Sure would love national health careFollow

Erm... a lot? Unless it's the kind of drug made on my stovetop with salt and dried chives.

Start taking the blame for being a dumbass who has used and been in favor of violence preventing free market competition to provide healthcare. You can get competitive quotes on-line for hotel rooms, for vacation packagages. When have you ever seen something similar for a hospital room or a surgery? Yeah, you liberal socialists are responsible for death and suffering.

Add evil to the list that defines liberals:

Evil, pathetic, violent, stupid, intolerant, nazified, not selfless, and not interested in the good of humanity.

Edited, Mar 6th 2007 9:38pm by MonxDoT

Assuming I have an ample supply of the appropriate chemicals and equipment at hand. Which I don't. And the expertise to mix them safely and create a pill which won't kill me. Which I don't.

Meth head would definately explain your behavior.

When was the last time you saw a patent clerk punch an inventor in the face?

Violent, indeed.

MonxDot, you are wrong on so many levels that it isn't even worth trying to quote your points. Your Utopian anarcho-capitalist pipe dream is on a perfect par with Marx's withering of the state, but at least he intuited a "Dictatorship of the Proletariat." There has never been a free market because Hobbes was indeed correct.

None of your economic postulates have any validity, including your insistance on every freely entered trade increasing wealth. Your abusive speech is far more indicative of a violent nature than taxation, and your suggestion that all thought are absolutes according to 21st century epistemology sounds like something you read on the back of a comic book right next to the "send $1 for secrets of wealth" add.

Go back to your libertarian compound and fight the good fight against those nasty Nazified IRS agents. Maybe Ron Brown will come give a speech about the gold standard.

You can quit your job at anytime in a free market and go work for someone else who offers better terms. I don't recall anyone in the Soviety Union working in any capacity except that which they were told and limited to by some politician.

Either extreme is going to bad for citizens. Unrestrained free markets lead to exploitation of the poor. Complete Socialism would be a totalitarian police state. The most effective and useful forms of government are somewhere in the middle. The ideal, of course, would be for you or I to be absolute ruler and able to distribute all of the worlds wealth as we saw fit, or put into place systems of government we advocated for.

Given the unlikeliness of that happening, (at least for you) I think we'd both probably be better served to advocate for changes within the system we think would benefit people. I think a basic 'safety net' level of services for everyone in the world should exist. I think that should include housing, food, health care, and an education system funded by taxation. I think there should be a relatively free but regulated market beyond that to reward people with merit. I think personal wealth should be heavily taxed at death and redistributed via the safety systems of entitlements. I believe people are indeed owed something by society just for being human beings.

Ideas aren't tangible material property which can be owned, or even circumscribed. Only by violence can one person prevent you from including doors and windows in your house by calling the building of doors and windows "copying" and using force to prevent you from having doors and windows without copyright/patent payment. If I download a copy of an mp3, nothing has been stolen. The original mp3 is exactly where it was and in the same working condition as it was before. Like I said before you don't have the right to force silence on others, you only have the right to STFU in the first place.

You're a dumbfUck moron. We're talking about actually existing action performed by actually existing human beings. In every case trade is voluntarily consensual or it's violent theft. There's not a free market in sex? People don't voluntarily hook up with those they want to hook up with? Oh that's right, you socialists are rapists, arguing for violent rape, searching for justification for violent rape. Why don't you tell us again why it's not fair for "rich" beautiful women to not sleep with "poor" ugly guys like yourself, how the wealth should be violently redistributed.

You seem to have forgotten the violence in these equations.

Odd, I've never had a tax collector come to my place and punch me in the face before collecting FICA.

Edited, Mar 6th 2007 11:10pm by Debalic