zlacker

>>jimbob+(OP)
I have nothing against gambling as a libertarian, but I don’t want to be liable for people who made poor life choices. I don’t want to pay for the welfare of people who ruined their financials or health, nor do I want to look at homeless people on my commute.

If what we’re going to have is a society where I’m paying for the housing and health care of other people, I’d like to be able to dictate with an iron fist what the other people are allowed to do and be.

>>valval+5u2
This is a really great: You don't mind when companies optimize for making money even if a company makes other people addicted to gambling or similiar things but then you don't want to help these people because its the peoples fault.

You know why you think like this? Because you are, by accident, on the side which benefits most of libertarianism.

You really think a human becomes homeless because of 'poor life choices'? No. They become homeless because they never got a chance, have neurological issues, bad parents, bad upbringing, whatever.

Its a lot easier to be a libertarian when you won the birth lottery... Man you are ignorant

>>Menice+cr3
The company doesn’t make individuals do anything. You have power over yourself, and trying to shift blame is the most naive idiocy present in human nature. You represent exactly that.

Also yes, a large enough majority of homeless people got so because of poor life choices that the minority that didn’t isn’t even worth bringing up.

You’re also entirely correct that some people are destined for more success than others due to predetermined factors. That’s absolutely fine.