Please don't let this happen!

number1cruncher said:

AppleTown said:

wineboyrider said:

As a libertarian I think it's a great idea to wear a helmet, but I also think it's a great idea to own a gun. So if I proposed a law that required you to own a gun would you be in? It's only for your safety of course.

Click to expand...

*Edit: Also, I didn't even get into the fallacy of your statement that mandatory gun ownership is for my safety. Please present some evidence that gun ownership increases safety. There is lots of evidence against that concept.

Click to expand...

I think that Switzerland would be a good example of the consequence of promoting(not requiring) high gun ownership rates. :wink: Very low crime...If you know your neighbor is packin', you're less likely to rob them...

Click to expand...

Please read up on Swiss gun laws, ownership and crime before making such anecdotal statements. Or, better yet, actually visit Switzerland and talk to the people.

Swiss gun laws are nothing about individual liberty and all about community and government. The Swiss require gun ownership as part of mandatory military service, not as individual choice. Guns laws are actually very strict in comparison to the American Libertarian dream world: psychiatric evaluations before allowing to buy, clean criminal records are enforced, extensive training run by the government, acquisition permits needed to be had to go gun shopping, restrictions on gun sales between individuals (individuals need to background check to sell), mandatory inspection of gun storage as part of that military service requirements, logging of most ammunition sales, bans on the sale of specific types of ammunition and specific guns (auto, etc...), and the list goes on and on. Its not uncommon to see people carrying guns in public, but those are almost always militia members (often not in uniform) traveling to or from a mandatory military duty. The process of getting something akin to a US open carry is very restrictive. Shooting sports are indeed popular in Switzerland, but they are also very tightly regulated compared to the US.

Also, the anecdotal idea that there's no gun crime is anecdotally belied by actual mass gun murders like the Swiss guy who killed more than a dozen people in the local parliament back in '01. High gun ownership rates didn't stop him any more than high gun ownership rates in US states like Texas don't stop crime.

number1cruncher said:

...And yes I'm a libertarian, so I am against most governement involvement in our lives. I agree that we should all work together, but not at the price of losing individual freedom and liberty. That was what the US was founded upon. The constitution says nothing about the government providing the means to pursue liberty, freedom and happiness. Its all about the INDIVIDUAL right to pursue these things... But alas, we seem to be moving back toward the very concepts that ignited our forefather's passion to separate from England.

I wonder how long until we are forced to wear breathing aparatus to minimize pollutant intake. I'm sure the carbon monoxide we are huffing is quite bad for us...

Click to expand...

Your last statement makes no sense to me. Air pollution is one of those cases where its completely obvious that individual acts impinge directly on the health, welfare and essential liberty of other people and that we must act as a group to protect individual rights. In the end, we in the US are our government since we're a democracy. Democracy means that individuals participate in the communal act of running their country.

I didn't say that gun ownership prevented crime. But, not allowing citizens as a general whole does lower crime! Washington D.C. has some of the most restrictive gun laws in the U.S. it also has the some of the worst crime. In Mexico to our south it is almost illegal to own a gun. Have you been to Juarez lately? There was recently a mass murder of children in Holland using a gun and they have strict laws about owning a gun.

With freedom comes responsibility. Just because I advocate using a gun (I only have 3 modest ones by the way) does not mean that everyone should.
Libertarians are not narcissistic true libertarians always take responsibility for their actions always. It's every sovereign persons right to make bad choices or good. Libertarians do not believe in forced collectivism. If you want to join your local church and pay 10% tidings there is no one stopping you from doing so. But, if the collective bans guns (Don't forget slavery was legal in the US too) it takes away the rights of the individual.
That's what the US constitution is all about by the way a whole bunch of INDEPENDENT thinkers that were tired of being DEPENDENT on the king of England (think about that as you watch prince Harry Potter get married).
I'll keep my God, guns and the Constitution and you can keep the change.
DON'T STEAL GOVERNMENT HATES THE COMPETITION!

Hi JennyB, hope this doesen't happen, You live in a beautiful country and it dosent seem to me like you need to have forced safety rules upon you in your daily life on a bike by someone else.

Looks like easy and pleasant riding over there (except for the weather)

Cheers

I just reread this thread and have formed some conclusions.

