Libertarian Discussion Thread

[Albrenia]

Wait, people starving to death is good because it gives more food to other people?

Wow... ok?

[Nulla Bellum]

I can't address your clairvoyancy fail. All you really know about my argument is that I put ABOLISH WELFARE in my sig, and that it used to link to a video.

A signature that says "Abolish welfare", and a video depicting what many right-wing websites believe to be proof of the "Welfare Queen". How could I have possibly made any connection between the two?

Because you practiced in the mirror for an argument I haven't made? I dunno.

[36 Camera Perspective]

A signature that says "Abolish welfare", and a video depicting what many right-wing websites believe to be proof of the "Welfare Queen". How could I have possibly made any connection between the two?

Because you practiced in the mirror for an argument I haven't made? I dunno.

Your cards are obvious. You're just too scared to put them down.

[Nulla Bellum]

Wait, people starving to death is good because it gives more food to other people?

Wow... ok?

If the premise is that food is too expensive, surely the prices will drop if there aren't anyone around eating for free.

[36 Camera Perspective]

Wait, people starving to death is good because it gives more food to other people?

Wow... ok?

If the premise is that food is too expensive, surely the prices will drop if there aren't anyone around eating for free.

If you restrict your analysis to a single variable and hold everything else equal, perhaps.

[Nulla Bellum]

Because you practiced in the mirror for an argument I haven't made? I dunno.

Your cards are obvious. You're just too scared to put them down.

Do you think anyone else will notice you avoided the rest of my post?

[Albrenia]

Wait, people starving to death is good because it gives more food to other people?

Wow... ok?

If the premise is that food is too expensive, surely the prices will drop if there aren't anyone around eating for free.

Well, naturally.

So would executing people randomly, or anything else which kills people.

I was under the impression that human beings dying was not an acceptable cost to lower prices.

[36 Camera Perspective]

Your cards are obvious. You're just too scared to put them down.

Do you think anyone else will notice you avoided the rest of my post?

I got to it later, yet you're still the one playing coy about his argument.

[Nulla Bellum]

If the premise is that food is too expensive, surely the prices will drop if there aren't anyone around eating for free.

If you restrict your analysis to a single variable and hold everything else equal, perhaps.

Then the "people will starve without welfare" argument needs meat you aren't giving it, pun intended.

[Albrenia]

If you restrict your analysis to a single variable and hold everything else equal, perhaps.

Then the "people will starve without welfare" argument needs meat you aren't giving it, pun intended.

No. No it doesn't.

"Dead people don't starve" isn't a solution any reasonable person would accept to the issue of human beings starving.

[36 Camera Perspective]

If you restrict your analysis to a single variable and hold everything else equal, perhaps.

Then the "people will starve without welfare" argument needs meat you aren't giving it, pun intended.

You are essentially suggesting that starving people will lower the price of food.

[Nulla Bellum]

Do you think anyone else will notice you avoided the rest of my post?

I got to it later, yet you're still the one playing coy about his argument.

I'm not the one repulsed by the idea of abolishing welfare.

[36 Camera Perspective]

I got to it later, yet you're still the one playing coy about his argument.

I'm not the one repulsed by the idea of abolishing welfare.

What repulses you is irrelevant. Your signature tries to represent SNAP recipients as unwilling to work, and after I corrected that misconception, you tried to play it off as if the video you linked to has nothing to do with your belief that welfare should be abolished, which is patently absurd and insulting to any grown adult. Your "abolish welfare" link is not some kind of coincidence or accident. You were drawing a strong connection between the woman depicted and welfare as a whole.

Your signature is a disgusting, inaccurate misrepresentation. That's all.

[Nulla Bellum]

Then the "people will starve without welfare" argument needs meat you aren't giving it, pun intended.

You are essentially suggesting that starving people will lower the price of food.

No, I'm suggesting that not giving away food will lower the costs of food for those that work to pay for it. Starvation happens to people too picky to eat bugs and road kill.

[Albrenia]

You are essentially suggesting that starving people will lower the price of food.

No, I'm suggesting that not giving away food will lower the costs of food for those that work to pay for it. Starvation happens to people too picky to eat bugs and road kill.

Oh, so you're just disconnected from reality then. Ok.

Sorry for arguing.

[36 Camera Perspective]

No, I'm suggesting that not giving away food will lower the costs of food for those that work to pay for it.

And again, the price of food is not solely determined by the quantity demanded. This is not a single variable issue.

[Nulla Bellum]

I'm not the one repulsed by the idea of abolishing welfare.

