Destabilization of US Cities: Crime, Homelessness, Liberalism

I haven’t even watched the video as I’m in a place I can’t hear but let me guess, nobody steals the skis at the mountain when they’re all free for the taking.

Edit: Of course I could be very wrong but just speculating based on the image.

I’ve gone skiing. You either rent skis ahead of time or if you go skiing regularly you own your own skis

You buy a one day ticket or have a season pass to go skiing. Half way through the day you take off your skis to eat lunch or go to the bathroom. You put your skis back on and finish skiing.

No one steals the skis because no one goes to a ski resort to steal skis .

If you’re saying “if there were black people that lived near ski areas, they’d steal the skis “ I doubt it, there’s a small number of black people that ski and they don’t try to steal everyone’s skis
 
I’ve gone skiing. You either rent skis ahead of time or if you go skiing regularly you own your own skis

You buy a one day ticket or have a season pass to go skiing. Half way through the day you take off your skis to eat lunch or go to the bathroom. You put your skis back on and finish skiing.

No one steals the skis because no one goes to a ski resort to steal skis .

If you’re saying “if there were black people that lived near ski areas, they’d steal the skis “ I doubt it, there’s a small number of black people that ski and they don’t try to steal everyone’s skis
Yes, that is precisely what I was trying to say, but of course @FrancisK beat me to the punch with the proper retort.
 
"Libertarians will claim that their favorite vices “don’t affect you” and so you shouldn’t care."
so, according to them, should I only care if it directly affects me? thinking about other people's welfare and exercising empathy is something that they just cannot conceive? someone please enlighten me so I am not misreading it
I've been a skeptic of government and a libertarian of sorts since before I ever heard the term, as early as when I turned seven and had to go to school.

It's about freedom, you're free to be empathetic and help whoever you wish, but their problems are not other people's problems, and nobody can force me to help those I would rather not bother with. If you wanna help somebody, leave him alone- has been my approach, leave me alone too. Everybody is free to show as much charity as they want on their own initiative. I could live with supporting people with disabilities that require permanent assistance through taxes, but there should be control mechanisms involving churches in place, and church communities should be in charge of this system to minimize fraud.

Freedom means you're free to have your own street, neighborhood, town, or state where no drugs are allowed, nor prostitution or gambling, anything you can think of, and you can enforce it any way you please, kill those who try to defy the rules on the spot, catch and try them, whatever. This is real liberty.

Those who like all these vices can have their own areas and rules, but the question is if I don't want it in my neighborhood why would I want it in my city or county or state, or within the borders of my country at all, how many degrees of separation are sufficient, what is of the devil must not be allowed, so libertarianism too morphs into authoritarianism.

If you want free medical care, get together with others who want the same and set the whole system up, but stay away from those who don't want to participate. I won't use it. Democrats, almost half of the country by numbers, could do this now if they wanted to. Why would I pay for the care of those who I have nothing in common with at best, and who could be my enemies at worst. I could pay a dollar for the injection to have them euthanized. They probably want me gone, and don't want to pay for my medical care either. The Christian health sharing ministries are structured this way to some degree.
 
Back
Top