Why I Refuse to Vote for Barack Obama

Post Reply New Topic

I didn't say it wasn't a tax.

Again. The true libertarian solution is to not give the poor medical care if they can't foot the bill. If you're poor and you have a stroke you have the freedom to die. If you're too poor to see a doctor and you develop a patch of skin cancer you better get a cheap razor and cut it out yourself before it spreads. The delinquency of poor people who can't afford to pay medical bills on top of food and rent makes the hospital more expensive for everyone else. Not fair. The only fair solution is to let them wallow in misery if they can't pay up front. That's personal responsibility.

It disgusts me that there are people out there that want me to die for being poor and unable to pay for medical care. No wonder I hate people.

My post was sarcasm.

That's good to know but I've seen people post things online like that and were completely serious.

I was only pointing out the ultimate logical conclusion proponents of free-market healthcare should come to if they are truly honest and consistent in their beliefs and dead-set against "redistribution". Technically, debt delinquency and personal bankruptcies are forms of redistribution from creditor to debtor. Someone else has to pay the difference to cover this extra "risk", which is a big reason why hospital visits and the insurance premiums that cover them are unaffordable to normal people in the first place.

Tying health insurance to employment is the worst because only the biggest corporations easily can afford it. It becomes a barrier to entry for any small business that wants to grow, but that's only because the right staunchly refuses the idea of redistribution via taxes and subsidies that can reduce this barrier. Even freaking Singapore and Hong Kong (often hailed as ideal free market societies) have redistributional policies when it comes to healthcare.

So in a nutshell the "true libertarian" solution is to say "f**k you, you irresponsible bastard" to everyone whose circumstances prevent them from taking care of themselves, even though they may find themselves in those circumstances through no fault of their own.

I should be ashamed of myself if I ever achieved that level of heartlessness.

Libertarians are not against helping people. Libertarians are against forcing you to help people.

If I point a gun in your face, take $100 from you, and give it to a bum on the street, you would be upset. It's ridiculous to come to the conclusion that you hate homeless people because you're upset about getting robbed.

Libertarians argue that taxation is theft since if you refuse to participate, you lose additional property and freedom, essentially at gunpoint.

The author needs to wake up to the real world. This is not an article, its a rant. Even more pathetic, its an obvious political attack against Obama under the guise of 'I dont care about either candidate but HERE is all the horrible things Obama did...' . Yeah.. I bet that convinced a kindergardener somewhere.

The problem is if people aren't forced to contribute to the common good or take care of the weak they generally don't and a lot more people suffer. If communities were up to the task if dealing with these things government "charity" would not be needed. The problem is they aren't because in modern capitalist society caring about the plight of your neighbor is considered "optional", something you only do when you need to feel good about yourself. The problem is the harder the times become the more prudent it become to put collective effort into some things.

I know I'll be called a heretic for saying this but there's also a more "hidden" type of robbery that goes on when certain people at the very top of the social food chain who control the distribution of resources necessary for the livelihood of everyone else. There is a flaw in the human moral compass that causes too many people to shirk responsibility for indirect harm that is a result of a complex system such as a market economy. I'm not talking about f*****g small businesses that are just trying to make ends meet like everyone else. I'm talking about the BIG business who are the ones who actually have a lot of economic power and leverage but pursue profit and/or increasing the wealth of shareholders to the detriment of those who are struggle just to survive.

The bottom line is if people aren't forced to do some things people will suffer because most people are either too selfish or just don't have the resources to deal with big problems. So in the end if libertarians are against "forcing" anyone to ever sacrifice anything they are effectively saying it's better to let people suffer as that will be the end result.

Among the wealthy in the US, substantial charity is a social expectation just as it was in many European countries prior to our existence. If you are selfish, you will be alienated.

There is a misconception that the wealthy are all greedy bastards when in fact most wealthy people give huge amounts to charity. I think it's a shame that the most generous people in our society are blackballed for political gain, especially since it's usually people who give little that do so.


I agree with this completely, except I don't think it's hidden at all. But big government isn't any better than big business. If anything, it's far worse because it's socially acceptable for government to threaten violence to achieve its ends.


I'm sorry that your experiences have given you such a negative opinion of people. My experience has been completely different. I've found that people without resources tend to be selfish while people with resources tend to be quite generous.

Yes, but you still have not substantiated your claims with Scripture. Now as far as charity and putting aside money and time to help the poor and needy, yes, that is a Scriptural requirement in Christianity, Judaism and I believe Islam as well. However, the requirement is for the individual believer to do so out of the kindness of his own heart and out of faith in the ability of God to provide, not to do so because he is compelled to do so by government. So, your argument does not hold water.

Wow, with an argumentative tour de force like that post, I can totally see why you didn't see the need to include anything beyond a naked assertion and your own opinion, or anything resembling a refutation of the quoted article. Even if the whole thing was written by a naked partisan as an attack on Obama, which I'll address in a moment, would that make any of it any less true? As to the politics of the author, perhaps you missed my other thread by the same writer, Why I Refuse to Vote for Mitt Romney?

That was the goal all along though. You have to see it in terms of using the law to create an outcry against itself to force a much more radical socialist agenda in the future. Also, the IRS is the only law enforcement branch that does not have to prove guilt. Instead, guilt is assumed in tax court and it is up to the taxpayer to prove innocence (much like British law.) So, the jury will have no choice in the matter. The chaos this causes will then be used to "fundamentally transform America". After all, chaos is what socialist revolutionaries thrive on because it is easy to bend the will of the working class out of their ignorance. They are the modern version of what Lenin would have called "useful idiots" (although the original use of the term was meant to describe student protesters). This is also why I think those on the right who would foment revolution are idiots as well. The left WANTS unrest. Revolutions rarely end the way the people starting them would want because most people will sacrifice liberty for order. Since the left knows this and because their idea is to use government to control everyone's life, they will be seen as the bringers of order and thus be embraced by those weary of struggle. People can then be disarmed, have their rights to free expression curtailed and then be molded in the shape the left wants. Whether the unrest comes from the left or the right then is irrelevant. For the violent extremes of both sides are but useful idiots to the powerful and will be exploited.

Actually, I read that one has to pay a fine if they refuse to purchase insurance. Either way, I dislike the idea of being ordered to purchase something. Some people may not want to have insurance because they have enough money to pay for medical care and prefer to stay "out of the system (some religions are opposed to being on Social Security, insurance or any government benefits)" or rarely need medical care, so purchasing insurance would be more money than what it's worth. I think making insurance affordable without compromising quality is fine, but the idea of making every single person buy into it is not in the best interest of everyone.

With that said, I do not view President Obama as a "dictator," for if he was a dictator, he would have shipped you off to a concentration camp, made you pay for the cost of transportation, camp-issued uniforms, room and board (and kill you when he's done working you). To be honest, I see no reason to vote for either candidate.

I've just never voted Demagogue, and it would likely take a drastic flip in the design of national politics for me to change my outlook on that. With Obama its for more simple reasons - like how he thinks Keynesianism works.