What repulses you is irrelevant. Your signature tries to represent SNAP recipients as unwilling to work, and after I corrected that misconception, you tried to play it off as if the video you linked to has nothing to do with your belief that welfare should be abolished, which is patently absurd and insulting to any grown adult. Your "abolish welfare" link is not some kind of coincidence or accident. You were drawing a strong connection between the woman depicted and welfare as a whole.

Your signature is a disgusting, inaccurate misrepresentation. That's all.

No, my signature is a broken link to a video of an ingracious and ungrateful woman mocking working people with the largesse the state has given her on top of taxing said working people to do so. I regret that the woman has retracted her video. She also stated in her video that she's being paid thousands of dollars in disability benefits for "depression." The best and perhaps worst thing you can say about the woman is that she convinced authorities that she's mentally ill. I'm not about to collectivize 43 million people on food stamps into the voice coming out of her mouth, or your mouth for that matter.

Back to my mouth then, ABOLISH WELFARE.

[Nulla Bellum]

No, I'm suggesting that not giving away food will lower the costs of food for those that work to pay for it. Starvation happens to people too picky to eat bugs and road kill.

Oh, so you're just disconnected from reality then. Ok.

Sorry for arguing.

You argued?

[Nulla Bellum]

No, I'm suggesting that not giving away food will lower the costs of food for those that work to pay for it.

And again, the price of food is not solely determined by the quantity demanded. This is not a single variable issue.

I didn't say the price of food has a sole determinant, so, huh?

What I did say is that price of food would decrease if the price didn't include the costs of giving the food away at taxpayer expense.

[36 Camera Perspective]

I didn't say the price of food has a sole determinant, so, huh?

Your argument presupposes that.

No, I'm suggesting that not giving away food will lower the costs of food for those that work to pay for it. Starvation happens to people too picky to eat bugs and road kill.

This is to say that the price of food is nothing more than a function of the quantity of food demanded. You're appealing to basic supply and demand, but this is a monocausal picture of the situation at hand.

What I did say is that price of food would decrease if the price didn't include the costs of giving the food away at taxpayer expense.

I'm not sure what you are trying to put forward here at all. Are you arguing that SNAP raises food prices because stores have to increase their prices in order to compensate for giving away "free food" to SNAP receipients?

I'm not about to collectivize 43 million people on food stamps into the voice coming out of her mouth, or your mouth for that matter.

Don't worry; I've seen the video mirrored elsewhere. Her attitude is certainly appalling. The woman's comparison between the cashier's minimum wage salary and her EBT card was actually quite senseless considering that many working people are on EBT. She believes her EBT card gives her some kind of advantage over the working-class, but EBT is actually a tool for millions of working class families as well.

If she doesn't represent food stamp receipients as a whole, then what was the point of connecting her to the abolishment of welfare?

Back to my mouth then, ABOLISH WELFARE.

You don't have to say it louder. We heard you the first time.

[Nulla Bellum]

I didn't say the price of food has a sole determinant, so, huh?

Your argument presupposes that.

No, I'm suggesting that not giving away food will lower the costs of food for those that work to pay for it. Starvation happens to people too picky to eat bugs and road kill.

This is to say that the price of food is nothing more than a function of the quantity of food demanded. You're appealing to basic supply and demand, but this is a monocausal picture of the situation at hand.

What I did say is that price of food would decrease if the price didn't include the costs of giving the food away at taxpayer expense.

I'm not sure what you are trying to put forward here at all. Are you arguing that SNAP raises food prices because stores have to increase their prices in order to compensate for giving away "free food" to SNAP receipients?

There ain't no such thing as a free lunch. Taxation is one of the determinants that raises prices. Welfare is funded by taxation. If there is no welfare, taxes and thus prices can be cut.

[Nioya]

When I was much younger, some libertarians would defend voluntary segregation, as in the right to deny people of a certain service in a restaurant for example. Is that still part of the libertarian movement?

[Telconi]

You are essentially suggesting that starving people will lower the price of food.

No, I'm suggesting that not giving away food will lower the costs of food for those that work to pay for it. Starvation happens to people too picky to eat bugs and road kill.

And that's an entirely unreasonable cost-benefit analysis to most. While I may dislike the 'welfare leech' the simple fact is a small tac and a bit of waste is a small price to pay to make sure people aren't forced to eat "bugs and roadkill".

[Nulla Bellum]

When I was much younger, some libertarians would defend voluntary segregation, as in the right to deny people of a certain service in a restaurant for example. Is that still part of the libertarian movement?

Freedom of association purists would suggest that you do not have to do business with anyone you don't want to, but the slavers won the civil war.

[Albrenia]

It might make sense in a world where children don't exist, nor the disabled, nor the mentally handicapped, nor the incapacitated, or people who just have really shit luck.

We don't live in a world like that though.