|
Well, I've got a solution. From now on, everything south of the Mason-Dixon line shall be a soverign tax-free nation, Notaxica. No evil government will impinge on your right to property there. There will be no paved roads in Notaxica, no environmental regulation whatsoever, no schools, no fire department unless you can round up enough volunteers, no building codes, no traffic lights to take away your liberty to seize the right-of-way by force, no regulation of business (your employer is welcome to chain you to a desk and force you to work hundred-hour weeks), and all businesses shall be monopolies that can charge anything they like, and drive competition into the ground by underselling them or buying them outright or by any other means they see fit (I'd say legal or illegal, but the only thing in Notaxica that's illegal is theft).
Hyperbole? Yes, I agree. But there's a fine line between that and some of the arguments on both sides here, so I feel like it's OK to poke a little fun.
I've heard Somalia is a lovely place to live.
Also, HD, care to answer any of my points on Healthcare? I mean, we can keep debating your libertarian fantasies if you want, but I prefer debate on things that actually work in reality. (Psst, if I don't pay taxes, I go to jail too!)
. . . and all businesses shall be monopolies that can charge anything they like. . . .
Actually, in the United States, true monopolies only exist where the government agrees to those monopolies, such as utility providers.
And a business doesn't have to be a monopoly to charge anything it likes. Businesses may charge whatever they like, period. Take a BMW dealership for instance. Very nice cars, but very overpriced (in my opinion). But BMW charges a premium for their brand. Nothing wrong with that.
|
|
Houston Derek wrote: "No, the government took money from an individual (actually lots of individuals) to pave that road. Now, I know in Europe this is all done voluntarily, and no one ever tries to get out of paying taxes, but here, the only way government collects the money is by threatening to imprison people who don't pay up.
So, not in Europe, where these things never happen, the U.S. Government basically collects taxes the same way a loan shark does. Well, except it is easier to recover from a broken kneecap than it is a prison sentence."
Uhm Derek, (pardon the failure of the automatic quote above)
While I certainly respect your opinion I really hope that you are just speaking hyperbolically here since that statement is just not true.
Greece only has about a 1/3rd tax payment rate, which is part of the reason they are in so much trouble right now. Both Britain and France have fairly efficient tax enforcement agencies that compel payment of taxes.
Further most Western European governments have a VAT system as well as income taxes; which is why gas and other commodities are so much more expensive in Europe compared to the U.S..
|
Houston Derek wrote: "No, the government took money from an individual (actually lots of individuals) to pave that road. Now, I know in Europe this is all done voluntarily, and no one ever tries to get out of paying taxes, but here, the only way government collects the money is by threatening to imprison people who don't pay up.
So, not in Europe, where these things never happen, the U.S. Government basically collects taxes the same way a loan shark does. Well, except it is easier to recover from a broken kneecap than it is a prison sentence."
Uhm Derek, (pardon the failure of the automatic quote above)
While I certainly respect your opinion I really hope that you are just speaking hyperbolically here since that statement is just not true.
Greece only has about a 1/3rd tax payment rate, which is part of the reason they are in so much trouble right now. Both Britain and France have fairly efficient tax enforcement agencies that compel payment of taxes.
Further most Western European governments have a VAT system as well as income taxes; which is why gas and other commodities are so much more expensive in Europe compared to the U.S..
Actually, I was being sarcastic. :P
While I certainly respect your opinion I really hope that you are just speaking hyperbolically here since that statement is just not true.
I'm pretty sure that was sarcasm, Godu.
EDIT: Firk ding blast . . . ninja'd! Third time in this thread!
I never said or implied (or never meant to, anyway) that seatbelt laws prevented accidents, only that they mitigate the severity of them. I understand where you're coming from with the sentiment, as much as I disagree with it. Would you say the same for a passenger with diminished capacity to make decisions? Should they suffer the consequences for a bad decision?
Just as stop signs are as you say, so are seatbelt laws an attempt to lower the cost to society. People can ignore a stop sign as easily as they can refuse to put on a seatbelt - enforcement or the threat of enforcement is necessary in both cases.
Premiums may be lower, but it could also create a situation that is ripe for abuse - insurance company doesn't feel like paying? Clearly the individual was not wearing their seatbelt.
If a person of diminished capacity didn't buckle up and broke the law, they'd be in the exact same boat in the event of an accident as if there were no law.
And while people can ignore the stop sign, those signs are in place to protect an individual from taking another's life, which is a clear violation of the inalienable right to life.
A seatbelt law violates the inalienable right to liberty, including the right to be stupid. I am not going to retype stuff I typed eight pages ago. If you need to understand more, including the moronic idea that society needs to violate inalienable rights to promote the common good, please go back a page and start reading.
