libertarians don't expect to make great contributions to society which is why they do not want regs

There was a guy who took a fencing foil up the nose into the brain, and he survived it, but it damaged the personality center of his brain, and turned him into a raging asshole.
His whole family saw the change, but he was like "I've always been this way!! You're all idiots!! ".
Cuz the brain lies to you like that.

I think of that when UA goes down his little little sophistry rabbit holes.
Dunno why.

Definitely for no reason you can actually demonstrate.

That would satisfy the lying dogfood between your ears.

"Lying."
In between my ears, that word has an actual definition beyond "refuses Diacanu's dumb shit false choices."

"good person empathy schtick"?

because I don't want to add to the problems of an ever growing segment of society?

and yeah, when you go out of your way to intentionally cause others distress, you are responsible for the effects of your actions. You don't get to decide the pain you cause for other people, let alone absolve yourself of the responsibility.

Dude, look... we all get that you're full of shit and find empowerment by shitting on and tearing others down.

I do appreciate that about you though. Defending what I do and the motives behind it really contributes to the self reinforcement people in this field so frequently need... more than many professions, those in mine are conscious of smoke being blown up our asses to assuage us.

What I don't get is that you've always struck me as the type of guy who fixes things rather than throwing them out-if only because it's more cost effective.

I'll put it to you that RoI is one of the reasons I've drifted this far left. It's cheaper to provide supportive housing than leave people outside. Ties up a shitload less of police and medical services, too. Universal Health Care, same thing... far more bang for the consumer's buck when there aren't investors to satiate.

Anyways, Keep on being the cantankerous bozo doll that you are. It's therapeutic.

Offending people isn't doing that, no matter how you exaggerate. Eroding free speech, on the other hand, is always a detriment.

This is not yes/no, true/false, on/off. Actual death threats and incitement are a wholly separate category from misgendering you or telling you your addiction is a weakness of will. The former have meaningful real-world consequences, while the latter just offend your precious, self-obsessed fucking egos. Until you can hold yourself to that distinction, any discussion of "responsibility" for your reaction to it is off the fucking table.

False. I just reject the lie that insists my rights end where your feelings begin. Anything beyond that is your invention.

Flattering yourself just a bit there, princess.

That's right. I am by default the cause of and solution to my own problems whenever remotely, physically possible. My life's fucked up? My problem. I'm offended? My problem. Someone threatening me and mine? THEIR problem.

Nothing about that indentures anyone to my welfare or emotional state.

That's collectivist "pragmatism," and it leads us all to living in pods, eating bugs and unable to function in civilization without a favorable "social credit" score. Everyone can fuck completely the hell off with that.

The one concession I will grant is that any financial incentive for arresting or imprisoning people, while shielding public servants from liability for their actions, must be abolished.

you really gotta wrap your head around how others' rights don't end with your feelings... which is really all the rest of your screed is when it isn't flat out laughable... (eating bugs and living in pods? seriously?)

it's been demonstrated and shown how none of these improvements would impose on your tax bracket multiple times. Just because you refuse to understand that is your own problem to deal with. Fortunately, you have no influence.

Demonstrate a single right I have infringed upon. Not some false entitlement I refuse to indulge, but a "my right to swing my fist ends at your face" violation. You won't find it because it doesn't exist.

The honest assessment of the cost to me would be the total I am charged for all services and benefits to people other than myself.

The eating bugs thing is a Klaus Schwab/WEF meme I don't expect anyone here to acknowledge.

FTFY.

so you hate roads and the fire department and the military and hospitals and schools and pretty much every industry and...


yet somehow would rather imprison people for being poor or sick (sorry to be the one to tell you, but addiction is medically considered a disease/trauma response).

like I said, you've been presented the proof that a supportive society is a healthier one and you've been shown the numbers on more than one occasion.

I appreciate you opening your mouth so I can take a psychological dump from, y'know, actually doing something. What I do ain't as easy as pushing a button while a machine does all the hard bits.

Lazy fucking copout because you know I'm right. You want to insist my refusal to pander and placate as violating someone's rights, but you bullshitters just can't quite connect those dots.

Take it to Vegas, Kreskin.

I will contribute where I can expect value in return. I've been pretty clear about that. This excludes schools, and "industry" is a civilian pursuit.

I would imprison people for committing crimes that hurt others. Thefts, assaults, murders. If you're crazy I'll put you in a state nuthouse, but you never get to pose a threat to others again.

And when I point out that collective pragmatism can be at the expense of the individual, you have no answer.

Your whole existence was a psychological dump way before I came along.

...is the sort of thing you say when you have no answer but just cannot shut the fuck up.

Addiction. Has even one person successfully kicked the substance in question cold turkey? Then it is a matter of will.

define "collective pragmatism"?
because it sounds a lot like atomic sandwich. two words that make sense on their own, but together like that makes about as much sense as the bottom of my green bin.
at the very least it's a creative description for paying taxes, I'm gonna guess? Or should I be thinking bigger like a disdain for democratic process?

