What if coffee were like ObamaCare?

ginwilly

Well-Known Member
The problem is that between the three of them, libertarians are most out of touch with reality. None of the corrections in libertarian principles actually work in the real world.
Difference between Libertarian and libertarian. You went with the small l to say the principles don't work in the real world. Do you have examples? The big L libertarian seems slightly myopic or even fantasy land like, but when compared to the progressive rule, we can debate back and forth real world policies that don't work.
 

ChesusRice

Well-Known Member
The problem is that between the three of them, libertarians are most out of touch with reality. None of the corrections in libertarian principles actually work in the real world.
I disagree. I think the most out of touch with reality is whatever Rob Roy represents
 

ginwilly

Well-Known Member
bingo!

you cannot govern via bible..the moral majority = whitey rightie racist old men that cannot die off quick enough.







you cannot govern via bible and there are too many of us who will not allow you to..

you are no longer the "majority"..we are..as predicted.

View attachment 2993408View attachment 2993409View attachment 2993412
How can you blast the moral majority wanting to make people live the way THEY want, but champion the progressive pc crowd that does the same exact thing? The only difference I see between the MM and the PC occutard crowd is semantics. They both want to control everyone and everything. Collectivism is collectivism no matter the political affiliation.
 

ginwilly

Well-Known Member
I disagree. I think the most out of touch with reality is whatever Rob Roy represents
I wish more people would subscribe to Rob Roy's non-aggression principle. I don't understand why you think it's not realistic to expect people to leave each other alone.
 

canndo

Well-Known Member
Difference between Libertarian and libertarian. You went with the small l to say the principles don't work in the real world. Do you have examples? The big L libertarian seems slightly myopic or even fantasy land like, but when compared to the progressive rule, we can debate back and forth real world policies that don't work.

Libertarian concepts rely on reaction rather than preemption and for this reason alone, they cannot work. Furthermore libertarian ideals ignore the collective unless it suits them to see individuals as a collective - this makes little sense and again, what it does is cast away individuals who are caught in the mechanisms of a "libertarian" machine of action and reaction.

For instance. 1000 people die of E. coli from a meat packing plant. If it is a given (which it is not) that information is freely and truthfully spread througout, no one will continue to purchase from that plant and it will either correct it's ways or go out of business. However, 1000 people, individuals, have died and libertarianism is now depending not upon individuals to stop the spread of E. Coli, but a collective - or "class" of "those who eat meat". Again, it cost at least 1000 people to correct the error or omission of a single outlet.

The next point of failure is in civil litigation. without a strong government, corrective tort actions cannot be effective and again, corrections under a libertarian system again become reactionary rather than premeptive.
 

canndo

Well-Known Member
I wish more people would subscribe to Rob Roy's non-aggression principle. I don't understand why you think it's not realistic to expect people to leave each other alone.

Do you recall grade school? Junior High? Highschool? This is how humans act. And you don't understand?
 

schuylaar

Well-Known Member
How can you blast the moral majority wanting to make people live the way THEY want, but champion the progressive pc crowd that does the same exact thing? The only difference I see between the MM and the PC occutard crowd is semantics. They both want to control everyone and everything. Collectivism is collectivism no matter the political affiliation.
GW - no one will ever again successfully tell one what they may do with ones body..your body belongs to...wait for it...you!

when it comes to choice everyone i know is for 20 weeks unless life of mother and/or baby is at stake which imo would be very difficult and would never want to be in that position.

and men..put a fucking rubber on it already!..it's because of YOU!!!!!!!
 

schuylaar

Well-Known Member
Do you recall grade school? Junior High? Highschool? This is how humans act. And you don't understand?
lulllers:clap:

that too..just wanted to give RR the benefit of imagining him as an adult instead of some kid in his parent's basement with a 1998 Dell:lol:
 

ginwilly

Well-Known Member
Libertarian concepts rely on reaction rather than preemption and for this reason alone, they cannot work. Furthermore libertarian ideals ignore the collective unless it suits them to see individuals as a collective - this makes little sense and again, what it does is cast away individuals who are caught in the mechanisms of a "libertarian" machine of action and reaction.

