Why Does Atheism and Left-Wing Politics Usually Go Together?

[Tiberius]

I think there might be a problem with the practicality of your argument Tiberius. A society which does not directly support those at the bottom, tends to have large sections of population predisposed to crime.

When did I say a libertarian society didn't directly support those at the bottom?!?

In capitalism, the distribution is based on how much work you put in. Work hard, and you get more. Be successful, and you get more.

Well, that just isn't true...

It isn't true in corporatism. It is true in capitalism, where everyone is free to work however they want to (i.e. anyone can start a business). There are of course jobs where working hard gets you less than in other jobs, but that is simply the market at work. With the invention of machines, we have less need for physical labour, so physical labourers tend to earn less. We have more of a need for workers that are less physically demanding, but more mentally demanding. These jobs often require the worker to have completed extra education, which in most cases they are not getting paid for whilst completing (it's a loss that makes up for itself later).

So the liberterian wouldn`t question a induviduals decision to commit suicide? I do believe in euthenasia as it is legal as for example in the Netherlands (and if i`m not wrong the states of Oregon and Washington in the USA), but I dont think i actualy need a statistic to prove, and can actualy assume that most suicides are the result of depression. Depression I believe, and probably most of the sane world would believe, is a illness, and in most cases - a mental illness - wich concludes that the patient might not eaven be certifiably sane, and requires medical treatment through therapy rather than letting the patient end his life. Depression can have various causes wich lead to that state and proposing to let these people simply commit suicide to me comes awfully close to proposing a eugenic sociaty.

If a person is judged to be suffering from a mental illness, then it is reasonable for the government to intervene. However, if a person is found to be sane, and simply wants to end their life, whether it be for reasons of euthanasia or others, the government should let them.

Am I wrong with my assumtion that libertarians propose the abolishment of all social services and security nets provided by a goverment?

You are wrong. No libertarian proposes the abolishment of all social services. We propose that they are left to private businesses and charities to control, rather than the government.

Would that be so horrible? Some lazy sonofabitch you don't like still gets to eat..the horror.

It would if the food was bought with my tax money. I will gladly voluntarily give money and food to homeless people and those less fortunate, but that is my choice. I would never give food to a person who has actively chosen not to work when they could have. Others might, but that is up to them. People shouldn't be forced to support those who have done nothing to deserve it.

On the flipside, a person can work their ass off and still get nothing, happens all the time. We call those people "the working poor". They comprise the majority of the society I live in. Their time is spent securing the most basic of needs to the point that nothing else gets much consideration. Cogs in the wheel, and why? Because without that perpetual motion machine running at the core of our societies some lucky kid somewhere (lucky, mind you, by means of birth, not hard work) couldn't afford a fucking IPhone. Yay.

In corporatism maybe, but under capitalism if you work, you get paid. It is part of a contract that is legally binding. Anyone who works their ass and gets literally nothing either did not read their contract properly (and should quit their job), or was scammed by the company they work for (at which point they are entitled to compensation). I doubt this is as widespread as you seem to think, but I'll gladly be proven wrong if you can provide evidence that the majority of people in America work hard and get absolutely nothing.

In capitalism, the distribution is based on how much work you put in.

Um...not exactly.....

More or less. Work takes into consideration multiple factors, such as the skill involved (i.e. can everyone do this, or just a few people), how qualified you are to do the job, etc.

Work hard, and you get more.

Whenceforth cometh the working poor?

What jobs are they doing? Likely low-skilled labour that almost everyone could do. Such work counts for less comparatively with other high-skilled jobs.

Definitely agree with you there, be more successful and you get more, but that's almost a tautology isn;t it, since success is measured by "how much more" you get in the first place. Of course, "being successful" is a big camp...and might just include quite a few lazy...work avoiding motherfuckers....don't you think?

I meant being successful at your job. Being successful at being a lazy "work avoiding motherfucker" does not get you more...nor should it.

Rather than approaching this ideologically, wouldn't it be more effective to approach it practically?

I this case, I see no difference. I do not believe the government has an adequate success record for organising society. I think private enterprise has a much better success record, since it operates with self-improvement in mind (i.e. whilst a government will spend and spend knowing that they can never be held accountable, a corporation will always try to get costs down in order to out-do the competition).