I don't know about the rest of you sheep, but I'm about sick of paying other people to live. If you can't afford health care, then you need to get a better job. You can't afford to put food on the table? Get a better job. I'm really tired of my hard earned money going to support the people that choose not to work. I'm sick of people having more kids than they can afford and then I get to split the bill. I'm sick of illegal immigrants getting free college when I had to pay every dollor of my education. Do away with food stamps. Do away with Medicaid/Medicare. Know what happens when you go to the hospital/doctor when you don’t have health insurance? They send you a bill. They do not charge interest. Pay the bastards $10 bucks a month for the next 10 years and you’ll have that paid off. Don’t make me pay the bill with my tax dollars! Here is a short story for you:
My wife's sister has 4 kids. She lives in these apartments. The government actually PAYS her to live there. Instead of paying rent like the rest of us she gets ~$10.00 a month to live where she is.
Why do soooo many people feel the need to have the government hold their hand cradle to grave?!?! RON PAUL 2012!!!
Heck, I agree with you. Why allow children to go to school for free? Im sick of paying for ungrateful children. That way 15 years down the road I can hire them at $1 an hou...wait what? Minimum wage? Why should the government tell me what I can pay my employees? How dare they! I'm going to drive down to the legislature and compla...what...a new road? What is this? Why am i paying for this so other people can use it? Everyone should get a pass for every road they have helped pay for or there should be a toll with a swipe card...enough of these freeloading drivers.
Moral of the story: Social welfare provides the structure society needs to be maintained and to keep it from collapsing. If you enable people who have money from the outset you eventually truncate a huge portion of your population who will eventually resent your education and wealth...and then your country turns into a constant police state. If you like this type of free enterprise system so much where basic necessities are not provided for? Move to Brazil or Argentina or something. Plenty of laissez-faire there.
Why does the government(my tax dollars) need to provide basic necessities to the people unwilling to work for it themselves? If the parents of those children can't afford to put their kids in school then they shouldn't of had kids to beging with.
Screw it. I'm quitting my job and YOU can put the food on my table.
I'm not going to argue with you, there is no point. Some people want to earn their way, while others want the government to spoon feed them.
Socialized health care is obviously the way to go. #1: it is less expensive per capita #2: it provides coverage for everyone, allowing for a healthier society #3 it fulfills constitutional principles of caring for the "general welfare of society' #4: it is more equitable to a society that, as part of the social contract, mandates equal opportunity for everyone Pretty simple if you think of it that way. Black and white arguments against health care usually result in using false analogies for systems that simply work better when market forces are involved. Unfortunately most advocates of these free markets don't realize is that you need a social support system to bring those markets into fruition. The essentials: education, health care, shelter, food, protection. Almost every (edit: developed!) nation provides these as essentials of living and participating in society. America does this too...minus one...health care. Pretty archaic if you ask me. I've seen examples of social systems that definitely play by free market principles without such social safety nets: pay for your police, your fire fighters, your primary education, and no welfare system minus religious charity. They don't do so hot. Libertarian ideals fail in the real world. SOCIAL contracts, properly implemented with rigorously enforced constitutions, are where its at.
A contract is a voluntary agreement. YOU are advocating force.
Can I ask where in that post I'm advocating force? Please? I couldn't even find a portion of my post where you could even insinuate force.
Wrong post? Lol?
Every use of goverment to any end is the use of force to that end.
Oh brother. Srsly?
That is what government IS. Government are those things that we are willing to force people to do. Laws are instruments of force. Government programs are instruments of force. It's quite simply what they ARE by definition.
Play the childish argument to ridicule game all you want, you obviously don't know what government is by its very nature. I would say that disqualifies you from conversation on this matter.
You can paint the picture anyway you want and advocate that "force is bad" and therefore "government is bad" but you fail in providing a pragmatic (or even idealistic) alternative.
Sure principled "force" (using your wide-arced definition) is used to enforce a social contract. It sure beats the alternative of arbitrary force in an anarchistic environment. But liberty in any practical sense is enforced through liberal democracies that protect positive liberties through social contracts. Or, as a libertarian, forgotten your "Treatise of Government" lectures in phil. class?
Philosophy was fun when I was 20. I prefer the real world now and real world solutions and not blanket criticisms of law and government. Reality check please.
I didn't say "force is bad" I merely said that GOVERNMENT is force by its very nature, and therefore we should be VERY careful how we limit that force when applied to our neighbors. I feel it is wrong to put a gun to your neighbor's head and take your health care form him.
You don't.
I agree you have to be careful. Any force or enforcement of the social contract should be:
1. Non-arbitrary: rule of law, constitutions
2. Adaptable: functional tools and systems for change
3. Accountable: independent branches of government, remedies as strong as the rules
These things protect the population from their government. You won't always like the balance or the compromises made...but such is life.
Your rules could create a totalitarian ociety. Everything we do, say, make and love fits into those categories. You have removed people's ownership of themselves and their property from the equation: therefore there will be no liberty in your view.
I don't know about the rest of you sheep, but I'm about sick of paying other people to live. If you can't afford health care, then you need to get a better job. You can't afford to put food on the table? Get a better job. I'm really tired of my hard earned money going to support the people that choose not to work. I'm sick of people having more kids than they can afford and then I get to split the bill. I'm sick of illegal immigrants getting free college when I had to pay every dollor of my education. Do away with food stamps. Do away with Medicaid/Medicare. Know what happens when you go to the hospital/doctor when you don’t have health insurance? They send you a bill. They do not charge interest. Pay the bastards $10 bucks a month for the next 10 years and you’ll have that paid off. Don’t make me pay the bill with my tax dollars! Here is a short story for you:
My wife's sister has 4 kids. She lives in these apartments. The government actually PAYS her to live there. Instead of paying rent like the rest of us she gets ~$10.00 a month to live where she is.
Why do soooo many people feel the need to have the government hold their hand cradle to grave?!?! RON PAUL 2012!!!
Heck, I agree with you. Why allow children to go to school for free? Im sick of paying for ungrateful children. That way 15 years down the road I can hire them at $1 an hou...wait what? Minimum wage? Why should the government tell me what I can pay my employees? How dare they! I'm going to drive down to the legislature and compla...what...a new road? What is this? Why am i paying for this so other people can use it? Everyone should get a pass for every road they have helped pay for or there should be a toll with a swipe card...enough of these freeloading drivers.
Moral of the story: Social welfare provides the structure society needs to be maintained and to keep it from collapsing. If you enable people who have money from the outset you eventually truncate a huge portion of your population who will eventually resent your education and wealth...and then your country turns into a constant police state. If you like this type of free enterprise system so much where basic necessities are not provided for? Move to Brazil or Argentina or something. Plenty of laissez-faire there.
Once again, argument to ridicule. Thank you for showing you can't argue politely.
How about we stick to the topic? we can discuss other uses for government force in another thread. Why is it right and proper to use force to take the money from one person to pay for the health care of another.
If you really care so much about people who don't have health care, why aren;t you helping them? why are you instead advocating using force to take from one group and give to another? If you care, help people outright, don't force.
If YOU are right, everyone should be willing to help one another. If you need to force people, what makes you so sure you are right?
I argued politely...I was simply using a salient example to demonstrate the absurdity of these pure capitalist arguments who advocate scrapping medicaid and medicare.
And as for the rest of your post: I believe in equity as a principle of government and also a goal of government. Therefore it is far more satisfying to apportion help through a government agency rather than have help provided through arbitrary measures (such as individual charity). These solutions are mandated through elected officials in whatever liberal democratic format you so choose to provide representative government. The force is really nothing more than the will of the people to distribute the fruits of the society that everyone helps to maintain (yes, maintenance is as important as generation).
You may not agree with that distribution. You may stretch property arguments to include chattels and income. That is a philosophical argument and as it stands that argument has failed in all political arenas. The ultimate heir of property in today's world is the government and is distributed through ownership in fee simple (at best) and nothing more. That is an extremely high level of ownership on any liberty scale...to ask for more is stretching the boundaries of what Republics and Parliaments are willing to concede.
Sorry if that bugs you...I can see it does. But it is not going to change.
Edit: And furthermore, there is no real world example showing why it SHOULD change.
Why does the government(my tax dollars) need to provide basic necessities to the people unwilling to work for it themselves? If the parents of those children can't afford to put their kids in school then they shouldn't of had kids to beging with.
Screw it. I'm quitting my job and YOU can put the food on my table.
I'm not going to argue with you, there is no point. Some people want to earn their way, while others want the government to spoon feed them.
If you feel so strained by the burden to maintain society...perhaps you should get a better job so the loss of tax dollars doesn't so adversely affect your life. Last time I checked if you clear $40,000 a year and lose $10k a year on taxes you are still far better off than someone on welfare.
You completely ignore the argument of "wanting the government to spoon feed". I don't want people leeching when they can legitimately work. But in the real world there are people who can't work and if you don't offer a means of PACIFYING them they will end up costing you a lot more money when they decide to feed themselves by robbing, stealing, and generally working towards the destruction of society.
When you destroy social welfare you prevent a whole class of people from (realistically) ever bouncing back and becoming contributing members of society you create social distress. And then you either need police squads (see Brazil) or totalitarian states (see China) to protect you from the disadvantaged citizen.
It is in your best interest to put 1/3 of your income towards supporting social infrastructure...even though it may suck.
I don't know about the rest of you sheep, but I'm about sick of paying other people to live. If you can't afford health care, then you need to get a better job. You can't afford to put food on the table? Get a better job. I'm really tired of my hard earned money going to support the people that choose not to work. I'm sick of people having more kids than they can afford and then I get to split the bill. I'm sick of illegal immigrants getting free college when I had to pay every dollor of my education. Do away with food stamps. Do away with Medicaid/Medicare. Know what happens when you go to the hospital/doctor when you don’t have health insurance? They send you a bill. They do not charge interest. Pay the bastards $10 bucks a month for the next 10 years and you’ll have that paid off. Don’t make me pay the bill with my tax dollars! Here is a short story for you:
My wife's sister has 4 kids. She lives in these apartments. The government actually PAYS her to live there. Instead of paying rent like the rest of us she gets ~$10.00 a month to live where she is.
Why do soooo many people feel the need to have the government hold their hand cradle to grave?!?! RON PAUL 2012!!!
Heck, I agree with you. Why allow children to go to school for free? Im sick of paying for ungrateful children. That way 15 years down the road I can hire them at $1 an hou...wait what? Minimum wage? Why should the government tell me what I can pay my employees? How dare they! I'm going to drive down to the legislature and compla...what...a new road? What is this? Why am i paying for this so other people can use it? Everyone should get a pass for every road they have helped pay for or there should be a toll with a swipe card...enough of these freeloading drivers.
Moral of the story: Social welfare provides the structure society needs to be maintained and to keep it from collapsing. If you enable people who have money from the outset you eventually truncate a huge portion of your population who will eventually resent your education and wealth...and then your country turns into a constant police state. If you like this type of free enterprise system so much where basic necessities are not provided for? Move to Brazil or Argentina or something. Plenty of laissez-faire there.
Once again, argument to ridicule. Thank you for showing you can't argue politely.
How about we stick to the topic? we can discuss other uses for government force in another thread. Why is it right and proper to use force to take the money from one person to pay for the health care of another.
If you really care so much about people who don't have health care, why aren;t you helping them? why are you instead advocating using force to take from one group and give to another? If you care, help people outright, don't force.
If YOU are right, everyone should be willing to help one another. If you need to force people, what makes you so sure you are right?
I argued politely...I was simply using a salient example to demonstrate the absurdity of these pure capitalist arguments who advocate scrapping medicaid and medicare.
And as for the rest of your post: I believe in equity as a principle of government and also a goal of government. Therefore it is far more satisfying to apportion help through a government agency rather than have help provided through arbitrary measures (such as individual charity). These solutions are mandated through elected officials in whatever liberal democratic format you so choose to provide representative government. The force is really nothing more than the will of the people to distribute the fruits of the society that everyone helps to maintain (yes, maintenance is as important as generation).
You may not agree with that distribution. You may stretch property arguments to include chattels and income. That is a philosophical argument and as it stands that argument has failed in all political arenas. The ultimate heir of property in today's world is the government and is distributed through ownership in fee simple (at best) and nothing more. That is an extremely high level of ownership on any liberty scale...to ask for more is stretching the boundaries of what Republics and Parliaments are willing to concede.
Sorry if that bugs you...I can see it does. But it is not going to change.
Edit: And furthermore, there is no real world example showing why it SHOULD change.
Not everyone is contributing these fruits. And that is the problem I have.
The single mother with 7 kids that hasn't worked a day in her life isn't contributing. She is leeching.
If everyone paid their fair share then my opinion would change greatly.
