If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Fark)   Has anyone ever convinced you to change from being conservative to being liberal (or vice versa)?   (fark.com) divider line 737
    More: Obvious  
•       •       •

1363 clicks; posted to Politics » on 22 Jul 2013 at 2:49 AM (50 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



737 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-07-22 03:36:12 PM

demaL-demaL-yeH: Ahem. Only one Republican voted against it. All other Nay votes were from Democrats.


Which changes nothing when it comes to blaming the correct president for it becoming law.
 
2013-07-22 03:38:57 PM

BojanglesPaladin: Felgraf: So then, if we made healthcare a right, but also made a mandate that "To maintain/get a medical license, you must provide free healthcare and volunteer in low income areas for X ammount of time", that would be alright in your eyes, and not making them do anything 'against their will'?

As I have said above, the government is free to provide and pay for services out of the public coffers as they see fit, but that does not make those services a "RIGHT". You do not have a RIGHT to postal service, even if postal service was provided for "free" through tax dollars. Anything that the government can simply elect to begin doing or to stop doing is not a "right". It may be a good idea, it may be for the benefit of society at large, but that has nothing inherently to do with "rights".

Health services are not a RIGHT. That is not splitting a hair, that is a fundamental. Whether or not something is a right, the government can, if it so chooses, make it available to everyone. And state and local licensure boards can (and often do) require a certain amount of pro bono work as a condition of licensure, just as they can require that licensees maintain ongoing education. If you don't like the requirements, you don't have to participate. Obviously, there is a great deal of flexibility and discretion for each person regarding how, when, and in what way they fulfill this requirement. However, I can see no way in which it would be constitutional for the Federal Government to compel a doctor or a lawyer to perform specific services without compensation.

And frankly, who would WANT to be defended by an attorney doing so against their will, or be treated by a doctor against their will?


Unless I missed it (which is entirely possible), you still have not actually told us what a "right" is. All you've done is say that X and Y are not rights.
 
2013-07-22 03:41:15 PM

BojanglesPaladin: As I have said above, the government is free to provide and pay for services out of the public coffers as they see fit, but that does not make those services a "RIGHT". You do not have a RIGHT to postal service, even if postal service was provided for "free" through tax dollars.


"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

...

To establish Post Offices and post Roads;"


Article 1, Section 8 U.S. Constitution for the WIN!

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
 
2013-07-22 03:41:51 PM

BojanglesPaladin: And frankly, who would WANT to be defended by an attorney doing so against their will, or be treated by a doctor against their will


Um, idiot? Doctor's take an oath to treat people.
 
2013-07-22 03:44:07 PM

Bilgewater: All of human progress has been done by social deviants. People who were repelled by the status quo and struggled against it. Jesus is a famous example.


Is this the part where we pretend that all social and/or political revolutions have benefited humanity?

Not all "progress" is in a direction we all want to go.
 
2013-07-22 03:44:32 PM
It is sad that a nation that was created on notions like:

"Better to let 10 guilty men go free than to imprison one innocent man."

has morphed into one where so many believe in notions like:

"Better millions go without access to decent health care than to have one deadbeat get his injured knee wrapped on my dime!"

I'm a Rockefeller Republican. Which in the modern parlance means I'm a damn dirty liberal.
 
2013-07-22 03:47:37 PM
I've always been somewhat liberal - but I wanted to wed that to practical fiscal policy.  I didn't like the idea of any one party having complete dominion.

That changed to more solidly land me in the liberal camp in 2002, when I started becoming much more active politically.  I just didn't want my son to have to go over to Iraq and Afghanistan to pay, with his life, for the party in power to push for wars of convenience.  As he was a Middle School-aged kid at that point, I was afraid that Republicans would do more that could possibly harm him.  As he's now a young man, and we appear to be somewhat less war-prone today, I chose to stay where I am on the basis of the where my interests and those of the country align, in my opinion.  As many have noted, the vast middle of the political spectrum has been vacated by the moderate Republicans - as a result, there are few Republicans that I could see as being responsive to what I think makes sense.  So, I think that has given the Democrats more lattitude to claim the middle.  I'm rather moderate, but as the landscape has regressed somewhat to disestablish what I thought were established policies that kept the country moving forward in a centrist fashion (Voting Rights Act, Abortion, Violence Against Women - all have been stymied recently in promoting rights that I feel should be universal - women's rights to control their body and their safety and minority rights to participate in elective government with no encumbrence), I guess I become more liberal.  Standing still, the ground moves me more to the left......of whatever.
 
