3 ms·
> Family and the community. But go ahead and label us evil because apparently our core Libertarian "ethos" is that we want the sick and infirm to "die". Then b
by PhasmaFelis 10y ago
> Family and the community. But go ahead and label us evil because apparently our core Libertarian "ethos" is that we want the sick and infirm to "die".
Then by all means prove me wrong. What, as a Libertarian, do you think should be done for sick and infirm people without their own financial support?
- FireBeyond 10y agoIt's a circular argument. The response will be "their family and the community will look after them". But if there's no family, and even if there is, "community" will be some nebulous concept with no practical example, nor method for which to reliably and practically have any impact.
- zo1 10y agoThe argument is loaded. Of course not everyone will be covered. Of course there will be people that fall between the cracks of family, community and charity. Really, you demand perfection of a hypothetical system, yet there are millions starving right now. Millions killed, forgotten and neglected due to negligence of the state, or by active effort. All while countless others are forced to pay a state to fix those very things, while the state doesn't do it or does it half-assed while funding gets sent to low-priority causes. And to answer your question. I don't know. I can hypothesize, and we could argue the merits. But really, you will fundamentally disagree with every single suggestion. Or you'll find some little flaw or hole that gets missed(just like you did above), and automatically you'll declare that it is a bad solution and we could never do it.