I don't know about the rest of you sheep, but I'm about sick of paying other people to live. If you can't afford health care, then you need to get a better job. You can't afford to put food on the table? Get a better job. I'm really tired of my hard earned money going to support the people that choose not to work. I'm sick of people having more kids than they can afford and then I get to split the bill. I'm sick of illegal immigrants getting free college when I had to pay every dollor of my education. Do away with food stamps. Do away with Medicaid/Medicare. Know what happens when you go to the hospital/doctor when you don’t have health insurance? They send you a bill. They do not charge interest. Pay the bastards $10 bucks a month for the next 10 years and you’ll have that paid off. Don’t make me pay the bill with my tax dollars! Here is a short story for you:
My wife's sister has 4 kids. She lives in these apartments. The government actually PAYS her to live there. Instead of paying rent like the rest of us she gets ~$10.00 a month to live where she is.
Why do soooo many people feel the need to have the government hold their hand cradle to grave?!?! RON PAUL 2012!!!
Heck, I agree with you. Why allow children to go to school for free? Im sick of paying for ungrateful children. That way 15 years down the road I can hire them at $1 an hou...wait what? Minimum wage? Why should the government tell me what I can pay my employees? How dare they! I'm going to drive down to the legislature and compla...what...a new road? What is this? Why am i paying for this so other people can use it? Everyone should get a pass for every road they have helped pay for or there should be a toll with a swipe card...enough of these freeloading drivers.
Moral of the story: Social welfare provides the structure society needs to be maintained and to keep it from collapsing. If you enable people who have money from the outset you eventually truncate a huge portion of your population who will eventually resent your education and wealth...and then your country turns into a constant police state. If you like this type of free enterprise system so much where basic necessities are not provided for? Move to Brazil or Argentina or something. Plenty of laissez-faire there.
Once again, argument to ridicule. Thank you for showing you can't argue politely.
How about we stick to the topic? we can discuss other uses for government force in another thread. Why is it right and proper to use force to take the money from one person to pay for the health care of another.
If you really care so much about people who don't have health care, why aren;t you helping them? why are you instead advocating using force to take from one group and give to another? If you care, help people outright, don't force.
If YOU are right, everyone should be willing to help one another. If you need to force people, what makes you so sure you are right?
I argued politely...I was simply using a salient example to demonstrate the absurdity of these pure capitalist arguments who advocate scrapping medicaid and medicare.
And as for the rest of your post: I believe in equity as a principle of government and also a goal of government. Therefore it is far more satisfying to apportion help through a government agency rather than have help provided through arbitrary measures (such as individual charity). These solutions are mandated through elected officials in whatever liberal democratic format you so choose to provide representative government. The force is really nothing more than the will of the people to distribute the fruits of the society that everyone helps to maintain (yes, maintenance is as important as generation).
You may not agree with that distribution. You may stretch property arguments to include chattels and income. That is a philosophical argument and as it stands that argument has failed in all political arenas. The ultimate heir of property in today's world is the government and is distributed through ownership in fee simple (at best) and nothing more. That is an extremely high level of ownership on any liberty scale...to ask for more is stretching the boundaries of what Republics and Parliaments are willing to concede.
Sorry if that bugs you...I can see it does. But it is not going to change.
Nothing here bugs me -- you misread my tone completely. I amused and slightly bored; nothing more.
Basically you advocate a totalitarian society with your ideas. Universal food, universal healthcare, universal shlelter, universal clothing -- to use our own tactics against you.
My principles are responsible for creating the richest societies in the history of mankind -- YOUR principles have impoverished nation after nation.
The more libertarian a society is, the richer it is; the less, the poorer. That is pretty much applicable in all places and all times throughout history.
The reason this WORKS is because it is moral. But again, we have seen, because YOU can't effectively morally justify what you want, YOU have to jump back into the utilitarian argument -- which is always infinitely debatable.
Look at yourself and the intellectual games you are playing. We bicker and dicker over what works better; and since we can not come to agreement over that, because we can both play statistical games all day; I ask to switch to the ethical considerations. YOU CAN'T COPE WITH THAT, so first you must shift grounds, then when that fails, you have to jump back to the old, unsettleable argument.
Look at the circle you are creating. Why are you trapped in this mental loop?
Once again why is it right and proper to force your neighbor to provide health care for another neighbor? By what right do you take another man's property and give it to another? Why can't you help the people you want tp on your own by just doing it, instead of using brute force to make others do it for you?
I don't know about the rest of you sheep, but I'm about sick of paying other people to live. If you can't afford health care, then you need to get a better job. You can't afford to put food on the table? Get a better job. I'm really tired of my hard earned money going to support the people that choose not to work. I'm sick of people having more kids than they can afford and then I get to split the bill. I'm sick of illegal immigrants getting free college when I had to pay every dollor of my education. Do away with food stamps. Do away with Medicaid/Medicare. Know what happens when you go to the hospital/doctor when you don’t have health insurance? They send you a bill. They do not charge interest. Pay the bastards $10 bucks a month for the next 10 years and you’ll have that paid off. Don’t make me pay the bill with my tax dollars! Here is a short story for you:
My wife's sister has 4 kids. She lives in these apartments. The government actually PAYS her to live there. Instead of paying rent like the rest of us she gets ~$10.00 a month to live where she is.
Why do soooo many people feel the need to have the government hold their hand cradle to grave?!?! RON PAUL 2012!!!
Heck, I agree with you. Why allow children to go to school for free? Im sick of paying for ungrateful children. That way 15 years down the road I can hire them at $1 an hou...wait what? Minimum wage? Why should the government tell me what I can pay my employees? How dare they! I'm going to drive down to the legislature and compla...what...a new road? What is this? Why am i paying for this so other people can use it? Everyone should get a pass for every road they have helped pay for or there should be a toll with a swipe card...enough of these freeloading drivers.
Moral of the story: Social welfare provides the structure society needs to be maintained and to keep it from collapsing. If you enable people who have money from the outset you eventually truncate a huge portion of your population who will eventually resent your education and wealth...and then your country turns into a constant police state. If you like this type of free enterprise system so much where basic necessities are not provided for? Move to Brazil or Argentina or something. Plenty of laissez-faire there.
Once again, argument to ridicule. Thank you for showing you can't argue politely.
How about we stick to the topic? we can discuss other uses for government force in another thread. Why is it right and proper to use force to take the money from one person to pay for the health care of another.
If you really care so much about people who don't have health care, why aren;t you helping them? why are you instead advocating using force to take from one group and give to another? If you care, help people outright, don't force.
If YOU are right, everyone should be willing to help one another. If you need to force people, what makes you so sure you are right?
I argued politely...I was simply using a salient example to demonstrate the absurdity of these pure capitalist arguments who advocate scrapping medicaid and medicare.
And as for the rest of your post: I believe in equity as a principle of government and also a goal of government. Therefore it is far more satisfying to apportion help through a government agency rather than have help provided through arbitrary measures (such as individual charity). These solutions are mandated through elected officials in whatever liberal democratic format you so choose to provide representative government. The force is really nothing more than the will of the people to distribute the fruits of the society that everyone helps to maintain (yes, maintenance is as important as generation).
You may not agree with that distribution. You may stretch property arguments to include chattels and income. That is a philosophical argument and as it stands that argument has failed in all political arenas. The ultimate heir of property in today's world is the government and is distributed through ownership in fee simple (at best) and nothing more. That is an extremely high level of ownership on any liberty scale...to ask for more is stretching the boundaries of what Republics and Parliaments are willing to concede.
Sorry if that bugs you...I can see it does. But it is not going to change.
Edit: And furthermore, there is no real world example showing why it SHOULD change.
Not everyone is contributing these fruits. And that is the problem I have.
The single mother with 7 kids that hasn't worked a day in her life isn't contributing. She is leeching.
If everyone paid their fair share then my opinion would change greatly.
basically all he is saying is that if he can get a big enough gang, it makes his force moral. I disagree with that principle.
Why does the government(my tax dollars) need to provide basic necessities to the people unwilling to work for it themselves? If the parents of those children can't afford to put their kids in school then they shouldn't of had kids to beging with.
Screw it. I'm quitting my job and YOU can put the food on my table.
I'm not going to argue with you, there is no point. Some people want to earn their way, while others want the government to spoon feed them.
If you feel so strained by the burden to maintain society...perhaps you should get a better job so the loss of tax dollars doesn't so adversely affect your life. Last time I checked if you clear $40,000 a year and lose $10k a year on taxes you are still far better off than someone on welfare.
You completely ignore the argument of "wanting the government to spoon feed". I don't want people leeching when they can legitimately work. But in the real world there are people who can't work and if you don't offer a means of PACIFYING them they will end up costing you a lot more money when they decide to feed themselves by robbing, stealing, and generally working towards the destruction of society.
When you destroy social welfare you prevent a whole class of people from (realistically) ever bouncing back and becoming contributing members of society you create social distress. And then you either need police squads (see Brazil) or totalitarian states (see China) to protect you from the disadvantaged citizen.
It is in your best interest to put 1/3 of your income towards supporting social infrastructure...even though it may suck.
Besides the fact that I have to work everyday for my money and they get to sit around the house watching TV for theirs.
You know just as well as I do that these people don't want to bounce back. Why would they? They have it made.
Most people that get food stamps eat a whole lot better than I do making 55k+ a year. And you're okay with this??
I'm not.
edit*
Okay. You can't afford to put food on your table? Here is a bag of beans and a sack of rice. It should last you a month. Next month you'll get another bag of beans/sack of rice.
Nope. Instead here is $500 in food stamps. Go ahead and buy those 24pcks of Mountain Dew, doritos, and choclate chip cookies. Heaven forbid you not have the "necessities".
Not everyone is contributing these fruits. And that is the problem I have.
The single mother with 7 kids that hasn't worked a day in her life isn't contributing. She is leeching. If everyone paid their fair share then my opinion would change greatly.
Hey, don't get me wrong...I get it. I am of the belief though that everyone has intrinsic value and everyone has dignity that should be respected. And that intrinsic value, by its very nature, cannot come from extrinsic things (such as working). We all by nature get why it is important to work (if we are lucky enough to have our mental faculty). People who don't work are often screwed up in some way. It need not be a diagnosed condition. We need to keep them afloat at some level of sustenance while still making life uncomfortable enough that people do not want to maintain it. It is a tough balance.
Not everyone is contributing these fruits. And that is the problem I have.
The single mother with 7 kids that hasn't worked a day in her life isn't contributing. She is leeching. If everyone paid their fair share then my opinion would change greatly.
Hey, don't get me wrong...I get it. I am of the belief though that everyone has intrinsic value and everyone has dignity that should be respected. And that intrinsic value, by its very nature, cannot come from extrinsic things (such as working). We all by nature get why it is important to work (if we are lucky enough to have our mental faculty). People who don't work are often screwed up in some way. It need not be a diagnosed condition. We need to keep them afloat at some level of sustenance while still making life uncomfortable enough that people do not want to maintain it. It is a tough balance.
100% agree. People aren't going to go out and do for themselves when they have it better having the government do it for them.
I think my rice and beans is a good example. Or maybe we should limit the amount of time a person is allowed to get government assistance?
I don't have a fix for the problem, but we need to come up with one.
Nothing here bugs me -- you misread my tone completely. I amused and slightly bored; nothing more. Basically you advocate a totalitarian society with your ideas. Universal food, universal healthcare, universal shlelter, universal clothing -- to use our own tactics against you. My principles are responsible for creating the richest societies in the history of mankind -- YOUR principles have impoverished nation after nation. The more libertarian a society is, the richer it is; the less, the poorer. That is pretty much applicable in all places and all times throughout history. The reason this WORKS is because it is moral. But again, we have seen, because YOU can't effectively morally justify what you want, YOU have to jump back into the utilitarian argument -- which is always infinitely debatable. Look at yourself and the intellectual games you are playing. We bicker and dicker over what works better; and since we can not come to agreement over that, because we can both play statistical games all day; I ask to switch to the ethical considerations. YOU CAN'T COPE WITH THAT, so first you must shift grounds, then when that fails, you have to jump back to the old, unsettleable argument. Look at the circle you are creating. Why are you trapped in this mental loop? Once again why is it right and proper to force your neighbor to provide health care for another neighbor? By what right do you take another man's property and give it to another? Why can't you help the people you want tp on your own by just doing it, instead of using brute force to make others do it for you?
I don't really know how to respond to this. You really sorta go off-topic:
#1: You misappropriate liberal democracies with totalitarian states. Opposite ends of the spectrum...poli sci 101.
#2: Dogmatic unsupported statements of how well your principles work. I'll take socialist states like Germany, France, Canada, UK, and the US as being the richest societies ever created versus your examples of libertarian wealth.
#3: Irrational comments on the morality of my argument...did I ever even mention this? When did you make the switch this to an ethical debate which I can't hope to COPE with...quote unquote.
#4: And then I'm supposedly using circular logic. I have no idea where this came in...please let me know.
