I don't think your political beliefs classify you as extremist at all, more like normal conservative. I think extremists under the heat are people like Rush Limbaugh who have no desire to help the country progress in any direction, they just want Obama to fail...end of story. That sucks.
it is quite clear that you have never once tuned into his program and really listened to what he had to say. I dont agree with rush. i dont even call myself a conservative. but i listen to his show because he has made a good point or two.
He does not want Obama to fail. He wants Obama's attempts to make the government bigger and have higher taxes and more control to fail. this, he believes, will further the country because when left to their won devices people will better themselves and therefor, the country.
pleas be informed when you try and call someone out. or at least take the time to understand it first.
This is just semantics. Yes, he does want Obama to fail, maybe for the reasons you state and others, but he still wants him to fail. I've listened to Limbaugh, watched him on televised interviews and read his opinions. He symbolizes all that is wrong with the Republican party. The funny part about it, he's followed so devoutly by the dittoheads who believe in his "passion," yet all that bluster is nothing more than him milking it for all it's worth. That, I give him credit for. He and Bill O'Reilly.
Why I'm a Terrorist Threat (According the the new head of the DHS)
The new head of the DHS did not say you're a terrorist. The new head of the DHS didn't even write the report that doesn't say you're a terrorist. She didn't even commission the report. The report that doesn't say you're a terrorist was written by a man appointed by the Bush administration. If you want to accuse somebody of calling you a terrorist, at least accuse the right person.
More generally, you really should take something for these panic attacks.
the govenrment forced many banks to take the TARP funds. now they are refusing to take payments to pay it off.
Link, please. Every case I've read about where a bank has said it wants to pay back its TARP money immediately, when it gets down to brass tacks it turns out that what they mean by "immediately" is 3 or 4 years from now. Why? Because they don't have the money right now. They're bitching about restrictions on money that they'd be in bankruptcy court without. In short, they want something for nothing. They want a free lunch.
the people in that system cant make the choices to practiec how they see fit
urbino:
They can't do that now.
false. they can make some limited choices. government takeover would give you even less or zero choices.
"Some limited choices" is not what you said. You said "make the choices to practice how they see fit." If your argument is now just about being able to make "some limited choices," please confirm and I'll address that.
kuzi16:
urbino:
kuzi16:
I have the right (right now) to chose many different forms of treatment. under a Federal Health board many of those options would be gone.
No, they won't. You can continue to buy as much private care as you can afford.
with "free" government health care all other options will be eventually driven out of business. why would anyone pay for something if you can get the "equivalent" service down the street for free ? you cannot compete with free.
Once again, please make up your mind. Your first argument, quoted above, was that you wouldn't be able to choose different forms of treatment because those options would be gone.
Now you're saying the problem is that the gov't will drive others out of business because they're providing the same services for free.
Which is it? Either the gov't system does offer the treaments you want, in which case they're free and you don't need to buy them elsewhere, or the gov't system doesn't offer the treatments you want, in which case they are not available for free and someone else will be selling them for profit.
kuzi16:
yet completely overlooking the fact that this is now the 4th time that i have said something needs to change.
I cut it out in the interest of brevity, but I'd just acknowledged that you want things to change.
In general, kuzi, your arguments on health care reform are ideological arguments, not arguments that deal with the actual facts of the actual proposals under consideration to reform our actual health care system. Philosophical arguments can be interesting, but talking about the kinds of hypothetical proposals that your philosophy says must be the proposals on the table (because of the inherent nature of gov't or what have you) are out of place when there are actual concrete proposals on the table that are not the proposals your philosophy predicts.
Why I'm a Terrorist Threat (According the the new head of the DHS)
The new head of the DHS did not say you're a terrorist. The new head of the DHS didn't even write the report that doesn't say you're a terrorist. She didn't even commission the report. The report that doesn't say you're a terrorist was written by a man appointed by the Bush administration. If you want to accuse somebody of calling you a terrorist, at least accuse the right person.
More generally, you really should take something for these panic attacks.
Well she IS the one who presented this report, and she IS the one who was appologizing for lumping Vets in with the Right Wing Extremists. My point was left wing extremists have lead violent protests for the past 8 years but there was never a publicly released report about them but our new head of the DHS felt like this was a big issue that needed to be brought out. This is another attempt to silence any objectors to the administration. It will continue! Don't tell me I'm accusing the wrong person, I watched the b**ch deliver a speach on this, then try to back pedal her way out of naming our military vets as a threat to our security. You are correct, she didn't write the report, but what was broadcast to the public was a summory of what she thought was important enough to declassify and release to law enforcement agencies across the country.
"It may include groups and individuals that are dedicated to a single issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration,"
This is a line directly from the report, now tell me that isn't speaking directly of MOST conservatives in our country, because I promise you I am VERY VERY dedicated to the immigration issue.