First off, this has been a facinating Civics lesson for me, but Jenny B's original plea boils down to "Should the government mandate helmet use on a bicycle". My take on this is somewhat different, having worked in the medical field for the last 45 years or so. I have seen and treated numerous head injury victims, some of whom were involved in bicycling accidents, many with cars. The head always loses! Head injuries are some of the most expensive medical conditions to treat, and some of those treatments last for years or even lifetimes and can cost upwards of millions of dollars. Who pays for this? Do you have a million bucks to put up as "earnest money" for bicycle accident insurance? I sure don't.

I have had a number of biking accidents over the years and two of them cracked or destroyed my helmets. My head still works. Since the care of head injury victims will definitely fall on society and not the individual, this requirement of wearing a helmet seems reasonable. Accidents are just what they sound like, and as they are happening, it is too late to put on head protection. If you are lucky you will barely have time to say " Oh s*it" before you hit something.
Thank you for tolerating my point of view.
otherDoc

Good points Docnoj. As a person who likes choice I would say in my perfect world that if you don't wear a helmet than you should purchase insurance to cover the potential losses. This is where my socialism sucks aspect comes in. But, I have never said wearing a helmet is stupid. I think it's a good idea to wear one in most situations. In fact, I saw a helmet save my friends head one day MTB riding. Reason and rationalism shall rule the day, but not everyone is reasonable and rational and therefore must suffer the consequences.

I'm not american , and do not understand your facination of "free enterprize" , but forcing someone to buy inshurance sounds worse to me than forcing someone to use a helmet.

I'm not shure I fully understand the difference between liberalism and your libertarianism , but being liberal , in my head does'nt mean you can do as you like , but that you have to accept that other people would like to live different than you.

.manitu

manitu wrote:
I'm not american , and do not understand your facination of "free
enterprize" , but forcing someone to buy inshurance sounds worse to me
than forcing someone to use a helmet.

I'm not shure I fully understand the difference between liberalism and
your libertarianism , but being liberal , in my head does'nt mean you
can do as you like , but that you have to accept that other people
would like to live different than you.

.manitu


Not surprising, there isn't much enterprise up there just an every
decreasing amount of ice and polar bears.

You need 'free enterprize' - private sectors grow economies and they
provide a place for people who want to change things. We owe the
private sector our gratitude for their technological innovations.

Here is my outsider's take on the US's fascination with free enterprise:

It forms the backbone of their society. America is a more of a loose
collection of states than a country. The American Dream partly helps
to meld a disparate collection of people together. It is something
they all buy into and something they fervently agree with.

Of course it is myth - everyone can't become (insert dream of choice)
no matter how hard they try, only a small lucky percentage. It is
illusory but it is a powerful illusion and it fosters a tremendous
sense of optimism and 'can-do'. Something we could all learn from.

There is also this association with free enterprise and democracy that
has become engrained in their culture. Of course it is a false
association - look at Russia and you will see how nonsensical it is.
But the people who first drew, or invented, this connection were
peddling their own agenda.

This connection was further entrenched with the communism
scaremongering which reached its zenith in the 1950's. When we look
back on it now, we realise that communism never had a hope of winning
but it suited others to peddle this fearful rhetoric. It was a dodo in
a world full of pigs.

The US may be over zealous to the point of becoming fanatical about
free enterprise but don't lambaste the private sector. Every country
needs business people to provide employment and create opportunities.
Occasionally, free enterprises change the world. We all know communism
doesn't work. Although this system did make exceptionally long-lived
appliances and their light bulbs will still work for the next couple
of decades!

Differing philosophies are very important but the three biggest
creators of happiness or unhappiness in a society is the economy, the
economy and the economy. There are only two economic options, public
sector and private sector. You need both.

Communism isn't too far from kapitalism , it's still about maximising production and trade , and about exporting more than importing , and so on and so on. Capitalism(and comunism) had it's points in 1700's when prime farmland in europe was overcrowded , and there had to be a reward for cultivating new groun , and finding new resources. Capitalism cant work if there isn't a constant increase in output , somebody has to pay the interest.

But now .. There aint much more to find.. securing a massive pot just mean somebody else has to go without. We need a resource based economy , were it pays off to use less , not selling a new redundant product every year to replace the last product of designed obsolence.

You people who would build a motorised bike by yourself just to cheat the car manufacturers , the insurance business , and the oil companies out of their money should understand what I mean.

.manitu

manitu wrote:
Communism isn't too far from kapitalism , it's still about maximising
production and trade , and about exporting more than importing , and
so on and so on. Capitalism had it's points in 1700's when prime
farmland in europe was overcrowded , and there had to be a reward for
cultivating new groun , and finding new resources. Capitalism cant
work if there isn't a constant increase in output , somebody has to
pay the interest.

