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 (1 year 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 05:47:26 PM

demaL-demaL-yeH: you should be able to pick and choose which aspects of the social contract apply to you.


Isn't that how contracts work? Two parties voluntarily agree on the terms?
 
2013-07-22 05:54:11 PM

demaL-demaL-yeH:

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.
No they don't.
2. You demonstrate a profound ignorance of what a right is.
Please explain what I have said that is inaccurate.
3. You attempt to claim that rights and entitlements are separate and distinct categories when they are not.
You SERIOUSLY do not understand the difference between the two?
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.
Taxes are BY DEFINITION confiscation. Theft is a wrongful and illegal seizure of property. See above: BojanglesPaladin: "Stealing" means the wrongful and illegal theft of private property. Confiscation inherently means the lawful seizure of property by an authority. So no. That word swap is not valid.
5. Your pronouncements on "economics" are both sociopathic and reject empirical reality.
What 'pronouncements' are even talking about? I haven't said a single word about economics here.
6. You reject the concept of government as a force for good.

Where did I say anything of the kind?

demaL-demaL-yeH: /Clear enough?


It's perfectly clear that either you have me confused with someone else, or you are just making shiat up with absolutely no regard for anything that has actually been posted. If that is the case, please go find the person who has said all those things you want to fight about and take it up with them.
 
2013-07-22 05:54:31 PM

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


No thanks to libertarian ideas like "money = speech".
 
2013-07-22 05:57:47 PM

jigger: demaL-demaL-yeH: you should be able to pick and choose which aspects of the social contract apply to you.

Isn't that how contracts work? Two parties voluntarily agree on the terms?


If you accept the protection of the laws, you accept the strictures of the laws. Whenever you reap the benefit of the laws, you are implicitly accepting that contract.
/Ah, fark it: Read this and this until you comprehend them, then you can join in grown-up discussion on the philosophical basis of our political system.
 
2013-07-22 05:58:13 PM

BojanglesPaladin: 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".


You might want to examine the discussion with the expectation of rights again, as well as on the concept of taxation. Mind you, Rand conflated the confiscation of property by the Communists to taxes here, especially with a focus on providing services for those who she found disagreeable, of course, while herself not being so disagreeable that she couldn't cash those checks or rely on others for support. You might want to look at some of the words you've used, especially with regard to health care and other services, and then maybe you might get how someone might link the two together.

It's not a hard leap to make, and many of your points thus far, are very much out of the playbook. Just so you're wise to it.
 
2013-07-22 05:59:39 PM

Girion47: 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.


It says 'fair' right there in the name, so it must be!

/spoiler: it's regressive
 
2013-07-22 06:00:03 PM

jchuffyman: See my response to your right to not be poisoned example


I have, and I believe I responded to ir (either yours or another poster's) by pointing out that regulation of the commons:

BojanglesPaladin: Just as you do not have a right to cause injury to another person, you do not have a right to cause injury to water, air and other natural resources shared in the public commons. (See also public airwaves)


BojanglesPaladin: Again, you have no RIGHT to someone else's labor or products. You can put in your own well, or dig your own channel on your own property (within the regulatory confines that protect the interests of other citizens and protect the use of resources held "in public commons") but at no time are you entitled to the product of someone else's efforts without compensation to them


BojanglesPaladin: Air, Water, Airwaves, right-of-ways, etc. are "held in commons" and are subject to public regulations governing 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.



Restricting or regulating someone in their use of resources and assets that do not entirely belong to them for the purpose of ensuring access and preventing damage to those resources is not equivalent to compelling a private citizen to perform service for your personal benefit against their will.
 
2013-07-22 06:03:59 PM

hubiestubert: You might want to look at some of the words you've used, especially with regard to health care and other services, and then maybe you might get how someone might link the two together.

It's not a hard leap to make, and many of your points thus far, are very much out of the playbook. Just so you're wise to it.


Which "words" are you referring to? What "points" other than a technical clarification that healthcare is not a human right do you mean?

I used none of the ones you stated, and I'm curious what ideological buzzwords you are seeing in my posts. I cannot be held accountable for conclusions you and others leap to. Or is it really your assertion that the mere suggestion that there is no human right that can derive from the unwilling labor of another is tantamount to swearing a blood oath to Ayne Rand?
 
2013-07-22 06:07:43 PM

BojanglesPaladin: jchuffyman: See my response to your right to not be poisoned example

I have, and I believe I responded to ir (either yours or another poster's) by pointing out that regulation of the commons:

BojanglesPaladin: Just as you do not have a right to cause injury to another person, you do not have a right to cause injury to water, air and other natural resources shared in the public commons. (See also public airwaves)

BojanglesPaladin: Again, you have no RIGHT to someone else's labor or products. You can put in your own well, or dig your own channel on your own property (within the regulatory confines that protect the interests of other citizens and protect the use of resources held "in public commons") but at no time are you entitled to the product of someone else's efforts without compensation to them

BojanglesPaladin: Air, Water, Airwaves, right-of-ways, etc. are "held in commons" and are subject to public regulations governing 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.

Restricting or regulating someone in their use of resources and assets that do not entirely belong to them for the purpose of ensuring access and preventing damage to those resources is not equivalent to compelling a private citizen to perform service for your personal benefit against their will.


Requiring a company to properly label their food and use non-poisonous ingredients and preventing them from absolutely maximizing their profits by doing so is absolutely a service performed against their will for your personal benefit and their loss. Their food product is not a common good, as they are the ones who produce/assemble, distribute and sell it. If it is a soup company for example, then yeah, they use water to make it, and that water is a common good. But the additional regulation on proper production and canning of soup goes beyond that original common good. These are two separate things.
 
2013-07-22 06:13:39 PM

demaL-demaL-yeH: jigger: demaL-demaL-yeH: you should be able to pick and choose which aspects of the social contract apply to you.

Isn't that how contracts work? Two parties voluntarily agree on the terms?

If you accept the protection of the laws, you accept the strictures of the laws. Whenever you reap the benefit of the laws, you are implicitly accepting that contract.
/Ah, fark it: Read this and this until you comprehend them, then you can join in grown-up discussion on the philosophical basis of our political system.


I love it when people assume they know everything (like a teenager) and then tell others to "grow up" when they don't agree with them, or usually when they don't have anything to say.

