@athousandyoung saidNo
Should it be illegal for poor people (and ONLY poor people) to have sex because of the potential cost to society?
1 edit
@wajoma saidAt least you are being consistent. Thumbs up
No
And I was wrong about getting a straight answer from you. I apologize.
@wajoma saidAt the root of it is the non-initiation of force (NIOF) or non-aggression principle (NAP)
I can't comment on what Earl believes, if you think things get heated and combative here at RHP, it's nothing compared to libertarians debating each other, usually along the lines of who is the purest.
At the root of it is the non-initiation of force (NIOF) or non-aggression principle (NAP)
Earl can speak for himself.
Earl can speak for himself.
What ^^HE^^ said 🙂
Nonaggression principle. Bingo.
@athousandyoung saidI don't care what you think.
I don’t think it is respectful of you to insult Earl’s beliefs like that.
You asked a question which I attempted to explain. You don't want an explanation so I gave the blunt answer.
When it comes to rights a persons level of wealth is irrelevant, there's no recipe where their rights are adjusted dependant on what proof of savings and property they can provide to gawd knows what agency you can dream up.
@earl-of-trumps saidIt’s a very long way from NIOF to only poor people should go to prison for drugs because of the potential cost to taxpayers for medical and rehab services the drug user MIGHT receive from the government.
At the root of it is the non-initiation of force (NIOF) or non-aggression principle (NAP)
Earl can speak for himself.
What ^^HE^^ said 🙂
Nonaggression principle. Bingo.
@athousandyoung said1. No. It is presumed that "poor people" don't give themselves cancer, or whatever.
1) Does this mean you believe health insurance should be legally required by law?
As rates of sickness increase insurance rates go up for everyone. Poor people who get STDs are being treated by insurance that people who don’t get STDs have to pay. Is this ok with you?
2) Poor drug users treatment is paid for with taxes and their health insurance too. Does this ...[text shortened]... has to do with what non rich people should be allowed to do because of potential costs to taxpayers.
And I cannot comment on how insurance policies work or should work. You're being VERY thorough here, dude.
2. good question that needs exploring (alcohol, anyway) - just not tonight in this thread. way too much for me.
@earl-of-trumps saidOk.
1. No. It is presumed that "poor people" don't give themselves cancer, or whatever.
And I cannot comment on how insurance policies work or should work. You're being VERY thorough here, dude.
2. good question that needs exploring (alcohol, anyway) - just not tonight in this thread. way too much for me.
@athousandyoung saidSorry, ATY, but the lowest of wage earners get their paychecks raped by 4 levels (sometimes) of government,
Honestly Earl and with no intent to be snarky, I cannot see how the idea that the State should ban only poor people from doing anything because of the potential cost to taxpayers can in any way be consistent with the liberty and individualism focused political ideology called Libertarianism. Nor can I see why you think it consistent that some things can be banned for ...[text shortened]... nd evasively hostile so I know I won’t get a clear answer from him but you aren’t like that, I know.
Federal, SSI, state, county, city, and they have no say in the matter, and the money will end up going
to people in need, but not as much as the people who earned it and had it taken from them at the point of a gun.
Does that sound fair to you?
@athousandyoung saidATY, this is way too much for me in one night.
Should drug use be allowed by the State only if the individual is licensed and insured?
Do you agree that it should be illegal to drive without insurance as per current law?
1. YES - in other words, keep it illegal. When they get taken to the hospital, arrest them.
2. NO - there are plenty of states that allow you to be bonded. works for me. that covers someone you hit.
But that question is really to be answered by the people that own the roads.
Volunteerism can get a lot accomplished.
@athousandyoung saidApparently, you don't know divegeester.
It’s kind of strange for you to post in Debates if you don’t want to identify the position you are arguing for
@athousandyoung saidSo what's the option, prop the poor up with devices like Narcan, needles...? Please.
It’s a very long way from NIOF to only poor people should go to prison for drugs because of the potential cost to taxpayers for medical and rehab services the drug user MIGHT receive from the government.
ATY, the poor people can't drive around in BMW's either, but what is the alternative?
@earl-of-trumps saidThey do have a say in the matter. It is taxation WITH representation. And yes it seems fair to me. I'm in favor of higher taxes and more progressive taxation (that means making rich people pay a higher percent than poor people). If we had the tax structure of the 1950's we would have a larger middle class and less poverty than now. The tax reforms of Reagan and the neocons were disastrous to this country. They are the reason we have so many homeless, so much crime and so many insane people walking the streets.
Sorry, ATY, but the lowest of wage earners get their paychecks raped by 4 levels (sometimes) of government,
Federal, SSI, state, county, city, and they have no say in the matter, and the money will end up going
to people in need, but not as much as the people who earned it and had it taken from them at the point of a gun.
Does that sound fair to you?
@earl-of-trumps saidIt's not the government telling poor people they can't drive BMWs. Bad analogy.
So what's the option, prop the poor up with devices like Narcan, needles...? Please.
ATY, the poor people can't drive around in BMW's either, but what is the alternative?
If you don't like the government giving Narcan and needles to drug users then the solution isn't to criminalize drugs for people who can't afford needles.