I think you thought the post you commented on (mine) made that response (I did not), but the only thing that it speaks volumes of is your eagerness to personall

I think you thought the post you commented on (mine) made that response (I did not), but the only thing that it speaks volumes of is your eagerness to personally insult the opposing side by insinuating they can't engage in constructive debate. In my analogy, I tried to reflect an example of a typical decision available to a US citizen as that's the main audience here. The argument holds for any government service that people in financial ruin benefit from. In this case, the most applicable would be: should individuals who lose all their money speculating be able to file for bankruptcy? Bankruptcy is a social benefit that gives people a chance at a restart. Should we give that privilege to people who intentionally use it as a call option? Perhaps I should have used this example, but the other is a real monthly expense for many Americans and so I thought fit the narrative better. And yes, your last comment is a strawman because any libertarian who believes in individual choice and consequence also believes the same for businesses and rich people. You're attacking a group of people who exist but that I wouldn't call libertarians.