#5: To top it off at the very end after I completely explained my position you sneakily try and edit your question to center around the moral rights of "redistribution of property". Like I didn't answer that indirectly by referencing Locke. However, do I need to be explicit now, even when I have no idea what you are trying to prove or demonstrate? And by the way your notions of force are convenient and conflate choice with force and force with coercion. Very convenient.
You are one strange cat, and no that is not ad hominem because I'm not using your character to counter your arguments. I'm just mentioning that you are sorta weird. I repeat, this comment has nothing to do with your arguments! And on that note can i ask a question? What do you do for a living? Might shed some insight for me...thanks.
How about instead of launching more personal attacks you actually provide real data
Plus the Cato institute is far from right wing. Libertarians are not conservatives. We are beyond your left wing/right wing false dichotomy. Way to launch FURTHER personal attacks. More and more I simply see people of the left simply do not know how to have a polite discussion anymore. My how shrill you've become. namecalling, argument to ridicule, the list of shabby tactics never ends. READ the report and PROVE it's wrong; or find a reasonable critique and share it.
You didn't read a word I posted.
That's okay, I guess your crazy philosophy insulates you from reality. And that, my friend, is a personal attack. It's okay, by blatantly ignoring the facts and figures and data I posted, you earned it. Don't worry, I'm sure the free market will save us all, it's like Jesus.
I read every word posted, and like THIS post, it was more personal attacks and namecalling. Once again it seems your side of this simply doesn't know how decent people discuss things.
I posted facts and figures about how different governments spend anywhere from 1/2 to 1/4 of the amount we do on healthcare, yet have better healthcare.
You called this namecalling.
I showed how CATO was cherrypicking their facts and lying. You claimed I hadn't even addressed your nonsense institute.
Decent people apparently discuss things by making absurd statements and then hoping everyone else is really really stupid. If you define 'decent' as 'cult member' that is.
In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own.
sorry but this is not what our founding fathers had intended and goes against everything this country was founded upon. There are plenty of "socialized "nations to choose from, if you want to live in one go move there. There are other options for our people and that is :
1. Taking on pharmacutical companies holding them on charges of crimes against humanity, holding them accountable for refusing to make medications that actually heal people instead of making ones just for profit. 2. Force insurance companies to cover their clients instead of trying every bs run around to get out of covering what they said they would. 3. Becoming a doctor should not just be something for the "elite". Add a college grant program for aspiring young doctors who are qualified to go to medical school but cannot afford it. We pay for their schooling and then they agree to work for a set wage at our free hospitals and clinics for a few years after they graduate to compensate us for their schooling, a way better alternative than them paying off loans the rest of their lives, and would increase the number of doctors there are physically in the field, thus shortening waits to be seen, and providing doctors to the poor.
If we are going to discuss this we need to at least call it what it is. This is not a "new" idea it's been around for quite some time. National Socialism
–noun the principles and practices of the Nazi party in Germany—Related forms
National Socialist. dictionary.reference.com/search sorry but this is not what our founding fathers had intended and goes against everything this country was founded upon. There are plenty of "socialized "nations to choose from, if you want to live in one go move there. There are other options for our people and that is : 1. Taking on pharmacutical companies holding them on charges of crimes against humanity, holding them accountable for refusing to make medications that actually heal people instead of making ones just for profit. 2. Force insurance companies to cover their clients instead of trying every bs run around to get out of covering what they said they would. 3. Becoming a doctor should not just be something for the "elite". Add a college grant program for aspiring young doctors who are qualified to go to medical school but cannot afford it. We pay for their schooling and then they agree to work for a set wage at our free hospitals and clinics for a few years after they graduate to compensate us for their schooling, a way better alternative than them paying off loans the rest of their lives, and would increase the number of doctors there are physically in the field, thus shortening waits to be seen, and providing doctors to the poor.
You decry socialism but then list 3 social programs to help fix America. Bravo. You are very bright.
How about instead of launching more personal attacks you actually provide real data
Plus the Cato institute is far from right wing. Libertarians are not conservatives. We are beyond your left wing/right wing false dichotomy. Way to launch FURTHER personal attacks. More and more I simply see people of the left simply do not know how to have a polite discussion anymore. My how shrill you've become. namecalling, argument to ridicule, the list of shabby tactics never ends. READ the report and PROVE it's wrong; or find a reasonable critique and share it.
You didn't read a word I posted.
That's okay, I guess your crazy philosophy insulates you from reality. And that, my friend, is a personal attack. It's okay, by blatantly ignoring the facts and figures and data I posted, you earned it. Don't worry, I'm sure the free market will save us all, it's like Jesus.
I read every word posted, and like THIS post, it was more personal attacks and namecalling. Once again it seems your side of this simply doesn't know how decent people discuss things.
I posted facts and figures about how different governments spend anywhere from 1/2 to 1/4 of the amount we do on healthcare, yet have better healthcare.
You called this namecalling.
I showed how CATO was cherrypicking their facts and lying. You claimed I hadn't even addressed your nonsense institute.
Decent people apparently discuss things by making absurd statements and then hoping everyone else is really really stupid. If you define 'decent' as 'cult member' that is.
You failed to prove that their health care is "better" You did not show how cato is "cherrypicking facts, you did not show how they are lying. You call my statements "absurd" yet can't show how they are. I did npt call your bad example namecalling, I called your namecalling namecalling. What you are doing there is called mischaracterization.
Then of course you wrap it up by taking something I said out of context. When did I call YOU a cult member? Cheerrypicking indeed
Nothing here bugs me -- you misread my tone completely. I amused and slightly bored; nothing more. Basically you advocate a totalitarian society with your ideas. Universal food, universal healthcare, universal shlelter, universal clothing -- to use our own tactics against you. My principles are responsible for creating the richest societies in the history of mankind -- YOUR principles have impoverished nation after nation. The more libertarian a society is, the richer it is; the less, the poorer. That is pretty much applicable in all places and all times throughout history. The reason this WORKS is because it is moral. But again, we have seen, because YOU can't effectively morally justify what you want, YOU have to jump back into the utilitarian argument -- which is always infinitely debatable. Look at yourself and the intellectual games you are playing. We bicker and dicker over what works better; and since we can not come to agreement over that, because we can both play statistical games all day; I ask to switch to the ethical considerations. YOU CAN'T COPE WITH THAT, so first you must shift grounds, then when that fails, you have to jump back to the old, unsettleable argument. Look at the circle you are creating. Why are you trapped in this mental loop? Once again why is it right and proper to force your neighbor to provide health care for another neighbor? By what right do you take another man's property and give it to another? Why can't you help the people you want tp on your own by just doing it, instead of using brute force to make others do it for you?
I don't really know how to respond to this. You really sorta go off-topic:
#1: You misappropriate liberal democracies with totalitarian states. Opposite ends of the spectrum...poli sci 101.
#2: Dogmatic unsupported statements of how well your principles work. I'll take socialist states like Germany, France, Canada, UK, and the US as being the richest societies ever created versus your examples of libertarian wealth.
#3: Irrational comments on the morality of my argument...did I ever even mention this? When did you make the switch this to an ethical debate which I can't hope to COPE with...quote unquote.
#4: And then I'm supposedly using circular logic. I have no idea where this came in...please let me know.
#5: To top it off at the very end after I completely explained my position you sneakily try and edit your question to center around the moral rights of "redistribution of property". Like I didn't answer that indirectly by referencing Locke. However, do I need to be explicit now, even when I have no idea what you are trying to prove or demonstrate? And by the way your notions of force are convenient and conflate choice with force and force with coercion. Very convenient.
You are one strange cat, and no that is not ad hominem because I'm not using your character to counter your arguments. I'm just mentioning that you are sorta weird. I repeat, this comment has nothing to do with your arguments! And on that note can i ask a question? What do you do for a living? Might shed some insight for me...thanks.
1) HUh? where did I do thaat?
2) All those states you mentioned have a backbone of libertarianism with socialism slapped on them. They are called mixed economies, and it isThe 90s were a nightmare for those countries, and after they instututed libertarian (ie market) reforms, which the socialists all tried to stop, those member nations turned around. There is no evidence that it is the sicialism that maes them a success, and substantial evidence that it is their markets.
In fact, in many ways those countries have moved towards more free markets that US, and that is why those economies are doing better than ours. Before they had instituted market reforms, they were WAY behind us. But again, this is a statistical argument that you'll never believe. Third base
3) I TOLD you why I switched the debate -- because you love your evidence, and I love mine. In that that was fruitless, I asked you for moral justification for forcing one group of people to pay for another. You chould not.
4) No you are not using "circular logic,' there you go again. I said you aare running in a loop. When you ca't deal with the morality argument, you switch it back to the utilitarian one, then I try and bring it back to the moral, then you shift it back..and so on..an infinite loop of discussion.
5) You still don't seem to know what government IS. Government is force. Simple as that. Everything we do with givernment is that which we do by force. I guess you will never understand that; but try and refrain from paying taxes, or refrain from labor laws.
Oh and I am glad you called me weird. People who believe in rule by liberty have always been "weird" to those who believe in force. I understand why you don't understand me. Twenty years ago no on knew who we were. Now, everyone knows who we are and hey, we even had a candidate in the Republican race. We are a bit ahead of the old statist curve you are walking on, so I understand why you don't see it.
If we are going to discuss this we need to at least call it what it is. This is not a "new" idea it's been around for quite some time. National Socialism
–noun the principles and practices of the Nazi party in Germany—Related forms
National Socialist. dictionary.reference.com/search sorry but this is not what our founding fathers had intended and goes against everything this country was founded upon. There are plenty of "socialized "nations to choose from, if you want to live in one go move there. There are other options for our people and that is : 1. Taking on pharmacutical companies holding them on charges of crimes against humanity, holding them accountable for refusing to make medications that actually heal people instead of making ones just for profit. 2. Force insurance companies to cover their clients instead of trying every bs run around to get out of covering what they said they would. 3. Becoming a doctor should not just be something for the "elite". Add a college grant program for aspiring young doctors who are qualified to go to medical school but cannot afford it. We pay for their schooling and then they agree to work for a set wage at our free hospitals and clinics for a few years after they graduate to compensate us for their schooling, a way better alternative than them paying off loans the rest of their lives, and would increase the number of doctors there are physically in the field, thus shortening waits to be seen, and providing doctors to the poor.
You decry socialism but then list 3 social programs to help fix America. Bravo. You are very bright.
Holding Pharmacutical companies accountable for their actions is not socialism, it is a service to humanity. When food suppliers provide bad food or try to hike prices up unreasonably we have laws to protect us, but we are not enforcing these same laws for our medications? Forcing insurance to hold up their end of the bargain instead of defaulting on claims should be treated like any other contract. They make the contract and should be held accountable for fullfilling it. A trade off with doctors to help the poor in exchange for payment of their schooling is a fair trade for all parties involved. Socialism is taking from one class to support another class, that would not be the case both parties benefit from the doctor grant/ help the poor program. You are not taking from these doctors, you are helping them, and in turn they help solve the problem. You could still very well go to school get your own loans and do it the way it has always been done if you choose so, just this would give them more options and increase the number of doctors physically on the market. It is a win- win situation for all parties involved, and less expensive than the way medicaid is currently being run.
How about instead of launching more personal attacks you actually provide real data
Plus the Cato institute is far from right wing. Libertarians are not conservatives. We are beyond your left wing/right wing false dichotomy. Way to launch FURTHER personal attacks. More and more I simply see people of the left simply do not know how to have a polite discussion anymore. My how shrill you've become. namecalling, argument to ridicule, the list of shabby tactics never ends. READ the report and PROVE it's wrong; or find a reasonable critique and share it.
You didn't read a word I posted.
That's okay, I guess your crazy philosophy insulates you from reality. And that, my friend, is a personal attack. It's okay, by blatantly ignoring the facts and figures and data I posted, you earned it. Don't worry, I'm sure the free market will save us all, it's like Jesus.
I read every word posted, and like THIS post, it was more personal attacks and namecalling. Once again it seems your side of this simply doesn't know how decent people discuss things.
I posted facts and figures about how different governments spend anywhere from 1/2 to 1/4 of the amount we do on healthcare, yet have better healthcare.
You called this namecalling.
I showed how CATO was cherrypicking their facts and lying. You claimed I hadn't even addressed your nonsense institute.
Decent people apparently discuss things by making absurd statements and then hoping everyone else is really really stupid. If you define 'decent' as 'cult member' that is.
You failed to prove that their health care is "better" You did not show how cato is "cherrypicking facts, you did not show how they are lying. You call my statements "absurd" yet can't show how they are. I did npt call your bad example namecalling, I called your namecalling namecalling. What you are doing there is called mischaracterization.
Then of course you wrap it up by taking something I said out of context. When did I call YOU a cult member? Cheerrypicking indeed
Excuse me? If you have a problem with how the rankings were constructed post them. They were constructed from internationally recognized metrics, and your handwave is nonsense indeed.