Anyway, I don't accept the "protection" of all the laws. So, according to your argument up there, I don't have to accept the strictures of them, right?
 
2013-07-22 06:18:08 PM

jchuffyman: Their food product is not a common good, as they are the ones who produce/assemble, distribute and sell it.


...OK? I believe I also addressed that:

BojanglesPaladin: Think of it like this: Do you have a "right" to food? Only insomuch as you are free to grow your own. You have absolutely no right to someone else's crops, or someone else's larder. Taking someone else's food is a crime.


I'm afraid I'm simply not following you here. Are you saying that anything that is regulated is not a basic human right? Or that regulations only apply to things that are rights?

Or that sometimes we compel people to do things they would prefer not to? I don't think anyone is arguing that we don't, but I'm not following how that applies to a private citizen exercising a "right" that compels another citizen to provide a service against their will. In the instance of food manufacturers, the purchase of their food is a voluntary mutual transaction, so it's not even related.

I mean, we have a right to free speech, but we have no right to compel a printer to print our pamphlets for us, though we can certainly print our own, and if we pay a printer to print our manifestos, they certainly have to adhere to various regulations in the operation of the printing business.

I think I'm missing some aspect of what you are trying to explain here, because it doesn't seem to be a valid counter argument. Can you clarify?
 
m00
2013-07-22 06:23:18 PM

jchuffyman: There is no functional difference between the two, but if you like that wording more, sure.


The difference I see is this: rights are what you have that government secures. services are what the government provides. It's the difference between preventing an action (the violation of rights) and undertaking an action (providing a service).

I suppose you one argue that government is providing a "service" by "not violating our rights" but I don't think that's correct thinking. Because for us to have free speech, government merely needs to do nothing. For us to have health care, they have to do something.
 
2013-07-22 06:23:48 PM

BojanglesPaladin: hubiestubert: You might want to look at some of the words you've used, especially with regard to health care and other services, and then maybe you might get how someone might link the two together.

It's not a hard leap to make, and many of your points thus far, are very much out of the playbook. Just so you're wise to it.

Which "words" are you referring to? What "points" other than a technical clarification that healthcare is not a human right do you mean?

I used none of the ones you stated, and I'm curious what ideological buzzwords you are seeing in my posts. I cannot be held accountable for conclusions you and others leap to. Or is it really your assertion that the mere suggestion that there is no human right that can derive from the unwilling labor of another is tantamount to swearing a blood oath to Ayne Rand?


Not in the least, but others can make the leap fair easily. Especially given that Rand saw any taxation as leeching from those great capitalists who strode so brave and true and strong, while others hoveled at their feet, hoping for crumbs. She was fine with unwilling labor, though, so long as they were paid a pittance and could be spat upon in their servile duties while thinkers were allowed to do their dreaming on someone else's teat--and in fact it was society's duty to force said labor in order to make the "real" movers and shakers happy. She was, I think it's safe to say, a contemptible human, and being lumped in with her crowd of selfish idiots who dream their Ubermensch dreams would be quite irksome. But given the discussion, especially under the guise of Libertarian philosophy, with much credit being given to Rand by so many, it is NOT a hard leap to make. And if you can't read through your own posts to get that flavor, then citing them down for you, one by one, isn't really going to help. This is perhaps a perception problem.
 
2013-07-22 06:24:23 PM

BojanglesPaladin: jchuffyman: Their food product is not a common good, as they are the ones who produce/assemble, distribute and sell it.

...OK? I believe I also addressed that: BojanglesPaladin: Think of it like this: Do you have a "right" to food? Only insomuch as you are free to grow your own. You have absolutely no right to someone else's crops, or someone else's larder. Taking someone else's food is a crime.

I'm afraid I'm simply not following you here. Are you saying that anything that is regulated is not a basic human right? Or that regulations only apply to things that are rights?

Or that sometimes we compel people to do things they would prefer not to? I don't think anyone is arguing that we don't, but I'm not following how that applies to a private citizen exercising a "right" that compels another citizen to provide a service against their will. In the instance of food manufacturers, the purchase of their food is a voluntary mutual transaction, so it's not even related.

I mean, we have a right to free speech, but we have no right to compel a printer to print our pamphlets for us, though we can certainly print our own, and if we pay a printer to print our manifestos, they certainly have to adhere to various regulations in the operation of the printing business.

I think I'm missing some aspect of what you are trying to explain here, because it doesn't seem to be a valid counter argument. Can you clarify?


I am saying that you claimed that the right to not be poisoned exists. And also no right can force someone to perform a service unwillingly. The regulations present in the food industry are completely followed unwillingly (if you assume a company wants to maximize profits, and the regulations cut into profits a bit). Therefore, if not being poisoned is a right, then your 2nd statement cannot be true. Now, if you are saying your right to not be poisoned only extends to food you grow yourself, and that you voluntarily wave that right by purchasing food, then how strong exactly is this supposed right to not be poisoned? In a society like ours, that right would be practically useless.
 
2013-07-22 06:29:00 PM

m00: jchuffyman: There is no functional difference between the two, but if you like that wording more, sure.

The difference I see is this: rights are what you have that government secures. services are what the government provides. It's the difference between preventing an action (the violation of rights) and undertaking an action (providing a service).

I suppose you one argue that government is providing a "service" by "not violating our rights" but I don't think that's correct thinking. Because for us to have free speech, government merely needs to do nothing. For us to have health care, they have to do something.



Do the reverse. As someone sort of stated earlier, rights and responsibilities can be seen as the opposite sides of the same thing. If we have a  right to health care, the gov't then has a responsibility to provide for it. Same thing with the right to vote. If you have the right to vote, the gov't has to provide the means for you to do so.
 
2013-07-22 06:30:20 PM

jigger: demaL-demaL-yeH: jigger: demaL-demaL-yeH: you should be able to pick and choose which aspects of the social contract apply to you.

Isn't that how contracts work? Two parties voluntarily agree on the terms?

If you accept the protection of the laws, you accept the strictures of the laws. Whenever you reap the benefit of the laws, you are implicitly accepting that contract.
/Ah, fark it: Read this and this until you comprehend them, then you can join in grown-up discussion on the philosophical basis of our political system.