<snip moot point>
Yes, they would be in the same predicament in an accident. A culture of prevention (even one reinforced by law) would do a lot to remind them and anyone else in the car with them that they (with diminished capacity) should have a seatbelt on.
"A stop sign is in place to protect an individual from taking another's life". Good. I'm totally down with that. If the victim was wearing a seatbelt, they are many times more likely to survive being hit - also protecting that same individual from taking another's life.
If you don't understand that society constantly "violates" an individual's "inalienable" rights to promote the common good, then you are living in a fantasy world.
Even so, on some fundamental level, I can agree with you that people should be free to make bad choices, even self-destructive ones. But in real life, in the real world, why should a society bear the cost of cleaning up the mess from every idiot that self destructs? That would be moronic. We can and should do better.
|
|
Even so, on some fundamental level, I can agree with you that people should be free to make bad choices, even self-destructive ones. But in real life, in the real world, why should a society bear the cost of cleaning up the mess from every idiot that self destructs? That would be moronic. We can and should do better.
Ok, if I'm going to get stuck paying for everyone's bad decisions, I want the following prohibited under pain of death: smoking, Big Macs, having sex if you cannot afford a baby/abortion, drinking, chocolate, cell phones (either because people are idiots when talking and driving or because they cause brain tumors or something), trans fats, any drug that can be abused, cars, planes, motorcycles, boats, meat, guns, religion, walking, stairs, coffee, any buildings over one story, sports, etc.
Even so, on some fundamental level, I can agree with you that people should be free to make bad choices, even self-destructive ones. But in real life, in the real world, why should a society bear the cost of cleaning up the mess from every idiot that self destructs? That would be moronic. We can and should do better.Ok, if I'm going to get stuck paying for everyone's bad decisions, I want the following prohibited under pain of death: smoking, Big Macs, having sex if you cannot afford a baby/abortion, drinking, chocolate, cell phones (either because people are idiots when talking and driving or because they cause brain tumors or something), trans fats, any drug that can be abused, cars, planes, motorcycles, boats, meat, guns, religion, walking, stairs, coffee, any buildings over one story, sports, etc.
Well, I'm with you on religion....
But more seriously, just as Doug's Workshop doesn't want his tax dollars going towards someone else's health care, I don't want mine to pay for the police to scrape a dead moron off the highway. I would much rather have fined the moron two weeks prior, to have hopefully reminded him to buckle up. Consider the fine a consumption tax (I think Doug's Workshop was advocating those earlier?) to help pay for the morons who don't get the message.
And, like it or not, you're already paying for all of those bad decisions (in health care costs, infrastructure costs, etc.). We have to decide what we want to tolerate, what value is provided that outweighs the costs, in each case.
What value is provided by not wearing a seatbelt that outweighs the cost of requiring its use and the cost of not wearing them?
To me, the cost to require them is negligible, and not much different at all than even requiring a driver's license in the first place. The cost of not wearing them is high. The value of not wearing them is so low as to be irrelevant.
I guess I just don't get it after all.
If you don't understand that society constantly "violates" an individual's "inalienable" rights to promote the common good, then you are living in a fantasy world.
Did I ever, in any of my postings, say that this wasn't the case? This is very much the case, and is still WRONG.
Sheesh, it's not a complicated proposition. It's almost like people forgot that their brains are used for more than processing the latest American Idol episode.
Even so, on some fundamental level, I can agree with you that people should be free to make bad choices, even self-destructive ones. But in real life, in the real world, why should a society bear the cost of cleaning up the mess from every idiot that self destructs? That would be moronic. We can and should do better.Ok, if I'm going to get stuck paying for everyone's bad decisions, I want the following prohibited under pain of death: smoking, Big Macs, having sex if you cannot afford a baby/abortion, drinking, chocolate, cell phones (either because people are idiots when talking and driving or because they cause brain tumors or something), trans fats, any drug that can be abused, cars, planes, motorcycles, boats, meat, guns, religion, walking, stairs, coffee, any buildings over one story, sports, etc.
Well, I'm with you on religion....
But more seriously, just as Doug's Workshop doesn't want his tax dollars going towards someone else's health care, I don't want mine to pay for the police to scrape a dead moron off the highway. I would much rather have fined the moron two weeks prior, to have hopefully reminded him to buckle up. Consider the fine a consumption tax (I think Doug's Workshop was advocating those earlier?) to help pay for the morons who don't get the message.
And, like it or not, you're already paying for all of those bad decisions (in health care costs, infrastructure costs, etc.). We have to decide what we want to tolerate, what value is provided that outweighs the costs, in each case.
What value is provided by not wearing a seatbelt that outweighs the cost of requiring its use and the cost of not wearing them?