I showed specifically how CATO was cherrypicking facts:" I guess its true we have the highest cancer survival rates by anywhere from a percentage point or two to much larger. Of course we have worse Heart Disease mortality rates. But hey, I'm sure if they are willing to sit there and monkey through enough statistics, we'll come out smelling like daisies eventually, even if they have to throw a dozen studies on the floor. "
They were cherrypicking ONE statistic that looks good for America. There are many that look worse for America. The metrics used to measure international quality are things like infant mortality, average age of death, etc. Not cherry picked metrics about how we do vs. one disease or another.
They LIED when they said:
Health care spending is not necessarily bad.
To a large degree, America spends money on
health care because it is a wealthy nation and
chooses to do so. Economists consider health
care a "normal good," meaning that spending
is positively correlated with income. As
incomes rise, people want more of that good.
Because we are a wealthy nation, we can and
do demand more health care.
The European countries that are spending half or LESS of what we do on healthcare have comperable or GREATER incomes.
Your complete inability to READ this and then say "Oh, you never showed that" is pathetic.
Your definition of "Decent people" and how they "discuss things" appears to be they all show up and listen to your leader, who tells you the one truth, and then you go and distribute the one truth, with no respect to anyone who isn't
You will AGAIN ignore this and continue on, blaming, I dunno, liberal democrats and the coarsening of American dialogue for the fact that you. are. wrong.
In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own.
How about instead of launching more personal attacks you actually provide real data
Plus the Cato institute is far from right wing. Libertarians are not conservatives. We are beyond your left wing/right wing false dichotomy. Way to launch FURTHER personal attacks. More and more I simply see people of the left simply do not know how to have a polite discussion anymore. My how shrill you've become. namecalling, argument to ridicule, the list of shabby tactics never ends. READ the report and PROVE it's wrong; or find a reasonable critique and share it.
You didn't read a word I posted.
That's okay, I guess your crazy philosophy insulates you from reality. And that, my friend, is a personal attack. It's okay, by blatantly ignoring the facts and figures and data I posted, you earned it. Don't worry, I'm sure the free market will save us all, it's like Jesus.
I read every word posted, and like THIS post, it was more personal attacks and namecalling. Once again it seems your side of this simply doesn't know how decent people discuss things.
I posted facts and figures about how different governments spend anywhere from 1/2 to 1/4 of the amount we do on healthcare, yet have better healthcare.
You called this namecalling.
I showed how CATO was cherrypicking their facts and lying. You claimed I hadn't even addressed your nonsense institute.
Decent people apparently discuss things by making absurd statements and then hoping everyone else is really really stupid. If you define 'decent' as 'cult member' that is.
You failed to prove that their health care is "better" You did not show how cato is "cherrypicking facts, you did not show how they are lying. You call my statements "absurd" yet can't show how they are. I did npt call your bad example namecalling, I called your namecalling namecalling. What you are doing there is called mischaracterization.
Then of course you wrap it up by taking something I said out of context. When did I call YOU a cult member? Cheerrypicking indeed
Excuse me? If you have a problem with how the rankings were constructed post them. They were constructed from internationally recognized metrics, and your handwave is nonsense indeed.
I showed specifically how CATO was cherrypicking facts:" I guess its true we have the highest cancer survival rates by anywhere from a percentage point or two to much larger. Of course we have worse Heart Disease mortality rates. But hey, I'm sure if they are willing to sit there and monkey through enough statistics, we'll come out smelling like daisies eventually, even if they have to throw a dozen studies on the floor. "
They were cherrypicking ONE statistic that looks good for America. There are many that look worse for America. The metrics used to measure international quality are things like infant mortality, average age of death, etc. Not cherry picked metrics about how we do vs. one disease or another.
They LIED when they said:
Health care spending is not necessarily bad.
To a large degree, America spends money on
health care because it is a wealthy nation and
chooses to do so. Economists consider health
care a "normal good," meaning that spending
is positively correlated with income. As
incomes rise, people want more of that good.
Because we are a wealthy nation, we can and
do demand more health care.
The European countries that are spending half or LESS of what we do on healthcare have comperable or GREATER incomes.
Your complete inability to READ this and then say "Oh, you never showed that" is pathetic.
Your definition of "Decent people" and how they "discuss things" appears to be they all show up and listen to your leader, who tells you the one truth, and then you go and distribute the one truth, with no respect to anyone who isn't
You will AGAIN ignore this and continue on, blaming, I dunno, liberal democrats and the coarsening of American dialogue for the fact that you. are. wrong.
This rankings are from a socialist organization. that which you call a lie is spot on. You see? We can argue about the statistics all day; we simply don't view GOOD as the same thing; BETTER as the same thing; FAIR as the same thing.
The Eurpopeans have improved their healthcare systems by instituting more MARKET-based solutions. They still have more rationing than we do -- depending on the country.
WE have socialized medicine too -- in some areas more socialized than them. It is the socialism in all the systems that makes them ALL inefficient -- and the more socialist they are -- the worse it gets. When they (Europe) move away from socialism, as they've been doing, it gets better.
We need to learn from their mistakes and improve our own, not follow them down their rat hole that they have dug out of with markets.
I have read many takes on this, and I disagree with YOUR take on it. That is why, as I said, we would do better to move on from the statistical debate and get on with the ethical one.
By what right do you point a gun to your neighbor's head and take from him to provide for another?
Nothing here bugs me -- you misread my tone completely. I amused and slightly bored; nothing more. Basically you advocate a totalitarian society with your ideas. Universal food, universal healthcare, universal shlelter, universal clothing -- to use our own tactics against you. My principles are responsible for creating the richest societies in the history of mankind -- YOUR principles have impoverished nation after nation. The more libertarian a society is, the richer it is; the less, the poorer. That is pretty much applicable in all places and all times throughout history. The reason this WORKS is because it is moral. But again, we have seen, because YOU can't effectively morally justify what you want, YOU have to jump back into the utilitarian argument -- which is always infinitely debatable. Look at yourself and the intellectual games you are playing. We bicker and dicker over what works better; and since we can not come to agreement over that, because we can both play statistical games all day; I ask to switch to the ethical considerations. YOU CAN'T COPE WITH THAT, so first you must shift grounds, then when that fails, you have to jump back to the old, unsettleable argument. Look at the circle you are creating. Why are you trapped in this mental loop? Once again why is it right and proper to force your neighbor to provide health care for another neighbor? By what right do you take another man's property and give it to another? Why can't you help the people you want tp on your own by just doing it, instead of using brute force to make others do it for you?
I don't really know how to respond to this. You really sorta go off-topic:
#1: You misappropriate liberal democracies with totalitarian states. Opposite ends of the spectrum...poli sci 101.
#2: Dogmatic unsupported statements of how well your principles work. I'll take socialist states like Germany, France, Canada, UK, and the US as being the richest societies ever created versus your examples of libertarian wealth.
#3: Irrational comments on the morality of my argument...did I ever even mention this? When did you make the switch this to an ethical debate which I can't hope to COPE with...quote unquote.
#4: And then I'm supposedly using circular logic. I have no idea where this came in...please let me know.
#5: To top it off at the very end after I completely explained my position you sneakily try and edit your question to center around the moral rights of "redistribution of property". Like I didn't answer that indirectly by referencing Locke. However, do I need to be explicit now, even when I have no idea what you are trying to prove or demonstrate? And by the way your notions of force are convenient and conflate choice with force and force with coercion. Very convenient.
You are one strange cat, and no that is not ad hominem because I'm not using your character to counter your arguments. I'm just mentioning that you are sorta weird. I repeat, this comment has nothing to do with your arguments! And on that note can i ask a question? What do you do for a living? Might shed some insight for me...thanks.
1) HUh? where did I do thaat?
2) All those states you mentioned have a backbone of libertarianism with socialism slapped on them. They are called mixed economies, and it isThe 90s were a nightmare for those countries, and after they instututed libertarian (ie market) reforms, which the socialists all tried to stop, those member nations turned around. There is no evidence that it is the sicialism that maes them a success, and substantial evidence that it is their markets.
In fact, in many ways those countries have moved towards more free markets that US, and that is why those economies are doing better than ours. Before they had instituted market reforms, they were WAY behind us. But again, this is a statistical argument that you'll never believe. Third base
3) I TOLD you why I switched the debate -- because you love your evidence, and I love mine. In that that was fruitless, I asked you for moral justification for forcing one group of people to pay for another. You chould not.
4) No you are not using "circular logic,' there you go again. I said you aare running in a loop. When you ca't deal with the morality argument, you switch it back to the utilitarian one, then I try and bring it back to the moral, then you shift it back..and so on..an infinite loop of discussion.
5) You still don't seem to know what government IS. Government is force. Simple as that. Everything we do with givernment is that which we do by force. I guess you will never understand that; but try and refrain from paying taxes, or refrain from labor laws.
Oh and I am glad you called me weird. People who believe in rule by liberty have always been "weird" to those who believe in force. I understand why you don't understand me. Twenty years ago no on knew who we were. Now, everyone knows who we are and hey, we even had a candidate in the Republican race. We are a bit ahead of the old statist curve you are walking on, so I understand why you don't see it.
I'd understand the forgetfulness of it was not nested:
#1: Where did you do that? I'm talking about liberal democracies that implement social welfare as part of a constitutional standard and you misappropriate it as: "Basically you advocate a totalitarian society with your ideas. Universal food, universal healthcare, universal shlelter, universal clothing -- to use our own tactics against you." No where did i say universal. The basics of social welfare provide a bare minimum standard for those who cannot afford these necessities. This can be implemented by a liberal democracy or a totalitarian state...in fact...universal coverage can be by decree or by choice. You know full well which version I'm speaking of...so why characterize it otherwise?
#2: A backbone of libertarianism? Heh. I won't detail every single constitutional document of those countries listed, but I assure you the backbone of Canada is not built on libertarian principles. In fact the Canadian constitution promotes...indeed, mandates...every form of equality out there save economic equality (and that feature was debated at length in the 70s!). As a federalist state our country divided government intervention (aka socialism) into every fabric of Canadian life. This is modified by the will of the people and that balance is always being tinkered with. There are no exclusions save privacy and personal autonomy in personal matters.
#3: The problem is you had never asked previously for a moral justification. You inserted it after you had left the other argument high and dry. However if you want me to reference my moral authority on the source of equality I'll reference The Magna Carta, The Chancellory Courts of England, Locke, Hume, Mill, Voltaire...for starters. Perhaps philosophy is where you want to station the argument now...and that's fine.
#4: Fine
#5: Government is not force...you know very well that governments are social orders with many various iterations of enforcement. You are only focusing on modern government depictions.
Note: You still didn't tell me what you did for a living!
Nothing here bugs me -- you misread my tone completely. I amused and slightly bored; nothing more. Basically you advocate a totalitarian society with your ideas. Universal food, universal healthcare, universal shlelter, universal clothing -- to use our own tactics against you. My principles are responsible for creating the richest societies in the history of mankind -- YOUR principles have impoverished nation after nation. The more libertarian a society is, the richer it is; the less, the poorer. That is pretty much applicable in all places and all times throughout history. The reason this WORKS is because it is moral. But again, we have seen, because YOU can't effectively morally justify what you want, YOU have to jump back into the utilitarian argument -- which is always infinitely debatable. Look at yourself and the intellectual games you are playing. We bicker and dicker over what works better; and since we can not come to agreement over that, because we can both play statistical games all day; I ask to switch to the ethical considerations. YOU CAN'T COPE WITH THAT, so first you must shift grounds, then when that fails, you have to jump back to the old, unsettleable argument. Look at the circle you are creating. Why are you trapped in this mental loop? Once again why is it right and proper to force your neighbor to provide health care for another neighbor? By what right do you take another man's property and give it to another? Why can't you help the people you want tp on your own by just doing it, instead of using brute force to make others do it for you?
I don't really know how to respond to this. You really sorta go off-topic:
#1: You misappropriate liberal democracies with totalitarian states. Opposite ends of the spectrum...poli sci 101.
#2: Dogmatic unsupported statements of how well your principles work. I'll take socialist states like Germany, France, Canada, UK, and the US as being the richest societies ever created versus your examples of libertarian wealth.
#3: Irrational comments on the morality of my argument...did I ever even mention this? When did you make the switch this to an ethical debate which I can't hope to COPE with...quote unquote.
#4: And then I'm supposedly using circular logic. I have no idea where this came in...please let me know.
#5: To top it off at the very end after I completely explained my position you sneakily try and edit your question to center around the moral rights of "redistribution of property". Like I didn't answer that indirectly by referencing Locke. However, do I need to be explicit now, even when I have no idea what you are trying to prove or demonstrate? And by the way your notions of force are convenient and conflate choice with force and force with coercion. Very convenient.
You are one strange cat, and no that is not ad hominem because I'm not using your character to counter your arguments. I'm just mentioning that you are sorta weird. I repeat, this comment has nothing to do with your arguments! And on that note can i ask a question? What do you do for a living? Might shed some insight for me...thanks.
1) HUh? where did I do thaat?
