsibilities, shared amongst the inhabitants.
You libertarian, you apparently seem to think that you should get all the benefits of society -- with none of the responsibilities.
You think that you should get the benefits of police and security force keeping people safe. I'm sure you think you should receive the benefits of a 911 dispatch emergency service, first response service, without the responsibilities of taxes.
you think people
Ah, but that's cruel. That is not how an interactive, complex interwoven society works.
Your libertarian ways sound like you want to do away with the state school education systems. But again, that is not what creates a society.
---
Man is inherently evil, sloppy, sociopathic. Name a single civilization that continues to progress forward that did not heavily invest in rigorous, strict, enforced behaviors. Not only in terms of technological advances, but also improvements in human interaction, including dropping crime rates. Reinforce good behavior, punish bad behavior.
I will demonstrate why your libertarian thinking is simplistic and naive. I know libertarians say that any acts that are not "both parties consenting" must be banned. That sounds good.
Let us consider the fact that there are several examples in which an act is *already* libertarian. I am talking about criminal acts that violate a person. R---, murder, child abuse, kidnapping, domestic violence.
These acts are already libertarian. If both parties do not consent, which they obviously do not, then by all moral human laws, they must not be allowed to occur. Yet they occur anyway.
So what can be done to prevent this? And god forbid, if these crimes do transgress, what can be done to punish the criminals?
A law enforcement system must be in place. A judiciary system must be in place. But where the hell are you going to get funding for an effective police force with the resources for swift response? You libertarians don't want to pay taxes. You say you want crime to be gone because at least you do admit that violent crime is most definitely non-consenting between the two "involved" parties. But how do you expect to punish criminals and get rid of criminal activity if tax money is not allocated towards prisons?
Now, those systems are merely reactionary damage control in response to criminal acts that have already happened. If we want to talk about actual *prevention* of crime, we need socialization and proper breeding of the population. That means grade school education, parenting classes, psychological counseling if necessary. It is incumbent upon all citizens of a society to contribute to these systems, because these systems maintain order and structure and safety.
But how do you expect to steeply curb criminal behavior unless enough funding is given to teachers and schools? Not to mention funding for sex education -- we don't want the teeming cesspool origins of these things to procreate.
Sorry, but if you want the benefits and advantages of a civilized society, then you are going to have to contribute. You cannot consume your sweets and [[[[[eat]]]]]]] it too.
----------------------------------
I suppose that I personally am the rarest of combinations. Socially conservative, fiscal liberal. Here is the logic behind that. People need to take responsibility for their own goddamn actions. Don't do stupid stuff. Don't blame the mystical ominous force that is "society" for your own stupid irresponsible choices. Don't max out your credit cards and then whine about how you don’t have any money. If you want to have s-x, buy your own damn birth control. If you create kids, raise them. Don't dump them on the rest of society. Don't dump it on public schools, or welfare, or dept of social services (child protective services).
Then there are the actual crimes that should not need any explanation. Don't murder. Don't r--. Don’t abuse children. Don't mug people. Don't carjack people. If people just followed those very simple, very straightforward mantras, we would not need taxpayer funding for jails and prisons, and cops. So there is the social conservative.
Now on to the fiscal liberal.
But also, people are human. They are going to make mistakes. (Just an aside, the violent crime instances are not "mistakes." Those are sociopaths whose actions have dangerous consequences to the population. They must be met with swift justice.) Back to the discussion. People are not perfect; they will make mistakes. So there must be a financial cushion. A barrier or buffer....... so that the economy, so that society at large, can absorb the few mistakes amongst the vast majority of reasonably intelligent people that make good choices. And sometimes it's not conscious bad choices. Things just happen. Life happens. That's life. People need a safety net cushion, reliable shelter.
Also, to keep teenage hormone-addled teenagers from doing drugs, knocking over a liquor store and/or shooting the whole entire school, or getting knocked up, they need some safe healthy crap to do. This means after-school extra-curricular activities. Again -- that is a need for funds.
There does need to be funding for all of this. Social conservatism requires money. Schools. health