I love it when people assume they know everything (like a teenager) and then tell others to "grow up" when they don't agree with them, or usually when they don't have anything to say.

Anyway, I don't accept the "protection" of all the laws. So, according to your argument up there, I don't have to accept the strictures of them, right?


I never claimed to know everything. I do, however, have more than a passing familiarity with the philosophy of the Enlightenment.
As to your question: Wrong. (And yours, by the way, is a typical teenager stance.) Civil society is a package deal: Take it, reject it and go to prison, or leave.
 
2013-07-22 06:31:07 PM

m00: For us to have health care, they have to do something.


They do?
 
m00
2013-07-22 06:31:38 PM

Serious Black: 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.


I disagree because the right to free speech is only from government interference. Like, if you walk into a restaurant with a sign advocating a political position the restaurant owner can kick you out. He's not violating your free speech. Right to marry is a problematic example, and that's a whole discussion (FWIW, I think gays deserve equal rights on this).

On trial by jury and search-and-seizure, I wouldn't say these themselves are the rights. These are the implementation of the rights. On trial by jury, you have a right not to be imprisoned by government by fiat. And you have a right not to have government agents violating the sanctity of your person, or home, or property arbitrarily. This is an extremely important point, and it's at the heart of the FISA courts.

So how the government is gaming the system is by saying "see, we haven't violated your rights! we have a warrant!" but the fact is the warrant is rubber stamped by a secret court and this means your rights are being violated. Because the important thing isn't that they have a warrant, it's that the warrant isn't capricious and issued without due cause. The analogous jury trial would be if the government dictated that jurors must be comprised solely of on-duty police officers.

So the rights that you have necessarily cannot require an affirmative action by government to exist. If they did, they would be meaningless.
 
m00
2013-07-22 06:32:45 PM

jchuffyman: Do the reverse. As someone sort of stated earlier, rights and responsibilities can be seen as the opposite sides of the same thing. If we have a right to health care, the gov't then has a responsibility to provide for it. Same thing with the right to vote. If you have the right to vote, the gov't has to provide the means for you to do so.


Answered right above this post :)
 
2013-07-22 06:32:52 PM

demaL-demaL-yeH: jigger: demaL-demaL-yeH: jigger: demaL-demaL-yeH: you should be able to pick and choose which aspects of the social contract apply to you.

Isn't that how contracts work? Two parties voluntarily agree on the terms?

If you accept the protection of the laws, you accept the strictures of the laws. Whenever you reap the benefit of the laws, you are implicitly accepting that contract.
/Ah, fark it: Read this and this until you comprehend them, then you can join in grown-up discussion on the philosophical basis of our political system.

I love it when people assume they know everything (like a teenager) and then tell others to "grow up" when they don't agree with them, or usually when they don't have anything to say.

Anyway, I don't accept the "protection" of all the laws. So, according to your argument up there, I don't have to accept the strictures of them, right?

I never claimed to know everything. I do, however, have more than a passing familiarity with the philosophy of the Enlightenment.
As to your question: Wrong. (And yours, by the way, is a typical teenager stance.) Civil society is a package deal: Take it, reject it and go to prison, or leave.


Love it or leave it. Yeah, that's mature. (and civil) "Why don't you grow up and do what I say?"
 
2013-07-22 06:33:12 PM
I used to identify as about 85% Republican (but never Conservative in the modern sense).

These days, it's about 0% Republican.  There are no circumstances in the foreseeable future under which I'd vote for any Republican at any level.

Good job, GOP.  You found ways to lose permanently the vote of a white male who grew up the south while Reagan was President.  Therefore, there's no vote you cannot lose.
 
2013-07-22 06:35:50 PM

hubiestubert: This is perhaps a perception problem


That's one way to put it.
 
m00
2013-07-22 06:36:07 PM

jigger: m00: For us to have health care, they have to do something.

They do?


For us to have state-run healthcare, the state has to implement a health-care system. So I don't see that healthcare could ever be a right. There's nothing wrong with that. I believe that the government should provide roads, schools, and plenty of other things as a service. But that doesn't make it an inalienable right. I suppose that may sound like a philosophical-only difference, but I think it's an important to have that sort of foundation when discussing civics.
 
2013-07-22 06:37:28 PM

feckingmorons: Rincewind53: feckingmorons: So people should have the choice to save up their own money, or buy insurance. I think you're an idiot if you don't buy insurance, but me getting superAIDS isn't going to make the guy next door have to replace his left front fender.

The point is that if a person does  not buy healthcare, they are then forcing the rest of us to subsidize their health care. That is, as a taxpayer, I will pay  more money in both health care premiums and taxes, in order to pay for the person with no health insurance who has to go to the emergency room to get primary medical care.

Healthcare and insurance are not the same thing. The emergency room doesn't actually provide primary care. If want to go in to have your blood pressure checked they will make you wait until everyone with an actual complaint or medical problem has been seen. You'll probably leave in that week or two. People lie to make it seem like their medical problems are worse so they can be seen quicker. Want a pregnancy test, say you have belly pain. What your PID treated, say you're spotting. People do it all the time. They do it because they don't want to pay at all. They are scamming the system. There will always be 5-10% who will do that. I lived this for almost two decades.

There are primary care clinics for the uninsured and for the destitute. There are social service agencies that will refer patients to them. Most people in the US on TFD could pick up the phone and dial 211 right now and get a referral to a provider for a medical non-emergency.

Making everyone buy health insurance won't stop these people. There will always be people that lie to get benefits to which they are not entitled simply because they are thieves. Look at the NJ School Board members and employees who lied to get their kids free lunch.

There are people who feel no compunction about lying to get our tax money. Those are the taxes I don't like paying, the ones that go to people who lie and cheat. We have a great country, we help those that truly need it, but it seems that the percentage of liars and cheats is just getting larger and larger. We now have two people who scammed money out of the Boston bombing fund, people who ship food bought with SNAP overseas. I'm just tired of the cheating, it isn't fair to those of us who don't cheat.


fark everyone if there is a single free rider, but I bet you love big energy and the lower regulations they fight for!
 
2013-07-22 06:39:25 PM

m00: Serious Black: 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.

I disagree because the right to free speech is only from government interference. Like, if you walk into a restaurant with a sign advocating a political position the restaurant owner can kick you out. He's not violating your free speech. Right to marry is a problematic example, and that's a whole discussion (FWIW, I think gays deserve equal rights on this).