2013-07-22 03:47:43 PM

SunsetLament: jchuffyman: SunsetLament: jchuffyman: Dusk-You-n-Me: BojanglesPaladin: Nothing that requires the labor of another person can be a right.

The right to an attorney?

Not to mention that ER doctors are already required to treat anybody and everybody that shows up there, regardless of their ability to pay

Only if the hospital wants to continue to receive federal funding through medicare.

And?

And that means it's not a "right".  You don't have a right to healthcare or to receive medical treatment from a particular doctor.  You can be an ER doctor in a hospital in the country and deny medical treatment within the law; you just can't be in a hospital that has elected to contract with the government to receive medicare funding.


I never said a particular doctor. I was just using it as an example of doctors that currently treat everyone that sees them. The fact that not every hospital does this does not make it a bad example. You can do lots of things if you forfeit federal funding. A state could have a drinking age of 2 if they decided they didn't want highway funding. And I would consider that a failing of our current healthcare system rather than proof that healthcare isn't or shouldn't be a right.
 
2013-07-22 03:51:23 PM

GoldSpider: Bilgewater: All of human progress has been done by social deviants. People who were repelled by the status quo and struggled against it. Jesus is a famous example.

Is this the part where we pretend that all social and/or political revolutions have benefited humanity?

Not all "progress" is in a direction we all want to go.


Not all change is an improvement.

But all improvement is a change.
 
2013-07-22 03:52:46 PM
I'd say reading Fair Tax got me to be more libertarian, from democrat.  And I certainly thought congressional McCain(not candidate McCain) would have made a better president than Obama.  But then Obama is a 1970's republican and there wasn't really a liberal choice.
 
2013-07-22 03:57:40 PM
I have shifted quite substantially to the right over time.

Once, I was a very staunch communist. Now I am a firmly committed democratic socialist. It's a compromise, but one I am quite comfortable with.
 
2013-07-22 04:06:41 PM

Serious Black: Unless I missed it (which is entirely possible), you still have not actually told us what a "right" is.


I do not feel I should have to explain it to you.

I pointed out to a poster who was not you that they were mistaken in thinking that "healthcare is a right" as so many claim. You do not seem to be arguing that it actually *IS*, but rather quibbling over aspects of "compelling someone to provide a good or service", which while entertaining, does not make healthcare a right.

jchuffyman: A state could have a drinking age of 2 if they decided they didn't want highway funding. And I would consider that a failing of our current healthcare system rather than proof that healthcare isn't or shouldn't be a right.


You fundamentally misunderstand the nature of our rights if you think that a government's willingness or unwillingness to provide funding for it is a criteria.

I'm confused as to why government funding would ever even enter into the discussion. Perhaps you are confusing an "entitlement" with a "right"? It's a common mistake.
 
2013-07-22 04:12:05 PM

BojanglesPaladin: You fundamentally misunderstand the nature of our rights if you think that a government's willingness or unwillingness to provide funding for it is a criteria.


Fine. Quit tapdancing around it and 'splain what a right is, then.
/We'll wait, but not with bated breath.
 
2013-07-22 04:13:43 PM

flynn80: I'm pretty convinced that both sides are nothing more than puppet shows for the elite to try and control the masses.


Left wing, right wing... it don't matter when the corporations are setting the flight plan.
 
2013-07-22 04:20:06 PM

demaL-demaL-yeH: Fine. Quit tapdancing around it and 'splain what a right is, then.


Again, I am not here to teach civics classes.

But the fact that so many Farkers don't already know, or demand that someone explain it to them, or seem to be confusing rights with entitlements or some aspect of government largesse is instructive about the level of political discourse found here.
 
2013-07-22 04:21:22 PM

BojanglesPaladin: Serious Black: Unless I missed it (which is entirely possible), you still have not actually told us what a "right" is.

