>>476
"You don't hear Canadians complaining."
Actually, yes I do. Go to a more conservative area of Canada.
"Aint advocating jiminy. Soc Sec works -and will work- well and privatization would ruin it and its appliers completely."
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-05-24-retiree-taxpayers_x.htm
So much for Social Security 'working well.'
"As for health-care, the current system is run by mercantile laws and it is fucked up. We'll see how it goes in Mass. and Cal."
Sure. You still evade the point that any problems we are having with market health care are due to regulations imposed by the dems.
"We'll see about that. Regarding the Infamous Deal, I approve of it on principle but it was poorly executed."
If you agree with the infamous New Deal on principle, you aren't a libertarian, you are either a socialist or an advocate of a mixed economy. The principles it was done under were collectivist ones, not libertarian ones.
Now we are starting to foresee the effects of the new deal - Social Security is growing more and more out of balance every year, and we have a looming financial crisis.
Social Security and the New Deal was something done to get us out of the Great Depression.. which was initially caused by government intervention into the economy (the Federal Reserve). Market-run health care needs to be fixed - but definitely not socialized.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-05-24-retiree-taxpayers_x.htm
"It is interesting to see how the worst excesses of left-wing statism usually stems from situations of extreme economic inequality caused by poorly planned capitalism."
'Poorly planned'? Capitalism doesn't involve central planning, sorry. You can thank the government for 'poorly planned' capitalism.
"Well I AInt damn ready to damn let an entire damn culture mistreat a damn half of its population damn."
If you follow libertarian principles, it is not your decision to make. All you are showing is how truly inconsistent and intolerant you are.
"I wonder how amny women there are in South Dakota..."
15,500 live human beings being denied their right to live is far worse an offense than women not being allowed to make smoothies out of unborn children, *especially* considering that it was the woman's actions that put them in the position they are in anyway.
"The road to hell is paved with a) x < 8 b) good intentions c) chair"
The road to hell is paved with socialism/fascism/statism, all of which entail the denial of basic human rights. I intend to support and defend these rights, thanks.
The government that no longer has a duty to defend the right to life, or that erodes this right in any form, approaches atrocity.
"LIfe is redundant and useless without the liberties that follow *in time*."
The lack of the right to make smoothies out of fetuses and embryos is something we can live without. The right to life is not.
"He is transferring diploids, and he is using the egg of the woman to prolong his genes."
No, the property rights to the semen have been transferred from the man to the woman. Following this, the man does absolutely nothing. Of course, the woman does not necessarilly have to accept them if she doesn't wish to become pregnant and have a baby (use contraceptives, or abstain).
"Since it is then the woman's property, what develops of it and of her body is also her property *up until* it becomes a human life, at which point it gains rights to both life and self-ownership... and becomes a seperate entity."
"And the limit of life is at the point where a unique expression of humanity has developed, which comes kinda late."
Ok, good. 'And', so you agree then, it is the woman's responsibility.
"Since most pro-lifers are retards, unlike you, I'll battle them until I am dead, and will resort to arms to defend my fellow female citizens."
But you wouldn't do so to defend the unborn, whether they are alive or not. How compassionate of you.