Would that we could I'm sure their would be some monstrous libertarian position that we shouldn't. Something along the lines of sure we could cure cancer but their would be a cost to it, like that dumb bitch McCardell who wrote about the Grenfall tower fires. Actually she makes that same exact argument against socializing Healthcare costs, particulalry the pharmaceutical industry.
Treatments exist for diseases. Freedom from illness in this case means that one should not be denied those treatments. Nor should one be ruined for the rest of ones life under crushing debt for said treatment. In other words.... freedom from disease
- - - Updated - - -
Yes you are. Have a good day.
I see you aren't very good at English altogether, that explains so much.
Do you understand the difference between others and everyone? I am sincerely asking because if you understand the difference then you are trolling if you are not then your question makes sense, but it also makes you look really really stupid.
They have no concept of society so I just replied yes because when your conversing with someone who's view is so myopic and narrow getting them to see the forest for the trees is impossible. I shouldn't say they have no concept of society (although I'm sure some do deny the concept) but rather the primary function of society is to protect private property and thats it which is funny because hey look at that it aligns with the interest of the wealthy yet again! gee what a coincidence
Nope, I want to make damn sure you are being consistent in your application of what you deem to be harmful.
Am I harming Bill Gates by not paying for his healthcare?
Your argument rests on the premise that I am harming him. If that's the case, then anyone who is not paying for his healthcare is harming him.
Treatments exists for diseases.. I don't know if your aware but theirs this entire science called medicine that works miracles...
I'm not going to argue with you about paying for bill gates healthcare because its a complete and total non sequitur on your part and its really just proof that your ability to see past your nose is quite limited which is the usual from libertarians.
By your definition yes you are harming him, not by mine.
The guy that says "people should do whatever they want as long as it doesn't harm others, except when it does" is questioning my consistency?
I just want to make it clear, this is just a fraction of the topic I wanted to talk with you about, but considering you already lose yourself in your own arguments I don't see much purpose in talking about big government anymore.
- - - Updated - - -
Apparently, he also doesn't know how taxes work. Poor people pay none, who knew.
Folly and fakery have always been with us... but it has never before been as dangerous as it is now, never in history have we been able to afford it less. - Isaac Asimov
Every damn thing you do in this life, you pay for. - Edith Piaf
The party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command. - Orwell
No amount of belief makes something a fact. - James Randi
All your doing is reinforcing how useless your own arguments are. In essence you call yourself " libertarian" for no reason other than silly contrariness.
To be fair that sounds like most libertarians that argues pointless points "just because." And reading the above posts..yep.