The essence of collectivism is force. The essence of libertarianism is choice.

[The T]

And it's what the Obama administration is doing with Health Care - forcing someone to purchase something from a private party against his will.

Yep. They have not the authority to force commerce upon private citizens.

 

[boedicca]

And it's what the Obama administration is doing with Health Care - forcing someone to purchase something from a private party against his will.

That's not "collectivism". If anything that's "Cartel-ism", if that's even a word.

But it's not even that.

It's protecting the majority of the public from having to pay for insurance dead-beats when they try to make other people pay for their hospital stays.

There are of course 2 ways to go about that. We could make it so hospitals have the legal ability to throw those people out on their ass when they show up at a hospital and let them die. Not a very compassionate choice, that.

It is INDEED the very essence of collectivism. The pretext for forcing people to buy something they don't want is based upon the needs of and the costs to the collective.

 

[manifold]

Choice constrained is force. Taking away my choices before I get a chance to make them is no different than telling me what to do.

Queue Bfgrn to come in and tell you that laws against murder restrain your choice too, as if that's somehow a valid point in context.

So what, "collectivism" only deals with constraints on businesses and economics, not with morality?

That is such a right-wing point of view.

The opposite of Libertarianism is Totalitarianism, which deals with governmental control over moral issues, like murder, in addition to economic issues.

So yes, laws against murder would in fact "restrain your choice", but would protect the rights of others, just like laws against excessive corporate power restrain the choices of corporations, but protect the rights of others.

Your ability to twist, erroneously infer, and construct strawmen from nothing rivals that of Ravi.

And that's saying something.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Choice constrained is force. Taking away my choices before I get a chance to make them is no different than telling me what to do.

Queue Bfgrn to come in and tell you that laws against murder restrain your choice too, as if that's somehow a valid point in context.

So what, "collectivism" only deals with constraints on businesses and economics, not with morality?

That is such a right-wing point of view.

The opposite of Libertarianism is Totalitarianism, which deals with governmental control over moral issues, like murder, in addition to economic issues.

So yes, laws against murder would in fact "restrain your choice", but would protect the rights of others, just like laws against excessive corporate power restrain the choices of corporations, but protect the rights of others.

If this is true: "The opposite of Libertarianism is Totalitarianism..." the argument that the choice is between Collectivism and Libertarianism is a Right Wing Lunacy argument masquerading as traditional liberalism.

societal moral values are collectivist. personal morality, which is foreign in America today is a horse of a different color.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Queue Bfgrn to come in and tell you that laws against murder restrain your choice too, as if that's somehow a valid point in context.

So what, "collectivism" only deals with constraints on businesses and economics, not with morality?

That is such a right-wing point of view.

The opposite of Libertarianism is Totalitarianism, which deals with governmental control over moral issues, like murder, in addition to economic issues.

So yes, laws against murder would in fact "restrain your choice", but would protect the rights of others, just like laws against excessive corporate power restrain the choices of corporations, but protect the rights of others.

Your ability to twist, erroneously infer, and construct strawmen from nothing rivals that of Ravi.

And that's saying something.

what did you do with mal? does his sock need darning?

 

[The T]

And it's what the Obama administration is doing with Health Care - forcing someone to purchase something from a private party against his will.

That's not "collectivism". If anything that's "Cartel-ism", if that's even a word.

But it's not even that.

It's protecting the majority of the public from having to pay for insurance dead-beats when they try to make other people pay for their hospital stays.

There are of course 2 ways to go about that. We could make it so hospitals have the legal ability to throw those people out on their ass when they show up at a hospital and let them die. Not a very compassionate choice, that.

It is INDEED the very essence of collectivism. The pretext for forcing people to buy something they don't want is based upon the needs of and the costs to the collective.

To each according to their needs...etc...

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

To each according to their needs...etc...

case closed. You can all go home now.

The T-douche makes a speech.

 

[The T]

To each according to their needs...etc...

case closed. You can all go home now.

The T-douche makes a speech.

Whatsamatta Union Thug? Can't take the heat?

 

[manifold]

So what, "collectivism" only deals with constraints on businesses and economics, not with morality?

That is such a right-wing point of view.

The opposite of Libertarianism is Totalitarianism, which deals with governmental control over moral issues, like murder, in addition to economic issues.

So yes, laws against murder would in fact "restrain your choice", but would protect the rights of others, just like laws against excessive corporate power restrain the choices of corporations, but protect the rights of others.

Your ability to twist, erroneously infer, and construct strawmen from nothing rivals that of Ravi.

And that's saying something.

what did you do with mal? does his sock need darning?

