Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
My mistake I meant more like "system of rules" or better an "ethics code" or "honor code".
I mean the mass immigration over many decades and from diverse places altered the ethics code and cohesion.
Ah, I see.
Well, with that being the case, yes. To put it in my own words, if you don't mind, for libertarianism to work out, every has to agree. And indeed, that's true of many, if not all political systems, to some extent. Though technically libertarianism isn't a system so much as a mindset, they advocated for a near virtually non-existent government. To put it in more official terms, they believe the government exists to prevent force or fraud. If I steal from you, there are courts to deal with it. If I hurt you, there are courts to deal with it. If I employ you, pay you little to nothing, but was honest and open; that's ok. Again, it is ideologically consistent.
This is the beauty of republicanism. A constitution exists to set some rules, that are vague enough that a plurality of ideas can exist but specific enough that, theoretically, people's freedom can be maximized. I'd argue it thrives on disagreement. I'm not naive enough to think it's perfect, but I challenge anyone to find a more ideal system.
Of course, the paradox of a libertarian is that they are not technically allowed to tell people they have to be libertarians. An all libertarian society would then theoretically be impossible anyway.
I use to be libertarian leaning but as time has gone by I now consider myself more of a moderate. I still despise liberalism and leftism but I just can't agree with libertarian views anymore.
The basic premise of libertarianism is that as long as people have to face the consequences of their actions, they will use their freedom in a way that is responsible, and that only when government artificially shields people from said consequences do they do stupid things. Well, about a year ago I got into the fitness lifestyle which has literally changed my life, and one of the biggest things that has stunned me during that time is that it has opened my eyes to just how stupid people can be.
I already sort of knew that most people are fat even before this, but I did not spend too much time thinking about it. But as the year has gone by I have been amazed by just how weak and ignorant most people are in regards to food and diet. Nobody cares if what they are putting into their body will make them fat and ill, they just eat it anyway.
The traditional response from a libertarian will be that it's their freedom to make that choice.
Yes, but here's the thing: Nobody actually knows what they are doing, and when they do they are too weak to act/care. You will almost NEVER find a fat person that actually likes being fat. The reason people are so fat is because they are too stupid to bother learning about what they are eating or are simply too greedy to learn portion control. FAT PEOPLE ARE NOT INFORMED CONSUMERS. They are basically just morons who don't care. They aren't fat because they made that choice, they are fat BECAUSE THEY ARE STUPID.
Fat people are literally the perfect example of the failure of libertarian ideology. Being fat comes with clear negative effects and thus on paper should give people a good enough of a incentive to care about what they eat in a free market economy where people are free to choose what they eat. And yet, nothing could be further from the truth. Most people don't give a ****.If something tastes good, they just eat it without any regard to what the consequences might be.
Does this mean I want to live in some uber-liberal nanny state? No, but I still think libertarians would do well to ask themselves, if people are so able to take responsibility then why is everyone so fat?
Your basic premise of what a libertarian is off. Your post is garbage.
How does government subsidizing healthcare promote people to be healthier?
Simply by improving the possibilities of HC access for those who are poor or have relatively uninsurable medical issues. Gov't also helps subsidize medical education and training programs.
Simply by improving the possibilities of HC access for those who are poor or have relatively uninsurable medical issues. Gov't also helps subsidize medical education and training programs.
Technically isn't that prolonging their life and not necessarily making them healthier?
School programs that emphasize healthy meals would be an example.
I can't speak for others, but I now believe that my obesity is the direct result of government meddling in the food supply.
I refer to the deliberate replacement of fat with sugar and carbohydrates.
It has now been shown that the original studies linking fat with heart disease were bogus, and paid for by the Sugar Lobby.
Countless millions of Americans were thus poisoned and killed by this change is evident. https://www.rt.com/usa/359127-sugar-...aked-research/
The sugar industry paid Harvard researchers in the 1960s to bury research linking sugar intake to heart disease and to instead make fat the culprit, according to a study of archival documents. “These internal documents show that the Sugar Research Foundation initiated coronary heart disease research in 1965 to protect market share and that its first project, a literature review, was published in the New English Journal of Medicine without disclosure of the sugar industry’s funding or role,†stated the study.
