[LPNY DISCUSS] Are libertarians lucky?

Are libertarians just lucky that freedom leads to peace and prosperity, so
we can argue that freedom is good, not just for its own sake, but because
it leads to good things happening? What if the reverse were true? What if
government coercion led to peace and prosperity? What would libertarians do
then?

What if minimum-wage laws really could create improved well-being for all
out of thin air, while restricting economic freedom? Would the improved
well-being be worth the loss of freedom?

What if ObamaCare really could reduce health-care costs while making more
and better health care available to all, and restricting economic freedom?

We would be living in a dream world. If it were possibly to reduce helth
care costs while making more and better health care available for all,
somebody else would have done it a long time ago. Why does Obama think he
can do something that has never been done in human history or in any
country of the world. What makes him think he is smarter than everybody
else? Of does he really think that? Is this all a sham?

Sam Sloan

It is all a sham. There should be luxury solitary confinement for everyone. And all art should be prohibited. It wastes resources.

Stonehenge should be torn down and the pyramids demolished. They are monuments to irrational behavior; wasting time and energy that could have been directed to peace and obesity.

Football should be banned. People who like football should be re-educated to understand the importace of peace and rational, constructive work.

To sum things up, life should be dead. We need more government to help.