2) All those states you mentioned have a backbone of libertarianism with socialism slapped on them. They are called mixed economies, and it isThe 90s were a nightmare for those countries, and after they instututed libertarian (ie market) reforms, which the socialists all tried to stop, those member nations turned around. There is no evidence that it is the sicialism that maes them a success, and substantial evidence that it is their markets.
In fact, in many ways those countries have moved towards more free markets that US, and that is why those economies are doing better than ours. Before they had instituted market reforms, they were WAY behind us. But again, this is a statistical argument that you'll never believe. Third base
3) I TOLD you why I switched the debate -- because you love your evidence, and I love mine. In that that was fruitless, I asked you for moral justification for forcing one group of people to pay for another. You chould not.
4) No you are not using "circular logic,' there you go again. I said you aare running in a loop. When you ca't deal with the morality argument, you switch it back to the utilitarian one, then I try and bring it back to the moral, then you shift it back..and so on..an infinite loop of discussion.
5) You still don't seem to know what government IS. Government is force. Simple as that. Everything we do with givernment is that which we do by force. I guess you will never understand that; but try and refrain from paying taxes, or refrain from labor laws.
Oh and I am glad you called me weird. People who believe in rule by liberty have always been "weird" to those who believe in force. I understand why you don't understand me. Twenty years ago no on knew who we were. Now, everyone knows who we are and hey, we even had a candidate in the Republican race. We are a bit ahead of the old statist curve you are walking on, so I understand why you don't see it.
I'd understand the forgetfulness of it was not nested:
#1: Where did you do that? I'm talking about liberal democracies that implement social welfare as part of a constitutional standard and you misappropriate it as: "Basically you advocate a totalitarian society with your ideas. Universal food, universal healthcare, universal shlelter, universal clothing -- to use our own tactics against you." No where did i say universal. The basics of social welfare provide a bare minimum standard for those who cannot afford these necessities. This can be implemented by a liberal democracy or a totalitarian state...in fact...universal coverage can be by decree or by choice. You know full well which version I'm speaking of...so why characterize it otherwise?
#2: A backbone of libertarianism? Heh. I won't detail every single constitutional document of those countries listed, but I assure you the backbone of Canada is not built on libertarian principles. In fact the Canadian constitution promotes...indeed, mandates...every form of equality out there save economic equality (and that feature was debated at length in the 70s!). As a federalist state our country divided government intervention (aka socialism) into every fabric of Canadian life. This is modified by the will of the people and that balance is always being tinkered with. There are no exclusions save privacy and personal autonomy in personal matters.
#3: The problem is you had never asked previously for a moral justification. You inserted it after you had left the other argument high and dry. However if you want me to reference my moral authority on the source of equality I'll reference The Magna Carta, The Chancellory Courts of England, Locke, Hume, Mill, Voltaire...for starters. Perhaps philosophy is where you want to station the argument now...and that's fine.
#4: Fine
#5: Government is not force...you know very well that governments are social orders with many various iterations of enforcement. You are only focusing on modern government depictions.
Note: You still didn't tell me what you did for a living!
1. No. You are leaving MY context. Go back., read what you wrote. What I was answering. You cut off what i was replying to, and jumped the context. You gave your formula for how to keep goverment accpuntable -- and I showed you how the three things you mentioned cam result in a totalitarian society. Your version of "social welfare" violates the essence of the foudation of civil society -- self ownership (and by extension, proberty rights). You are taking away the labor of one just to give it to another.
the on;y thing you are saying makes it okay is if people get a big enough gang (democracy) to do the stealing. I think that's wrong; and it is exactly what totalitarian societies do and why they are wrong -- and fail.
2. Canada is built on individual freedom, property rights, and rule of law. That's what libertarianism IS. So is France, Germany, England, Italy, and all of the free world. All of their constitutions have this inherent 'welfare contradiction," and those all undermine the libertarian core of all civil society.
3. I switched arguments after we could both see that YOu were going to believe YOUR statistics, and I was going to believe mine. I think there is ample evidence that socialized medicine doesn't work, and you disagree. So, I decided to move on from that and see where and how you morally sanctioned it.
4. Fine as well
5. Government are the agency we grant the power to use FORCE to preserve human rights. Our social order is the market. The government is designed to protect it -- but it can only do so with force. Force is what it is, force is what it does. Under every law is a gun to back it up, no matter what society you are looking at. The only difference is how we limit that use of force.
Sorry. What do i do for a living? LOL. Technically, I am a retired investor. I'm also currently working on a novel (contemporary urban fantasy, as they call it) and a book about God.
I'm not all that anonymous. You can follow my links to my biography
To pay for my insurance, also because I love books and love people,I also work for Borders books -- but that's more another way for me to have fun in my happy early retirement.
1. No. You are leaving MY context. Go back., read what you wrote. What I was answering. You cut off what i was replying to, and jumped the context. You gave your formula for how to keep goverment accpuntable -- and I showed you how the three things you mentioned cam result in a totalitarian society. Your version of "social welfare" violates the essence of the foudation of civil society -- self ownership (and by extension, proberty rights). You are taking away the labor of one just to give it to another. the on;y thing you are saying makes it okay is if people get a big enough gang (democracy) to do the stealing. I think that's wrong; and it is exactly what totalitarian societies do and why they are wrong -- and fail. 2. Canada is built on individual freedom, property rights, and rule of law. That's what libertarianism IS. So is France, Germany, England, Italy, and all of the free world. All of their constitutions have this inherent 'welfare contradiction," and those all undermine the libertarian core of all civil society. 3. I switched arguments after we could both see that YOu were going to believe YOUR statistics, and I was going to believe mine. I think there is ample evidence that socialized medicine doesn't work, and you disagree. So, I decided to move on from that and see where and how you morally sanctioned it. 4. Fine as well 5. Government are the agency we grant the power to use FORCE to preserve human rights. Our social order is the market. The government is designed to protect it -- but it can only do so with force. Force is what it is, force is what it does. Under every law is a gun to back it up, no matter what society you are looking at. The only difference is how we limit that use of force. Sorry. What do i do for a living? LOL. Technically, I am a retired investor. I'm also currently working on a novel (contemporary urban fantasy, as they call it) and a book about God. I'm not all that anonymous. You can follow my links to my biography To pay for my insurance, also because I love books and love people,I also work for Borders books -- but that's more another way for me to have fun in my happy early retirement.
I guess we are just going to have to agree to disagree. We come from very different backgrounds and lead extremely different lives. I'm atheist/you are a theist; i'm a lawyer/you have had a potpourri of occupations but im sure you arent a fan of lawyers; etc etc.
1. No. You are leaving MY context. Go back., read what you wrote. What I was answering. You cut off what i was replying to, and jumped the context. You gave your formula for how to keep goverment accpuntable -- and I showed you how the three things you mentioned cam result in a totalitarian society. Your version of "social welfare" violates the essence of the foudation of civil society -- self ownership (and by extension, proberty rights). You are taking away the labor of one just to give it to another. the on;y thing you are saying makes it okay is if people get a big enough gang (democracy) to do the stealing. I think that's wrong; and it is exactly what totalitarian societies do and why they are wrong -- and fail. 2. Canada is built on individual freedom, property rights, and rule of law. That's what libertarianism IS. So is France, Germany, England, Italy, and all of the free world. All of their constitutions have this inherent 'welfare contradiction," and those all undermine the libertarian core of all civil society. 3. I switched arguments after we could both see that YOu were going to believe YOUR statistics, and I was going to believe mine. I think there is ample evidence that socialized medicine doesn't work, and you disagree. So, I decided to move on from that and see where and how you morally sanctioned it. 4. Fine as well 5. Government are the agency we grant the power to use FORCE to preserve human rights. Our social order is the market. The government is designed to protect it -- but it can only do so with force. Force is what it is, force is what it does. Under every law is a gun to back it up, no matter what society you are looking at. The only difference is how we limit that use of force. Sorry. What do i do for a living? LOL. Technically, I am a retired investor. I'm also currently working on a novel (contemporary urban fantasy, as they call it) and a book about God. I'm not all that anonymous. You can follow my links to my biography To pay for my insurance, also because I love books and love people,I also work for Borders books -- but that's more another way for me to have fun in my happy early retirement.
I guess we are just going to have to agree to disagree. We come from very different backgrounds and lead extremely different lives. I'm atheist/you are a theist; i'm a lawyer/you have had a potpourri of occupations but im sure you arent a fan of lawyers; etc etc.
Actually, I loved one particular lawyer for quite some time; I was an athiest/agnostic for my entire adult life (since I was about 12 actually) until a two-year long inquiry into the evidence convinced me otherwise about ten years ago.
Some of my best friends are lawyers and other scoundrels
I don't even have to click on the OP's link. I don't know where it came from or how it was worded, but whoever thinks this is dead wrong. If a majority of Americans approved of government healthcare, we would have had it in the form of Hillary care a la 1994.
Comments
Heck, I agree with you. Why allow children to go to school for free? Im sick of paying for ungrateful children. That way 15 years down the road I can hire them at $1 an hou...wait what? Minimum wage? Why should the government tell me what I can pay my employees? How dare they! I'm going to drive down to the legislature and compla...what...a new road? What is this? Why am i paying for this so other people can use it? Everyone should get a pass for every road they have helped pay for or there should be a toll with a swipe card...enough of these freeloading drivers.
Moral of the story: Social welfare provides the structure society needs to be maintained and to keep it from collapsing. If you enable people who have money from the outset you eventually truncate a huge portion of your population who will eventually resent your education and wealth...and then your country turns into a constant police state. If you like this type of free enterprise system so much where basic necessities are not provided for? Move to Brazil or Argentina or something. Plenty of laissez-faire there.
Why does the government(my tax dollars) need to provide basic necessities to the people unwilling to work for it themselves? If the parents of those children can't afford to put their kids in school then they shouldn't of had kids to beging with.
Screw it. I'm quitting my job and YOU can put the food on my table.
I'm not going to argue with you, there is no point. Some people want to earn their way, while others want the government to spoon feed them.
A contract is a voluntary agreement. YOU are advocating force.
Can I ask where in that post I'm advocating force? Please? I couldn't even find a portion of my post where you could even insinuate force.
Wrong post? Lol?
Every use of goverment to any end is the use of force to that end.
Oh brother. Srsly?
That is what government IS. Government are those things that we are willing to force people to do. Laws are instruments of force. Government programs are instruments of force. It's quite simply what they ARE by definition.
Play the childish argument to ridicule game all you want, you obviously don't know what government is by its very nature. I would say that disqualifies you from conversation on this matter.
You can paint the picture anyway you want and advocate that "force is bad" and therefore "government is bad" but you fail in providing a pragmatic (or even idealistic) alternative.
Sure principled "force" (using your wide-arced definition) is used to enforce a social contract. It sure beats the alternative of arbitrary force in an anarchistic environment. But liberty in any practical sense is enforced through liberal democracies that protect positive liberties through social contracts. Or, as a libertarian, forgotten your "Treatise of Government" lectures in phil. class?
Philosophy was fun when I was 20. I prefer the real world now and real world solutions and not blanket criticisms of law and government. Reality check please.
I didn't say "force is bad" I merely said that GOVERNMENT is force by its very nature, and therefore we should be VERY careful how we limit that force when applied to our neighbors. I feel it is wrong to put a gun to your neighbor's head and take your health care form him.
You don't.
I agree you have to be careful. Any force or enforcement of the social contract should be:
1. Non-arbitrary: rule of law, constitutions
2. Adaptable: functional tools and systems for change
3. Accountable: independent branches of government, remedies as strong as the rules
These things protect the population from their government. You won't always like the balance or the compromises made...but such is life.
Your rules could create a totalitarian ociety. Everything we do, say, make and love fits into those categories. You have removed people's ownership of themselves and their property from the equation: therefore there will be no liberty in your view.
fishermage.blogspot.com
Heck, I agree with you. Why allow children to go to school for free? Im sick of paying for ungrateful children. That way 15 years down the road I can hire them at $1 an hou...wait what? Minimum wage? Why should the government tell me what I can pay my employees? How dare they! I'm going to drive down to the legislature and compla...what...a new road? What is this? Why am i paying for this so other people can use it? Everyone should get a pass for every road they have helped pay for or there should be a toll with a swipe card...enough of these freeloading drivers.
Moral of the story: Social welfare provides the structure society needs to be maintained and to keep it from collapsing. If you enable people who have money from the outset you eventually truncate a huge portion of your population who will eventually resent your education and wealth...and then your country turns into a constant police state. If you like this type of free enterprise system so much where basic necessities are not provided for? Move to Brazil or Argentina or something. Plenty of laissez-faire there.
Once again, argument to ridicule. Thank you for showing you can't argue politely.
How about we stick to the topic? we can discuss other uses for government force in another thread. Why is it right and proper to use force to take the money from one person to pay for the health care of another.