You tell me.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

To each according to their needs...etc...

case closed. You can all go home now.

The T-douche makes a speech.

Whatsamatta Union Thug? Can't take the heat?

I bet you keep your mouth shut when you are face to face around real working men and women.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Your ability to twist, erroneously infer, and construct strawmen from nothing rivals that of Ravi.

And that's saying something.

what did you do with mal? does his sock need darning?

You tell me.

here's a few lines you can sing with your new band:

Puppet mal's dead, he's locked in my basement! (Ha-ha!) Feminist Questies love My Sockies [*vocal turntable: chigga chigga chigga*] "Slick Dante, I'm sick of him ..."

 

[JBeukema]

Queue Bfgrn to come in and tell you that laws against murder restrain your choice too, as if that's somehow a valid point in context.

So what, "collectivism" only deals with constraints on businesses and economics, not with morality?

That is such a right-wing point of view.

The opposite of Libertarianism is Totalitarianism, which deals with governmental control over moral issues, like murder, in addition to economic issues.

So yes, laws against murder would in fact "restrain your choice", but would protect the rights of others, just like laws against excessive corporate power restrain the choices of corporations, but protect the rights of others.

If this is true: "The opposite of Libertarianism is Totalitarianism..." the argument that the choice is between Collectivism and Libertarianism is a Right Wing Lunacy argument masquerading as traditional liberalism.

societal moral values are collectivist. personal morality, which is foreign in America today is a horse of a different color.

you judge a horse by it's color?

 

[JBeukema]

That's not "collectivism". If anything that's "Cartel-ism", if that's even a word.

But it's not even that.

It's protecting the majority of the public from having to pay for insurance dead-beats when they try to make other people pay for their hospital stays.

There are of course 2 ways to go about that. We could make it so hospitals have the legal ability to throw those people out on their ass when they show up at a hospital and let them die. Not a very compassionate choice, that.

It is INDEED the very essence of collectivism. The pretext for forcing people to buy something they don't want is based upon the needs of and the costs to the collective.

To each according to their needs...etc...

and 'common property'

and handouts- free fish and bread for no reason other than they were in need


truly, only a truly evil statist tyrant progressive nazi communist sympathizer who hates everything this good Christian nation stands for could ever support such things

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

So what, "collectivism" only deals with constraints on businesses and economics, not with morality?

That is such a right-wing point of view.

The opposite of Libertarianism is Totalitarianism, which deals with governmental control over moral issues, like murder, in addition to economic issues.

So yes, laws against murder would in fact "restrain your choice", but would protect the rights of others, just like laws against excessive corporate power restrain the choices of corporations, but protect the rights of others.

If this is true: "The opposite of Libertarianism is Totalitarianism..." the argument that the choice is between Collectivism and Libertarianism is a Right Wing Lunacy argument masquerading as traditional liberalism.

societal moral values are collectivist. personal morality, which is foreign in America today is a horse of a different color.

you judge a horse by it's color?

only if I'm looking for one for you to fuck. Otherwise I judge it by how sweet it's shit smells.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

It is INDEED the very essence of collectivism. The pretext for forcing people to buy something they don't want is based upon the needs of and the costs to the collective.

To each according to their needs...etc...

and 'common property'

and handouts- free fish and bread for no reason other than they were in need


truly, only a truly evil statist tyrant progressive nazi communist sympathizer who hates everything this good Christian nation stands for could ever support such things

Damn that kid from Nazareth. Always giving away free bread and wine. Next thing you know, a whole cult of collectivism will spring up around charity and communal living.

 

[Oddball]

Can either of you Stalinist nutsacks point out the Bible chapter and verse, which declared Caesar needed to shake down the rustics to help the sainted pooooooor?

I'll give a hint: There ain't one.

 

[manifold]

Libertarianism =/= Anarchy

I'm perplexed at how JB can be so seemingly logical and reasonable on many discussion topics, but this one turns him into a fringe lunatic, tard-talking moonbat.

hmmm, I wonder why?

 

[JBeukema]

Can either of you Stalinist nutsacks point out the Bible chapter and verse, which declared Caesar needed to shake down the rustics to help the sainted pooooooor?

I'll give a hint: There ain't one.

Can you cite the post where either of us ever supported Staaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhlin?

I'll give you a hint: there aint one

 

[Oddball]

I see the answer is still no.

Thanks for your concession.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Can either of you Stalinist nutsacks point out the Bible chapter and verse, which declared Caesar needed to shake down the rustics to help the sainted pooooooor?

I'll give a hint: There ain't one.

how old are? are you an immigrant? I know a few people who use the terminology you do. The ones who aren't immigrants or older, are in mental health facilities.