Philosophical question : Whats the moral difference between sexuality laws and drug laws?

[HomerThompson]

I addressed the problem with that kind of questioning in the long post (which like an asshole you didn't read). If you want this to go anywhere, why don't you first rebut why the god of the gaps is applicable here?

Again, using your own words and thoughts, answer my question. Bringing in more bullshit from your ideology isn't going to work. It's a really simple question I'm asking. How could law enforcement possibly function without the universal coverage of everyone being protected?

 

[Greoric]

Again, using your own words and thoughts, answer my question. Bringing in more bullshit from your ideology isn't going to work. It's a really simple question I'm asking. How could law enforcement possibly function without the universal coverage of everyone being protected?

Did you read the post I spent my time writing you? Are you actually interested in the answer or just opining because you happen to have an asshole?

 

[HomerThompson]

Did you read the post I spent my time writing you? Are you actually interested in the answer or just opining because you happen to have an asshole?

So, just to be clear, you have no intention of actually answering the question? This is the standard for you. When it's time to actually talk about the mechanism for how things will work without taxation or the government you shrink away and go off on tangents about libertarian ideology, and how your opposition in the debate needs to explain something to you first. It's completely ridiculous. If you can't actually answer the question, and haven't thought beyond, "Taxation is theft! Obligate customer base! Compulsory funded monopoly!" that's fine. Just stop with the obfuscation and bullshit.

 

[Greoric]

So, just to be clear, you have no intention of actually answering the question? This is the standard for you. When it's time to actually talk about the mechanism for how things will work without taxation or the government you shrink away and go off on tangents about libertarian ideology, and how your opposition in the debate needs to explain something to you first. It's completely ridiculous. If you can't actually answer the question, and haven't thought beyond, "Taxation is theft! Obligate customer base! Compulsory funded monopoly!" that's fine. Just stop with the obfuscation and bullshit.

Just to be clear, you're not interested in the answer. You know how I know? You didn't read the post.

In that case fuck you too.

 

[Greoric]

Government and taxation are dependent on each other.

My point exactly.

 

[HomerThompson]

Just to be clear, you're not interested in the answer. You know how I know? You didn't read the post.

In that case fuck you too.

I did read the post. It's nonsensical horse shit. That's you go-to play when asked to explain how a society would function with no taxes, no government, and every service being a for profit business. For the sake of your precious ideology, please attempt to explain how it(society) could actually function with some people having no protection or rights enforced by a third party.

 

[helltoupee]

No, it's not. Greoric's focus on taxation as force tends to overlook the more traditional uses of force - literal physical force to compel outcomes. If you're poor, you will be compelled to act a certain way by actual force since you will lack the funds to afford protection from that force.

I think people forget that economic force can be just as powerful as physical force.

 

[Greoric]

I did read the post. It's nonsensical horse shit. That's you go-to play when asked to explain how a society would function with no taxes, no government, and every service being a for profit business. For the sake of your precious ideology, please attempt to explain how it(society) could actually function with some people having no protection or rights enforced by a third party.

No excuse you. We're not going "play by play" with anything until you actually rebut the points I sat down to spend my time writing out. What kind of horseshit tactic is this? Let's monopolize his time, get him to write out a detailed argument, then demand he write it out all over again so when he refuses, I claim he's obfuscating and dodging...

You're like a pigeon playing chess.

 

[HomerThompson]

No excuse you. We're not going "play by play" with anything until you actually rebut the points I sat down to spend my time writing out. What kind of horseshit tactic is this? Let's monopolize his time, get him to write out a detailed argument, then demand he write it out all over again so when he refuses, I claim he's obfuscating and dodging...

You're like a pigeon playing chess.

You don't have a proper level of self awareness. You're literally doing the exact thing I called you out for in several posts. I know you're not this stupid, so it seems to me that deep down you know that Libertarianism is complete horse shit.

 

[Greoric]

OF course you use it as an argument. The Detroit mom is entitled to the same measures and if she doesn't get them then ostensibly she can leverage the government system to get it. In Greoric's model, there is no minimum standard at all. So, the Detroit mom has no recourse at all for the difference in effort. And that makes a big difference - when the police ignore the Detroit mom there's a standard against which they will be judged. Careers might be affected. Lawsuits might arise. Society will evaluate those choices.

Careers aren't affected now by Detroit police explicitly refusing to go to certain areas, or the practical equivalent of hour long 911 calls. The minimum standard is the same, unretributed murder, theft, and rape. There's no system that can guarantee a just outcome. The difference is the median (or average) standard for everyone.

We both know making law and producing LE isn't simpler than making cars or food. Yet we certainly acknowledge that gov't is inept at making the latter. Why would we expect it to be more effective for the former?

 

[Greoric]

You don't have a proper level of self awareness. You're literally doing the exact thing I called you out for in several posts. I know you're not this stupid, so it seems to me that deep down you know that Libertarianism is complete horse shit.

