Comment: I'll address your 2nd

(See in situ)


I'll address your 2nd

I'll address your 2nd scenario first. Ask him who these angels are in our society that are going to decide how much someone needs? Is it the corrupt politicans in Washington,D.C.? He wants them deciding what you need? And he throws the word "obligation" around rather carelessly. Sure, many of us feel an obligation to give to those that are less fortunate and it happens all the time. However, force and theft are involved in his redistribution of goods theory which are morally wrong.

As to the one person buying up all the land and kicking everyone out of the earth. I guess i'd ask him to point to one industry that is a monopoly without government assistance. Competition would simply never allow someone to buy up all of the land without the helping hand of the use of force of government or some other forceful entity.

It's frustrating when people take the libertarian philosophy to the absolute extreme in order to try to prove it wrong. It reminds me of having a debate on marijuana when someone immediately jumps to heroin. Or debating the right to bear arms and someone will say do you have the right to nukes? All we have to do to debunk their philosophy is point to the use of force and theft in an everyday occurence in our government. Tell your friend the bottom line is that the pendulum has swung way too far towards tyranny, and i'm sure his socialist friends will stop the pendulum long before one person owns all of the earth. In fact, a more likely scenario that you could use to counterhis theory, is what if the government uses eminent domain to buy all land and rent it out to people. But the government charges higher rates to the rich minority, and the poor get to live rent free. Then his democracy of poor enslave him.

"Where liberty is, there is my country." -Benjamin Franklin