T Nation

McDonald's Flips San Fransisco The Bird


I don't regularly eat at MacDonald's but I suddenly feel the need for a Happy Meal and an apple pie.

Why do busybodies think they can force people to make good choices without consequence?


Liberal/progessives feel that they know better than you on how you should live your life, spend your money and raise your kids, meanwhile they aren't married, don't have children and usually all their information comes from books. These educated people only understand life via textboks and the like; I'm sort of reminded of Dangerfield in back to school where he tells the ecomonics professor how life really is where you have to grease the wheels to get anything done.


Happy meals have killed a lot less people than diseases spread by homosexual sodomy.

Indeed, homosexual sodomy is far more damaging to your health than smoking.

Banning smoking is OK.

Banning Happy Meals is OK.

But banning homosexual sodomy is not? Why?


And the can of worms has been opened lol


Indeed. And, of course my point is not to ban people from whatever they do. That's between them and G-d (or not, if they so want to believe).

It's just the amazing desire of progressives to want to control CERTAIN aspects of lives is wholly inconsistent to their desire to be libertines in their own.

The only logical choice is libertarian or consistently authoritative.


But the reverse of that is also true of conservatives.

Don't mess with my guns, but OMG an adult shouldn't be allowed to put what they want it their own body (drugs).


It's amazing how few people actually get this.


And libertarians think people will do whatever the hell they please with their body, but not turn around and demand that the nanny exist to pick up the wreckage. There are two realistic lines of thought, grounded in reality...conservatism or progressivism.


You know what's really great about this? The donation actually is going to wonderful charity. I very very rarely eat at McDonalds but I think I will make a donation to the Ronald McDonald House


LOL, that's not libertarianism. Keep quiet.


Busybodies exist in all shapes, sizes, and ideologies; however, libertarianism is inherently anti-busybody.


That's because it naively imagines a socially liberal, anti-nanny state humanity. Honestly, I think most libertarians are libertarian because they feel safe from the prospect of their view becoming reality.


yep. Because it is inherently "busymouth" instead.


So you believe that freedom fiscally and socially are mutually exclusive?

It may be a natural reaction of people who are poor to commit armed robbery, but that doesn't mean we should make it legal.

People may want government intervention when they fuck up their own life, but it doesn't mean we should build a government around it.

I also think you have it backwards. I think it is more that government intervention is what has lead to a society of dependents who then turn around and demand more handouts. You are forgetting that much (if not most) of the fuck ups society ends up paying for are government, not individual ones.

More often than not the government is trying to fix problems it created in the first place.


If there were no osha, do you think there would be more lawsuits about working conditions? Hell no, the fact that there is a part of the government dedicated to a problem makes people think the government owes them the service more than anything else.

People used to sitting around learn to demand a chair.


Should is swell. But we did, and will.


On that point, I'm inclined to agree. I still vote for should though.

But is there such a thing as homeostasis in any government?


"We" did not do anything. "We" is a fiction.

And while we're at it I never gave my consent for anything to be done in my name by any government at any point in my life.


Not true. Many people do keep their opinions to themselves.

However, in oder to promote the idea that people should take responsibility for their own lives we require the use of ideas and a way to communicate them. Do you know a way to do that that 1) does not require force nor 2) the use of words?

I fail to see a relevant connection in your argument.


And others will never give consent to individual ownership of land, resources, and matter that no man brought into existence. But, libertarians don't shy away from the fiction of a cold universe allowing individual human beings an inherent right to exclusive ownership of such things.