On trial by jury and search-and-seizure, I wouldn't say these themselves are the rights. These are the implementation of the rights. On trial by jury, you have a right not to be imprisoned by government by fiat. And you have a right not to have government agents violating the sanctity of your person, or home, or property arbitrarily. This is an extremely important point, and it's at the heart of the FISA courts.

So how the government is gaming the system is by saying "see, we haven't violated your rights! we have a warrant!" but the fact is the warrant is rubber stamped by a secret court and this means your rights are being violated. Because the important thing isn't that they have a warrant, it's that the warrant isn't capricious and issued without due cause. The analogous jury trial would be if the government dictated that jurors must be comprised solely of on-duty police officers.

So the rights that you have necessarily cannot require an affirmative acti ...


I think what you are missing is that in several other developed nations, the idea is changing so that you have a right to be reasonably healthy. The government protects this right by providing healthcare. So the right doesn't come from the gov't, the gov't just does its best to protect it, if you will. However, this is a semantic argument, as there is no real world difference from the idea that the gov't should provide healthcare as one of its responsibilities.
 
2013-07-22 06:42:04 PM

jigger: demaL-demaL-yeH: jigger: demaL-demaL-yeH: jigger: demaL-demaL-yeH: you should be able to pick and choose which aspects of the social contract apply to you.

Isn't that how contracts work? Two parties voluntarily agree on the terms?

If you accept the protection of the laws, you accept the strictures of the laws. Whenever you reap the benefit of the laws, you are implicitly accepting that contract.
/Ah, fark it: Read this and this until you comprehend them, then you can join in grown-up discussion on the philosophical basis of our political system.

I love it when people assume they know everything (like a teenager) and then tell others to "grow up" when they don't agree with them, or usually when they don't have anything to say.

Anyway, I don't accept the "protection" of all the laws. So, according to your argument up there, I don't have to accept the strictures of them, right?

I never claimed to know everything. I do, however, have more than a passing familiarity with the philosophy of the Enlightenment.
As to your question: Wrong. (And yours, by the way, is a typical teenager stance.) Civil society is a package deal: Take it, reject it and go to prison, or leave.

Love it or leave it. Yeah, that's mature. (and civil) "Why don't you grow up and do what I say?"


That wasn't what I said. (Although it was an almost amusing parody.)
You can accept the social contract.
You can reject the social contract and suffer the consequences.
Or you can absent yourself from civilized society.
That's how civilization works.

/The worst punishment an ancient Greek city could impose on one of its citizens was not death - It was exile.
 
2013-07-22 06:46:16 PM

feckingmorons: Rincewind53: Have you considered that it is because they  can't pay?

Yes, I've considered that. I've also seen their Gucci purses and wheeled them out to nicer cars than mine. Sure, there are some that can't pay, those people should be on Medicare (and they can go to regular doctors during office hours for non-emergency care and the vast majority of Medicare patients do just that).

There is a certain pride for many people in scamming the government. The biggest tax refund scammer around these parts was just sentenced to 21 years in prison, but she boasted that she stole more than $21MM and dared authorities to catch her. She called herself the 'first lady' of refund fraud.

You just get tired of seeing your tax money wasted. I pay all my taxes, I even pay use taxes on stuff I buy from Amazon because you're supposed to pay your taxes. When I see the IRS not cooperating with local law enforcement in refund fraud because of federal privacy laws and congress wasting their time on bullshiat I just get fed up.

Rincewind53: The fact of the matter is that the poor in America  do not have access to good health care.

They have access to it. We have a right to access to health care, we don't have a right to free healthcare.


Every now and then I give you a chance, and then you say something abominably stupid like this.

You say aren't an asshole who hates the poors, but then you reduce yourself to arguments like this.
 
m00
2013-07-22 06:50:08 PM

jchuffyman: I think what you are missing is that in several other developed nations, the idea is changing so that you have a right to be reasonably healthy. The government protects this right by providing healthcare. So the right doesn't come from the gov't, the gov't just does its best to protect it, if you will. However, this is a semantic argument, as there is no real world difference from the idea that the gov't should provide healthcare as one of its responsibilities.


Well, you do have a right not to have your health infringed upon. This would be an argument for more environmental regulations against corporations. Better and more transparent labels on food, and so forth. I'm not even particularly against state healthcare as a concept -- I see it the same as roads, schools, and so forth.

But the reason it's not just semantics is that government will do the same thing with healthcare as FISA courts and everything else. If you want to say "I have the right to be healthy, and therefore I believe it is a responsibility of government to provide healthcare" then whether or not I agree with that argument it's certainly structurally valid. The metric on whether the government is meeting its responsibility is then "does the implementation of state healthcare keep me healthy?" But if instead the prevailing thought is that people have a right to healthcare itself, what you are you going to get isn't going to keep you healthy. You are going to get something that meets the bare technical requirements of "healthcare" just like the FISA courts meet the bare technical requirements of "issuing a warrant."

That's just my 2c.
 
2013-07-22 06:50:18 PM
George W. Bush changed me. I thought Clinton did a great job, but still considered myself a conservative till that clusterfark got going.
 
2013-07-22 06:53:17 PM

m00: jchuffyman: I think what you are missing is that in several other developed nations, the idea is changing so that you have a right to be reasonably healthy. The government protects this right by providing healthcare. So the right doesn't come from the gov't, the gov't just does its best to protect it, if you will. However, this is a semantic argument, as there is no real world difference from the idea that the gov't should provide healthcare as one of its responsibilities.

Well, you do have a right not to have your health infringed upon. This would be an argument for more environmental regulations against corporations. Better and more transparent labels on food, and so forth. I'm not even particularly against state healthcare as a concept -- I see it the same as roads, schools, and so forth.

But the reason it's not just semantics is that government will do the same thing with healthcare as FISA courts and everything else. If you want to say "I have the right to be healthy, and therefore I believe it is a responsibility of government to provide healthcare" then whether or not I agree with that argument it's certainly structurally valid. The metric on whether the government is meeting its responsibility is then "does the implementation of state healthcare keep me healthy?" But if instead the prevailing thought is that people have a right to healthcare itself, what you are you going to get isn't going to keep you healthy. You are going to get something that meets the bare technical requirements of "healthcare" just like the FISA courts meet the bare technical requirements of "issuing a warrant."