For instance. 1000 people die of E. coli from a meat packing plant. If it is a given (which it is not) that information is freely and truthfully spread througout, no one will continue to purchase from that plant and it will either correct it's ways or go out of business. However, 1000 people, individuals, have died and libertarianism is now depending not upon individuals to stop the spread of E. Coli, but a collective - or "class" of "those who eat meat". Again, it cost at least 1000 people to correct the error or omission of a single outlet.

The next point of failure is in civil litigation. without a strong government, corrective tort actions cannot be effective and again, corrections under a libertarian system again become reactionary rather than premeptive.
I have yet to see a libertarian refute the rule of law. In fact, that's the basis of most libertarian thought, that the rule of law by man is our safety net against fraud, abuse and general politico behavior. Where do you read this stuff? I think you are equating libertarian to anarchy?

The E. Coli example still can happen in your nanny state, but in our present system, if the owner of the company donated to the correct party, the consequences of killing 1,000 people would not be the same if he donated to the "other" party. Monsanto was allowed to pollute the Detroit River for decades, but they provided good paying union jobs under pro-union leadership.

No thank you, I'll take the consistency of "the rule of law" over "the greater good" any day of the week. Collectivism, one size fits all is the nut low, intellectually lazy, selfish and short sighted. For people in Oregon to think they can tell the people in WV (or vice versa) how to live is gross and wrong.

Most progressives will agree that the moral majority shouldn't be able to tell us how to live our lives, but then think that they should be able to? Puke. The irony is heavy with you guys.
 

schuylaar

Well-Known Member
The Reality of the Male Sex Drive


Is there anything good about men?

Published on December 8, 2010 by Roy F. Baumeister in Cultural Animal


The problem of recognizing the reality of the male sex drive was brought home to me in a rather amusing experience I had some years ago. I was writing a paper weighing the relative influence of cultural and social factors on sexual behavior, and the influence consistently turned out to be stronger on women than on men. In any scientific field, observing a significant difference raises the question of why it happens. We had to consider several possible explanations, and one was that the sex drive is milder in women than in men. Women might be more willing to adapt their sexuality to local norms and contexts and different situations, because they aren't quite so driven by strong urges and cravings as men are.

When I brought this up in the paper as one possible theory, reviewers reacted rather negatively. They thought the idea that men have a stronger sex drive than women was probably some obsolete, wrong, and possibly offensive stereotype. I wasn't permitted to make such a statement without proof, which they doubted could be found. And when I consulted the leading textbooks on sexuality, none of them said that women had a generally milder desire for sex than men. Some textbooks explicitly said that idea was wrong. One, by Janet Hyde and Richard DeLamater, openly speculated that women actually had a stronger sex drive than men, contrary to what I thought.


Two colleagues and I decided to see what information could be gleaned from all the published research studies we could find. This meant a long process of slogging through hundreds of scientific journal articles reporting scientific studies of sexual behavior. One colleague, Kathleen Catanese (now a professor of psychology at a Midwestern college) started out as a strong feminist with the party-line belief that there was no difference in sex drive. The other, Kathleen Vohs (now a professor of marketing), was undecided. My hunch was that men had the stronger sex drive. Thus, at the outset, we held an assortment of views, but we all decided we would just follow the data and revise our opinions as the evidence came in.
The task was considerable, and I at least was nagged by the fear that this point was so obvious that no one would want to publish our research. One colleague heard we were reviewing the literature to see whether men wanted sex more than women, and she commented acidly, "Of course they do. Everybody who's ever had sex knows that!" Well, everybody, apparently, except the expert researchers on sexuality and authors of textbooks.
There is no single, clear measure of sex drive. So we approached the problem like this. Imagine two women (or two men for that matter), such that one of them has truly a stronger sex drive than the other. What differences in preferences and behavior would you expect to see between the two of them? For example, the one with the stronger sex drive would presumably think about sex more often; have more fantasies, desire, and actual sex more often; have more partners; masturbate more often; and devote more effort to having sex than the other. The reverse is quite implausible. That is, it is hard to imagine the woman with a weaker sex drive having more frequent sexual fantasies than the woman with the stronger sex drive.
And so we searched for studies that compared men and women on these types of behaviors.
After months of reading and compiling results, the answer was clear. There is a substantial difference, and men have a much stronger sex drive than women. To be sure, there are some women who have frequent, intense desires for sex, and there are some men who don't, but on average the men want it more. Every marker we could think of pointed to the same conclusion. Men think about sex more often than women do. Men have more sexual fantasies, and these encompass more different acts and more different partners.
Men masturbate more than women - much more. Masturbation is considered by sex researchers to be one of the purest measures of sex drive, because it is not much constrained by external factors (such as the need to find a partner, or the risk of pregnancy or disease). Some people say that women feel guilty about masturbation, but that's not what the data say, at least not any more. In fact, it's mainly the (few) nonmasturbating men who associated masturbation with guilt. Nonmasturbating women generally say they just don't feel any inclination to do it. They don't need guilt to resist the impulse, because they aren't resisting - because they don't have the impulse.

