of course, just showing that for the leftist alienated here on the forum.

imagine getting stabbed in the back by an idea.

cause antifa ain't real, right?

You've gone from these MUST be done by the state or they wouldn't exist to posing some potential problems and questions when you were shown to be clearly wrong.
You've lost the argument.

Is the current state system without problems or potential downsides for some people?
No, there are countless examples of government-caused horrors, problems and inefficiencies.


People not being stolen from to fund very expensive and economically unfeasible roads and powerlines to a remote farm is a good thing.
If I build a house on a remote mountain should you be forced to pay for my roads? Why?

The people in the area can decide what kind of roads they want to pay for or build.
There is a long history of roads without taxation.
Bemoaning the fact that people might choose to not fund some types of roads to some places does not eliminate the possibility of private or voluntarily paid for roads.


Then people can choose to pay for a service. Radical.


That is not a unique problem to security that isn't funded by theft.
What if a small country is faced with organized crime known as another state which overwhelms their security?
Perhaps you are unaware of obscure examples of that happening throughout history.

The potential for a stronger force to overwhelm a weaker one does not erase the existence and possibility of private/voluntary security.



This is an unsubstantiated and faulty claim. People have been settling on and developing land for thousands of years. Forcing people to pay for infrastructure is not required.

Lets say it was accurate for a second. People chose to not to inhabit some land. Ok cool.

The government is currently preventing people from continuing to expand and settle uninhabited areas in vast swaths of the western United States.


There is nothing precluding the possibility of people voluntarily funding a defense department.


1. Speculation. Competing organizations can and do exist.
2. Similarities existing does not mean its the same as government, nor does it mean it doesn't exist.

Holding a voluntary society or program up to a utopian standard of perfection does not mean government programs are the only possibility.

This post was edited by cambovenzi on Aug 15 2021 09:53am

Libraries and fire departments existed 100 years before the income tax. The tax money goes into the pockets of tyrants and isn't worth paying.

This post was edited by EndlessSky on Aug 15 2021 11:45am

I only see where he said they would be better done by the state. See the following quote.



It seems like you're constructing an obvious strawman that can be easily checked since this conversation is only a few posts long.

no wonder he was trying so hard to get as many americans infected as possible.

#libertarian ethics

NPC leftism strikes again

There is nothing wrong with buying stock.
His wife purchased a small amount of stock after a public announcement by the company and after the head of the World Health Organization called their drug promising.

How dare they invest in a pharmaceutical company to help fund a potential cure and treatment! They must want everyone to die!

Just another low IQ justification to demonize people with differing views without combatting them intellectually. Its pathetic that people like you eat it up.

This post was edited by cambovenzi on Aug 15 2021 03:03pm

It's perceived corruption. As long as the info is public, then this is acceptable. The only thing Paul is at fault for is not disclosing it on time. His punishment is to suffer from uneducated tweets for the next week.

some facts:

- the senate health committee, which paul is a member of, received briefings on the virus prior to the purchase
- it was the first time paul & wife bought individual stock in > 10 years.
- purchase was made 3 weeks BEFORE the WHO declared covid a pandemic
- paul did NOT disclose the purchase, violating the 2012 STOCK act (how convenient, his failure to report the purchase kept him out of the insider trading scandal surrounding perdue and loeffler)
- paul has been pushing anti-mask and anti fauci rhetoric ever since, severely undermining public confidence in expert opinions, and contributing greatly to the rejection of anti-spreading measures and to vaccination hesitancy

but hey "tHeRe iS nOtHinG wRoNg WitH bUyiNg sToCk" - so this isn't fishy, unethical, or cynical at all...

#"libertarian" ethics

>Parroting additional irrelevant talking points from the article.

Paul has been completely justified in skewering Fauci and advocating against authoritarian mandates.
His integrity and respect for liberty aligns with his positions and ideology demonstrated over several years.

How gullible and stupid do you have to be to think its just some conspiracy to get people killed over his wife's very small investment in a stock.