View Single Post
Old 11-21-2013, 09:03 AM  
arock10
Confirmed User
 
arock10's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 6,218
Quote:
Originally Posted by sperbonzo View Post
No. You missed the point. The logic is that if we are going to have a system where a group of people can use the government to make other people to give them money by threat of violence, then there should at least be severe restrictions on what can be bought with that money. It should be restricted to only those things needed for survival. This would NOT include alcohol, drugs, cigarettes, candy, soda, movies, cable TV, etc.... Anything that does not include food, clothes, housing, health and education. Sound too onerous? I find it onerous that if people around you decide that they want to give money, they can use the force of government to take yours also. As Penn Jilette said....








...and just for the record, I give both my time and my money to several charitable causes.





.
Sounds like EPA should get a big boost from libertarians since when I think basic survival I think air and water...
__________________
Sup
arock10 is offline   Share thread on Digg Share thread on Twitter Share thread on Reddit Share thread on Facebook Reply With Quote