To me, the cost to require them is negligible, and not much different at all than even requiring a driver's license in the first place. The cost of not wearing them is high. The value of not wearing them is so low as to be irrelevant.
I guess I just don't get it after all.
But this gets to the heart of the matter, I think.
All of your arguments are what it costs to the greater society (in terms of money) as compared to what it costs the individual (in terms of freedom of choice).
To you such a choice is trivial but to someone else the ability to choose so is not.
But, if we make such decisions based upon the defining factor of what it costs the greater society in terms of money and add our own price tags to the personal choices of others, then we are really removing individual choice.
If it doesn't fit the state's predetermined price tag then you are not allowed to do it because doing so is not beneficial to the greater good. At this point, the "for the greater good" is tetering on the "tyranny of the majority".
If you don't understand that society constantly "violates" an individual's "inalienable" rights to promote the common good, then you are living in a fantasy world.Did I ever, in any of my postings, say that this wasn't the case? This is very much the case, and is still WRONG.
Sheesh, it's not a complicated proposition. It's almost like people forgot that their brains are used for more than processing the latest American Idol episode.
Well then I think that about sums up the disconnect we're having - I don't think it's wrong - though whether it's because I don't consider it a violation (hence the quotes around "violates") or that I don't think the particular issues in question really impinge on any inalienable rights (hence the quotes around "inalienable").
Maybe it's not a complicated proposition, but maybe reality is more complicated than the simplistic view you advocate is capable of accommodating?
Actually, in the United States, true monopolies only exist where the government agrees to those monopolies, such as utility providers.
Correct, but that wasn't always the case, and in your no-government fantasy land, they most certainly would be. If you cannot (or won't) see how some minimal regulation on business is needed, I can't help you.
But this gets to the heart of the matter, I think.
All of your arguments are what it costs to the greater society (in terms of money) as compared to what it costs the individual (in terms of freedom of choice).To you such a choice is trivial but to someone else the ability to choose so is not.
But, if we make such decisions based upon the defining factor of what it costs the greater society in terms of money and add our own price tags to the personal choices of others, then we are really removing individual choice.
If it doesn't fit the state's predetermined price tag then you are not allowed to do it because doing so is not beneficial to the greater good. At this point, the "for the greater good" is tetering on the "tyranny of the majority".
It's not just money. It's loss of productivity (e.g., if crippled), it's emotional trauma, all kinds of things. I don't want to say to a policeman - "Your job tonight is to go tell this guy's parents/wife/children/whoever that he's dead because he didn't wear a seatbelt." Why should those parents lose their child, or those children their parent - over something so stupid? Why should the police have to deal with telling them?
You're right, to me it's a trivial freedom - no different than removing my freedom to drive drunk, or jaywalk across the highway. Why should such a small thing wind up making life more difficult than it has to be, when having that particular choice doesn't seem to make it any better?
I don't think though that this in any way equates to "tyranny of the majority" - in our society it is not the majority that determines the greater good of society, it is our system of government/law, which includes protections from just that tyranny.
It is already true that there is a price tag associated with every choice we make (whether the cost is financial or estimated in terms of quality of life). Should I be able to choose to be drunk and disorderly? It has to be balanced against the rights of everyone else to get a good night's sleep. For every bad decision I make, someone else has to deal with the consequences of that decision. I do not exist in a vacuum. That's what the legal system has to balance.
woh it passes, bout time
Correct, but that wasn't always the case, and in your no-government fantasy land, they most certainly would be. If you cannot (or won't) see how some minimal regulation on business is needed, I can't help you.
Monopolies have a very difficult time forming when the government doesn't provide them with laws preventing competition. A quote I found from Milton Friedman: "A monopoly can seldom be established within a country without overt and covert government assistance in the form of a tariff or some other device. It is close to impossible to do so on a world scale. The De Beers diamond monopoly is the only one we know of that appears to have succeeded. - - In a world of free trade, international cartels would disappear even more quickly."
Did I say there aren't places for regulation of business? Why is it that people keep saying I said things that I did not say?
So....when is Rush Limbaugh moving to Costa Rica....and is he packing up all his oxycotin and viagra to go? ;)
But this gets to the heart of the matter, I think.
All of your arguments are what it costs to the greater society (in terms of money) as compared to what it costs the individual (in terms of freedom of choice).To you such a choice is trivial but to someone else the ability to choose so is not.
But, if we make such decisions based upon the defining factor of what it costs the greater society in terms of money and add our own price tags to the personal choices of others, then we are really removing individual choice.
If it doesn't fit the state's predetermined price tag then you are not allowed to do it because doing so is not beneficial to the greater good. At this point, the "for the greater good" is tetering on the "tyranny of the majority".