I do not feel I should have to explain it to you.


Then I feel like you're behaving like a giant dick.
 
2013-07-22 04:22:14 PM

BojanglesPaladin: I am not here to teach civics classes.


We know. That would require a fundamental understanding of the subject.
 
2013-07-22 04:23:20 PM
Its almost as if the definitions of words used in political discourse are in constant dispute or some crazy shiat like that.
 
2013-07-22 04:25:38 PM

BojanglesPaladin: demaL-demaL-yeH: Fine. Quit tapdancing around it and 'splain what a right is, then.

Again, I am not here to teach civics classes.

But the fact that so many Farkers don't already know, or demand that someone explain it to them, or seem to be confusing rights with entitlements or some aspect of government largesse is instructive about the level of political discourse found here.


If health care is not a right, then why was it included in the United Nations' Universal Declaration of Human Rights? Article 25, Section 1: "Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control."
 
2013-07-22 04:29:49 PM

Serious Black: Then I feel like you're behaving like a giant dick.


And you are welcome to feel that way. You are also welcome to use the ignore function.

But I have been civil to you, and engaged in a reasonable discussion with you without name calling. If assuming that you have a basic understanding of rights and our system of government and do not need to have it explained to you is "behaving like a giant dick", then I can't help you. If you feel that my refusal to run down a rabbit trail of "what is the meaning of words" with someone who doesn't understand the difference between a description and a metaphor and who can't parse the difference between "steal" and "confiscate" is "behaving like a giant dick", then that's just how it has to be. If disagreeing with you in an online forum in a calm and civil manner is "behaving like a giant dick", then I suspect you see giant dicks everywhere.

In all cases, I'm afraid there is nothing I can do for you here.
 
2013-07-22 04:33:13 PM

Whiskey Pete: We know. That would require a fundamental understanding of the subject.


Or posters here having had a civics class or access to the internet. If someone needs to be told what a right is, then they shouldn't really be posting into a conversation about what is and is not a right. I have covered in detail and through many directions why healthcare is not a right. When you have reviewed these and feel that I have overlooked something, or mis-stated something, I welcome your insight.

But if you are instead planning on following your normal seagull modus operandi, please save everyone the wasted pixels.
 
2013-07-22 04:33:31 PM

CommieTaoist: The older I get, the more liberal I get.


I was a libertarian until I became an unemployed diabetic.
 
2013-07-22 04:37:46 PM

BojanglesPaladin: demaL-demaL-yeH: Fine. Quit tapdancing around it and 'splain what a right is, then.

Again, I am not here to teach civics classes.

But the fact that so many Farkers don't already know, or demand that someone explain it to them, or seem to be confusing rights with entitlements or some aspect of government largesse is instructive about the level of political discourse found here.


Given your profound ignorance on the subject, that's a very good idea.

/By the way, the United States of America is a signatory party to the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
 
2013-07-22 04:44:06 PM

BojanglesPaladin: You have a right not to be poisoned


There are conservatives who dispute that.  "Private enterprise will provide clean air and water, if people are willing to pay for them."
 
2013-07-22 04:46:10 PM

BojanglesPaladin: Whiskey Pete: We know. That would require a fundamental understanding of the subject.

Or posters here having had a civics class or access to the internet. If someone needs to be told what a right is, then they shouldn't really be posting into a conversation about what is and is not a right. I have covered in detail and through many directions why healthcare is not a right. When you have reviewed these and feel that I have overlooked something, or mis-stated something, I welcome your insight.

But if you are instead planning on following your normal seagull modus operandi, please save everyone the wasted pixels.


Speaking of wasted pixels. Define a right for the class Professor Derp.
 
2013-07-22 04:57:31 PM

Serious Black: BojanglesPaladin: Felgraf: So then, if we made healthcare a right, but also made a mandate that "To maintain/get a medical license, you must provide free healthcare and volunteer in low income areas for X ammount of time", that would be alright in your eyes, and not making them do anything 'against their will'?