Look dude, the later part of this exchange is a cluster fuck and keeps people from seeing any legitimate arguments. I spent a non-negligible portion of my time to sit down and be extra fucking thorough with the argument. If you don't understand something, then quote me and ask me to clarify. Preferably you can rebut my supplementary arguments for why that line of questioning is unproductive to begin with.

Don't be a and act like I obfuscated anything.

 

[HomerThompson]

Look dude, the later part of this exchange is a cluster fuck and keeps people from seeing any legitimate arguments. I spent a non-negligible portion of my time to sit down and be extra fucking thorough with the argument. If you don't understand something, then quote me and ask me to clarify. Preferably you can rebut my supplementary arguments for why that line of questioning is unproductive to begin with.

Don't be a and act like I obfuscated anything.

Who would protect citizens who don't pay for law enforcement?

 

[Greoric]

Who would protect citizens who don't pay for law enforcement?

Edit: No fuck that. You need to read the post.

 

[Was Exiled]

Drug addicts affect nobody but themselves? Surely you aren't serious. They fuck up everything around them and immiserate everyone around them. It's very rare for a serious drug addict to not have committed a slew of other crimes during the course of their addiction. There's also a nice amount of overlap in drug abusers and sexual promiscuity.

correlation not causation. There's a lot of rich drug addicts yet you don't see them committing crimes because they don't need money. Your whole post is terrible.

 

[nostradumbass]

correlation not causation. There's a lot of rich drug addicts yet you don't see them committing crimes because they don't need money. Your whole post is terrible.

Well you just said people who don't have money commit crimes when they need it for drugs one sentence after saying it's not causation, so you've embarrassed yourself there. Great, let's set all our policies on rich people who can do whatever they want and don't need money. Brilliant plan.

Who in your life do want to be on drugs? Your airline pilot, teachers, doctors, your parents, siblings, cab drivers, babysitters? Who exactly in your life are you ok with having a drug addiction?

 

[Greoric]

Oh God, how many times does that have to be shot down before you stop making a fool of yourself by saying it?

The fuck does "believe in science" even mean? There are a ton of scientific fields, and you say something as ridiculous as "the right is less likely to believe in science"? How about biology, embryology, vaccines, fracking, nuclear energy, sociology? The left even contradicts themselves when they wear their feminist hat claiming gender is a social construct and there is no such thing as a female brain or tendencies, then turn right around and say tranny men were born with a female brain and tendencies.

And the right is more tribal!? Are you high? The entirety of left wing politics is picking which groups are villains and which are victims. Let's see, BLM, women's march, day without immigrants, day without women, antifa, race-based affirmative action, refugee rallies, youtube, twitter, and Hollywood blackballing for conservative political opinions. Oh, but the party of individualism and personal responsibility is where it gets really tribal because they think people should take care of their kids. GTFO.

Though there is some overlap, science does not automatically dictate morality and is often completely unrelated. You seem to think climate change is the entirety of science, and that anyone who thinks the government taking over the energy industry is a bad idea just doesn't believe in science. It's not even not believing the theory, it's that the left's version of science seems to always equal more cost, higher taxes, and more gov't authority.

@kpt018

The funny part is that taking in the demographics alone could easily lead you to believe libertarianism is tribal. It's true that the movement is made up mostly of whites. Anecdotally, just going to a libertarian conference, that would be immediately apparent.. That could lead you to believe superficially that the movement is tribal... when in fact its the least tribal way to organize society dominated by the least tribal ethnicity.

The latter part has some ecological reasoning to back it up. By virtue of environmental constraints that prevented large communities in Northern European climates, the populations of humans there were selected for the least in group/ out group preference, in contrast to almost every other ethnicity.

Its almost like putting oil in water. It's not that the oil forms into micelles in the water because of its attraction to itself. It's more that the water around it with a polar nature is attracted to itself and excludes the oil.

 

[Greoric]

The argument works, because it would be made much worse with some people receiving no protection at all in an anarchy. Because something is imperfect you don't say, "Fuck it, let's get rid of the whole idea.". That's nonsense.

Areas of Detroit have more access to protection through private means than public. Some have neither. But that's not an indictment against private industry. The fact that private options exist in spaces where public protection doesn't is evidence that a private means of production is again more efficient and effective than the public's.

Both systems fail to protect everyone, and also fail to provide everyone with justice. The only question is which mitigates the amount of people without, and by extension which provides the most people with.... therefore making your god of the gaps question "What about Xe in Y and Z position" a silly question to begin with. You're giving the pass on the obvious problems with the alternative means of production.

Even more fundamentally, we acknowledge that we wouldn't want government producing out cars or TVs. Security and Law are at least as difficult to produce as cars and TVs so why would we demand the government produce and distribute them as well?

 

[panamaican]

How do they afford the property of the poor over arbiters that make their living from being objective?

Pan, the big bad counselor steals from Greoric the poor medical student. I take you to an arbiter for damages.

And if you can't afford the arbiter?

 

[Greoric]

And if you can't afford the arbiter?

Well if you wrongly accuse someone its on you.

 

[panamaican]

My point exactly.

My typo.

I meant that government and taxation are independent of each other.