So what are you all doing to help others not have to depend on government? I keep hearing that charity is an individual responsibility that no one should force on anyone, so I assume you're practicing your belief and empowering people not to depend on the government by volunteering, donating to charities, etc, right?

Just want to know where I might be able to help you out with my vast resources and compassion.

9/14/2011 11:59:44 AM

Did you get all your money spitting your hot raps and hip hop beats?

9/14/2011 12:17:17 PM

Give up all of your possessions to the poor, I always say.

9/14/2011 12:39:58 PM

http://givingaid.richarddawkins.net/

https://www.doctorswithoutborders.org/donate/

9/14/2011 1:04:59 PM

Where my cheddar comes from don't matter.

^Are you conflating libertarians with atheists?

9/14/2011 1:23:39 PM

http://www.kiva.org/

9/14/2011 2:01:47 PM

The government shouldn't help anyone.
The people shouldn't be forced to help anyone either.

Let the people help themselves.

9/14/2011 2:18:32 PM

Is Kiva better than MicroPlace? I've been using MicroPlace for a long time.

9/14/2011 3:01:27 PM

http://www.childsplaycharity.org/

9/14/2011 4:05:16 PM

http://www.helpinghorse.org/2009/

http://www.shepherds-table.org/

http://www.goodwill.org/

9/14/2011 4:13:10 PM

I would be charitable if it wasn't already being taken from me.

[Edited on September 14, 2011 at 10:19 PM. Reason : I'll give clothes and baby supplies and stuff to shelters, but I don't give away money.]

9/14/2011 10:18:18 PM

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2017/11/07/rand-paul-not-perfect-neighbor-says-community-developer/841622001/

Rand Paul apparently doesn't respect the contracts he signs and puts his own property rights above his neighbors

11/7/2017 6:21:18 PM

Quote :

"Not even being provocative but if you think Greta Thunberg has the maturity to guide global policy-making then you cannot object to Jeffrey Epstein paying 16-year-olds for sex."

https://twitter.com/jmrphy/status/1176703990056267777?s=21

9/25/2019 1:16:00 PM

These guys really want to bang teenagers.

9/25/2019 3:12:18 PM

https://thewolfweb.com/message_topic.aspx?topic=648370

9/25/2019 3:30:09 PM

Very interested to hear how our resident libertarians would handle this crisis.

4/1/2020 12:36:01 AM

Ron Paul pivoted from calling it the flu to calling for the Fed to be abolished. So... pretty much like any other day.

4/1/2020 8:09:02 AM

Quote :

"Very interested to hear how our resident libertarians would handle this crisis."

Not barring doctors from testing who they want from the start would have been nice. A doctor in Washington State was certain he had infected patients, but the CDC refused to allow them to be tested since they hadn't been to China...after a week, the doctor gave up waiting and broke the law, and saved us more weeks of not knowing it was there and spreading.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/10/us/coronavirus-testing-delays.html

Oh, but testing kits made by the CDC were rare and needed to be conserved...which brings us to #2: the FDA needed to approve the use of private testing, especially since these same tests were already being used overseas to great effect with plenty of data, but no. All testing would go through the CDC, private labs were prohibited from helping during the critical initial phase. When the CDC finally relented, after the virus was well out of the bag, they still insisted on strict red tape. One manufacturer was already making tests for use in the US, the same test that they had been selling overseas for a month, but had to recall them because the CDC decided they needed additional lab work done to show the tests wouldn't false positive when exposed to other corona viruses, which hadn't been circulating for years already. A ridiculous requirement, since someone with SARS would probably be helped by a false positive.

Very soon, most likely already, someone is going to have a vaccine they'll think is safe enough and they want to try on willing participants eager to sign a waiver, but the FDA will have them arrested if they do. Yes, some of those people may be harmed by a bad vaccine, possibly even killed, but if they're not, such voluntary risk would produce the data to show weather the vaccine is safe and effective. But, no, we have procedures to follow, the death and destruction be damned.
https://reason.com/2020/03/27/deliberately-infect-healthy-young-people-to-test-coronavirus-vaccines-propose-bioethicists/

Oh yes, the FDA ban on the importation of unapproved medical supplies. It is estimated it will take the FDA up to 90 days to approve a new foreign face-mask manufacturer, of which there are many now. Is it really better to have no mask at all than an unapproved one?
https://reason.com/2020/03/31/america-could-import-countless-more-face-masks-if-federal-regulators-would-get-out-of-the-way/

[Edited on April 1, 2020 at 12:17 PM. Reason : nlk]

[Edited on April 1, 2020 at 12:18 PM. Reason : .,.]