It's not just money. It's loss of productivity (e.g., if crippled), it's emotional trauma, all kinds of things. I don't want to say to a policeman - "Your job tonight is to go tell this guy's parents/wife/children/whoever that he's dead because he didn't wear a seatbelt." Why should those parents lose their child, or those children their parent - over something so stupid? Why should the police have to deal with telling them?
You're right, to me it's a trivial freedom - no different than removing my freedom to drive drunk, or jaywalk across the highway. Why should such a small thing wind up making life more difficult than it has to be, when having that particular choice doesn't seem to make it any better?
I don't think though that this in any way equates to "tyranny of the majority" - in our society it is not the majority that determines the greater good of society, it is our system of government/law, which includes protections from just that tyranny.
It is already true that there is a price tag associated with every choice we make (whether the cost is financial or estimated in terms of quality of life). Should I be able to choose to be drunk and disorderly? It has to be balanced against the rights of...
Ok, now would it be a loss of a trivial freedom if you were not allowed to be served food with salt (either at the table or used in the preparation)? Because there is a legislature in New York suggesting such a thing. What about if soda was made illegal, would that be a trivial loss? Soda taxes have been suggested in several states. What if you could be fined for dipping your chips in the mayo? Would that be a loss of a trivial freedom? All of those can be justified with the same argument made about seat belts. That they help prevent people from illness, injury, or death due to their own poor choices.
A side note, were you aware that most states do not require school children to wear seatbelts on school buses. In fact most school buses do not even have seatbelts so that a student could choose to wear a seatbelt if they wished. And if students don't attend school then criminal charges can be brought to the family? So students are being forced onto buses where this safety measure is not only not required, but not even an option.
Yes, the first measures have passed. Still we will have to see how this plays out in the coming years, since it is not going to actually start having any positive affects for some times, and there will doubtless be court cases (see the link I provided earlier about states challenging it). This is just the first hurdle of a long race.
If you are intractably set that the provision of universal healthcare breaks 'I have no right to the product of another mans labor', because it 'forces' people to pay.
Why is it that it is moral to break the principle of 'I have no right to the product of another mans labor'to provide a military and a justice system.In the US context I believe this question addresses two primary issue.
First is the constitutional role of the federal government. Military defense is clearly enumerated as one of those functions though our founders would balk at the current train wreck, I think.
So you are willing to agree that there are exceptions that to the principle of 'I have no right to the product of another mans labor'.
If the constitution was ammended to contain the provision of healthcare, under that founding principle of 'provide provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States'.Would it then be acceptable?
It is the fact that Doug's Workshop seems unwilling to discuss why he considers one to be a violation of his freedom/'I have no right to the product of another mans labor', and the other not, that is so gauling.
Second is the odious nature of income taxes and our tax structure in general. Income tax (and in some degree payroll tax) is particularly bad because it is a direct tax on labor etc. which is akin to serfdom. It also punishes savings and investment which in turn drives more people onto the government's welfare roles.The exact form of that taxation takes is something that i am sure we could discuss. I have no special attachment too.
But you i hope understand that i am not forced to pay tax for my healthcare. If i disagree with paying it, i can simply move to a country that does not charge tax for it.
If we did not have an income tax it might be more acceptable, but I doubt it.
Respectfully the notion that if I don't like it I can leave, can be used to excuse all manner of wrong. It utterly fails to defend any minority.
And the leaving a country/state requires $$$, so it's not an easy option.
On an aside, at least there was some kinda up/down vote on the bill. The BS about the pass-thru attempt will leave a sour taste in voters' mouths for years to come. Any suspension of parliamentary procedure smells, and is hard to wash off.
Well, we'll see how the changes get reconciled when it goes back to the Senate. This is just one step. Admittingly a major one, but don't be surprised when pols start crying foul when their attempted changes get removed. The continual back n forth of American politics. It never really does end.
Ok, now would it be a loss of a trivial freedom if you were not allowed to be served food with salt (either at the table or used in the preparation)? Because there is a legislature in New York suggesting such a thing. What about if soda was made illegal, would that be a trivial loss? Soda taxes have been suggested in several states. What if you could be fined for dipping your chips in the mayo? Would that be a loss of a trivial freedom? All of those can be justified with the same argument made about seat belts. That they help prevent people from illness, injury, or death due to their own poor choices.
A side note, were you aware that most states do not require school children to wear seatbelts on school buses. In fact most school buses do not even have seatbelts so that a student could choose to wear a seatbelt if they wished. And if students don't attend school then criminal charges can be brought to the family? So students are being forced onto buses where this safety measure is not only not required, but not even an option.
Yes, the first measures have passed. Still we will have to see how this plays out in the coming years, since it is not going to actually start having any positive affects for some times, and there will doubtless be court cases (see the link I provided earlier about states challenging it). This is just the first hurdle of a long race.