But now .. There aint much more to find.. securing a massive pot just
mean somebody else has to go without. We need a resource based economy
, were it pays off to use less , not selling a new redundant product
every year to replace the last product of designed obsolence.

You people who would build a motorised bike by themselves just to
cheat the car manufacturers , the insurance business , and the oil
companies out of their money should understand what I mean.

.manitu


There is a huge distinction between communism and capitalism. The
individual has no place in communism, they are just cogs in the
machine. When people started to realise that they would get paid the
same as everyone else no matter how hard, or how little, they worked -
productivity dropped. All people may be born equal but it doesn't stay
like that for long. Communism is also a closed system. There is no
export/import market. That would defeat the purpose. What I think you
are referring to is industrialisation.

I am unfamiliar with a decrease in agriculture output in the Europe
during the 18th century. I am not sure that was the case. The period
from 1700s to 1900s saw a huge agricultural revolution spearheaded by
Britain. Crop rotation and selective breeding were discovered and
there was a huge farming boom.

Contrary to popular belief there was no famine in Ireland as such.
Food production was very high during those those years. It just
happened that the entire potato crop failed and the people had no
alternative food to eat. They starved to death despite there being
thousands of tonnes of other foods being grown in the country.

Capitalism in its current form is driven by growth - but whose to say
that will stay the same? There is no reason why it has to be
growth-driven other than habit.

However, in its current form, to minimise failure you have to have a
welfare state and a strong public sector. Having this is place negates
the ill-effects of capitalism - so the rewards can be reaped without
any serious disadvantages.

Your point about a lack of resources would be more valid if it we were
living in the 20th century. We have moved away from tangibles and
manufacturing. They are important but services is where the real
growth lies. As long as we keeping creating ideas, we will keep
growing this sector.

As for cheating oil companies etc. It isn't their money, its ours. The
oil isn't even their resource - it belongs to the country that owns
the resource. If our governments doesn't like this we shall have to go
French on them. Was there ever such a nation as good at inspiring
revolution?

I can see this happening in Ireland soon if we don't start getting
results. There are always options.

manitu said:

I'm not american , and do not understand your facination of "free enterprize" , but forcing someone to buy inshurance sounds worse to me than forcing someone to use a helmet.

I'm not shure I fully understand the difference between liberalism and your libertarianism , but being liberal , in my head does'nt mean you can do as you like , but that you have to accept that other people would like to live different than you.

.manitu

Click to expand...

Force is anti-libertarian. Libertarian's don't force anyone to do anything, but if the government (yours or mine) wants to force me to wear a f#### helmet than I should be able to buy insurance so that I don't have too! That's a compromise situation and if you don't understand what american liberty should be about I feel sorry for you
Libertatrian means freedom ends at the tip of my nose and begins at the tip of yours
is :? :? :?

Yeah , my freedom ends where yours begin , but does that mean that you should have the freedom to ride without a helmet or that I should have the freedom to not pay for others folly?

I myself rides with a helmet , a full face one. however when I do a short ride from my job to the shop or similar, on bikepaths and closed off streets , I often ride without. If hurt myself slow riding in town , I will get medical aid , no problem. If I go trail riding without a helmet , I would call it reclessness, and I would not be surprised if I get fined for it if I crash and sets off a rescue operation. I'd still get free medicaid , but that's in this "socialist" country.
(norway)

Back to american politics. I have no problem with a miniscule state ,with minimal taxation , but then every business and producer would have to pay the real value of the resources they use, wich should be divided on the population.And everyone must have acces to said resources for the same price. If big companies can monopolize a comodity ,and deprive the population from using said resources themselves , they should be taxed to death.

.manitu

manitu said:

I myself rides with a helmet , a full face one. however when I do a short ride from my job to the shop or similar, on bikepaths and closed off streets , I often ride without. If hurt myself slow riding in town , I will get medical aid , no problem. If I go trail riding without a helmet , I would call it reclessness, and I would not be surprised if I get fined for it if I crash and sets off a rescue operation. I'd still get free medicaid , but that's in this "socialist" country.

Click to expand...

Good post and good points. I bet the anti-helmet lobby would be the first to cry
for free medical aid when they crack their skull open on the road or in the bush
Unfortunately some people need protecting from themselves, not all
have the power of 'the force' to see what will unfold before it happens
so they can take appropriate action..