That's just my 2c.


Leaving the philosophical element out of it, why is every other developed country able to do exactly this and we can't?
 
2013-07-22 06:53:19 PM

Whiskey Pete: hubiestubert: This is perhaps a perception problem

That's one way to put it.


Maybe it's a conception problem. He's sensory inputs are probably up to par.

It's seems there's a disagreement on what rights are. To hell with rights. I just seek justice which to me would be a nash equilibrium with all of humanity, so my life and others are maximized. So for me, justice is a restoration of balance. I don't care what Websters says.  What the road to that is is probably going to involve a lot of time and discoveries that eliminate scarcity. I haven't seen a working economic model that fairly redistributes wealth, but what's the harm in trying. It's not like it could end up with famines or something.
 
2013-07-22 06:55:59 PM

MadHatter500: feckingmorons:

They have access to it. We have a right to access to health care, we don't have a right to free healthcare.

And this is why you are a terrible person.

Healthcare isn't a optional luxury.  Once you realize this we'll stop calling you a selfish miser.


Up yours
 
2013-07-22 06:57:39 PM

Ctrl-Alt-Del: feckingmorons:I worked in a big city ER (several cities I even worked at St. Johns in St. Louis for 13 weeks on a contract) and I've seen it myself. Sure it is not everyone, but one out of 100 unfunded patients quite easily.

So you saw one percent of unfunded patients scamming the system (a deduction based on your observations of the purse they were carrying or the car they were put in, natch), so you're willing to tell the other 99 percent to go fark themselves as a result.

I don't know a real Gucci bag from a fake one, but still they had them.

And yet you'd deny 99 people healthcare because of the one person carrying the bag that you can't even tell is real or not.

I don't particularly like being called an asshole.

Then you should avoid conversations about healthcare. Or reconsider your opinion on it


Nobody was denied anything, try for some reading comprehension.
Screw you.
 
2013-07-22 06:58:48 PM
I am old enough to say that although my opinions have not changed much, the political landscape has shifted such that I am now a "leftist", while in my youth I was "center right".
 
2013-07-22 07:04:35 PM

feckingmorons: Ctrl-Alt-Del: feckingmorons:I worked in a big city ER (several cities I even worked at St. Johns in St. Louis for 13 weeks on a contract) and I've seen it myself. Sure it is not everyone, but one out of 100 unfunded patients quite easily.

So you saw one percent of unfunded patients scamming the system (a deduction based on your observations of the purse they were carrying or the car they were put in, natch), so you're willing to tell the other 99 percent to go fark themselves as a result.

I don't know a real Gucci bag from a fake one, but still they had them.

And yet you'd deny 99 people healthcare because of the one person carrying the bag that you can't even tell is real or not.

I don't particularly like being called an asshole.

Then you should avoid conversations about healthcare. Or reconsider your opinion on it

Nobody was denied anything, try for some reading comprehension.
Screw you.


Universal Healthcare that doesn't cover any cosmetic surgery except  those that are deemed necessary due to (very-well documented) catastrophic injuries or things such as breast restoration after a mastectomy. There, now you don't have to worry about people abusing it, because everyone will have the same coverage.
 
m00
2013-07-22 07:06:45 PM

jchuffyman: Leaving the philosophical element out of it, why is every other developed country able to do exactly this and we can't?


Well, I see three major contributing factors:

1) the level of waste and mismanagement and corporate influence in the US government is unparalleled amongst developed countries
2) the media is literally a wholly owned subsidiary of above corporations, and it's not in their best interest to focus on the waste issue (because their parent companies are where that waste is going).
3) all of government seems to be in on the scam

So to make an analogy, Democrats want to tax everyone for $100,000 and give every household a 15 year old Ford Escort. Republicans say "That's insane, people don't need transportation. Only the rich deserve to drive." Democrats say "Republicans are trying to take away your Ford Escort. Let's tax everyone for $200,000 so we can give you a 10 year old Ford Taurus."

And the real answer (that isn't in either party's best interest) is to have an honest conversation about what national healthcare actually should cost at each "level of service" and how many levels of service the American people want to collectively pay for. The reason this isn't in either party's best interest is waste gets converted into corporate handouts which gets converted into super PACs.
 
2013-07-22 07:10:30 PM

m00: jchuffyman: Leaving the philosophical element out of it, why is every other developed country able to do exactly this and we can't?

Well, I see three major contributing factors:

1) the level of waste and mismanagement and corporate influence in the US government is unparalleled amongst developed countries
2) the media is literally a wholly owned subsidiary of above corporations, and it's not in their best interest to focus on the waste issue (because their parent companies are where that waste is going).
3) all of government seems to be in on the scam

So to make an analogy, Democrats want to tax everyone for $100,000 and give every household a 15 year old Ford Escort. Republicans say "That's insane, people don't need transportation. Only the rich deserve to drive." Democrats say "Republicans are trying to take away your Ford Escort. Let's tax everyone for $200,000 so we can give you a 10 year old Ford Taurus."

And the real answer (that isn't in either party's best interest) is to have an honest conversation about what national healthcare actually should cost at each "level of service" and how many levels of service the American people want to collectively pay for. The reason this isn't in either party's best interest is waste gets converted into corporate handouts which gets converted into super PACs.


Fair enough. Thanks for the honest and thought out answer. My response is the fact that Americans need to stop being afraid of anything that can be twisted into socialism by the scare tactic media. Maybe after that, we can have a real development on healthcare.
 
2013-07-22 07:11:11 PM

jchuffyman: I think what you are missing is that in several other developed nations, the idea is changing so that you have a right to be reasonably healthy.

So the right doesn't come from the gov't, the gov't just does its best to protect it, if you will.

I don't think we disagree here, and I have said effectively the same above. Whether or not it is in an objective human right, there is no reason that governments cannot make it readily available to the populace. In much the same way that while there is no "right" to live outside of poverty, we provide Social Security, Disability, Welfare, and Unemployment to our citizenry to try to prevent people from living in poverty.

jchuffyman: I am saying that you claimed that the right to not be poisoned exists. And also no right can force someone to perform a service unwillingly. The regulations present in the food industry are completely followed unwillingly (if you assume a company wants to maximize profits, and the regulations cut into profits a bit). Therefore, if not being poisoned is a right, then your 2nd statement cannot be true. Now, if you are saying your right to not be poisoned only extends to food you grow yourself, and that you voluntarily wave that right by purchasing food, then how strong exactly is this supposed right to not be poisoned? In a society like ours, that right would be practically useless.