Yep, I do know that school buses don't have seat belts - but it's apparently not as simple as it seems: http://www.ncsbs.org/testimonies/seat_belt_background.htm
The seatbelt laws exist because they are an easy, cheap way to take advantage of something already in cars in order to prevent lots of traffic fatalities. If there's another way to do that in cars, I'm all ears.
And none of those points you make in your first paragraph quite rely on the same arguments about seat belts. See my response to houstonderek above - your mileage may vary, but each issue needs to be taken on its own merits or lack thereof.
As far as a salt ban in NY goes, that is not a law - it's barely a rumor. It's one guy who's talking about it, and yes, I think he's nuts. Although food with stupidly high levels of salt should carry a warning or label of some sort (like almost everything does, except in restaurants).
I could support legislation related to healthy eating only so far as it allows people to make informed choices. Apparently I'm not crazy, as adding nutritional information to food labels has been required for some time.
A tax on soda is not nearly the same thing as making it illegal (really? were you being serious?). Gasoline is taxed. Alcohol is taxed. Cigarettes are taxed. I don't know if I'd support it or not, I haven't really thought about it much. I don't think it should be illegal, but no one has suggested that, as far as I know.
Dipping chips in mayo? Has that really been found to lead to death as concretely as not wearing a seat belt? Or is it really a lot more complicated than that? As far as I know, heart disease and such is not as much of a problem in Belgium as it is in the US, and they dip chips in mayo and we don't. Fined for eating fatty foods more generally? No. I don't think that would be reasonable. A tax on fatty foods? Same category as soda.
So I don't see that any of these cases are the same as seatbelts, nor do I see that the same solution would be useful.
Can you give me one argument as to why the choice to wear a seatbelt should be valued more highly than the lives of people who were preventable traffic fatalities?
I think you're coming down too far to the extreme side of individual liberty. I see avoiding the costs of senseless death as an important mitigation to such liberty, particularly in the case of such a minor thing as a seatbelt.
Would you even think twice about the safety harnesses at an amusement park? If Six Flags was immune from being sued, would you support the right of an individual to choose to wear a safety harness or not on any of the rides? If yes, what would the point of that be - it's obvious that some people would make bad choices and many of them would die.
I've noticed a curious lack of people with terminal illnesses or grievous injuries complaining about their "freedom" not to buy health insurance being "impinged upon."
Never mind; I'm sure they're lots of them out there. Really.
Fine, I'll play your silly game. I'm a cancer survivor, and I am basically uninsurable. I will probably die in screaming agony from a disease I can't control. That will make some of my political opponents giggle with glee. I still don't think that I have a right to health care paid for by others at gun point. Is that adequate evidence to refute your vacant thought? I doubt it, but have fun any way.
I can't understand why some Americans think that a system like what we have in the UK is bad.
My aunty at the moment is waiting to die.
She has a brain tumor and riddled with cancer.
She is 62.
Three times a day someone comes around to check on her. She has a "magic button" which she can press and someone will arrive within half an hour maximum 24 hours a day everyday. She has had months of anticancer treatment. All her meds, food, heating everything is being paid for by the government. Special furniture, medical equipment, alterations so she can bathe....
All this for a little bit of taxation. For that she has got peace of mind, has been made comfortable and hasn't got to worry about her care. She can die peacefully at home surrounded by loved ones.
At the same time there is a Turk illeagal having a gender reassignment op, costing the tax payer £60K, for free. Whilst this makes me angry I still wouldn't change what we have.
I watched my wife die in very similar circumstances. Her insurance paid the bills, and I took care of her. I didn't have to steal from anyone to make it happen.
I guess America just sucks, but I'd still rather be here.
|
|
Even so, on some fundamental level, I can agree with you that people should be free to make bad choices, even self-destructive ones. But in real life, in the real world, why should a society bear the cost of cleaning up the mess from every idiot that self destructs? That would be moronic. We can and should do better.Ok, if I'm going to get stuck paying for everyone's bad decisions, I want the following prohibited under pain of death: smoking, Big Macs, having sex if you cannot afford a baby/abortion, drinking, chocolate, cell phones (either because people are idiots when talking and driving or because they cause brain tumors or something), trans fats, any drug that can be abused, cars, planes, motorcycles, boats, meat, guns, religion, walking, stairs, coffee, any buildings over one story, sports, etc.
Well, I'm with you on religion....
But more seriously, just as Doug's Workshop doesn't want his tax dollars going towards someone else's health care, I don't want mine to pay for the police to scrape a dead moron off the highway. I would much rather have fined the moron two weeks prior, to have hopefully reminded him to buckle up. Consider the fine a consumption tax (I think Doug's Workshop was advocating those earlier?) to help pay for the morons who don't get the message.