KiM

AussieJester wrote:
manitu wrote:

I myself rides with a helmet , a full face one. however when I do a
short ride from my job to the shop or similar, on bikepaths and closed
off streets , I often ride without. If hurt myself slow riding in town
, I will get medical aid , no problem. If I go trail riding without a
helmet , I would call it reclessness, and I would not be surprised if
I get fined for it if I crash and sets off a rescue operation. I'd
still get free medicaid , but that's in this "socialist" country.


Good post and good points. I bet the anti-helmet lobby would be the first to cry
for free medical aid when they crack their skull open on the road or
in the bush
Unfortunately some people need protecting from themselves, not all
have the power of 'the force' to see what will unfold before it happens
so they can take appropriate action..

KiM


The accident prone group - like this guy.

[youtube]T1lBoEeUiGk[/youtube]

manitu said:

Yeah , my freedom ends where yours begin , but does that mean that you should have the freedom to ride without a helmet or that I should have the freedom to not pay for others folly?

I myself rides with a helmet , a full face one. however when I do a short ride from my job to the shop or similar, on bikepaths and closed off streets , I often ride without. If hurt myself slow riding in town , I will get medical aid , no problem. If I go trail riding without a helmet , I would call it reclessness, and I would not be surprised if I get fined for it if I crash and sets off a rescue operation. I'd still get free medicaid , but that's in this "socialist" country.
(norway)

Back to american politics. I have no problem with a miniscule state ,with minimal taxation , but then every business and producer would have to pay the real value of the resources they use, wich should be divided on the population.And everyone must have acces to said resources for the same price. If big companies can monopolize a comodity ,and deprive the population from using said resources themselves , they should be taxed to death.

.manitu

Click to expand...

Agreed on all counts. Capitalism for everyone and most especially for individuals and small companies. What we have in the USA right now is crony capitalism. The corporations and wealthy individuals lobby for special deals for their business etc. Helmet laws might be one of those. In the US it's no secret that helmet laws for motorcycles etc. lobby politicians to make us wear stuff and put stuff in our cars that we may or may not want. I understand there is a point about safety, but then there is also the counterpoint of freedom.

Joseph C. said:

AussieJester said:

manitu said:

I myself rides with a helmet , a full face one. however when I do a short ride from my job to the shop or similar, on bikepaths and closed off streets , I often ride without. If hurt myself slow riding in town , I will get medical aid , no problem. If I go trail riding without a helmet , I would call it reclessness, and I would not be surprised if I get fined for it if I crash and sets off a rescue operation. I'd still get free medicaid , but that's in this "socialist" country.

Click to expand...

Good post and good points. I bet the anti-helmet lobby would be the first to cry
for free medical aid when they crack their skull open on the road or in the bush
Unfortunately some people need protecting from themselves, not all
have the power of 'the force' to see what will unfold before it happens
so they can take appropriate action..

KiM

Click to expand...

The accident prone group - like this guy.

[youtube]T1lBoEeUiGk[/youtube]

Click to expand...

EeeeeXaCtly !!! ^^^Should not ride e-bike without helmet^^^ ...should probably not ride e-bike period LoL :lol:
I had seen half a dozen of those bloopers before most were new too me... and funny!!! DAMN! i laughed at some of those
too freakin funny ...thanks for that

KiM

p.s i would like to add, when younger and walking i hit my shin a few times on the tow bar of my ute exactly like in above
video, damn! it hurts

The national parks here in the US have recently instituted a lot of restrictions on mountain climbers and hikers. Some are common sense, such as requiring that they have at least one working GPS (lost hikers that almost freeze to death are common). The problem has been whenever someone doesn't report back in, dozens of park rangers have to begin searching for someone. Occasionally the search includes a helicopter or two. You can imagine the costs.

When a family member calls up to report that their spouse hasn't returned from a mountain climb, should they not search? Should climbing groups be required to pay search insurance? Should I pay a higher federal tax to cover park and coast guard search costs, when I don't climb or sail?

Emergency rooms are closing down in Southern California as a result of unpaid medical help that they are required by law to provide. Who does it help if there is no emergency room for lack of funding?

spinningmagnets said:

The national parks here in the US have recently instituted a lot of restrictions on mountain climbers and hikers. Some are common sense, such as requiring that they have at least one working GPS (lost hikers that almost freeze to death are common). The problem has been whenever someone doesn't report back in, dozens of park rangers have to begin searching for someone. Occasionally the search includes a helicopter or two. You can imagine the costs.

When a family member calls up to report that their spouse hasn't returned from a mountain climb, should they not search? Should climbing groups be required to pay search insurance? Should I pay a higher federal tax to cover park and coast guard search costs, when I don't climb or sail?

