• Current Events & Politics
    Welcome Guest
    Please read before posting:
    Forum Guidelines Bluelight Rules
  • Current Events & Politics Moderators: deficiT | tryptakid | Foreigner

America needs libertarianism

what do you mean by "over sized?"

It's not even a matter of what "he" means. "He" means whatever Ron Paul, or some other libertarian darling, says is the gospel truth, that seems to be the extent of "his" opinions, luckily it's not the extent of his dialogue, otherwise we'd have been deprived of such hilarious uses of his witty sarcasm, and such cleverly placed "roll eyes" emoticons that grace his every post. Just study textbook stances on libertarianism and argue with yourself in the mirror, then the troll doesn't get fed, you'd waste less time, and you can still expand your mind...or something...I'm fairly convinced he doesn't even know exactly why he believes the things he thinks he does...

hiphophippy said:
Thats entirely an assumption

I'm just ahead of the curve, I guess....;) Then again there's that damn slippery slope to cannibalism that keeps popping up, thwarting all attempts to do what's right...and it's not an assumption, it's an interpretation.

Anyway, I didn't even know that FDR considered healthcare an essential right before I made that post, but I started poking around the internet after you made your post and found out that he did, which led to the Medicaid/Medicare system as a kind of half-measure to provide universal healthcare. Universal, single-payer, healthcare eliminates SO many problems, and does SO many good things for a society that it's completely idiotic not to have it. The only reason we don't have it is because of corrupt corporate influence in politics, and inertia: It'd take a LOT of effort to implement an entirely new system, that it's only likely to happen after some sort of crisis or big moment where every agrees "okay, it's now time to do something." Like after WWII in Britain. This bill that Obama passed is just a huge corporate blow-job. I love the fact that he mandated that they can't discriminate care based on pre-existing conditions, but I hate the fact that he's basically forcing everyone to buy private insurance without even providing a public option. The fact that he didn't have a public option proves that this bill wasn't about helping citizens, and to call it socialist is just plain ignorant.

Anyway, the Declaration of Independence isn't a binding governing document at all, as far as I know, it was only meant to be a symbolic effort to officially split from the King of England, and tell the world why they are doing so, and it was given legitimacy on the backs of the soldiers of the Revolutionary War. Any phrases or concepts from it is not on the same level as concepts or phrases from the Constitution, that being said, if our nation was founded on the concept that all people are born with certain rights, having access to a basic level of free public healthcare is as essential to a society as anything else getting called a right. Do I really have to pick apart the argument about cannibalism? Let's just say you can get a mental health arrest for trying to commit suicide...the desire to be eaten could be construed as suicidal ideation, or mentally unhealthy to some degree....that's just 1 of many problems with that thought. I could come up with many more ways to strike that point down.

I realize that there was no precedent set in the Supreme Court that supports my interpretation, but that doesn't mean it's not a right. It just means there hasn't been a convincing effort to elevate the status of healthcare into that of being a civil right, or the right case hasn't been brought along yet.
I think an argument can be made that healthcare falls under all 3 "natural rights" of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Obviously medical conditions can threaten one's life, and the inability to afford treatment in a capitalist system of healthcare is equivalent to the inability to keep oneself alive.
Liberty, your freedom to choose how to live is compromised when you have to worry about getting a job that has a good healthcare plan, as if you only deserve to be healthy if you can provide services to a corporation, not to mention that you are basically forced to live under a monopoly of whatever service your work provides. And pursuit of happiness, if you're sick, you're not happy, and you aren't free to do the things you want to do. I mean, you'd think that a government "for the people, of the people, and by the people," would take a vested interest in keep its people alive and healthy.

It should be a public service, just like mail, but, like the mail, there should undoubtedly be private organizations that provide extra levels of care to those who want to pay for it. Or perhaps a public system is supported and is the chief customer of many private pharmaceutical/medical technology organizations. The ability to provide care to someone who needs it in order to not die shouldn't be considered in the same category as providing an economic "good or service", but the ability to provide better research/technology/drugs should no doubt be subjected to the pressures of the free market. Innovation deserves to make a man rich, that shouldn't ever change, but there's no innovation involved in simply providing healthcare.

I would go so far to say that health insurance companies should be illegal as corporations because, due to the very nature of health/sickness, being beneficial to one's shareholders doesn't mean being beneficial to their customers, and whenever there is a conflict of interest they are legally obligated to benefit shareholders. The ability to provide healthcare is compromised due to the free market. We've seen time and time again that insurance companies will drop their customers, or refuse to help them even if they don't drop them, right when they need them the most. This is one area where the free market can't be considered more efficient than the government. It's a societal need, and it's unethical for it to be filled by a corporation, therefore, it should be a civil right. Simple as that.
 
Last edited:
It's not even a matter of what "he" means. "He" means whatever Ron Paul, or some other libertarian darling, says is the gospel truth, that seems to be the extent of "his" opinions, luckily it's not the extent of his dialogue, otherwise we'd have been deprived of such hilarious uses of his witty sarcasm, and such cleverly placed "roll eyes" emoticons that grace his every post. Just study textbook stances on libertarianism and argue with yourself in the mirror, then the troll doesn't get fed, you'd waste less time, and you can still expand your mind...or something...I'm fairly convinced he doesn't even know exactly why he believes the things he thinks he does...

I could say the same about you, just switch out Ron Paul for some liberal/leftist douche.

And I'm sure if it I held the same politcal beliefs as your own you wouldn't be calling me a troll.
 
yo_dawg_i_herd_you_like_memes_Bowelmovement_of_Pics-s480x554-151207.jpg
I could say the same about you, just switch out Ron Paul for some liberal/leftist douche.

And I'm sure if it I held the same politcal beliefs as your own you wouldn't be calling me a troll.
10415553.jpg
 
I could say the same about you, just switch out Ron Paul for some liberal/leftist douche.

And I'm sure if it I held the same politcal beliefs as your own you wouldn't be calling me a troll.

Sure you could, and I can say that I built a mansion on the moon, filled it with playboy bunnies, and I can watch all the wonderful ways the low gravity plays with their plastic tits.

Being a troll has nothing to do with political beliefs. It just so happens that the majority of conservatives around here are trolls, but that doesn't mean there aren't liberal trolls, or apolitical trolls. If you could do your side justice and actually try to win an argument, then maybe I wouldn't have thought you were a troll, but you haven't shown any interest in having a real argument, and you haven't shown much of an ability to think for yourself or go beyond the same soundbytes that you can hear anywhere.
 
I hardly ever call people trolls. I'm one of the few people that doesn't think Droppersneck is a troll. You know I'm just saying what everybody's thinking!
 
Last edited:
Libertarianism doesn't make sense? I'll tell you what doesn't make sense: supporting a huge, ineffective, corrupt bureaucracy that taxes everybody as it pleases, imposes on people's right to liberty, and tells businesses whats fair.



Makes sense considering communism works so well.

So capitalism which basically exists because of exploitation and misery of the poor makes sense does it? I also hate large bureaucracy ridden governments but even they are better then libertarianism! Seriously how does unregulated business work at all? It's like having a fox guarding the chicken house really and makes as much sense.
 
Ugh this guy finds the time to make about half a dozen threads a day but not to answer any legit questions. Atleast droppersneck actually engages people in conversation. Am i seriously starting to long for the day when droppersneck was the main troll on here? Wow Vlatrone must be bad 8o
 
indeed, dude's totally weaksauce. even outside of ce&p his troll threads are just as pathetic.
 
Top