Because of a few bad studies and misguided political decisions, the low fat high carb diet was recommended to all Americans in the year 1977.
Europeans visiting America often comment on how sickeningly sweet our foods are - especially meats. This is due to the removal of fat and substituting sugars and carbohydrates.
Now, there is a remedy - the Ketogenic diet (high fat 82%, moderate protein 15%, low carb 3%). The "official" diet was discovered in the 1920s, and used to treat epilepsy. But American Indians "discovered" it thousands of years ago. An example of a near perfect "keto-friendly" food is pemmican - 82% fat. The "Paleo diet" is close, but not quite.
You can search the net for before and after photos of successful people who finally found a way of eating that doesn't drive them to distraction with hunger pangs, cravings and binges. On a high fat diet, your natural appetite control kicks in and you stop eating naturally. And the brain is content with its high fat fuel, thus preventing those uncontrollable binges and pantry raids.
Technically isn't that prolonging their life and not necessarily making them healthier?
School programs that emphasize healthy meals would be an example.
Improved HC/access can improve health and/or prolong life. A poor person might finally be able to see the doc, and then the doc might get them to quit smoking for instance. And if they quit they may live longer.
Some uninsurable patient might finally get care, and then have some significant symptom relieved, like nausea or pain. And they may live longer through better hydration and nutrition, or not kill themselves due to the pain.
Your basic premise of what a libertarian is off. Your post is garbage.
I'm going to improve on this by explain why his premise is off (since really... why post if you aren't going to do the hard part?).
Libertarianism is often reduced to being socially liberal and fiscally conservative. In a word, that's bull****. I like Robert Nozick's definition best; Libertarianism is the viewpoint that a just government exists only to protect people from force or fraud. Obviously, he elaborates on this, but basically, anything you do to yourself or someone does to you that does not involve force or fraud, it entirely just. Bare in mind, that's more or less all the government can do. This certainly means establishing publicly funded courthouses and a military for a basic level of national security. Other things... goodbye. No libertarian statesman is above compromise, so they'd probably agree to some publicly funded things, like roads, but many of the things the government does, that receive support from liberals and conservative alike, would be rigidly rejected by libertarians.
One example, marriage. Libertarians technically disagree with both sides on this, if they make this decision based on principle. Under no reasonably circumstance would a libertarian's ideal government officiate marriages. They would not support legalizing same sex marriage, nor would they support bans against it. The government does not, in any way, get involved with marriage. That's a libertarian position.
I do agree government today picks and chooses monopolies but I believe monopolies are largely a natural phenomenon.
Nope you can trace all of our Oligopolies/Monopolies through the FTC (aka Government).
A lower barrier of entry encourages competition which increases quality, decreases prices, etc.
The natural move in the MARKET is for people to balance things out.
If there's a cash cow of an object or service to sell, more people will get into that business until things equal out.
The free market allows things to progress in a healthy and natural way.
The LACK OF COMPETITION creates Oligopolies, which is what we see in our Fascist America today.
As for the OP, I think the obesity epidemic speaks for how the majority of people have become entitled consumer hogs with no self respect. It's indirectly related to the "libertarian" view.
I like the libertarian party but that's mostly because of social issues. There is a lot in their platform I don't necessarily agree with. People should have the right to make their own personal decisions though. In aspects of things like religion and personal lifestyle choices, the government should stay out of that. However, there are other ways the government can tackle issues that don't infringe on the rights of the individuals.
Obesity is the result of our suburban way of life every it as much as it is diet. If you want to end obesity, don't regulate what people can eat. Instead, institute policies that promote healthier living environments. Obesity is the biggest problem in the South, and a big part of that is Southern culture. People commute long distances in their cars and aren't very active. In walkable coastal cities people don't have to watch what they eat near as much because they are more active.
In terms of the economy, I don't think true libertarian principles would work there. We need a tax structure that favors the middle class and not the top 1%.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