As I have said above, the government is free to provide and pay for services out of the public coffers as they see fit, but that does not make those services a "RIGHT". You do not have a RIGHT to postal service, even if postal service was provided for "free" through tax dollars. Anything that the government can simply elect to begin doing or to stop doing is not a "right". It may be a good idea, it may be for the benefit of society at large, but that has nothing inherently to do with "rights".

Health services are not a RIGHT. That is not splitting a hair, that is a fundamental. Whether or not something is a right, the government can, if it so chooses, make it available to everyone. And state and local licensure boards can (and often do) require a certain amount of pro bono work as a condition of licensure, just as they can require that licensees maintain ongoing education. If you don't like the requirements, you don't have to participate. Obviously, there is a great deal of flexibility and discretion for each person regarding how, when, and in what way they fulfill this requirement. However, I can see no way in which it would be constitutional for the Federal Government to compel a doctor or a lawyer to perform specific services without compensation.

And frankly, who would WANT to be defended by an attorney doing so against their will, or be treated by a doctor against their will?

Unless I missed it (which is entirely possible), you still have not actually told us what a "right" is. All you've done is say that X and Y are not rights.


That would be providing useful information.  Some people  are very good at straw men and nitpicking but he doesn't provide anything that will advance a discussion.
 
2013-07-22 05:04:54 PM

flondrix: There are conservatives who dispute that. "Private enterprise will provide clean air and water, if people are willing to pay for them."


And that is wrong. Air, Water, Airwaves, right-of-ways, etc. are "held in commons" and are subject to public regulations foverning the fair usage and protection of those resources. For those of you unfamiliar with the concept, Commons refers to the cultural and natural resources accessible to all members of a society, including natural materials such as air, water, and a habitable earth. These resources are held in common, not owned privately.

There are people in any group who will dispute anything. Do you think the fact that some people misunderstand things proves anything?

rdalton: Some people are very good at straw men and nitpicking but he doesn't provide anything that will advance a discussion.


Please point me to your posts advancing the discussion or providing useful information.
 
2013-07-22 05:15:28 PM
BP sounds like the Angriest little Randian.
 
m00
2013-07-22 05:17:16 PM
I've changed my mind on specific issues. I've become more conservative on abortion, and more liberal on ideas of collective ownership. I think as I get older, I see the world as less black-and-white. In general I've become more libertarian but apparently my implementation of basic libertarian principles doesn't really look like anyone else's. But I think that's because Libertarianism is a convenient cover for legalized theft (Libertarianism actually says the opposite of what many people claim to do in its name).
 
m00
2013-07-22 05:19:06 PM

BojanglesPaladin: And that is wrong. Air, Water, Airwaves, right-of-ways, etc. are "held in commons" and are subject to public regulations foverning the fair usage and protection of those resources. For those of you unfamiliar with the concept, Commons refers to the cultural and natural resources accessible to all members of a society, including natural materials such as air, water, and a habitable earth. These resources are held in common, not owned privately.


I thought I was the only other Libertarian that understood this. In fact, many conservatives/liberals on Fark have said I can't possibly be a libertarian because I adhere to a concept of the commons.
 
2013-07-22 05:22:47 PM

Raharu: BP sounds like the Angriest little Randian.


Just curious. What on earth are you reading in all of my many posts in this thread that would lead you to believe I am a "Randian"?
 
2013-07-22 05:25:31 PM

m00: I've changed my mind on specific issues. I've become more conservative on abortion, and more liberal on ideas of collective ownership. I think as I get older, I see the world as less black-and-white. In general I've become more libertarian but apparently my implementation of basic libertarian principles doesn't really look like anyone else's. But I think that's because Libertarianism is a convenient cover for legalized theft (Libertarianism actually says the opposite of what many people claim to do in its name).


Always see Libertarianism as an ideological relative to Social Darwinism.
 
2013-07-22 05:26:54 PM

Rwa2play: Always see Libertarianism as an ideological relative to Social Darwinism.


I think you are thinking of Objectivism.

Objectivism is to Libertarianism as Communism is to Socialism.
 
2013-07-22 05:27:13 PM

BojanglesPaladin: Raharu: BP sounds like the Angriest little Randian.

Just curious. What on earth are you reading in all of my many posts in this thread that would lead you to believe I am a "Randian"?