Hmmm. Perhaps "right to not be poisoned" could have been phrased better. Consider it like a "right not to be assaulted" in conjunction with "right to clean air, water, etc." The right to clean water does not require that someone provide that water to you. If you want water that someone else has pumped out of a well or put in bottles and filtered and transported to you, you have to pay for it. Even if it is pumped through pipes to come out of your tap, you have to pay someone for it. Your right to clean water does not compel someone to go out and procure it for you without compensation or against their will.

Clean air and water require other people NOT to pollute or damage resources held in the public commons. With no interference, air and water would be as clean as nature allows, and nature is bound by no legal authority. Humans, however, are. Just as you do not have a right to cause injury to another person, you do not have a right to cause injury to water, air and other natural resources shared in the public commons.

That companies (and people) are regulated to prevent them from causing harm to people through poisoned food or polluted water or air is actually a reinforcement of your right to not be injured by someone else, not a diminution of it. Am I understanding your point correctly?

hubiestubert: Not in the least, but others can make the leap fair easily. Especially given that Rand saw any taxation as leeching from those great capitalists who strode so brave and true and strong, while others hoveled at their feet, hoping for crumbs.


All well and good, but as I have not said anything about taxes being WRONG, or disputed governments lawful authority to levy them, I fail to see what Rand's distorted philosophy has to do with me. If the simple accurate use of the word confiscate is being parlayed into a tacit endorsement of Objectivism in the minds of some Farkers, then I can only refer to Tolkien's admonishment on the difference between what the author implies and what the reader infers. Just because I refer to natural resources as being held in the commons does not mean I am a socialist either. Meaning I am not responsible for people's  mistaken assumptions made in the absence of evidence.

/Although lord knows sometimes I feel like that is ALL I do on Fark sometimes.
 
2013-07-22 07:15:59 PM

Jackson Herring: keylock71: If anything, I've become more liberal as I've grown older and learn more... I never would have been considered "conservative" by any stretch of the imagination, to be honest.

Funnily enough, it's the words and actions of conservatives and Republicans that have made me more liberal in the last decade or so.

There was a time, though, when I would have voted for moderate Republicans at the local and state level here in MA, but that time has long since disappeared...

I was certainly conservative when I was a selfish shiathead teenager. I actually thought Atlas Shrugged was a realistic portrayal of the obstacles to American business owners in high school.

Thank god I actually experienced reality since then. Seeing the utter contempt conservatism as a whole has for objective observable reality these days, it makes me sick to remember the things I used to think back then.


Thankfully, I never went through a conservative or libertarian phase... I thought Atlas Shrugged was as much a poorly written, boring piece of fantasy land bullshiat then as I think it is now. : )

These days, I would pretty much be aligned with European Democratic Socialists if a party like that existed in the US. I've pretty much resigned to basically voting against every Republican/libertarian I'm giving the opportunity to vote against and every once in a while, I'll get to vote for a candidate I mostly support and agree with (like Liz Warren).

I'll never register as a Democrat, but I'll side with them in most instances, simply because the GOP, libertarians and their policies and ideologies disgust me. Anyone associated with or a member of either party will never get a vote from me. Period.
 
2013-07-22 07:19:15 PM

Tenga: George W. Bush changed me. I thought Clinton did a great job, but still considered myself a conservative till that clusterfark got going.


I became solidly liberal socially the minute I realized someone being gay (or what have you) was just fine. I could never support any of those bigots.

I like the idea of some conservative economic talking points, but there is more to consider than what a party says. When my real choices are tax and spend in the country or don't tax and start extra wars, well I am not even sure if that counts as a left vs. right decision.

I'll take a mediocre or failed healthcare reform over Iraq any day of the week.

Of course I don't wet myself over the thought of a poor person getting away with something. Apparently that makes me a liberal.
 
2013-07-22 07:20:25 PM
I used to be a hardcore right-winger.  In high school government class, we took a political spectrum test and the teacher told me I was the most far-right student he'd ever had.  Of course, I was merely toeing the family party line.  I watched Fox News religiously, listened to Rush Limbaugh, read his books, was a huge fan of Bill O'Reilly, and thought every democratic politician was the scum of the earth.

Then I moved out of state and away from my family's political echo chamber and actually began to think for myself.  At first it was a slow, gradual shift toward the center, but the change hastened as I began to actively ignore propaganda and talking points in favor of actually reading the text of proposed legislation, fact-checking political claims, and began truly caring about the welfare of other people.  Social injustice and (wealth and marriage) inequality became an increasingly sore topics for me.

I'm still registered as "unaffiliated," because my state allows that.  However, with things as they are now, I don't think I could ever vote republican again.  Looking back into the world I once belonged to, all I can see now is the hate that fills it.  It's sad, and I want no part of it.  I guess I'm a democrat now in all but name.
 
2013-07-22 07:23:41 PM
BojanglesPaladin:
Hmmm. Perhaps "right to not be poisoned" could have been phrased better. Consider it like a "right not to be assaulted" in conjunction with "right to clean air, water, etc." The right to clean water does not require that someone provide that water to you. If you want water that someone else has pumped out of a well or put in bottles and filtered and transported to you, you have to pay for it. Even if it is pumped through pipes to come out of your tap, you have to pay someone for it. Your right to clean water does not compel someone to go out and procure it for you without compensation or against their will.
...


Clean air and water require other people NOT to pollute or damage resources held in the public commons. With no interference, air and water would be as clean as nature allows, and nature is bound by no legal authority. Humans, however, are. Just as you do not have a right to cause injury to another person, you do not have a right to cause injury to water, air and other natural resources shared in the public commons.

That companies (and people) are regulated to prevent them from causing harm to people through poisoned food or polluted water or air is actually a reinforcement of your right to not be injured by someone else, not a diminution of it. Am I understanding your point correctly?

