I didn't say everyone else was expected to do what I did or my family did. I explained that I am not unfamiliar with the problems.
Then why bring them up?
Um, because I was explaining that I am not unfamiliar with the problems. But I get it. You think my experience is irrelevant. I don't know how I am going to prevent it from influencing my opinion, but I promise I'll try real hard. At least as hard as you are at preventing your experience from influencing your opinion.
It's not offering a solution and it contributes nothing substantial. My family was on food stamps when I was a child, I went through most of my formative years as a kid without health insurance, and I'd still not advocate that it offers anything substantial to this debate. In fact, much of what we're debating consists of you not really offering much in the way of solutions except to shoot down any attempt by the government to find one and not seeming to care enough to talk about anything a business could possibly do on their end.
I was not aware I was expected to solve this problem. I'm not sure offering a solution here would be helpful to anyone in actuality, but I'll see what I can do. You'll have to wait a while.
Your ideology at this point is helpless, actionless, and quite poor, if you ask me. You want government action crippled, but you don't feel like holding businesses to a higher standard -- that's the message I'm getting here.
I want government action crippled? Where did that come from? That is almost a whole other discussion. I don't feel like holding businesses to a higher standard? That depends on which standards we're talking about and what you mean by "holding." If you mean putting public pressure on businesses, I am 100% all for it. If you mean passing laws that mandate behavior, no, I'm not for that. And no, that does not mean I want government action crippled
. It means I want it applied properly, rather than abused to appease people who want to control the behavior of others.
I said there are programs to help people in need buy food, which undermines your assertion that nothing is being done.Which I am saying is not really a point you can make considering you're not for government interference.
Wow. I did not realize you were the arbiter of what I am allowed to use to counter your arguments. Seems awfully convenient for you.
Would you eliminate food stamps if you had the choice? If the answer is yes, then you most certainly can't use this as a point to support your ideology.
I didn't use food stamps as a point to support my ideology. I used the existence of government assistance programs to point out that your claim of nothing being done was not true. And since the programs do actually exist, whether I support them or not is irrelevant to whether or not they disprove your claim. To answer your question, I would privatize the entire program.
If you can agree that some government interference is good for maintaining a certain standard of life and that it can be used judiciously in cases where people would be worse off without it, well, then we're getting somewhere.
That depends entirely upon what is meant by "government interference". Is there a role for government in society? Yes. Is that role to be mandating all manner of behavior for everyone who does not behave as this or that group's ideology believes is best for everyone? No. Is that role protecting the rights of individuals? Yes.
I don't really know what to expect from you, given you haven't really offered much on that note. You keep putting legislation on the chopping block without telling me how you'd go about things differently with your libertarian ideals. Yes, this is an offer. Do enlighten me on how you'd handle things differently.
From what I've gathered, you're in the "sucks to be you" camp that recognizes that some people have less-than-ideal situations, but aren't willing/don't care enough/whatever the excuse may be to do anything about it except shrug and say, "you have a choice!" and leave them to fend for themselves. If I'm wrong, please feel free to jump in and correct me here.
Very few if any people are in the "sucks to be you" camp. It's convenient to claim people who don't agree with us are there, but about 99.999% of the time, it is not true. And it's not true now. I realize some people think helping people equals government doing something. I am not one of those people. Contrary to what you seem to believe, that does not mean I am opposed to helping people. I have watched government try to help people for a long time now. I watched politicians promote "affordable housing" only to see people seethe with anger about predatory lenders when the housing market bubble burst. Even trying to mention the work of politicians in that mess will get you dismissed as an anti-government crackpot. I watched the government keep interest rates artificially low, and then saw people scramble to the be the one to demonize banks the most. I have watched Medicaid and Medicare grow and grow, contributing to higher and higher medical costs for everyone, and then saw people insist it was all the fault of the private market. I watched the "war on poverty" give food stamps to people in need, and I saw people buy candy with them, and I saw people live in the welfare system, barely getting by, but not really trying hard to get off of welfare because then they'd actually suffer an income drop. And I see people blaming businesses and banks and every single last person they can point to and cry "greedy capitalist!" And I have tried to discuss that government contributes as much to the problems as anything else, and watched people start accusing me of not wanting people to get help. I've talked to be people who clearly expect me to be ashamed of daring to think that maybe government, an instrument of force and top-down control, is not the best way to help everyone. Well, I'm not ashamed of noticing a problem that some people refuse to acknowledge.
The thing is, I don't have to know all the answers. One of the things I like about libertarianism is it acknowledges that in the real world, top-down solutions that expect everyone to conform often don't actually work as intended. People are not pawns you can simply control with laws. Certain drugs, prostitution, and in some cases interior design without a licence, are illegal. Yet for some reason these things are still available. We have had decades of government programs with the intent to help bring down health care prices for people, to help people get by when they are in financial need, and as prices go up and people remain on welfare. I question the ability of government programs to effectively address these problems, and some people look at that and the best they can muster up is to accuse me of not wanting people to get help. Really?