Because you didn't automatically correct Raharu with the proper term: Randroid.
 
m00
2013-07-22 05:28:45 PM

Whiskey Pete: Speaking of wasted pixels. Define a right for the class Professor Derp.


In my mind a "right" is a fundamental and inalienable aspect of being human and free moral agent. Note this is different than a service.

So for example, we have a right to not be tortured. Because we're human beings. We have a right to speak our minds. We have a right to defend ourselves if attacked. We have a right to not be deprived of life and liberty arbitrarily or capriciously. And so forth. Basically rights are "what it means to be a human being." And how that differs from say, being a fish or being a tree or being rock.

Healthcare is a service. Regardless of whether or not you think government should provide healthcare, and to what degree; it's a service. It might be a service you completely believe is the responsibility of government to provide. But this does not make it a right.
 
2013-07-22 05:29:02 PM

BojanglesPaladin: Serious Black: Then I feel like you're behaving like a giant dick.

And you are welcome to feel that way. You are also welcome to use the ignore function.


I have never used the ignore function, and I don't intend on starting any time soon. The only person I have explicitly defriended or blocked on my Facebook is a guy who literally stole about $3,000 from me in college.

But I have been civil to you, and engaged in a reasonable discussion with you without name calling.

As had I up to the point where I called your behavior that of a giant dick.

If assuming that you have a basic understanding of rights and our system of government and do not need to have it explained to you is "behaving like a giant dick", then I can't help you. If you feel that my refusal to run down a rabbit trail of "what is the meaning of words" with someone who doesn't understand the difference between a description and a metaphor and who can't parse the difference between "steal" and "confiscate" is "behaving like a giant dick", then that's just how it has to be. If disagreeing with you in an online forum in a calm and civil manner is "behaving like a giant dick", then I suspect you see giant dicks everywhere.

In all cases, I'm afraid there is nothing I can do for you here.


Since you basically suggested I and my fellow Farkers educate ourselves, I went ahead and jumped off to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy to see what they said about rights. Here's the first line:

"Rights are entitlements (not) to perform certain actions, or (not) to be in certain states; or entitlements that others (not) perform certain actions or (not) be in certain states."

I would think that an entitlement to not be sick or dead would fall into that category, as would an entitlement that other people perform the duty of providing care that keeps me from being sick or dead. Indeed, the SEP has a pretty extensive article about justice and access to health care that includes a section (number 5 if you're curious) specifically talking about how we define a right to health care.
 
2013-07-22 05:31:12 PM

BojanglesPaladin: Serious Black: Unless I missed it (which is entirely possible), you still have not actually told us what a "right" is.

I do not feel I should have to explain it to you.

I pointed out to a poster who was not you that they were mistaken in thinking that "healthcare is a right" as so many claim. You do not seem to be arguing that it actually *IS*, but rather quibbling over aspects of "compelling someone to provide a good or service", which while entertaining, does not make healthcare a right.

jchuffyman: A state could have a drinking age of 2 if they decided they didn't want highway funding. And I would consider that a failing of our current healthcare system rather than proof that healthcare isn't or shouldn't be a right.

You fundamentally misunderstand the nature of our rights if you think that a government's willingness or unwillingness to provide funding for it is a criteria.

I'm confused as to why government funding would ever even enter into the discussion. Perhaps you are confusing an "entitlement" with a "right"? It's a common mistake.


No, I know the difference. Perhaps a better way of stating my position is that our current system treats healthcare as an entitlement when in fact it should treat it as a right. Maybe not a natural right, as few rights are, but a right nonetheless, on par with the right to vote, right to an attorney, etc..
 
2013-07-22 05:31:16 PM

demaL-demaL-yeH: Because you didn't automatically correct Raharu with the proper term: Randroid.


I'm curious how Ayne Rand in any form even came into the discussion about the difference between rights and entitlements, and especially following a mention of the commons.
 
2013-07-22 05:33:48 PM
I find it interesting that some people would wait for their government to decry what is a "right" before accepting one.

and i am frustrated with the attempts of the "it's not a right" crowd to ignore the above mentioned UN Human rights.
 
m00
2013-07-22 05:33:50 PM

Rwa2play: Always see Libertarianism as an ideological relative to Social Darwinism.