And, like it or not, you're already paying for all of those bad decisions (in health care costs, infrastructure costs, etc.). We have to decide what we want to tolerate, what value is provided that outweighs the costs, in each case.
What value is provided by not wearing a seatbelt that outweighs the cost of requiring its use and the cost of not wearing them?
To me, the cost to require them is negligible, and not much different at all than even requiring a driver's license in the first place. The cost of not wearing them is high. The value of not wearing them is so low as to be irrelevant.
I guess I just don't get it after all.
Requiring someone to wear a seat belt costs me zero dollars (other than the three week fact finding junket the congressperson took to a Thai massage parlor. In Bangkok.) and saves tax dollars on surgery for dumbasses.
Not banning Twinkies is going to cost me a ton on dumbasses with type 2 diabetes and other diet related maladies. Not banning poor people from having babies? Ditto. Idiot soccer moms on cell phones when driving? Yep. You know, since I'm responsible for paying their healthcare now, apparently.
:)
As far as a salt ban in NY goes, that is not a law - it's barely a rumor. It's one guy who's talking about it, and yes, I think he's nuts. Although food with stupidly high levels of salt should carry a warning or label of some sort (like almost everything does, except in restaurants).
I could support legislation related to healthy eating only so far as it allows people to make informed choices. Apparently I'm not crazy, as adding nutritional information to food labels has been required for some time.
But wait, people are dumb, that is evident by the level of obesity in the US and other countries. Unhealthy eating has been proven to cause illness and even death, I don't think there is any realistic debate on that issue, is there? So your issue is one more about how quickly those consequences manifest. A poor choice, even though someone could be informed about the consequences, in a car is not allowed, ever! While a poor choice in other areas of life, food, smoking, drinking, etc, are ok because those consequences take longer to manifest. The distance between the decision and the consequence is where you draw the line, am I right?
A tax on soda is not nearly the same thing as making it illegal (really? were you being serious?).
I was asking if you would support a ban on soda. While that may seem far fetched now, today. I would have thought it would have been far fetched to believe that states would make it illegal to have a bar where you could smoke, but that is starting to happen in states, no smoking in any business. Bans on certain types of cooking oils, but NYC banned trans fats. I don't think it is quite so far fetched as you seem to believe. Again, I am not suggesting that anyone is recommending a ban on it, today, in 10 years, can you really say that it is impossible for it to happen?
Can you give me one argument as to why the choice to wear a seatbelt should be valued more highly than the lives of people who were preventable traffic fatalities?
Why should the option for someone to make their own choices, informed choices even, where those choices could be poor choices, over being told by authorities what "choices" they must make? No I can't give you an argument for that. And I am serious, I can't give you an argument for that because any argument would have to be based around us sharing certain ideas of the value of personal choice. Since I don't think that is possible, it would be impossible to create an argument.
There is no way I could have afford to pay for private insurance and if we lived in America she would be dead.Actually, were she in America, there's a good chance she'd be at M.D.
Anderson getting free care, and much superior care than anywhere else in the world, M.D. Anderson being a) the #1 cancer treatment center in the world, and b) required by the state charter that created the center to provide care regardless of ability to pay.More amazing is how many people from countries with single payer are at M.D. Anderson.
Try arguing something you know about before making blanket statements like that.
My third wife's oncologist was trained at MD Anderson. Even though she died I have nothing but good things to say about MD Anderson.
Haha, cute. I think the meaning behind my statment was clear, at least to anyone with half a friggin brain. Obama is determined to push this through despite majority opposistion. That means, since you have a hard time understanding plain english, that even though MOST people do not want a bill that even the politicians voting on it don't understand, he doesn't care. And this makes people angry. Clear enough for you?Obviously, you can't understand my argument because you're a moron!
:|
So...what's the biggest reason for the majority opposition in your view? That's another post where you forgot to mention it.
One last time, little boy. If you go back and read the original post I made, I said that the reason so many people object to the bill is even the politicians voting on it do not understand its content. Very few of them have read it in it's completion. And the fact that Obama is hell bent on pushing it through makes people angry and objective.
You haven't made an argument directed towards me untill now. What I do understand is you are one more little troll who spouts of at the mouth from behind the safty of his little screen. Keep on calling me a moron you little putz, you're safe behind your little keyboard so you feel free to show what an asshat you are.
EDITED at my wifes insistance that I remain somewhat less hostile.
:)
For what it's worth he's convinced that National Socialists aren't socialists either.