 
Yeah, that sounds OK, but I am just curious about why you have this completely unbreakable idea that it is impossible for a right to require at least some level of unwilling participation
 
m00
2013-07-22 07:24:24 PM

jchuffyman: Fair enough. Thanks for the honest and thought out answer. My response is the fact that Americans need to stop being afraid of anything that can be twisted into socialism by the scare tactic media. Maybe after that, we can have a real development on healthcare.


As long as corporations own the media, they will say what they need to prevent efficient government that ends corporate welfare :)

But you are correct about socialism. There's nothing inherently wrong with socialism. Socialism is just the act of government providing a service. Public roads and schools are already socialist institution. And nobody is against those. The socialism scare tactic is "government providing a service that you find morally offensive. oh, you don't find it morally offensive? let me outrage you with some salacious news."

The irony is that Obamacare isn't socialism. If it were socialism, it would be much improved. We would get a service out of it. As it stands, it's a payout to insurance providers. Instead of implementing socialism which would have been reasonable, it's implementing something that's very UN-socialist which is a corporate handout. Because people are scared of socialism :)
 
2013-07-22 07:26:08 PM

BojanglesPaladin: jchuffyman: I think what you are missing is that in several other developed nations, the idea is changing so that you have a right to be reasonably healthy. So the right doesn't come from the gov't, the gov't just does its best to protect it, if you will.

I don't think we disagree here, and I have said effectively the same above. Whether or not it is in an objective human right, there is no reason that governments cannot make it readily available to the populace. In much the same way that while there is no "right" to live outside of poverty, we provide Social Security, Disability, Welfare, and Unemployment to our citizenry to try to prevent people from living in poverty.

jchuffyman: I am saying that you claimed that the right to not be poisoned exists. And also no right can force someone to perform a service unwillingly. The regulations present in the food industry are completely followed unwillingly (if you assume a company wants to maximize profits, and the regulations cut into profits a bit). Therefore, if not being poisoned is a right, then your 2nd statement cannot be true. Now, if you are saying your right to not be poisoned only extends to food you grow yourself, and that you voluntarily wave that right by purchasing food, then how strong exactly is this supposed right to not be poisoned? In a society like ours, that right would be practically useless.

Hmmm. Perhaps "right to not be poisoned" could have been phrased better. Consider it like a "right not to be assaulted" in conjunction with "right to clean air, water, etc." The right to clean water does not require that someone provide that water to you. If you want water that someone else has pumped out of a well or put in bottles and filtered and transported to you, you have to pay for it. Even if it is pumped through pipes to come out of your tap, you have to pay someone for it. Your right to clean water does not compel someone to go out and procure it for you without compensation or against their will.

Clean air and water require other people NOT to pollute or damage resources held in the public commons. With no interference, air and water would be as clean as nature allows, and nature is bound by no legal authority. Humans, however, are. Just as you do not have a right to cause injury to another person, you do not have a right to cause injury to water, air and other natural resources shared in the public commons.

That companies (and people) are regulated to prevent them from causing harm to people through poisoned food or polluted water or air is actually a reinforcement of your right to not be injured by someone else, not a diminution of it. Am I understanding your point correctly?

hubiestubert: Not in the least, but others can make the leap fair easily. Especially given that Rand saw any taxation as leeching from those great capitalists who strode so brave and true and strong, while others hoveled at their feet, hoping for crumbs.

All well and good, but as I have not said anything about taxes being WRONG, or disputed governments lawful authority to levy them, I fail to see what Rand's distorted philosophy has to do with me. If the simple accurate use of the word confiscate is being parlayed into a tacit endorsement of Objectivism in the minds of some Farkers, then I can only refer to Tolkien's admonishment on the difference between what the author implies and what the reader infers. Just because I refer to natural resources as being held in the commons does not mean I am a socialist either. Meaning I am not responsible for people's  mistaken assumptions made in the absence of evidence.

/Although lord knows sometimes I feel like that is ALL I do on Fark sometimes.


You are against city water then?

Also if you say 'people shouldn't have to perform services for others' taxes are kind of included. When one has to work thirty percent more hours to get the same take home pay they are absolutely performing services for others.

I don't care one way or another to wade into what rights are, should be, human, fundamental, god given, or whatever. Talking in terms like that is just adding a layer of recursive logic to the mix imo.
 
2013-07-22 07:29:43 PM

m00: Serious Black: 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.

I disagree because the right to free speech is only from government interference. Like, if you walk into a restaurant with a sign advocating a political position the restaurant owner can kick you out. He's not violating your free speech. Right to marry is a problematic example, and that's a whole discussion (FWIW, I think gays deserve equal rights on this).

On trial by jury and search-and-seizure, I wouldn't say these themselves are the rights. These are the implementation of the rights. On trial by jury, you have a right not to be imprisoned by government by fiat. And you have a right not to have government agents violating the sanctity of your person, or home, or property arbitrarily. This is an extremely important point, and it's at the heart of the FISA courts.

So how the government is gaming the system is by saying "see, we haven't violated your rights! we have a warrant!" but the fact is the warrant is rubber stamped by a secret court and this means your rights are being violated. Because the important thing isn't that they have a warrant, it's that the warrant isn't capricious and issued without due cause. The analogous jury trial would be if the government dictated that jurors must be comprised solely of on-duty police officers.

So the rights that you have necessarily cannot require an affirmative action by government to exist. If they did, they would be meaningless.


I think the framework you describe for what things are rights is too narrow and misses things that a lot of Americans think of as rights. As you noted, the right to marry is one of those; not only does that mean the government must grant a couple a marriage license and recognize couples as married, but third parties must also recognize couples as married. Another problematic case is the right to life (at least with respect to abortion). It's not enough for the government to not give women abortions. They have to stop women from getting abortions and stop doctors from giving abortions.

Just because the rights spelled out in the Bill of Rights are primarily or exclusively obligations of the government to not do something doesn't mean that rights cannot be obligations of the government to do something or obligations levied on third parties. Philosophy has advanced a lot in the last 200 years.
 
m00
2013-07-22 07:39:44 PM

Serious Black: As you noted, the right to marry is one of those; not only does that mean the government must grant a couple a marriage license and recognize couples as married, but third parties must also recognize couples as married.


I'm going to quibble a bit with you here.