4/1/2020 12:16:56 PM

The CDC fucked up on its initial testing and the FDA needs to be better in a whole host of areas that extend well beyond COVID-19. These are true enough and I don't even wanna argue about them.

I just want to point out that there is a flip side to the points ^ made.

-Some of the tests China has been sending abroad are straight garbage:
https://www.businessinsider.com/coroanvirus-holland-recalls-over-half-a-million-masks-imported-from-china-2020-3

Quote :

"Microbiology experts in Spain this week said that rapid coronavirus tests that the country bought from the Chinese state are not consistently detecting positive cases. Studies on these tests found that they had only 30% sensitivity, meaning they correctly identified people with the virus only 30% of the time, according to the Spanish newspaper El País. Medical professionals in the Czech Republic have also said that rapid tests from China were not working properly."

Can you imagine if a hospital was releasing 70% of the people that came through their doors with symptoms back into the populace with no quarantine orders? That is in fact a worse situation than not being able to test at all.

-Snake oil vaccines have in fact been a problem in the US in recent history. Check out the the flu shot shortage of 2004-2005:
https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-xpm-2005-12-25-0512250398-story.html

Quote :

"Last year, there were at least a half-dozen cases of unlicensed people giving shots purported to be flu vaccines or cases where unlicensed companies attempted to sell batches of fake vaccines."

-Some masks being sent from abroad are in fact garbage. It may, in fact, actually be better to send healthcare workers to the bedside with no mask than with a garbage ass mask that does nothing. How many risks will a worker make not knowing their mask is useless?
https://www.businessinsider.com/coroanvirus-holland-recalls-over-half-a-million-masks-imported-from-china-2020-3

Quote :

"The Netherlands said on Saturday that it had asked its hospitals to return around 600,000 face masks which health professionals are using to treat patients of the coronavirus."

If we lived in a true libertarian country you would need to multiply the above instances by atleast 10x. You'd have a jackass trying to sell you a saline vaccine and a kleenex face mask out of the trunk of their car every time you left the house.

[Edited on April 1, 2020 at 2:05 PM. Reason : sell, sale, sail. Engrish is hard.]

4/1/2020 2:02:12 PM

^ We have fake trunk sales anyways, because someone knowingly selling fakes is already breaking the law by committing fraud. A second charge of "selling unapproved medical equipment" doesn't change that calculation at all: 25 years in prison for depraved indifference murder dwarfs the whatever month misdemeanor charge the FDA is going to throw at them.

So, I'd say that stuff doesn't matter. What matters is whether educated buyers (American Medical Institutions) are allowed to buy unapproved things. And such institutions are more than capable of figuring out if they're buying fake merchandise. After-all, they figured out the tests they were using from China weren't working. Thankfully they can just start using someone else's tests that other medical professionals are getting good results out of. Imagine the horror when they figured out the only FDA approved test available for weeks was garbage and had to be sent back to the CDC

[Edited on April 1, 2020 at 2:21 PM. Reason : .,.]

4/1/2020 2:17:09 PM

Good thing there's nothing else hospitals and scientists could be doing with the time and resources they spent determining the tests and masks were shit.

4/1/2020 2:22:05 PM

^^you assume that American Medical Institutions would still be governed by the Hippocratic Oath in a libertarian country and would still be seeking quality supplies.

With the profit motive as their guide, and freed from the requirement of actually trying to make people healthier, why wouldn't they sell the cheapest shit they can for the highest price possible?

4/1/2020 2:40:45 PM

Also wondering how a libertarian society would contain the spread.

4/1/2020 2:47:55 PM

Quote :

"Very soon, most likely already, someone is going to have a vaccine they'll think is safe enough and they want to try on willing participants eager to sign a waiver, but the FDA will have them arrested if they do. Yes, some of those people may be harmed by a bad vaccine, possibly even killed, but if they're not, such voluntary risk would produce the data to show weather the vaccine is safe and effective. But, no, we have procedures to follow, the death and destruction be damned."

This "voluntary" death shit is a great example of why we have government

4/1/2020 11:05:24 PM

^ the risk comes from getting exposed to the virus in order to test the vaccine is a good one. It is likely they would have gotten the virus eventually anyways and therefore died anyways. If the vaccine turns out good, then they're be volunteering to save their own lives.

Quote :

"With the profit motive as their guide, and freed from the requirement of actually trying to make people healthier, why wouldn't they sell the cheapest shit they can for the highest price possible?"

Because that isn't what customers are willing to pay for. A hospital with a reputation for cutting corners is more likely to get sued than win market share.