Well, I've got a solution. From now on, everything south of the Mason-Dixon line shall be a soverign tax-free nation, Notaxica. No evil government will impinge on your right to property there. There will be no paved roads in Notaxica, no environmental regulation whatsoever, no schools, no fire department unless you can round up enough volunteers, no building codes, no traffic lights to take away your liberty to seize the right-of-way by force, no regulation of business (your employer is welcome to chain you to a desk and force you to work hundred-hour weeks), and all businesses shall be monopolies that can charge anything they like, and drive competition into the ground by underselling them or buying them outright or by any other means they see fit (I'd say legal or illegal, but the only thing in Notaxica that's illegal is theft).
Hyperbole? Yes, I agree. But there's a fine line between that and some of the arguments on both sides here, so I feel like it's OK to poke a little fun.
I've heard Somalia is a lovely place to live.
Also, HD, care to answer any of my points on Healthcare? I mean, we can keep debating your libertarian fantasies if you want, but I prefer debate on things that actually work in reality. (Psst, if I don't pay taxes, I go to jail too!)
Good, so we can agree that government is force, correct?
W00t! 219 to 212!
Great we've given half a trillion to the insurance industry, and we still have tens of millions of people uninsured.
Isn't government great?
Great we've given half a trillion to the insurance industry, and we still have tens of millions of people uninsured.
Isn't government great?
In 2001/2 I and many of my friends protested the imminent illegal invasion of Iraq (and Afghanistan). Over the next 8 years, Bush and co. ran game, trampling the Constitution in an Orwellian orgy of power-lust, arrogance and greed, all the while claiming a moral high ground. I felt the same frustration and political impotence you're feeling now. It'd be too easy to troll, so I'll just quote one of the few American statesman worthy of the title and say "I feel your pain".
BTW, the Democrats are so friggin' inept your political representatives will have their chance to gut healthcare in 6 years at most.
Zo
|
|
Great we've given half a trillion to the insurance industry, and we still have tens of millions of people uninsured.
Isn't government great?
In 2001/2 I and many of my friends protested the illegal invasion of Iraq. Over the next 8 years, Bush and co. ran game, trampling the Constitution in an Orwellian orgy of power-lust, arrogance and greed, all the while claiming a moral high ground. I felt the same frustration and political impotence you're feeling now. It'd be too easy to troll, so I'll just quote one of the few American statesman worthy of the title and say "I feel your pain".
BTW, the Democrats are so friggin' inept your political representatives will have their chance to gut healthcare in 6 years at most.
Zo
Both sides are so inept these days it's a wonder we haven't imploded yet.
*shrug*
Great we've given half a trillion to the insurance industry, and we still have tens of millions of people uninsured.
Isn't government great?
In 2001/2 I and many of my friends protested the illegal invasion of Iraq. Over the next 8 years, Bush and co. ran game, trampling the Constitution in an Orwellian orgy of power-lust, arrogance and greed, all the while claiming a moral high ground. I felt the same frustration and political impotence you're feeling now. It'd be too easy to troll, so I'll just quote one of the few American statesman worthy of the title and say "I feel your pain".
BTW, the Democrats are so friggin' inept your political representatives will have their chance to gut healthcare in 6 years at most.
Zo
Both sides are so inept these days it's a wonder we haven't imploded yet.
*shrug*
Give it time. This indigestible hunk of pork is going to choke small businesses to death. The Democrats pretty much just handed Congress over to the Republicans in 2011, which means they can get back to important things like prayer in schools and banning abortions. :P
|
|
Great we've given half a trillion to the insurance industry, and we still have tens of millions of people uninsured.
Isn't government great?
In 2001/2 I and many of my friends protested the illegal invasion of Iraq. Over the next 8 years, Bush and co. ran game, trampling the Constitution in an Orwellian orgy of power-lust, arrogance and greed, all the while claiming a moral high ground. I felt the same frustration and political impotence you're feeling now. It'd be too easy to troll, so I'll just quote one of the few American statesman worthy of the title and say "I feel your pain".
BTW, the Democrats are so friggin' inept your political representatives will have their chance to gut healthcare in 6 years at most.
Zo
Both sides are so inept these days it's a wonder we haven't imploded yet.
*shrug*
Give it time. This indigestible hunk of pork is going to choke small businesses to death. The Democrats pretty much just handed Congress over to the Republicans in 2011, which means they can get back to important things like prayer in schools and banning abortions. :P
Hmmm, yeah. One party trying to turn the entire country into Detroit, another trying to turn it into Swinepump, Alabama.
Great.
Hmmm, yeah. One party trying to turn the entire country into Detroit, another trying to turn it into Swinepump, Alabama.
Great.
Way to go America!
Okay, fine, how's this for an argument against mandatory seat belt wearing:
If you make it illegal not to wear a seat belt, you're going to have to administer the legal handling of that crime, which will amount to what is probably a quite measurable sum for each and every one of you americans.
The courts will have to devote time and energy to the slew of seat belt cases, which will in turn cost you in various different ways.