What would I do differently? I would start getting government out of the way of all sort of things. Like people who want to braid hair, or make flower arrangements. Why? Because I want people to suffer? No. Because I want to help people create jobs that help them and others find some financial success. I would also, and this is hypothetically assuming I have the power to accomplish any of this, start a nationwide private network of churches, non-profits, philanthropists and the like to see that people in need get help at the local level where it can benefit them the most by responding to the facts on the ground rather than expecting people to conform to rules established from on high by people who believe themselves smarter than everyone else. All those wealthy people who claim they want to pay more in taxes, I'd hit them up for money first, since they seem to think they have too much of it. I'd see if they really believed in helping people or just in government taking money and claiming to do it for them. In broad strokes, the plan would be to find ways to empower individuals, not the government, to take control over their own lives.
Nowhere did I say I wanted to punish people for believing a certain thing or forcing them to do anything.
You certainly appeared to support punishing people who chose for reasons of faith to not take their children to the doctor. If that isn't punishing people for believing a certain way or an attempt to force them to conform to something other than their beliefs I don't know what it is.
I would punish the worst-case outcome when common treatments they could have sought are ignored. Besides, they have a choice! You love choices, right? They can use faith healing and hope their kid doesn't die and they go to prison -- or they can responsibly seek the advice of a medical professional when it turns out their methods aren't working and their dependent's health takes a turn for the worse.
They can choose punishment for following their beliefs or be coerced into compromising them. Conform or be punished, but somehow this isn't punishing people for following their beliefs?
Except I didn't imply that at all, that was your assumption of it.
I quote, " if the parents didn't mean
to kill their kid..." If?
Then I oppose your good intent of opposing my good intent of opposing other people's good intent. And so it goes.
Great, but it misses the point. That you have good intentions for trying to control people via laws doesn't mean your intentions are sufficient justification.
We cannot legislate danger out of the world. And trying to do so only creates different dangers.So why bother, right? Let's hand a gun to every citizen no matter what, let parents fill their suffering, cancer-ridden children with pleasant thoughts in high hopes that everything turns out okay, remove all stoplights, get rid of law enforcement, remove sanitation standards, building codes, workplace safety codes, food inspection, and do away with any standards we uphold against convicted criminals.
Really now, where are you drawing the line on "legislating danger"? You really have to help me out here because you're being awfully ambiguous.
No, I'm not. That you're just flailing about with wild comments that imply that you think I'm advocating chaos because I don't agree with your preferred way of trying to manufacture order does not mean I am being ambiguous. Next time, try not starting with the "guess you want to let anyone do anything" silliness, and just ask me what I think. I don't have to be manipulated into answering questions. Which isn't to say I will give you the answers you like, but I will answer direct questions.
I tend to oppose trying to legislate danger away, because in general it doesn't work. I prefer using government to protect the rights of individuals. Which does sometimes mean government is protecting people from danger, like murder or pollution (though I would not handle pollution the way it has been, but that is a different discussion). But trying to use government to eliminate all or most dangers in life is impractical, counterproductive and costly. And using government to force people to "contribute" to social programs is, imo, immoral (but that too is a different discussion).
Yes I am, because you've failed to address when I do and do not have to respect someone's religion. If Jesus tells me to get in a car and drive and I hit someone on accident, under the logic you've provided, any attempt to bring me to justice is an attack on my religious freedom. If it sounds absurd, it's because it is.
But I'm not the one making it absurd. And no, you're not using my logic. The parents in question did not cause the harm to their children. They only chose not to seek medical help for it, which is not the same as causing harm to someone else.
No, I'm trying to figure out where you stand because you haven't been very clear on the matter and you haven't set a single standard of to what extremes you'd take your anti-government legislatory ideology except to tell me when I've hit on something absurd.
Asking questions works better than accusing me of supporting murder.
I don't expect the law to prevent people -- I expect the law to punish people accordingly when their decisions lead to bad consequences. That's what law does.
Ideally, yes. In practice, not always.
If a responsible adult wants to decide for themselves that Jesus can cure their malignant tumor, fine, I hope they're ready to deal with the consequence of that. Pretending that faith healing is a responsible decision when someone else who cannot decide for themselves is forced to deal with it is foolish.
Yes it is. But that, imo, is not a sound foundation for a law.
Your examples are poor ones. In the latter two, the death wasn't a result of a direct decision the adult made to deny them proven medical treatment. Choosing faith healing is not a freak accident, it is an intentional choice, whether or not the outcome is death. In the first example, it would be negligent of the father to make his son lay on the ground in the woods and sprinkle him with dirt in hopes that the magic woodland fairies would come sprinkle him with healing dust if a reasonable attempt could be made to find help nearby.
You're not answering the questions. And still avoiding the more important question of where do you draw the line. Taking one's son to the woods where medical help is not readily available is an intentional choice. Parents not taking a gang awareness class because they do not believe their child would ever join a gang is an intentional choice. If intentional choice is the heart of the issue, then where do you draw the line?