(July 16, 2013 at 9:06 am)kılıç_mehmet Wrote: And you have something to convince him otherwise, friend?You usually can't.
For me, the turning point where I started to shift away from libertarianism was when I made some assertion about "it's not the government's role to..." and a liberal responded simply, "well, I don't agree" and walked away.
I thought to myself, "what a weak argument. He can't just simply state disagreement and walk away". But then I realized that I had provided no evidence or logic to support my assertion either. Hitchens had not said it yet but what is presented without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
Libertarians like to draw arbitrary boundaries about the "proper role of government" and act like they've stated a self-evident axiom. Government should provide a police officer to stop a burglar from invading your house, a standing army to stop a foreign nation from invading your country, but not a doctor to stop a virus from invading your body.
Coincidentally, these arbitrary lines happen to coincide with the interests of the rich. They want police, fire fighters and a standing army to protect all their wealth and property but they don't want to see any safety nets or any protection for the poor.
Their arbitrary lines can be dismissed with a simple, "Thanks for sharing your personal opinions. I don't agree."
Atheist Forums Hall of Shame:
"The trinity can be equated to having your cake and eating it too."
... -Lucent, trying to defend the Trinity concept
"(Yahweh's) actions are good because (Yahweh) is the ultimate standard of goodness. That’s not begging the question"
... -Statler Waldorf, Christian apologist
"The trinity can be equated to having your cake and eating it too."
... -Lucent, trying to defend the Trinity concept
"(Yahweh's) actions are good because (Yahweh) is the ultimate standard of goodness. That’s not begging the question"
... -Statler Waldorf, Christian apologist