The cops will have to devote time and energy to these cases. If they see someone without a belt, by the time they will have stopped that car, the guy will probably have put the belt on. Which means they will have to take photos as evidence, adding more strain to the various other parts of the legal framework.
When seat belt wearing becomes a prioritized way of dealing with traffic deaths, the politicians responsible will start measuring how many arrests due to no seat belt each police district makes. This will ensure that the cops get quotas each month. Thousands will die due to other types of crimes being ignored in favour of seat belts.
To speed up the clunky court process, various states will decide to let cops fine people without a court process. If I recall, compare to speeding in Texas. This will invariably lead to cops harassing people about seat belts (which is a safe accusation to make, since the harassee won't be able to prove he was wearing the seat belt).
Once this happens, more and more of the budget of the police districts will be directly related to how well they meet their seat belt quotas, taking further energy from crimes that do not provide for such lucrative direct fines as not wearing a seat belt.
Most who get harassed about it, realizing the futility of fighting the accusation, will pay the direct fine. Hey, it's only a few thousand dollars, right, and it won't happen to me all THAT often...
So, in short, comparing with how other crimes get handled, I'd say there are IMPRESSIVELY good reasons not to criminalize not wearing seat belts.
And ... you have health care!
Not quite.
The tax hikes start soon. "Health care" doesn't start for four years. So much for the argument that this has to be done quickly because people are dying without insurance, eh?
|
|
Way to go America!"If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stomping on a human face— forever."
So much for our vaunted Constitution, might as well be toilet paper.
Oh please. The absurdity of some people on these forums is a wonder to behold. One of these days I'll actually understand why a piece of paper written before the invention of the freaking Steamboat is held to be utterly perfect and relevant for 2010.. and why people think a health care bill actually violates it.
Anyway! 10 Immediate Benefits of HCR. Cause I care.
1. Adult children may remain as dependants on their parents’ policy until their 27th birthday
2. Children under age 19 may not be excluded for pre-existing conditions
3. No more lifetime or annual caps on coverage
4. Free preventative care for all
5. Adults with pre-existing conditions may buy into a national high-risk pool until the exchanges come online. While these will not be cheap, they’re still better than total exclusion and get some benefit from a wider pool of insured.
6. Small businesses will be entitled to a tax credit for 2009 and 2010, which could be as much as 50% of what they pay for employees’ health insurance.
7. The “donut hole” closes for Medicare patients, making prescription medications more affordable for seniors.
8. Requirement that all insurers must post their balance sheets on the Internet and fully disclose administrative costs, executive compensation packages, and benefit payments.
9. Authorizes early funding of community health centres in all 50 states (Bernie Sanders’ amendment). Community health centres provide primary, dental and vision services to people in the community, based on a sliding scale for payment according to ability to pay.
10. AND no more rescissions. Effective immediately, you can't lose your insurance because you get sick.
Those look pretty good!
|
|
Good, so we can agree that government is force, correct?
A state is an organisation with a monopoly on the legitimate use of force within a geographical area. (Max Weber) This is not a bad thing, of course. When you lack the state, you get a situation like Somalia.
And as an aside, the Nazis weren't socialist. Men like Gregor Strasser were, until 1934, the most Socialist part of the party, and even found some commonground with the Marxists in Germany. This view is known as Strasserism, and ended when Gregor Strasser was killed in the Night of the Long Knives. He was an ideological rival to Hitler, and a possible alternative leader.
Fine, I'll play your silly game. I'm a cancer survivor, and I am basically uninsurable. I will probably die in screaming agony from a disease I can't control. That will make some of my political opponents giggle with glee. I still don't think that I have a right to health care paid for by others at gun point. Is that adequate evidence to refute your vacant thought? I doubt it, but have fun any way.I've noticed a curious lack of people with terminal illnesses or grievous injuries complaining about their "freedom" not to buy health insurance being "impinged upon."
Never mind; I'm sure they're lots of them out there. Really.
I'm sorry you had cancer. I'm glad you survived. I'm curious: Did you have insurance?
The prospect of getting sick again in the future and not having insurance is *not* the same thing as currently being sick extolling the virtues of a system that left you "free" not to buy insurance. Especially since you implied you'd like to buy insurance but can't.
Of course, soon, you'll be able to...
Way to go America!"If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stomping on a human face— forever."
So much for our vaunted Constitution, might as well be toilet paper.
QQ more.
So you (may have) read 1984; grats. You didn't understand it.
And ... you have health care!Not quite.
The tax hikes start soon. "Health care" doesn't start for four years. So much for the argument that this has to be done quickly because people are dying without insurance, eh?
Glib, but not cogent. It was this or nothing; no one is saying this was ideal.
Disagreement is one thing. Bitter pettiness is another thing altogether.