Emergency rooms are closing down in Southern California as a result of unpaid medical help that they are required by law to provide. Who does it help if there is no emergency room for lack of funding?

Click to expand...

Great example of why people should be held accountable for their stupid actions. Unfortunately, good laws do not make good people. As long as people are willing and held accountable for their decisions then I have no problem with that. I remember a few years back we had some tourists from Germany that were camping in Northern NM and they started a fire and caused thousands of dollars in damage. They were fined and had to do community service. They came back the next year in summer and finished their community service. I thought they were grand examples of doing what is right. Bottom line is education and communicating that there are consequences for society and others if you don't do such and such. With freedom comes responsibility.

I can't believe how stupid some americans are...

If seat belts, helmets, proper gun laws (ie. NO GUNS AT ALL for joe public) and public health care are socialism, then A LITTLE SOCIALISM IS A GOOD THING.


Now got and pay your damn taxes. With your taxes you buy civilisation, and you lot need some civilising.

I don't think the problem USA has with gun related crime has anything to do with the numbers of firearms in the population. People will find a way to kill when they feel for it. The countries with highest gun countries has minimal problems compared to you. (Norway , Canada , Switzerland)
But don't fool yourself into believing that mandatory guns will solve anything . I think it has more to do with people feeling they got no options. People felt like that in the Soviet Union too , mybe not the same kind of people , but..
And Now.. lots of folks in Russia , Georgia , Ukraine , etc. say they had it better under communism.. Some people thrive under free capitalism . wile some feel secure under a social democracy. We should try to make a system wich cares for everyone.

But we must never loose sight of the IDEAL of personal freedom.

.manitu

Mark_A_W said:

I can't believe how stupid some americans are...

If seat belts, helmets, proper gun laws (ie. NO GUNS AT ALL for joe public) and public health care are socialism, then A LITTLE SOCIALISM IS A GOOD THING.


Now got and pay your damn taxes. With your taxes you buy civilisation, and you lot need some civilising.

Click to expand...

Bow down and kiss your queens ass! What we do in our country is our sovereign choice and stay out of it! If you want to have 200 watt electric motors on your bicycles go ahead.
Manitu has it right it depends on the values of the people from where they come. In the US it is a right to keep and bear arms! Some socialism is ok, but forced socialism is slavery! Free and individual persons should have the right to join a collective or not. That's why many Americans are fighting the healthcare law.
That's why the US is democratic republic and not a penal colony of the UK monarchy.
There are individual rights in my country that have been trampled by socialistic ideas that are historically totally counter to what the US stands for.

I do agree with Wineboyrider when he said "Cyclists who don't wear helmets have less accidents and therefore less injuries. There are lies damn lies and statistics as Mark Twain said... ". It is true that cyclist that don't wear helmets have a lower percentage of accidents, because their population is so much larger than those who do wear them, assuming that the random events that generate an accident occur with an even distribution across the combined population. 10 people out of a 1000 is a large percentage, but 10 people out of 100000 is not. Should it be the decision of the individual to choose to wear a helmet or not? I suppose it depends as mentioned before whether or not you have public health care or not. If you had public health care, then it would make sense to reduce the burden that would be placed on the system by your injury by forcing you to wear a helmet to reduce the chance of injury. If you have private health care, then the burden falls on a smaller group, which means you would likely have your insurance cancel once you became a loss on the books, and then you would become a burden to your family if you had any or simply live out your life on the streets or become a burden to the state. If I were a betting man, I would think that you would end up on the streets in the USA if you didn't have a family to bankrupt from the medical bills.

It is also really funny how right leaning americans always seem to degrade arguments to us against them or capitalism against the world. Capitalism as practice today in the USA is just as flawed as Communism practiced by the former USSR or China. Both lead to inherent corruption of the controlling elite. In the case of the USA, those who have the deepest pockets control the interests of your country, and those people who elected the politicians into office have very little say on what happens thereafter. Perhaps that is what capitalism is all about....

Electroglide wrote:
It is also really funny how right leaning americans always seem to
degrade arguments to us against them or capitalism against the world.
Capitalism as practice today in the USA is just as flawed as Communism
practiced by the former USSR or China. Both lead to inherent
corruption of the controlling elite. In the case of the USA, those who
have the deepest pockets control the interests of your country, and
those people who elected the politicians into office have very little
say on what happens thereafter. Perhaps that is what capitalism is all
about....