To explain it in terms you should understand, people could take a bus to cross the country for $100, but the vast majority choose to pay $300 to fly in an airplane. Why not charge $300 for a bus ride? Because no one will pay it. All the market share will go to your competitors that spent the money needed to buy airplanes.

Keep in mind that relieved from the governments certificate of need requirements, there would be even more medical facilities to choose from than we have today.

[Edited on April 2, 2020 at 1:15 AM. Reason : ...]

4/2/2020 12:56:35 AM

Libertarians are more delusional than Communists at this point.

4/2/2020 7:35:11 AM

Yeah the system that has lifted numerous third world countries out of poverty and imperialist slavery is certainly less delusional than the one than the one that says slavery is fine as long as it's "voluntary".

Quote :

"Also wondering how a libertarian society would contain the spread."

I think I know the answer to this and I think we're not gonna like it.

[Edited on April 2, 2020 at 11:01 AM. Reason : .]

4/2/2020 10:59:57 AM

^^ In what way? Libertarians are saying "basically the system we have, just a little different". You can argue it'd be worse, but you can't argue it'd be dramatically so.

Meanwhile, communists are calling for a system that has never existed, never mind "worked"

Quote :

"Also wondering how a libertarian society would contain the spread."

I'm concerned you might think libertarian = anarchism...they don't. A libertarian society has a government and that government is charged with police, courts, and public health agencies to manage such instances of public goods. Anarcho-capitalism is a thing, but no one would mean that when they say libertarianism.

[Edited on April 2, 2020 at 3:49 PM. Reason : .,.]

4/2/2020 3:29:25 PM

communism is an idealistic concept. it exists in different precursory forms across the world, but much like libertarianism, we will likely never see its complete realization. it is a philosophical framework to strive toward and all serious advocates acknowledge this.

Quote :

"basically the system we have, just a little different"

4/2/2020 3:47:20 PM

^^Your logic doesn't stand. One can easily argue that a society currently operating with limited guardrails and protections would be much worse if they had fewer. There are baselines required for an amount to be effective at all. Its like saying you breathe 365 days a year, and that breathing one fewer isn't arguably worse. It is worse. It's really fucking worse.

^Also can you point me to a list of these countries that have been fully lifted out of poverty due to communism?

[Edited on April 2, 2020 at 3:55 PM. Reason : ^s]

4/2/2020 3:54:57 PM

^^ Going from 80% of society being privatized to 90% isn't nearly as big a transition as going to 20% (black marketeers and underground industry constituted a large portion of society even under the Soviets).

Quote :

" One can easily argue that a society currently operating with limited guardrails and protections would be much worse if they had fewer."

Sounds like you seem to think we already live in a libertarian society with "limited guardrails and protections"?

Details matter. If there is a guardrail or protection you feel is crucial, then mention it. Don't just presume libertarians are against everything in this world you like.

[Edited on April 2, 2020 at 4:00 PM. Reason : ^]

4/2/2020 3:56:44 PM

You made a claim, I simply refuted it on the basis that your claim is not as clear cut as you aimed to imply. Derisively deflecting casual criticism of your claims doesn't make you appear credible.

If you believe your position is valid, then support it. If not, then just acknowledge what you said doesn't hold water, provide something you believe does make sense, and/or move on.

4/2/2020 4:04:59 PM

^ you didn't refute anything because we're both still talking in excruciatingly general terms. I said a small change in system wouldn't dramatically change the outcome. "Oh but it might" doesn't argue that it does. You are just further begging the question. I clearly don't think the outcome will be dramatically different, merely better. If you believe it will be dramatically worse, then explain why you think that, don't just say "nuh uh" then doubt my credibility.

For example, if we were talking about a patient on assisted breathing, with a respirator, and I argued we need to take them off the machine for long enough to change rooms, then you coming in and pointing out "the patient will die after so many minutes without it!" would be a more than valid criticism, to which maybe I'll respond "No, the patient is capable of breathing without the machine, we just keep them on it as a precaution" to which you'll argue something-or-another. Maybe you're right, turning it off for a minute will kill them. Maybe I'm right they'll be just fine. Just saying "one can easily argue" without actually arguing is just wasting time.

4/2/2020 4:21:25 PM

Quote :

"^Also can you point me to a list of these countries that have been fully lifted out of poverty due to communism?"