There's plenty more. Men take more risks and incur more costs for sex. (Remember President Clinton!) Men want sex more often than women, whether one is talking about young couples or people who have been married to the same person for forty years. Men also want more different partners than women want, and men like a greater variety of sex acts than women do.
Men initiate sex often and refuse it rarely. Women initiate it much more rarely and refuse it much more often than men. Given an opportunity for sex, men leap at it, while women say no. One classic study sent student research assistants out on campus to approach fairly attractive people (of the other gender) at random with the line, "I've been noticing you around campus and I think you're attractive. Would you like to go to bed with me tonight?" More than three-quarters of the men said yes. Not a single woman did.
Women find it easier than men to go without sex. An adult woman who is between relationships can easily go for months, sometimes even years, hardly thinking of sex and not minding if she doesn't have it. Men go nuts without sex (or at least some do). A man who loses his girlfriend will often start masturbating by the next day or two.
Even when both men and women make a heartfelt, sacred vow of chastity, the men find it much harder to keep than the woman. Catholic priests have much more sexual activity than the nuns, even though both have committed themselves to the single standard of complete abstinence and have backed this up with a sacred promise in the context of the most important beliefs and values in their lives.
In short, pretty much every study and every measure fit the pattern that men want sex more than women. It's official: Men are hornier than women.
Roy F. Baumeister is the author of Is There Anything Good About Men? How Cultures Flourish by Exploiting Men.

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/cultural-animal/201012/the-reality-the-male-sex-drive

then you want to saddle us with a kid?:finger:
 

ginwilly

Well-Known Member
GW - no one will ever again successfully tell one what they may do with ones body..your body belongs to...wait for it...you!

when it comes to choice everyone i know is for 20 weeks unless life of mother and/or baby is at stake which imo would be very difficult and would never want to be in that position.

and men..put a fucking rubber on it already!..it's because of YOU!!!!!!!
I'm not as up on the time frame, working in the healthcare industry I hear lots of debate on the 20week issue.

Do you support a woman's right to not purchase health insurance? How about if she wants to buy a plan that doesn't include prostrate exams? We've been through this before, and you guys are welcome to twist yourselves in knots over why you can control that woman on some issues but not others, but it's still you guys forcing your will on that woman you claim you want to protect her rights. For "the greater good". You realize that's the same reasoning behind the moral majority?
 

canndo

Well-Known Member
I have yet to see a libertarian refute the rule of law. In fact, that's the basis of most libertarian thought, that the rule of law by man is our safety net against fraud, abuse and general politico behavior. Where do you read this stuff? I think you are equating libertarian to anarchy?

The E. Coli example still can happen in your nanny state, but in our present system, if the owner of the company donated to the correct party, the consequences of killing 1,000 people would not be the same if he donated to the "other" party. Monsanto was allowed to pollute the Detroit River for decades, but they provided good paying union jobs under pro-union leadership.

No thank you, I'll take the consistency of "the rule of law" over "the greater good" any day of the week. Collectivism, one size fits all is the nut low, intellectually lazy, selfish and short sighted. For people in Oregon to think they can tell the people in WV (or vice versa) how to live is gross and wrong.

"rule of law" = Regulation = government.

The more rules that need to be enforced, the more government is needed.

Yes, the E. Coli example CAN still happen, but it is more likely to have been preempted by regulation. That is the point I am making, that regulation preempts. The problem is that a preempted threat to the lives of individuals is difficult to prove. You still seem to be talking about a reactionary situation - "punishment" after the fact.