I said it was problematic because it's not really about marriage. I don't think anybody has a right to be married. Meaning, government could just say "we're not marrying anybody" and nobody's rights would be violated. The problem is government is choosing to arbitrarily marry some people but not others. So it's taking a service and providing it selectively without any logical rationale (and this is what the debate has been about). So it doesn't violate a right to marriage (which doesn't exist) it violates the right of equality. It would be the same as not letting gays use public roads, or any other service. If government provides a service, it has to provide it equally. Because equality is a right, again to continue my previous train of logic if government provided nothing and did nothing than that specific right wouldn't be violated.

As I said, it's a detailed issue :)
 
2013-07-22 07:42:18 PM

demaL-demaL-yeH: That wasn't what I said. (Although it was an almost amusing parody.)
You can accept the social contract.
You can reject the social contract and suffer the consequences.
Or you can absent yourself from civilized society.
That's how civilization works.

/The worst punishment an ancient Greek city could impose on one of its citizens was not death - It was exile.


"That isn't what I said, but here let me repeat it, either follow all laws or be exiled."

And fark Ben Franklin: "All the Property that is necessary to a Man, for the Conservation of the Individual and the Propagation of the Species, is his natural Right, which none can justly deprive him of: But all Property superfluous to such purposes is the Property of the Publick,"

This is just retarded. Hell, it's almost Marxian. Who decides what property is "superfluous"?

Not only does on have to accept what superfluous property that "civil society" thrusts upon him, but also pay the price set by this "civil" society.
 
2013-07-22 07:53:40 PM

jchuffyman: Leaving the philosophical element out of it, why is every other developed country able to do exactly this and we can't?


In part because those other countries aren't the United States. Not being flippant, but I have a decent knowledge of the systems in Scandinavia for instance. We have a geographical population disbursement rivaled only by a few other countries and those are more Russia and China than Sweden and Britain. We also have a population that dwarfs that of most other countries. We are in a top 10 that includes China, India, Indonesia, Brazil, Pakistan, Nigeria, etc. None of which are pinnacles of public health care.

Both of these factors are important because many of the systems often pointed to in Europe have problems with economy of scale. Take Denmark as an example. With a population of less than 6 million people and a land mass smaller than Massachusetts, it is much easier and economical to make sure that there is a hospital every 100 miles or so (The whole country is only 16,000 square miles with all the islands and peninsula). The United States by comparison, has 315 Million and nearly 4 MILLION square miles. Even with large tracts of that being empty rural land, there is simply a vast difference of scale.

As a comparison, The Greater Houston Metropolitan area alone has a population of 6 Million and a landmass of 10,062 square miles. So while you could argue that a system that works in the entire country of Denmark would be analogous to what you could do in Houston (which by the way already has one of the best medical centers in the world), that is a far cry from providing adequate healthcare to the entire country. The cost of providing healthcare to the fourth largest metropolitan area in the country increases not as a multiplier, but somewhat exponentially when extrapolated across the continent. And even then, there is a stark contrast between the quality of healthcare available at any price in Houston and the healthcare available at any price even in nearby Galveston.

This is not to say that healthcare cannot be provided through tax subsidized programs or even converted to an entirely tax-funded system, but the burden and expense of such a system is fundamentally and radically different from what has been done in much smaller countries. And even then, it is important to note that many of them, like Britain and Germany still rely on a hybrid system, and in many cases, it can be demonstrated that the private healthcare systems and insurance provide superior care. (see Britain's study that found that their own public doctors and nurses could receive faster and better treatment by going outside of the national system because government goals of " diagnostic testing is a wait of no more than 18 weeks by 2008. In reality, it doesn't come close The latest estimates suggest that for most specialties, only 30 to 50 percent of patients are treated within 18 weeks."

(I compare that personally to my own experience with going from first office visit to complain of shortness of breath to completed surgery for a congenital heart defect in less than 6 weeks, and THAT with a new procedure that eliminated the need for open heart surgery and a 6 -week recovery that would have been the norm just 5 years prior, and continues to be the norm in Europe. Back at work 3 days later.)

So that's a very long winded, but I hope illustrative answer to at least part of the reason why, even if we flipped a magic switch and converted to a single-payer system, what works in Europe would not necessarily translate here. Because it is a very different situation.
 
2013-07-22 07:54:12 PM

jigger: This is just retarded. Hell, it's almost Marxian. Who decides what property is "superfluous"?

Not only does on have to accept what superfluous property that "civil society" thrusts upon him, but also pay the price set by this "civil" society.


It is almost Marxian, but he also has a point. You simply cannot accumulate wealth without some form of society to enable it. That's why human societies form. Ever notice the lack of Lamborghinis and Mansions in Somalia? It's not because some warlord doesn't have the cash to own both. It's because there's no society there to enable him to own those for more than a few picoseconds.

So any real wealth one accumulates is only due to society making it possible.

If you don't believe it, ask Czar Nicholas what happens when a society decides you shouldn't have wealth.
 
2013-07-22 07:56:07 PM

jigger: demaL-demaL-yeH: That wasn't what I said. (Although it was an almost amusing parody.)
You can accept the social contract.
You can reject the social contract and suffer the consequences.
Or you can absent yourself from civilized society.
That's how civilization works.

/The worst punishment an ancient Greek city could impose on one of its citizens was not death - It was exile.

"That isn't what I said, but here let me repeat it, either follow all laws or be exiled."

And fark Ben Franklin: "All the Property that is necessary to a Man, for the Conservation of the Individual and the Propagation of the Species, is his natural Right, which none can justly deprive him of: But all Property superfluous to such purposes is the Property of the Publick,"

This is just retarded. Hell, it's almost Marxian. Who decides what property is "superfluous"?

Not only does on have to accept what superfluous property that "civil society" thrusts upon him, but also pay the price set by this "civil" society.


[quizzical_dog.jpg]
Benjamin Franklin was a pragmatist, not a marxist. (And Franklin wrote that more than eight decades before Marx wrote Das Kapital.) You could read to the end of what Franklin wrote, where he explains in full.

Without civil society, there is no private property because there are no property rights.
There is no system of justice so there is no redress of grievance.
There is only brute force.
Society makes the accumulation of property possible because civil society provides the framework of rights and obligations that make commerce possible.

/Now stop turning a statement of fact into parody and get cracking on Hobbes and Rousseau.
 
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