You stoke an interesting point, Electroglide. Perhaps we are deluding
ourselves and no matter what system, or mix of systems, is used the
personal axiology of self-centred entrepreneurialism and the social
values of elitism will take over.

But the existence of countries such as Denmark and Scandinavia shows
that it doesn't have to be like that. Granted their northern latitude
helps, as does being mainly Protestant. But they prove that it is
possible.

Joseph C wrote: social values of elitism will take over

Click to expand...

Progressives and the progressive movement in the USA is all about elitism. The "elite" class makes choices for the "stupid" class. This is also a slippery slope towards to ideas like "racism" and yes I am sorry to say even "genocide", because the "elite" class lose touch with the common people and rule like kings over them, because of their "superiority" complex.
Bottom line for me is it's ok to be subservient to the governments rules as long as the government is first subservient to the will of the people. 8) 8)
Live freely.

wineboyrider said:

Joseph C wrote: social values of elitism will take over

Click to expand...

Progressives and the progressive movement in the USA is all about elitism. The "elite" class makes choices for the "stupid" class. This is also a slippery slope towards to ideas like "racism" and yes I am sorry to say even "genocide", because the "elite" class lose touch with the common people and rule like kings over them, because of their "superiority" complex.
Bottom line for me is it's ok to be subservient to the governments rules as long as the government is first subservient to the will of the people. 8) 8)
Live freely.

Click to expand...

Please read up on the consummate progressive, Republican Governor of Wisconsin Robert La Follete, before you repeat such foolish comments. Seriously, its embarrassing to read what you've written. La Follete founded the Progressive party, was an ardent fighter against the Klu Klux Klan, and his anti-corporate platform was anything but elitism. The progressive movement in America, which continues from La Follette's time, has long been concerned with the dominance of corporations over actual people's voices in democratic government. Progressive politics are all about giving voice and power to those who are neither the hereditary nor corporate elites.

La Follete himself said:
"So multifarious have become corporate affairs, so many concessions and privileges have been accorded them by legislation -- so many more are sought by further legislation -- that their specially retained representatives are either elected to office, directly in their interests, or maintained in a perpetual lobby to serve them.”

“Hence it is that the corporation does not limit its operations to the legitimate conduct of its business. Human nature everywhere is selfish, and with the vast power which consolidated capital can wield, with the impossibility of fixing any personal or moral responsibility for corporate acts, its commands are heard and obeyed in the capitals of the state and nation.”

“When legislatures will boldly repudiate their constituents and violate the pledges of their platforms, then indeed have the servants become the masters, and the people ceased to be sovereign -- gone the government of equal rights and equal responsibilities, lost the jewel of constitutional liberty. Do not look to such lawmakers to restrain corporations within proper limits. Do not look to such lawmakers to equalize the burden of taxation.”

@ Appletown: First off the I am not an R and yes there are progressives that hark back to both of the US modern day political parties. All modern day movements take on different meanings and today's "progressive movement" has many different leanings than La Follete's.
If all modern day "progressives" were more like La Follette I might could be a fan, but there is a sinister side to "progressivism" one of them is
Eugenics

Some progressives, especially among economists, sponsored eugenics as a collectivist solution to excessively large or underperforming families, hoping that birth control would enable parents to focus their resources on fewer, better children.[26] However, most Progressives insisted on individual solutions, and there were no major national, state or local programs along eugenics lines. Progressive leaders like Herbert Croly and Walter Lippmann indicated their classically liberal concern over the danger posed to the individual by collectivism and statism.[27] The Catholics, although favoring collectivism, strongly opposed eugenics proposals such as birth control.
The modern field and term were first formulated by Sir Francis Galton in 1883,[12] drawing on the recent work of his half-cousin Charles Darwin.[13][14] At its peak of popularity eugenics was supported by prominent people, including Winston Churchill,[15] Margaret Sanger,[16][17] Marie Stopes, H. G. Wells, Theodore Roosevelt, George Bernard Shaw, John Maynard Keynes, John Harvey Kellogg, Linus Pauling[18] and Sidney Webb.[19][20][21] Its most infamous proponent and practitioner was, however, Adolf Hitler who praised and incorporated eugenic ideas in Mein Kampf and emulated Eugenic legislation for the sterilization of "defectives" that had been pioneered in the United States. Thanks to Margaret Sanger and the "progressive".
Dont ask me what I think about John Maynard Keynes.
Read: Mises, Hayek, Rothbard, Bastiat, or Hazlitt.