It isn't. I might say Libertarianism is a relative to individualism. But in my mind the difference is this: A Social Darwinist might see a homeless man on the street and say: "well, he gets what he deserves. he isn't fit to survive." A Libertarian person may or may not choose to help him, but this decision has nothing to do with Libertarianism.
 
2013-07-22 05:34:30 PM

BojanglesPaladin: demaL-demaL-yeH: Because you didn't automatically correct Raharu with the proper term: Randroid.

I'm curious how Ayne Rand in any form even came into the discussion about the difference between rights and entitlements, and especially following a mention of the commons.


Well there is all that talk about the parasites and takers, and all the while our Lady of Great Suffering and Body Stench was collecting her checks for that pesky gub'ment that she despised so much...
 
2013-07-22 05:39:13 PM

BojanglesPaladin: demaL-demaL-yeH: Fine. Quit tapdancing around it and 'splain what a right is, then.

Again, I am not here to teach civics classes.

But the fact that so many Farkers don't already know, or demand that someone explain it to them, or seem to be confusing rights with entitlements or some aspect of government largesse is instructive about the level of political discourse found here.


I'm not taking sides here, but I think the request was so that whatever definition you come up with could be debated on the details. No details, no point debating, because the sides could be operating on different presumptions.

Treating the question like a request to be taught is purposely misconstruing.

Lamenting the state of debate after intentionally dodging the question wasn't so hot either.

/just a yellow card, carry on
 
m00
2013-07-22 05:39:54 PM

jchuffyman: No, I know the difference. Perhaps a better way of stating my position is that our current system treats healthcare as an entitlement when in fact it should treat it as a right. Maybe not a natural right, as few rights are, but a right nonetheless, on par with the right to vote, right to an attorney, etc..


I don't understand this.

Why not just say you believe it's a responsibility of government to provide healthcare, rather than a right of people to have healthcare. That statement doesn't violate any facts.
 
2013-07-22 05:40:37 PM

jchuffyman: No, I know the difference. Perhaps a better way of stating my position is that our current system treats healthcare as an entitlement when in fact it should treat it as a right. Maybe not a natural right, as few rights are, but a right nonetheless, on par with the right to vote, right to an attorney, etc..


Note that waay back at the beginning, I was simply pointing out that nothing can be a human right that requires the products or services of another person without their consent. (see previous discussions on "right to attorney" as protection from denial and an obligation of the prosecuting government) I have repeatedly affirmed that government is free to offer healthcare to the citizenry as they see fit.
 
2013-07-22 05:40:43 PM

BojanglesPaladin: demaL-demaL-yeH: Because you didn't automatically correct Raharu with the proper term: Randroid.

I'm curious how Ayne Rand in any form even came into the discussion about the difference between rights and entitlements, and especially following a mention of the commons.


Simple:
1. Your posts make explicit that  you believe you should be able to pick and choose which aspects of the social contract apply to you.
2. You demonstrate a profound ignorance of what a right is.
3. You attempt to claim that rights and entitlements are separate and distinct categories when they are not.
4. You assert that taxes are a form of confiscation - which is a synonym for theft, by the way - rather than the price tag of membership in a civilization.
5. Your pronouncements on "economics" are both sociopathic and reject empirical reality.
6. You reject the concept of government as a force for good.

/Clear enough?
 
2013-07-22 05:41:51 PM

m00: Rwa2play: Always see Libertarianism as an ideological relative to Social Darwinism.

It isn't. I might say Libertarianism is a relative to individualism. But in my mind the difference is this: A Social Darwinist might see a homeless man on the street and say: "well, he gets what he deserves. he isn't fit to survive." A Libertarian person may or may not choose to help him, but this decision has nothing to do with Libertarianism.