If you really care so much about people who don't have health care, why aren;t you helping them? why are you instead advocating using force to take from one group and give to another? If you care, help people outright, don't force.
If YOU are right, everyone should be willing to help one another. If you need to force people, what makes you so sure you are right?
I argued politely...I was simply using a salient example to demonstrate the absurdity of these pure capitalist arguments who advocate scrapping medicaid and medicare.
And as for the rest of your post: I believe in equity as a principle of government and also a goal of government. Therefore it is far more satisfying to apportion help through a government agency rather than have help provided through arbitrary measures (such as individual charity). These solutions are mandated through elected officials in whatever liberal democratic format you so choose to provide representative government. The force is really nothing more than the will of the people to distribute the fruits of the society that everyone helps to maintain (yes, maintenance is as important as generation).
You may not agree with that distribution. You may stretch property arguments to include chattels and income. That is a philosophical argument and as it stands that argument has failed in all political arenas. The ultimate heir of property in today's world is the government and is distributed through ownership in fee simple (at best) and nothing more. That is an extremely high level of ownership on any liberty scale...to ask for more is stretching the boundaries of what Republics and Parliaments are willing to concede.
Sorry if that bugs you...I can see it does. But it is not going to change.
Edit: And furthermore, there is no real world example showing why it SHOULD change.
Screw it. I'm quitting my job and YOU can put the food on my table.
I'm not going to argue with you, there is no point. Some people want to earn their way, while others want the government to spoon feed them.
If you feel so strained by the burden to maintain society...perhaps you should get a better job so the loss of tax dollars doesn't so adversely affect your life. Last time I checked if you clear $40,000 a year and lose $10k a year on taxes you are still far better off than someone on welfare.
You completely ignore the argument of "wanting the government to spoon feed". I don't want people leeching when they can legitimately work. But in the real world there are people who can't work and if you don't offer a means of PACIFYING them they will end up costing you a lot more money when they decide to feed themselves by robbing, stealing, and generally working towards the destruction of society.
When you destroy social welfare you prevent a whole class of people from (realistically) ever bouncing back and becoming contributing members of society you create social distress. And then you either need police squads (see Brazil) or totalitarian states (see China) to protect you from the disadvantaged citizen.
It is in your best interest to put 1/3 of your income towards supporting social infrastructure...even though it may suck.
Heck, I agree with you. Why allow children to go to school for free? Im sick of paying for ungrateful children. That way 15 years down the road I can hire them at $1 an hou...wait what? Minimum wage? Why should the government tell me what I can pay my employees? How dare they! I'm going to drive down to the legislature and compla...what...a new road? What is this? Why am i paying for this so other people can use it? Everyone should get a pass for every road they have helped pay for or there should be a toll with a swipe card...enough of these freeloading drivers.
Moral of the story: Social welfare provides the structure society needs to be maintained and to keep it from collapsing. If you enable people who have money from the outset you eventually truncate a huge portion of your population who will eventually resent your education and wealth...and then your country turns into a constant police state. If you like this type of free enterprise system so much where basic necessities are not provided for? Move to Brazil or Argentina or something. Plenty of laissez-faire there.
Once again, argument to ridicule. Thank you for showing you can't argue politely.
How about we stick to the topic? we can discuss other uses for government force in another thread. Why is it right and proper to use force to take the money from one person to pay for the health care of another.
If you really care so much about people who don't have health care, why aren;t you helping them? why are you instead advocating using force to take from one group and give to another? If you care, help people outright, don't force.
If YOU are right, everyone should be willing to help one another. If you need to force people, what makes you so sure you are right?
I argued politely...I was simply using a salient example to demonstrate the absurdity of these pure capitalist arguments who advocate scrapping medicaid and medicare.
And as for the rest of your post: I believe in equity as a principle of government and also a goal of government. Therefore it is far more satisfying to apportion help through a government agency rather than have help provided through arbitrary measures (such as individual charity). These solutions are mandated through elected officials in whatever liberal democratic format you so choose to provide representative government. The force is really nothing more than the will of the people to distribute the fruits of the society that everyone helps to maintain (yes, maintenance is as important as generation).
You may not agree with that distribution. You may stretch property arguments to include chattels and income. That is a philosophical argument and as it stands that argument has failed in all political arenas. The ultimate heir of property in today's world is the government and is distributed through ownership in fee simple (at best) and nothing more. That is an extremely high level of ownership on any liberty scale...to ask for more is stretching the boundaries of what Republics and Parliaments are willing to concede.
Sorry if that bugs you...I can see it does. But it is not going to change.
Edit: And furthermore, there is no real world example showing why it SHOULD change.
Not everyone is contributing these fruits. And that is the problem I have.
The single mother with 7 kids that hasn't worked a day in her life isn't contributing. She is leeching.
If everyone paid their fair share then my opinion would change greatly.
Heck, I agree with you. Why allow children to go to school for free? Im sick of paying for ungrateful children. That way 15 years down the road I can hire them at $1 an hou...wait what? Minimum wage? Why should the government tell me what I can pay my employees? How dare they! I'm going to drive down to the legislature and compla...what...a new road? What is this? Why am i paying for this so other people can use it? Everyone should get a pass for every road they have helped pay for or there should be a toll with a swipe card...enough of these freeloading drivers.
Moral of the story: Social welfare provides the structure society needs to be maintained and to keep it from collapsing. If you enable people who have money from the outset you eventually truncate a huge portion of your population who will eventually resent your education and wealth...and then your country turns into a constant police state. If you like this type of free enterprise system so much where basic necessities are not provided for? Move to Brazil or Argentina or something. Plenty of laissez-faire there.
Once again, argument to ridicule. Thank you for showing you can't argue politely.
How about we stick to the topic? we can discuss other uses for government force in another thread. Why is it right and proper to use force to take the money from one person to pay for the health care of another.
If you really care so much about people who don't have health care, why aren;t you helping them? why are you instead advocating using force to take from one group and give to another? If you care, help people outright, don't force.
If YOU are right, everyone should be willing to help one another. If you need to force people, what makes you so sure you are right?
I argued politely...I was simply using a salient example to demonstrate the absurdity of these pure capitalist arguments who advocate scrapping medicaid and medicare.
And as for the rest of your post: I believe in equity as a principle of government and also a goal of government. Therefore it is far more satisfying to apportion help through a government agency rather than have help provided through arbitrary measures (such as individual charity). These solutions are mandated through elected officials in whatever liberal democratic format you so choose to provide representative government. The force is really nothing more than the will of the people to distribute the fruits of the society that everyone helps to maintain (yes, maintenance is as important as generation).
You may not agree with that distribution. You may stretch property arguments to include chattels and income. That is a philosophical argument and as it stands that argument has failed in all political arenas. The ultimate heir of property in today's world is the government and is distributed through ownership in fee simple (at best) and nothing more. That is an extremely high level of ownership on any liberty scale...to ask for more is stretching the boundaries of what Republics and Parliaments are willing to concede.
Sorry if that bugs you...I can see it does. But it is not going to change.
Nothing here bugs me -- you misread my tone completely. I amused and slightly bored; nothing more.
Basically you advocate a totalitarian society with your ideas. Universal food, universal healthcare, universal shlelter, universal clothing -- to use our own tactics against you.
My principles are responsible for creating the richest societies in the history of mankind -- YOUR principles have impoverished nation after nation.
The more libertarian a society is, the richer it is; the less, the poorer. That is pretty much applicable in all places and all times throughout history.
The reason this WORKS is because it is moral. But again, we have seen, because YOU can't effectively morally justify what you want, YOU have to jump back into the utilitarian argument -- which is always infinitely debatable.
Look at yourself and the intellectual games you are playing. We bicker and dicker over what works better; and since we can not come to agreement over that, because we can both play statistical games all day; I ask to switch to the ethical considerations. YOU CAN'T COPE WITH THAT, so first you must shift grounds, then when that fails, you have to jump back to the old, unsettleable argument.
Look at the circle you are creating. Why are you trapped in this mental loop?
Once again why is it right and proper to force your neighbor to provide health care for another neighbor? By what right do you take another man's property and give it to another? Why can't you help the people you want tp on your own by just doing it, instead of using brute force to make others do it for you?
fishermage.blogspot.com
Heck, I agree with you. Why allow children to go to school for free? Im sick of paying for ungrateful children. That way 15 years down the road I can hire them at $1 an hou...wait what? Minimum wage? Why should the government tell me what I can pay my employees? How dare they! I'm going to drive down to the legislature and compla...what...a new road? What is this? Why am i paying for this so other people can use it? Everyone should get a pass for every road they have helped pay for or there should be a toll with a swipe card...enough of these freeloading drivers.
Moral of the story: Social welfare provides the structure society needs to be maintained and to keep it from collapsing. If you enable people who have money from the outset you eventually truncate a huge portion of your population who will eventually resent your education and wealth...and then your country turns into a constant police state. If you like this type of free enterprise system so much where basic necessities are not provided for? Move to Brazil or Argentina or something. Plenty of laissez-faire there.
Once again, argument to ridicule. Thank you for showing you can't argue politely.
How about we stick to the topic? we can discuss other uses for government force in another thread. Why is it right and proper to use force to take the money from one person to pay for the health care of another.
If you really care so much about people who don't have health care, why aren;t you helping them? why are you instead advocating using force to take from one group and give to another? If you care, help people outright, don't force.
If YOU are right, everyone should be willing to help one another. If you need to force people, what makes you so sure you are right?
I argued politely...I was simply using a salient example to demonstrate the absurdity of these pure capitalist arguments who advocate scrapping medicaid and medicare.
And as for the rest of your post: I believe in equity as a principle of government and also a goal of government. Therefore it is far more satisfying to apportion help through a government agency rather than have help provided through arbitrary measures (such as individual charity). These solutions are mandated through elected officials in whatever liberal democratic format you so choose to provide representative government. The force is really nothing more than the will of the people to distribute the fruits of the society that everyone helps to maintain (yes, maintenance is as important as generation).
You may not agree with that distribution. You may stretch property arguments to include chattels and income. That is a philosophical argument and as it stands that argument has failed in all political arenas. The ultimate heir of property in today's world is the government and is distributed through ownership in fee simple (at best) and nothing more. That is an extremely high level of ownership on any liberty scale...to ask for more is stretching the boundaries of what Republics and Parliaments are willing to concede.
Sorry if that bugs you...I can see it does. But it is not going to change.
Edit: And furthermore, there is no real world example showing why it SHOULD change.
Not everyone is contributing these fruits. And that is the problem I have.
The single mother with 7 kids that hasn't worked a day in her life isn't contributing. She is leeching.
If everyone paid their fair share then my opinion would change greatly.
basically all he is saying is that if he can get a big enough gang, it makes his force moral. I disagree with that principle.
fishermage.blogspot.com
Screw it. I'm quitting my job and YOU can put the food on my table.
I'm not going to argue with you, there is no point. Some people want to earn their way, while others want the government to spoon feed them.
If you feel so strained by the burden to maintain society...perhaps you should get a better job so the loss of tax dollars doesn't so adversely affect your life. Last time I checked if you clear $40,000 a year and lose $10k a year on taxes you are still far better off than someone on welfare.
You completely ignore the argument of "wanting the government to spoon feed". I don't want people leeching when they can legitimately work. But in the real world there are people who can't work and if you don't offer a means of PACIFYING them they will end up costing you a lot more money when they decide to feed themselves by robbing, stealing, and generally working towards the destruction of society.
When you destroy social welfare you prevent a whole class of people from (realistically) ever bouncing back and becoming contributing members of society you create social distress. And then you either need police squads (see Brazil) or totalitarian states (see China) to protect you from the disadvantaged citizen.
It is in your best interest to put 1/3 of your income towards supporting social infrastructure...even though it may suck.
Besides the fact that I have to work everyday for my money and they get to sit around the house watching TV for theirs.
You know just as well as I do that these people don't want to bounce back. Why would they? They have it made.
Most people that get food stamps eat a whole lot better than I do making 55k+ a year. And you're okay with this??
I'm not.
edit*
Okay. You can't afford to put food on your table? Here is a bag of beans and a sack of rice. It should last you a month. Next month you'll get another bag of beans/sack of rice.
Nope. Instead here is $500 in food stamps. Go ahead and buy those 24pcks of Mountain Dew, doritos, and choclate chip cookies. Heaven forbid you not have the "necessities".
Hey, don't get me wrong...I get it. I am of the belief though that everyone has intrinsic value and everyone has dignity that should be respected. And that intrinsic value, by its very nature, cannot come from extrinsic things (such as working). We all by nature get why it is important to work (if we are lucky enough to have our mental faculty). People who don't work are often screwed up in some way. It need not be a diagnosed condition. We need to keep them afloat at some level of sustenance while still making life uncomfortable enough that people do not want to maintain it. It is a tough balance.