Presuming that, yeah. I want not only the most for my tax dollars, but the most effective.

also doesn't make much sense when you say you'll pay in to what gives you value in return. Work like mine gives you a huge saving as a tax payer on everything from law enforcement straight on through to incarceration-psychological or otherwise. I mean, you're gonna have to have cops, wouldn't you like to have them pursuing actual crime.

It does seem you have a limited scope of what constitutes harm... at a guess, which do you think is the higher number? Unpaid wages/wage theft or shoplifting? How about food shoplifting vs supermarket wastage? Communicable disease rates in UHC nations vs non UHC nations...

point is, doing nothing often creates and exacerbates harm.

the answer would be no.
not successfully.

Addiction (again, this is the medical theory on this, not mine) only goes into remission, it isn't "curable".

statistically, "cold turkey" is one of the most temporary forms of this. This is why treatment and therapeutic models have moved away from abstinence to favour "manageability".

And now we glide in to the landing with "you're a doody head".
I was hoping for a homophobic slur in there.
It's like the cigarette ash in a Jackson Pollack.

Is Keith Richards lying, or are you being shifty about what constitutes "success"?

I just find it curious that he considers schools an acceptable loss on investment.

the loss part, that is.

heh-well, he does have his own bacta tank.

but no, he may be clean, but I'd wager he'd be the first to tell you he's still an addict.

nothing to do with me being shifty about success here. more that you're looking for a result that doesn't really exist. addiction is either "active" or "inactive".

Fuck's sake. I'd mail you a dictionary if I didn't think you'd try to smoke it.
Collective pragmatism. The notion that anything that assures the best outcome for the greatest number of people is necessarily a good thing, no matter the effect on any one individual.

You'll not catch me endorsing the tyrannical majority in all things, and taxation should be restricted to things like national defense, which cannot be funded by direct usage fees.

I want my resources primarily in my hands, for my benefit until I decide otherwise.

To be clear, my benefit in that is not personally dealing with threats to person and property.

Now you're treading into extortion territory. Pay my bills, or I will rob you/infect you with disease.

And rehabilitation is the opportunity to re-offend.

Because there is no guarantee they won't grow up into criminal shitbags, and I don't get my money back when they do.

Shifty it is.

Still an addict but no longer doing heroin proves my point adequately. It can be done, therefore I expect no less of anyone.

Doesn’t that presume all addictions are equally strong, as are all people’s potential to apply willpower against it? Those seem like a couple pretty big assumptions. What do you base them on?

I suppose, provided they have the financial resources and support systems available to Keith.

of course even with 60+ years of those supports, he's relapsed how many times?

also resumes the motive behind the drug use is the same.

Keef rippin' lines off of 14 year old groupies' behinds is probably not gonna be the same as that of those 14 year olds 15 years later.

Why aren't you a billionaire? At least one person has made over a billion dollars. Why haven't you?

For a moment I was feeling like Joker outside the hospital looking at the detonator and wondering where the earth shattering kaboom was. I knew UA did not have me on ignore.

So that shit stuck in UA's craw for 10 days before he popped his cork and had to respond. Worse yet he missed the point where the responsible, intelligent, and dedicated worker got completely fucked over for a groundbreaking invention we all use on multiple devices which has made smartphones, flat screen LCD TVs, the LCD light bulb, multicolor LCD lighting on buildings and homes, christmas lights, children's toys, and electronics exist and better.

When he defied his bosses complete ignorance, and invented the shit anyway, his boss stole the invention from him because of lax protections for workers in Japan, and gave him 170 dollars for this shit knowing it was that important.

This would be like UA figuring out how to make the god weld evewryone else was trying to make, and his boss taking his weld for 170, and then the world making trillions on his weld, and UA just sitting there on his fucking bike and taking the shit because libertarian awesome, and worker protections stupid.

Like UA even has the capabilities to do something so revolutionary, which is why he never gives a fuck about protecting great inventors. He will never ever be one. Yes @Uncle Albert you were the obvious inspiration to the whole thread, and you just couldn't resist.

Yes, you cannot invent anything of this magnitude, which is why like most smooth brained libertarians you hate when the intelligent people are not treated like slaves to have their effort benefit their slavemasters who are not even close to as smart as they are. You have no problem with any of this under your libertarian ideals because you will never do this. About the closest you will ever come is the guy who is your boss at your welding job taking a winning lottery ticket from you because you bought it while picking up his fucking coffee on your breaktime while at work.

It goes back to the opriginal reason for the thread. Libertarians, by design, are not capable for such earth shattering inventions. Libertarianism gives dumbasses like him the potential to rip off the idea of someone more intelligent because they happen to be their boss. The boss in the situation I presented was libertarian and did not like regulations which would protect his worker who was more inspired and intelligent than him from doing all the work and having someone in an opportunistic position who had less understanding of what to do, but understood he could easily pay him shit and take his invention even though he directly told him to drop it and do something wrong and different.

This is UA libertarianism at it's finest. Without government legal protection for workers, they will be exploited and injured for those above them at the job. This is albert's dream. That he will one day be able to be promoted so that he will be able to take advantage of one of the younger and better people at his job.