In the latest iteration, it comes down to a form of NeoFeudalism, with folks figuring that they'll be on the side with the most guns, the most money, and the best defended homes, or at least in the service of some company that has access to the best of these, and that their pooled money will protect them from the hordes of the impoverished that could wash over them at any second and take their goodies, and for damn sure they won't share unless they have comely daughters, or at least some sort of skill that they can add to their collective. It may have that pesky "freedom" and "Liberty" in the description, but in the end, it's about paving the way for others to have the freedom to pay them to not drop the hammer on them. And the freedom to pay others to clean up their messes. It's not exactly an ethos that is deep on compassion, but it's got Liberty in the title, so a lot of folks figure that's got to be good, right?

What most Libertarians fail to realize, is the end game. Which is why so many folks sign up, and then later, when they realize that they might actually NEED pooled resources beyond simply an enclave of like minded individuals, and that there is the distinct possibility that they might have sold their souls to the wrong wrong noble house or corporation, then they are bright and bushytailed for a strong central government, which they were so keen to disband. It's a great philosophy, up until it comes down to the actual nuts and bolts of putting together something workable. It's not a bad ideal, but it is easily corruptible, and many don't see the huge holes in the logic behind their proposals.
 
2013-07-22 05:43:03 PM

m00: jchuffyman: No, I know the difference. Perhaps a better way of stating my position is that our current system treats healthcare as an entitlement when in fact it should treat it as a right. Maybe not a natural right, as few rights are, but a right nonetheless, on par with the right to vote, right to an attorney, etc..

I don't understand this.

Why not just say you believe it's a responsibility of government to provide healthcare, rather than a right of people to have healthcare. That statement doesn't violate any facts.


There is no functional difference between the two, but if you like that wording more, sure.
 
2013-07-22 05:44:57 PM

BojanglesPaladin: jchuffyman: No, I know the difference. Perhaps a better way of stating my position is that our current system treats healthcare as an entitlement when in fact it should treat it as a right. Maybe not a natural right, as few rights are, but a right nonetheless, on par with the right to vote, right to an attorney, etc..

Note that waay back at the beginning, I was simply pointing out that nothing can be a human right that requires the products or services of another person without their consent. (see previous discussions on "right to attorney" as protection from denial and an obligation of the prosecuting government) I have repeatedly affirmed that government is free to offer healthcare to the citizenry as they see fit.


But as I and others have stated, that is not wholly true. See my response to your right to not be poisoned example
 
2013-07-22 05:45:41 PM

m00: jchuffyman: No, I know the difference. Perhaps a better way of stating my position is that our current system treats healthcare as an entitlement when in fact it should treat it as a right. Maybe not a natural right, as few rights are, but a right nonetheless, on par with the right to vote, right to an attorney, etc..

I don't understand this.

Why not just say you believe it's a responsibility of government to provide healthcare, rather than a right of people to have healthcare. That statement doesn't violate any facts.


That seems to be wrong to me. Rights inevitably put responsibilities on others. If I have a right to free speech, that means somebody else has the responsibility not to interfere with my free speech. If I have a right to marry, that means somebody else has the responsibility to recognize myself and my spouse as a married couple. If I have a right to a trial by jury, that means a number of somebody elses have the responsibility to be a part of a jury when I am the subject of a trial. If I have a right to not have my stuff searched willy-nilly by the police, that means a cop has the responsibility to obtain a warrant before searching my stuff.
 
2013-07-22 05:47:11 PM

hubiestubert: Well there is all that talk about the parasites and takers, and all the while our Lady of Great Suffering and Body Stench was collecting her checks for that pesky gub'ment that she despised so much...


If those comments have been made here, in this thread, and by anyone other than you just now, they have not been made by me. So I see no reason why some Farker seagull would be throwing around "Randian".

evilmousse: I'm not taking sides here, but I think the request was so that whatever definition you come up with could be debated on the details. No details, no point debating, because the sides could be operating on different presumptions.


I understand what you are saying, and generally speaking I would be happy to. However, I have been here many, many years, and I know who I am conversing with. As I stated above, I see no reason to run down a rabbit trail of "what is the meaning of words" with someone who doesn't understand the difference between a description and a metaphor and who can't parse the difference between "steal" and "confiscate".

I simply chose not to engage. A wearisome semantics debate over the nature of rights is not likely to produce a productive discussion. Or at least not likely enough in my opinion for me to take the chance.
 
Displayed 50 of 737 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report