Hey, don't get me wrong...I get it. I am of the belief though that everyone has intrinsic value and everyone has dignity that should be respected. And that intrinsic value, by its very nature, cannot come from extrinsic things (such as working). We all by nature get why it is important to work (if we are lucky enough to have our mental faculty). People who don't work are often screwed up in some way. It need not be a diagnosed condition. We need to keep them afloat at some level of sustenance while still making life uncomfortable enough that people do not want to maintain it. It is a tough balance.
100% agree. People aren't going to go out and do for themselves when they have it better having the government do it for them.
I think my rice and beans is a good example. Or maybe we should limit the amount of time a person is allowed to get government assistance?
I don't have a fix for the problem, but we need to come up with one.
I don't really know how to respond to this. You really sorta go off-topic:
#1: You misappropriate liberal democracies with totalitarian states. Opposite ends of the spectrum...poli sci 101.
#2: Dogmatic unsupported statements of how well your principles work. I'll take socialist states like Germany, France, Canada, UK, and the US as being the richest societies ever created versus your examples of libertarian wealth.
#3: Irrational comments on the morality of my argument...did I ever even mention this? When did you make the switch this to an ethical debate which I can't hope to COPE with...quote unquote.
#4: And then I'm supposedly using circular logic. I have no idea where this came in...please let me know.
#5: To top it off at the very end after I completely explained my position you sneakily try and edit your question to center around the moral rights of "redistribution of property". Like I didn't answer that indirectly by referencing Locke. However, do I need to be explicit now, even when I have no idea what you are trying to prove or demonstrate? And by the way your notions of force are convenient and conflate choice with force and force with coercion. Very convenient.
You are one strange cat, and no that is not ad hominem because I'm not using your character to counter your arguments. I'm just mentioning that you are sorta weird. I repeat, this comment has nothing to do with your arguments! And on that note can i ask a question? What do you do for a living? Might shed some insight for me...thanks.
You didn't read a word I posted.
That's okay, I guess your crazy philosophy insulates you from reality. And that, my friend, is a personal attack. It's okay, by blatantly ignoring the facts and figures and data I posted, you earned it. Don't worry, I'm sure the free market will save us all, it's like Jesus.
I read every word posted, and like THIS post, it was more personal attacks and namecalling. Once again it seems your side of this simply doesn't know how decent people discuss things.
I posted facts and figures about how different governments spend anywhere from 1/2 to 1/4 of the amount we do on healthcare, yet have better healthcare.
You called this namecalling.
I showed how CATO was cherrypicking their facts and lying. You claimed I hadn't even addressed your nonsense institute.
Decent people apparently discuss things by making absurd statements and then hoping everyone else is really really stupid. If you define 'decent' as 'cult member' that is.
In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own.
-Thomas Jefferson
If we are going to discuss this we need to at least call it what it is. This is not a "new" idea it's been around for quite some time.
National Socialism
–noun the principles and practices of the Nazi party in Germany—Related forms
National Socialist.
dictionary.reference.com/search
sorry but this is not what our founding fathers had intended and goes against everything this country was founded upon. There are plenty of "socialized "nations to choose from, if you want to live in one go move there. There are other options for our people and that is :
1. Taking on pharmacutical companies holding them on charges of crimes against humanity, holding them accountable for refusing to make medications that actually heal people instead of making ones just for profit. 2. Force insurance companies to cover their clients instead of trying every bs run around to get out of covering what they said they would. 3. Becoming a doctor should not just be something for the "elite". Add a college grant program for aspiring young doctors who are qualified to go to medical school but cannot afford it. We pay for their schooling and then they agree to work for a set wage at our free hospitals and clinics for a few years after they graduate to compensate us for their schooling, a way better alternative than them paying off loans the rest of their lives, and would increase the number of doctors there are physically in the field, thus shortening waits to be seen, and providing doctors to the poor.
You decry socialism but then list 3 social programs to help fix America. Bravo. You are very bright.
You didn't read a word I posted.
That's okay, I guess your crazy philosophy insulates you from reality. And that, my friend, is a personal attack. It's okay, by blatantly ignoring the facts and figures and data I posted, you earned it. Don't worry, I'm sure the free market will save us all, it's like Jesus.
I read every word posted, and like THIS post, it was more personal attacks and namecalling. Once again it seems your side of this simply doesn't know how decent people discuss things.
I posted facts and figures about how different governments spend anywhere from 1/2 to 1/4 of the amount we do on healthcare, yet have better healthcare.
You called this namecalling.
I showed how CATO was cherrypicking their facts and lying. You claimed I hadn't even addressed your nonsense institute.
Decent people apparently discuss things by making absurd statements and then hoping everyone else is really really stupid. If you define 'decent' as 'cult member' that is.
You failed to prove that their health care is "better" You did not show how cato is "cherrypicking facts, you did not show how they are lying. You call my statements "absurd" yet can't show how they are. I did npt call your bad example namecalling, I called your namecalling namecalling. What you are doing there is called mischaracterization.
Then of course you wrap it up by taking something I said out of context. When did I call YOU a cult member? Cheerrypicking indeed
fishermage.blogspot.com
I don't really know how to respond to this. You really sorta go off-topic:
#1: You misappropriate liberal democracies with totalitarian states. Opposite ends of the spectrum...poli sci 101.
#2: Dogmatic unsupported statements of how well your principles work. I'll take socialist states like Germany, France, Canada, UK, and the US as being the richest societies ever created versus your examples of libertarian wealth.
#3: Irrational comments on the morality of my argument...did I ever even mention this? When did you make the switch this to an ethical debate which I can't hope to COPE with...quote unquote.
#4: And then I'm supposedly using circular logic. I have no idea where this came in...please let me know.
#5: To top it off at the very end after I completely explained my position you sneakily try and edit your question to center around the moral rights of "redistribution of property". Like I didn't answer that indirectly by referencing Locke. However, do I need to be explicit now, even when I have no idea what you are trying to prove or demonstrate? And by the way your notions of force are convenient and conflate choice with force and force with coercion. Very convenient.
You are one strange cat, and no that is not ad hominem because I'm not using your character to counter your arguments. I'm just mentioning that you are sorta weird. I repeat, this comment has nothing to do with your arguments! And on that note can i ask a question? What do you do for a living? Might shed some insight for me...thanks.
1) HUh? where did I do thaat?
2) All those states you mentioned have a backbone of libertarianism with socialism slapped on them. They are called mixed economies, and it isThe 90s were a nightmare for those countries, and after they instututed libertarian (ie market) reforms, which the socialists all tried to stop, those member nations turned around. There is no evidence that it is the sicialism that maes them a success, and substantial evidence that it is their markets.
In fact, in many ways those countries have moved towards more free markets that US, and that is why those economies are doing better than ours. Before they had instituted market reforms, they were WAY behind us. But again, this is a statistical argument that you'll never believe. Third base
3) I TOLD you why I switched the debate -- because you love your evidence, and I love mine. In that that was fruitless, I asked you for moral justification for forcing one group of people to pay for another. You chould not.
4) No you are not using "circular logic,' there you go again. I said you aare running in a loop. When you ca't deal with the morality argument, you switch it back to the utilitarian one, then I try and bring it back to the moral, then you shift it back..and so on..an infinite loop of discussion.
5) You still don't seem to know what government IS. Government is force. Simple as that. Everything we do with givernment is that which we do by force. I guess you will never understand that; but try and refrain from paying taxes, or refrain from labor laws.
Oh and I am glad you called me weird. People who believe in rule by liberty have always been "weird" to those who believe in force. I understand why you don't understand me. Twenty years ago no on knew who we were. Now, everyone knows who we are and hey, we even had a candidate in the Republican race. We are a bit ahead of the old statist curve you are walking on, so I understand why you don't see it.
fishermage.blogspot.com
You decry socialism but then list 3 social programs to help fix America. Bravo. You are very bright.
Holding Pharmacutical companies accountable for their actions is not socialism, it is a service to humanity. When food suppliers provide bad food or try to hike prices up unreasonably we have laws to protect us, but we are not enforcing these same laws for our medications? Forcing insurance to hold up their end of the bargain instead of defaulting on claims should be treated like any other contract. They make the contract and should be held accountable for fullfilling it. A trade off with doctors to help the poor in exchange for payment of their schooling is a fair trade for all parties involved. Socialism is taking from one class to support another class, that would not be the case both parties benefit from the doctor grant/ help the poor program. You are not taking from these doctors, you are helping them, and in turn they help solve the problem. You could still very well go to school get your own loans and do it the way it has always been done if you choose so, just this would give them more options and increase the number of doctors physically on the market. It is a win- win situation for all parties involved, and less expensive than the way medicaid is currently being run.
You didn't read a word I posted.
That's okay, I guess your crazy philosophy insulates you from reality. And that, my friend, is a personal attack. It's okay, by blatantly ignoring the facts and figures and data I posted, you earned it. Don't worry, I'm sure the free market will save us all, it's like Jesus.
I read every word posted, and like THIS post, it was more personal attacks and namecalling. Once again it seems your side of this simply doesn't know how decent people discuss things.
I posted facts and figures about how different governments spend anywhere from 1/2 to 1/4 of the amount we do on healthcare, yet have better healthcare.
You called this namecalling.
I showed how CATO was cherrypicking their facts and lying. You claimed I hadn't even addressed your nonsense institute.
Decent people apparently discuss things by making absurd statements and then hoping everyone else is really really stupid. If you define 'decent' as 'cult member' that is.
You failed to prove that their health care is "better" You did not show how cato is "cherrypicking facts, you did not show how they are lying. You call my statements "absurd" yet can't show how they are. I did npt call your bad example namecalling, I called your namecalling namecalling. What you are doing there is called mischaracterization.
Then of course you wrap it up by taking something I said out of context. When did I call YOU a cult member? Cheerrypicking indeed
Excuse me? If you have a problem with how the rankings were constructed post them. They were constructed from internationally recognized metrics, and your handwave is nonsense indeed.
I showed specifically how CATO was cherrypicking facts:" I guess its true we have the highest cancer survival rates by anywhere from a percentage point or two to much larger. Of course we have worse Heart Disease mortality rates. But hey, I'm sure if they are willing to sit there and monkey through enough statistics, we'll come out smelling like daisies eventually, even if they have to throw a dozen studies on the floor. "
They were cherrypicking ONE statistic that looks good for America. There are many that look worse for America. The metrics used to measure international quality are things like infant mortality, average age of death, etc. Not cherry picked metrics about how we do vs. one disease or another.
They LIED when they said:
Health care spending is not necessarily bad.
To a large degree, America spends money on
health care because it is a wealthy nation and
chooses to do so. Economists consider health
care a "normal good," meaning that spending
is positively correlated with income. As
incomes rise, people want more of that good.
Because we are a wealthy nation, we can and
do demand more health care.
The European countries that are spending half or LESS of what we do on healthcare have comperable or GREATER incomes.
Your complete inability to READ this and then say "Oh, you never showed that" is pathetic.
Your definition of "Decent people" and how they "discuss things" appears to be they all show up and listen to your leader, who tells you the one truth, and then you go and distribute the one truth, with no respect to anyone who isn't
You will AGAIN ignore this and continue on, blaming, I dunno, liberal democrats and the coarsening of American dialogue for the fact that you. are. wrong.
In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own.
-Thomas Jefferson
You didn't read a word I posted.
That's okay, I guess your crazy philosophy insulates you from reality. And that, my friend, is a personal attack. It's okay, by blatantly ignoring the facts and figures and data I posted, you earned it. Don't worry, I'm sure the free market will save us all, it's like Jesus.
I read every word posted, and like THIS post, it was more personal attacks and namecalling. Once again it seems your side of this simply doesn't know how decent people discuss things.
I posted facts and figures about how different governments spend anywhere from 1/2 to 1/4 of the amount we do on healthcare, yet have better healthcare.
You called this namecalling.
I showed how CATO was cherrypicking their facts and lying. You claimed I hadn't even addressed your nonsense institute.
Decent people apparently discuss things by making absurd statements and then hoping everyone else is really really stupid. If you define 'decent' as 'cult member' that is.
You failed to prove that their health care is "better" You did not show how cato is "cherrypicking facts, you did not show how they are lying. You call my statements "absurd" yet can't show how they are. I did npt call your bad example namecalling, I called your namecalling namecalling. What you are doing there is called mischaracterization.
Then of course you wrap it up by taking something I said out of context. When did I call YOU a cult member? Cheerrypicking indeed
Excuse me? If you have a problem with how the rankings were constructed post them. They were constructed from internationally recognized metrics, and your handwave is nonsense indeed.
I showed specifically how CATO was cherrypicking facts:" I guess its true we have the highest cancer survival rates by anywhere from a percentage point or two to much larger. Of course we have worse Heart Disease mortality rates. But hey, I'm sure if they are willing to sit there and monkey through enough statistics, we'll come out smelling like daisies eventually, even if they have to throw a dozen studies on the floor. "
They were cherrypicking ONE statistic that looks good for America. There are many that look worse for America. The metrics used to measure international quality are things like infant mortality, average age of death, etc. Not cherry picked metrics about how we do vs. one disease or another.