Collectivism is NOT necessarily one size fits all, as we can see with local "rules of law". This nation is not simply a group of unrelated individuals. libertarians tend to see all problems as government created and an examination of this proves it to be incorrect.


Furthermore, without a strong central government you are given no recourse in conflicts between the business and the individual save opting not to support them.
 

Mr ADHD

Well-Known Member
The problem is that between the three of them, libertarians are most out of touch with reality. None of the corrections in libertarian principles actually work in the real world.
I have a lot of respect for you canndo, this isn't meant to be argumentative...

Its sad that my beliefs can't work in this pathetic excuse of a world we currently live in. However, I would rather stand behind my beliefs instead of continuing to vote for the lesser evil every 4 years.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I537 using Rollitup mobile app
 

schuylaar

Well-Known Member
I have yet to see a libertarian refute the rule of law. In fact, that's the basis of most libertarian thought, that the rule of law by man is our safety net against fraud, abuse and general politico behavior. Where do you read this stuff? I think you are equating libertarian to anarchy?

The E. Coli example still can happen in your nanny state, but in our present system, if the owner of the company donated to the correct party, the consequences of killing 1,000 people would not be the same if he donated to the "other" party. Monsanto was allowed to pollute the Detroit River for decades, but they provided good paying union jobs under pro-union leadership.

No thank you, I'll take the consistency of "the rule of law" over "the greater good" any day of the week. Collectivism, one size fits all is the nut low, intellectually lazy, selfish and short sighted. For people in Oregon to think they can tell the people in WV (or vice versa) how to live is gross and wrong.

Most progressives will agree that the moral majority shouldn't be able to tell us how to live our lives, but then think that they should be able to? Puke. The irony is heavy with you guys.
last i heard hillary wasn't exactly pro-union..so she has your vote in 2016, GW?
 

canndo

Well-Known Member
I have a lot of respect for you canndo, this isn't meant to be argumentative...

Its sad that my beliefs can't work in this pathetic excuse of a world we currently live in. However, I would rather stand behind my beliefs instead of continuing to vote for the lesser evil every 4 years.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I537 using Rollitup mobile app

Thanks for the respect. Note I didn't say you should vote for one or the other, only that one is not the equivalent of the other, that each has its drawbacks and advantages and they do not balance each other out. As it turns out, there may not even BE a "lesser of two evils" any more but only different forms of evil, but I am not talking about leadership, rather I am talking about ideology.
 

canndo

Well-Known Member
I'm not as up on the time frame, working in the healthcare industry I hear lots of debate on the 20week issue.

Do you support a woman's right to not purchase health insurance? How about if she wants to buy a plan that doesn't include prostrate exams? We've been through this before, and you guys are welcome to twist yourselves in knots over why you can control that woman on some issues but not others, but it's still you guys forcing your will on that woman you claim you want to protect her rights. For "the greater good". You realize that's the same reasoning behind the moral majority?

While the reaoning may be the same, the effect is not. If I believe that the greater good is for all people who die to go to my idea of heaven, then my belief is more likely to infringe upon your behavior than if I believe it would we wiser for all concerned to pay for ALL prostate cancer screenings AND all breast cancer screenings.
 

jahbrudda

Well-Known Member
Libertarian concepts rely on reaction rather than preemption and for this reason alone, they cannot work. Furthermore libertarian ideals ignore the collective unless it suits them to see individuals as a collective - this makes little sense and again, what it does is cast away individuals who are caught in the mechanisms of a "libertarian" machine of action and reaction.

For instance. 1000 people die of E. coli from a meat packing plant. If it is a given (which it is not) that information is freely and truthfully spread througout, no one will continue to purchase from that plant and it will either correct it's ways or go out of business. However, 1000 people, individuals, have died and libertarianism is now depending not upon individuals to stop the spread of E. Coli, but a collective - or "class" of "those who eat meat". Again, it cost at least 1000 people to correct the error or omission of a single outlet.

The next point of failure is in civil litigation. without a strong government, corrective tort actions cannot be effective and again, corrections under a libertarian system again become reactionary rather than premeptive.
You have a very distorted view on libertarianism.
Exaggerating, exploiting and warping it's fundamental principles to fit your agenda does not further your position, it stifles it.
The Libertarians I know do not advocate the abolishment of government, but rather the containment.
 
Top