The United States hasn't fully lifted itself out of poverty, fwiw, so I should have phrased that differently. Cuba, USSR, and China are the most prominent examples. All three managed to free themselves from imperialist or imperial rule and subsequently make huge improvements in life expectancy and social conditions. Vietnam would be another good example. Despite its utter destruction in the Vietnam War, they have gone from one of the poorest countries in the world to "middle class", while steadily growing life expectancy and building up social programs.

Are they perfect? No. Did/do they work? Yes. And they would have worked better if not for all of the various interventions by the United States and other imperialistic nations.

4/2/2020 4:45:42 PM

^^you said something could not be argued, asserting a sense of certainty to your statement. I refuted your point that one could not argue a small change could make it drastically worse.

You should take a lesson from ^ on how to restate your point and remain credible. It’s a sign of intellectual honesty.

4/2/2020 8:35:23 PM

^^ Sorry, when you think communism and successful you just mean one party state rule? Because China and Vietnam are not "economic communism", they're one-party governments with mostly capitalist economies. Cuba is far less capitalist than the others in your list, but even there much of the economic activity is private businesses.

As for the USSR, it doesn't exist anymore. So, it sounds like your point is Communist countries have a great track record of achieving prosperity by dismantling their socialist economies and imposing a capitalist order.

Quote :

"you said something could not be argued, asserting a sense of certainty to your statement."

I didn't believe someone could credibly argue the contrary. So far your only argument has been "I have no reasons to suggest you're wrong, you just shouldn't say that because it is overly aggressive." Well, I believe the statement. I still believe it. I'm not going to lie just because it might seem overly aggressive to you. I can imagine no credible way that "privatizing the Post Office" would cause a country to collapse. To suggest I should entertain such a thing requires me knowing something I clearly do not currently know, so tell me.

4/3/2020 11:40:12 AM

Quote :

"Sorry, when you think communism and successful you just mean one party state rule? Because China and Vietnam are not "economic communism", they're one-party governments with mostly capitalist economies. Cuba is far less capitalist than the others in your list, but even there much of the economic activity is private businesses."

Communism, as it has existed and currently exists, is a planned economy where societal wealth is distributed somewhat evenly. As long as class stratification is kept to a minimum through state controls, I would also argue that some degree of private business ownership is also acceptable.

By that definition, present day China would not be considered communist (they are hybridized), but it's beside the point because they made massive improvements in quality of life before shifting to a state-capitalist economy.

Cuba meets the definition just fine, even now. Your phrasing "much of the economic activity is private businesses" is doing a lot of work for an economy that is 75% publicly owned.

Like I said earlier, communism is a ideal to strive toward and what's most important is achieving what is possible under current material conditions. Compromises are necessary in order to survive under a capitalist world economy, especially for Cuba given the crushing sanctions and trade embargoes they're forced to work around.

Quote :

"As for the USSR, it doesn't exist anymore. So, it sounds like your point is Communist countries have a great track record of achieving prosperity by dismantling their socialist economies and imposing a capitalist order. "

The prosperity and social gains achieved under the USSR reversed when it was wrongfully dissolved and and sold off to oligarchs. To this day, 2/3 of Russians regret the fall of the Soviet Union.

I'm not going to sit here and tell you any of these countries are perfect, but it's false to say they don't "work".

[Edited on April 3, 2020 at 12:52 PM. Reason : .]

4/3/2020 12:38:45 PM

Quote :

"I'm not going to sit here and tell you any of these countries are perfect, but it's false to say they don't "work"."

I would never assert that a majority capitalist country such as Russia or China does not "Work". Capitalism is amazing that way, it can manage to incentivize efficient production even under the one-party totalitarian regimes you seem to identify with so well. Capitalism is really all it takes for an economy to function, so they definitely function. My objection to these regimes is the one-party totalitarianism. It is true, capitalism in the form of free markets and free enterprise work well regardless of the government over them. Although I still think we need to include Nazi Germany in the list of one-party totalitarian state-capitalist countries that really do "work" economically.

However, I do assert, as always, that capitalism just works better in a free country. The ability to call a free press to draw attention to injustice or merely educate consumers, also the ability of politically disfavored classes of people (such as the Tibetans) to amass wealth without fear of state sanctioned theft/etc improves competition and fuels innovation.

Quote :

"is doing a lot of work for an economy that is 75% publicly owned."

As in all countries, the US included, there is a vast amount of economic activity that is for one reason or another not reported in government statistics (tax avoidance, illegal goods, etc). Given that Cuba is a substantially tourist based economy, it is easier than in most to not report economic activity. Especially with taxes as high as Cuba is attempting to impose. As such, I suspect the private sector is far larger in Cuba than government statistics report.

4/3/2020 3:47:43 PM