About Government provided stuff. you know..."socialism"

[HughBeaumont]

29. Here's a nice little dossier . . . .

. . . . on why the neckbeards are incredibly wrong.

* For similar reasons, libertarianism is a circular argument. Libertarians speak of "property" and "contract," as if these legal ideas somehow had meaning in the absence of law. Law is what matures mere possession or occupancy into "property". It's what allows your right to your dwelling to persist even when you leave it. These rights must be recognized by the consensus of local society to exist. The process that creates that consensus is a government, whether it's arrived at formally with pomp and circumstance by legislators and kings, or the result of an ad hoc discussion around the campfire. That consensus may be expressed more or less formally, but it necessarily includes definitions and limits.

* In fact, property has always been the creation of a lawmaker, and therefore some sort of a government. Much valuable wealth in civilized countries takes the form of such things as publicly traded stock and "intellectual property." The more important property rights are, the likelier they are to be embodied in legal documents like deeds, title documents, and statements of account. The market for real estate would be much less efficient without deeds registered at a government office that showed who owned what. Law called all of these things into being. The same holds true of contracts.

* The aforementioned "Non-Aggression Principle" isn't quite as clear as many libertarians make it sound. Libertarians support force to hold up a system of property, a system which required force to be created (ask any indigenous person in a European-colonized country) and requires force to be maintained. Take fraud, for example. If a man is found to have lied to his health insurance company about a pre-existing condition, the police (in libertarian parlance, "Men with Guns&quot will use force against him. Libertarians call this "retaliatory force" and frame the acts by the sick man as initiating force which makes for a nice game of mental gymnastics.[18] Note that you may not use the same rationalizations to frame racism, or sexism, or union-smashing as force, (and their solutions as retaliatory force) since those are things libertarians are okay with.

snip

* In a strict libertarian world with no welfare programs, people with disabilities that rendered them unable to work or unemployable who did not have families or a benefactor willing to support them financially would essentially be doomed to starve to death, become a prostitute, or turn to theft and drug dealing for survival. As automation, globalization and artificial intelligence continue to make more people unemployable and labor less valuable, entire swaths of the population will essentially have to choose between death and debt slavery. Unemployed parents would not be able to keep their children and would have to allow wealthy people to e̶n̶s̶l̶a̶v̶e̶ adopt them if they couldn't make a livable wage.

* No matter how many whine about it, governmental regulation often corrects problems that an unregulated free market could not. One example is health care regulations, such as enforcing credentialing for physicians to ensure they're not some nut in a lab coat; making sure pharmaceuticals have the ingredients they say they do and are relatively safe, AND that they work as intended; and ERs being required to treat people regardless of their ability to pay. Another is related to public health: how would consumers be able to determine which food vendors would be safe (and therefore, want to exchange capital with) in a festival experiencing bacterial contamination?[19] And why should businesses take on the risk of preventing epidemics?[20] Many libertarians don't have a coherent answer for what to do to correct these problems in a free market; they simply insist that "competition" will solve the problems, or at least make them inconsequential.