They LIED when they said:
Health care spending is not necessarily bad.
To a large degree, America spends money on
health care because it is a wealthy nation and
chooses to do so. Economists consider health
care a "normal good," meaning that spending
is positively correlated with income. As
incomes rise, people want more of that good.
Because we are a wealthy nation, we can and
do demand more health care.
The European countries that are spending half or LESS of what we do on healthcare have comperable or GREATER incomes.
Your complete inability to READ this and then say "Oh, you never showed that" is pathetic.
Your definition of "Decent people" and how they "discuss things" appears to be they all show up and listen to your leader, who tells you the one truth, and then you go and distribute the one truth, with no respect to anyone who isn't
You will AGAIN ignore this and continue on, blaming, I dunno, liberal democrats and the coarsening of American dialogue for the fact that you. are. wrong.
This rankings are from a socialist organization. that which you call a lie is spot on. You see? We can argue about the statistics all day; we simply don't view GOOD as the same thing; BETTER as the same thing; FAIR as the same thing.
The Eurpopeans have improved their healthcare systems by instituting more MARKET-based solutions. They still have more rationing than we do -- depending on the country.
WE have socialized medicine too -- in some areas more socialized than them. It is the socialism in all the systems that makes them ALL inefficient -- and the more socialist they are -- the worse it gets. When they (Europe) move away from socialism, as they've been doing, it gets better.
We need to learn from their mistakes and improve our own, not follow them down their rat hole that they have dug out of with markets.
I have read many takes on this, and I disagree with YOUR take on it. That is why, as I said, we would do better to move on from the statistical debate and get on with the ethical one.
By what right do you point a gun to your neighbor's head and take from him to provide for another?
fishermage.blogspot.com
Plus there is no reason to get so hateful and angry just because we disagree. make your point and be happy at that. NO reason for so much venom
fishermage.blogspot.com
I don't really know how to respond to this. You really sorta go off-topic:
#1: You misappropriate liberal democracies with totalitarian states. Opposite ends of the spectrum...poli sci 101.
#2: Dogmatic unsupported statements of how well your principles work. I'll take socialist states like Germany, France, Canada, UK, and the US as being the richest societies ever created versus your examples of libertarian wealth.
#3: Irrational comments on the morality of my argument...did I ever even mention this? When did you make the switch this to an ethical debate which I can't hope to COPE with...quote unquote.
#4: And then I'm supposedly using circular logic. I have no idea where this came in...please let me know.
#5: To top it off at the very end after I completely explained my position you sneakily try and edit your question to center around the moral rights of "redistribution of property". Like I didn't answer that indirectly by referencing Locke. However, do I need to be explicit now, even when I have no idea what you are trying to prove or demonstrate? And by the way your notions of force are convenient and conflate choice with force and force with coercion. Very convenient.
You are one strange cat, and no that is not ad hominem because I'm not using your character to counter your arguments. I'm just mentioning that you are sorta weird. I repeat, this comment has nothing to do with your arguments! And on that note can i ask a question? What do you do for a living? Might shed some insight for me...thanks.
1) HUh? where did I do thaat?
2) All those states you mentioned have a backbone of libertarianism with socialism slapped on them. They are called mixed economies, and it isThe 90s were a nightmare for those countries, and after they instututed libertarian (ie market) reforms, which the socialists all tried to stop, those member nations turned around. There is no evidence that it is the sicialism that maes them a success, and substantial evidence that it is their markets.
In fact, in many ways those countries have moved towards more free markets that US, and that is why those economies are doing better than ours. Before they had instituted market reforms, they were WAY behind us. But again, this is a statistical argument that you'll never believe. Third base
3) I TOLD you why I switched the debate -- because you love your evidence, and I love mine. In that that was fruitless, I asked you for moral justification for forcing one group of people to pay for another. You chould not.
4) No you are not using "circular logic,' there you go again. I said you aare running in a loop. When you ca't deal with the morality argument, you switch it back to the utilitarian one, then I try and bring it back to the moral, then you shift it back..and so on..an infinite loop of discussion.
5) You still don't seem to know what government IS. Government is force. Simple as that. Everything we do with givernment is that which we do by force. I guess you will never understand that; but try and refrain from paying taxes, or refrain from labor laws.
Oh and I am glad you called me weird. People who believe in rule by liberty have always been "weird" to those who believe in force. I understand why you don't understand me. Twenty years ago no on knew who we were. Now, everyone knows who we are and hey, we even had a candidate in the Republican race. We are a bit ahead of the old statist curve you are walking on, so I understand why you don't see it.
I'd understand the forgetfulness of it was not nested:
#1: Where did you do that? I'm talking about liberal democracies that implement social welfare as part of a constitutional standard and you misappropriate it as: "Basically you advocate a totalitarian society with your ideas. Universal food, universal healthcare, universal shlelter, universal clothing -- to use our own tactics against you." No where did i say universal. The basics of social welfare provide a bare minimum standard for those who cannot afford these necessities. This can be implemented by a liberal democracy or a totalitarian state...in fact...universal coverage can be by decree or by choice. You know full well which version I'm speaking of...so why characterize it otherwise?
#2: A backbone of libertarianism? Heh. I won't detail every single constitutional document of those countries listed, but I assure you the backbone of Canada is not built on libertarian principles. In fact the Canadian constitution promotes...indeed, mandates...every form of equality out there save economic equality (and that feature was debated at length in the 70s!). As a federalist state our country divided government intervention (aka socialism) into every fabric of Canadian life. This is modified by the will of the people and that balance is always being tinkered with. There are no exclusions save privacy and personal autonomy in personal matters.
#3: The problem is you had never asked previously for a moral justification. You inserted it after you had left the other argument high and dry. However if you want me to reference my moral authority on the source of equality I'll reference The Magna Carta, The Chancellory Courts of England, Locke, Hume, Mill, Voltaire...for starters. Perhaps philosophy is where you want to station the argument now...and that's fine.
#4: Fine
#5: Government is not force...you know very well that governments are social orders with many various iterations of enforcement. You are only focusing on modern government depictions.
Note: You still didn't tell me what you did for a living!
I don't really know how to respond to this. You really sorta go off-topic:
#1: You misappropriate liberal democracies with totalitarian states. Opposite ends of the spectrum...poli sci 101.
#2: Dogmatic unsupported statements of how well your principles work. I'll take socialist states like Germany, France, Canada, UK, and the US as being the richest societies ever created versus your examples of libertarian wealth.
#3: Irrational comments on the morality of my argument...did I ever even mention this? When did you make the switch this to an ethical debate which I can't hope to COPE with...quote unquote.
#4: And then I'm supposedly using circular logic. I have no idea where this came in...please let me know.
#5: To top it off at the very end after I completely explained my position you sneakily try and edit your question to center around the moral rights of "redistribution of property". Like I didn't answer that indirectly by referencing Locke. However, do I need to be explicit now, even when I have no idea what you are trying to prove or demonstrate? And by the way your notions of force are convenient and conflate choice with force and force with coercion. Very convenient.
You are one strange cat, and no that is not ad hominem because I'm not using your character to counter your arguments. I'm just mentioning that you are sorta weird. I repeat, this comment has nothing to do with your arguments! And on that note can i ask a question? What do you do for a living? Might shed some insight for me...thanks.
1) HUh? where did I do thaat?
2) All those states you mentioned have a backbone of libertarianism with socialism slapped on them. They are called mixed economies, and it isThe 90s were a nightmare for those countries, and after they instututed libertarian (ie market) reforms, which the socialists all tried to stop, those member nations turned around. There is no evidence that it is the sicialism that maes them a success, and substantial evidence that it is their markets.
In fact, in many ways those countries have moved towards more free markets that US, and that is why those economies are doing better than ours. Before they had instituted market reforms, they were WAY behind us. But again, this is a statistical argument that you'll never believe. Third base
3) I TOLD you why I switched the debate -- because you love your evidence, and I love mine. In that that was fruitless, I asked you for moral justification for forcing one group of people to pay for another. You chould not.
4) No you are not using "circular logic,' there you go again. I said you aare running in a loop. When you ca't deal with the morality argument, you switch it back to the utilitarian one, then I try and bring it back to the moral, then you shift it back..and so on..an infinite loop of discussion.
5) You still don't seem to know what government IS. Government is force. Simple as that. Everything we do with givernment is that which we do by force. I guess you will never understand that; but try and refrain from paying taxes, or refrain from labor laws.
Oh and I am glad you called me weird. People who believe in rule by liberty have always been "weird" to those who believe in force. I understand why you don't understand me. Twenty years ago no on knew who we were. Now, everyone knows who we are and hey, we even had a candidate in the Republican race. We are a bit ahead of the old statist curve you are walking on, so I understand why you don't see it.
I'd understand the forgetfulness of it was not nested:
#1: Where did you do that? I'm talking about liberal democracies that implement social welfare as part of a constitutional standard and you misappropriate it as: "Basically you advocate a totalitarian society with your ideas. Universal food, universal healthcare, universal shlelter, universal clothing -- to use our own tactics against you." No where did i say universal. The basics of social welfare provide a bare minimum standard for those who cannot afford these necessities. This can be implemented by a liberal democracy or a totalitarian state...in fact...universal coverage can be by decree or by choice. You know full well which version I'm speaking of...so why characterize it otherwise?
#2: A backbone of libertarianism? Heh. I won't detail every single constitutional document of those countries listed, but I assure you the backbone of Canada is not built on libertarian principles. In fact the Canadian constitution promotes...indeed, mandates...every form of equality out there save economic equality (and that feature was debated at length in the 70s!). As a federalist state our country divided government intervention (aka socialism) into every fabric of Canadian life. This is modified by the will of the people and that balance is always being tinkered with. There are no exclusions save privacy and personal autonomy in personal matters.
#3: The problem is you had never asked previously for a moral justification. You inserted it after you had left the other argument high and dry. However if you want me to reference my moral authority on the source of equality I'll reference The Magna Carta, The Chancellory Courts of England, Locke, Hume, Mill, Voltaire...for starters. Perhaps philosophy is where you want to station the argument now...and that's fine.
#4: Fine
#5: Government is not force...you know very well that governments are social orders with many various iterations of enforcement. You are only focusing on modern government depictions.
Note: You still didn't tell me what you did for a living!
1. No. You are leaving MY context. Go back., read what you wrote. What I was answering. You cut off what i was replying to, and jumped the context. You gave your formula for how to keep goverment accpuntable -- and I showed you how the three things you mentioned cam result in a totalitarian society. Your version of "social welfare" violates the essence of the foudation of civil society -- self ownership (and by extension, proberty rights). You are taking away the labor of one just to give it to another.
the on;y thing you are saying makes it okay is if people get a big enough gang (democracy) to do the stealing. I think that's wrong; and it is exactly what totalitarian societies do and why they are wrong -- and fail.
2. Canada is built on individual freedom, property rights, and rule of law. That's what libertarianism IS. So is France, Germany, England, Italy, and all of the free world. All of their constitutions have this inherent 'welfare contradiction," and those all undermine the libertarian core of all civil society.
3. I switched arguments after we could both see that YOu were going to believe YOUR statistics, and I was going to believe mine. I think there is ample evidence that socialized medicine doesn't work, and you disagree. So, I decided to move on from that and see where and how you morally sanctioned it.
4. Fine as well
5. Government are the agency we grant the power to use FORCE to preserve human rights. Our social order is the market. The government is designed to protect it -- but it can only do so with force. Force is what it is, force is what it does. Under every law is a gun to back it up, no matter what society you are looking at. The only difference is how we limit that use of force.
Sorry. What do i do for a living? LOL. Technically, I am a retired investor. I'm also currently working on a novel (contemporary urban fantasy, as they call it) and a book about God.
I'm not all that anonymous. You can follow my links to my biography
To pay for my insurance, also because I love books and love people,I also work for Borders books -- but that's more another way for me to have fun in my happy early retirement.
fishermage.blogspot.com
I guess we are just going to have to agree to disagree. We come from very different backgrounds and lead extremely different lives. I'm atheist/you are a theist; i'm a lawyer/you have had a potpourri of occupations but im sure you arent a fan of lawyers; etc etc.
I guess we are just going to have to agree to disagree. We come from very different backgrounds and lead extremely different lives. I'm atheist/you are a theist; i'm a lawyer/you have had a potpourri of occupations but im sure you arent a fan of lawyers; etc etc.
Actually, I loved one particular lawyer for quite some time; I was an athiest/agnostic for my entire adult life (since I was about 12 actually) until a two-year long inquiry into the evidence convinced me otherwise about ten years ago.
Some of my best friends are lawyers and other scoundrels
fishermage.blogspot.com
I don't even have to click on the OP's link. I don't know where it came from or how it was worded, but whoever thinks this is dead wrong. If a majority of Americans approved of government healthcare, we would have had it in the form of Hillary care a la 1994.