>Love the calls for civility from the person proposing that anti-discrimination laws were bad.
You say that as if saying anti-discrimination laws are wrong is uncivil. That is just whole different level of close-mindedness and intolerance to ideological unorthodoxy. I'm half-expecting you to call me a heretic.
You're completely missing the fact that I consider forcing (through threats of imprisonment) people to surrender their private property as a punishment for private discrimination to be extremely uncivil, due to its use of violence.
>Also "the free baby market" isn't really a leap from any of these hardcore libertarian views.
Deal with my arguments, not straw man arguments that you conjecture into existence.
>This has absolutely nothing to do with program expansion, it has to do with an aging population.
You clearly didn't read it.
Annual spending growth on various components of social welfare spending (1972 - 2011):
Pensions and retirement: 4.4%
Healthcare: 5.7%
Welfare: 4.1%
Annual economic growth over the time frame:
2.7%
Now that I've substantiated my claim that welfare AND social welfare spending have grown tremendously, you're trying to move the goalposts. You ridiculed me with your snarky put-down when I made the claim, and it turned out to be absolutely correct.
Your "but but" argument just shows how far your intellectual dishonesty goes.
>We can debate about how absurd it is to say that the 50% of the population who can't work (and would provide basically nil extra productivity to the labor force if they were unjustly forced to rejoin it) shouldn't have income redistributed to them,
Should we throw people in prison for not living up to your moral standards and giving to the poor?
You're ignoring this authoritarian aspect of what you're endorsing.
> Now that I've substantiated my claim that welfare AND social welfare spending have grown tremendously, you're trying to move the goalposts. You ridiculed me with your snarky put-down when I made the claim, and it turned out to be absolutely correct.
It's not "moving the goalposts", your claim was that welfare programs were "growing". The definition of beneficiaries and benefits hasn't grown probably since LBJ was in the white house, only the pool of retirees and disabled persons has grown. In other words, government hasn't changed anything to make the program grow.
> Should we throw people in prison for not living up to your moral standards and giving to the poor?
How many people are in jail because of tax fraud versus in jail for some form of theft of property? That's a good primo facie test to verify that this ideology even passes a simple smell test. Even if that did demonstrate a problem, this idea that there's anything nonviolent about your ideology is fucking bonkers. The non-agression principle is anything but:
http://www.demos.org/blog/1/29/14/what-world-following-non-a...
>your claim was that welfare programs were "growing".
And I showed that they are.
>The pool of beneficiaries and benefits hasn't grown probably since LBJ was in the white house,
I have no idea if your claim is correct (probably isn't, given the massive increase in people of working age receiving disability benefits), but this is in fact "moving the goalposts".
When I said welfare programs were growing, I clearly was referring to how much was being spent on them. Your pedantic nonsense notwithstanding, my claim was absolutely correct.
>How many people are in jail because of tax fraud versus in jail for some form of theft of property?
The carrying out of the threat may be rare, but the use of the threat to deprive someone of their rights is not. It is endemic. A person has a right to their property and their privacy and income tax laws violate both.
>The non-agression principle is anything but:
Can you distill your anti-libertarian article down to its essence and post it here?
You say that as if saying anti-discrimination laws are wrong is uncivil. That is just whole different level of close-mindedness and intolerance to ideological unorthodoxy. I'm half-expecting you to call me a heretic.
You're completely missing the fact that I consider forcing (through threats of imprisonment) people to surrender their private property as a punishment for private discrimination to be extremely uncivil, due to its use of violence.
>Also "the free baby market" isn't really a leap from any of these hardcore libertarian views.
Deal with my arguments, not straw man arguments that you conjecture into existence.
>This has absolutely nothing to do with program expansion, it has to do with an aging population.
You clearly didn't read it.
Annual spending growth on various components of social welfare spending (1972 - 2011):
Pensions and retirement: 4.4%
Healthcare: 5.7%
Welfare: 4.1%
Annual economic growth over the time frame:
2.7%
Now that I've substantiated my claim that welfare AND social welfare spending have grown tremendously, you're trying to move the goalposts. You ridiculed me with your snarky put-down when I made the claim, and it turned out to be absolutely correct.
Your "but but" argument just shows how far your intellectual dishonesty goes.
>We can debate about how absurd it is to say that the 50% of the population who can't work (and would provide basically nil extra productivity to the labor force if they were unjustly forced to rejoin it) shouldn't have income redistributed to them,
Should we throw people in prison for not living up to your moral standards and giving to the poor?
You're ignoring this authoritarian aspect of what you're endorsing.