You know, Hitler gave similar speaches demonizing his opposition. Facism by any other name...
I don't think your political beliefs classify you as extremist at all, more like normal conservative. I think extremists under the heat are people like Rush Limbaugh who have no desire to help the country progress in any direction, they just want Obama to fail...end of story. That sucks.
it is quite clear that you have never once tuned into his program and really listened to what he had to say. I dont agree with rush. i dont even call myself a conservative. but i listen to his show because he has made a good point or two.
He does not want Obama to fail. He wants Obama's attempts to make the government bigger and have higher taxes and more control to fail. this, he believes, will further the country because when left to their won devices people will better themselves and therefor, the country.
pleas be informed when you try and call someone out. or at least take the time to understand it first.
This is just semantics. Yes, he does want Obama to fail, maybe for the reasons you state and others, but he still wants him to fail. I've listened to Limbaugh, watched him on televised interviews and read his opinions. He symbolizes all that is wrong with the Republican party. The funny part about it, he's followed so devoutly by the dittoheads who believe in his "passion," yet all that bluster is nothing more than him milking it for all it's worth. That, I give him credit for. He and Bill O'Reilly.
First of all, O'Reilly is pretty conservative, but not as far right as some. Name me one hard line conservative that is anti-death penalty... I agree with both Rush and O'Reilly on a LOT of things, and Rush has some great ideas, but lets face it, it is his job to speak out and piss people off. Thats why he signed a 7 year $148 million contract a few years ago to do his little radio show.
Once again, please make up your mind. Your first argument, quoted above, was that you wouldn't be able to choose different forms of treatment because those options would be gone.
Now you're saying the problem is that the gov't will drive others out of business because they're providing the same services for free.
Which is it? Either the gov't system does offer the treaments you want, in which case they're free and you don't need to buy them elsewhere, or the gov't system doesn't offer the treatments you want, in which case they are not available for free and someone else will be selling them for profit.
im saying there wont be any choices BECAUSE THEY WILL BE DRIVEN OUT. it isnt that hard to follow.
urbino:
In general, kuzi, your arguments on health care reform are ideological arguments, not arguments that deal with the actual facts of the actual proposals under consideration to reform our actual health care system. Philosophical arguments can be interesting, but talking about the kinds of hypothetical proposals that your philosophy says must be the proposals on the table (because of the inherent nature of gov't or what have you) are out of place when there are actual concrete proposals on the table that are not the proposals your philosophy predicts.
your arguments are ideological as well. you cant pretend that they arent.
obamas ACTUAL plan: health care agenda Require insurance companies to cover pre-existing conditions so all Americans regardless of their health status or history can get comprehensive benefits at fair and stable premiums.
“Hello, is this the insurance company? I want fire insurance for my house. Yes, my house is already on fire, but I have a right to insurance.” This kind of persecution of insurance companies has prevailed for many years, causing premiums to skyrocket. this has been going on in California with HIV for years. Obamas plan will make this persecution more complete, making health care even more expensive. let me replace the above with something more applicable
"Hello, is this the insurance company? I want heath insurance. Yes, i have already contracted HIV but i have a right to affordable insurance.
how is this going to be affordable to the guy with HIV( who costs more to treat)? the government subsidizing it? i mean, taxpayers paying for it? so that means that everyone else has to pay more for a service THEY DONT USE. ideological? not so much now.
I don't think your political beliefs classify you as extremist at all, more like normal conservative. I think extremists under the heat are people like Rush Limbaugh who have no desire to help the country progress in any direction, they just want Obama to fail...end of story. That sucks.
it is quite clear that you have never once tuned into his program and really listened to what he had to say. I dont agree with rush. i dont even call myself a conservative. but i listen to his show because he has made a good point or two.
He does not want Obama to fail. He wants Obama's attempts to make the government bigger and have higher taxes and more control to fail. this, he believes, will further the country because when left to their won devices people will better themselves and therefor, the country.
pleas be informed when you try and call someone out. or at least take the time to understand it first.
This is just semantics. Yes, he does want Obama to fail, maybe for the reasons you state and others, but he still wants him to fail. I've listened to Limbaugh, watched him on televised interviews and read his opinions. He symbolizes all that is wrong with the Republican party. The funny part about it, he's followed so devoutly by the dittoheads who believe in his "passion," yet all that bluster is nothing more than him milking it for all it's worth. That, I give him credit for. He and Bill O'Reilly.
so why is it wrong for Rush to want Obama to fail when MANY democrats wanted Bush to fail?
there seems to be a disconnect here.
i want Obama, the man, to lead a successful life. I want him to do things that bring him wealth, comfort for his family, and good to the people around him.
I dont want him to do it at the cost of the freedom of others. this is why i hope his policies that limit freedom fail.
there is a difference in wanting the man to fail and the policy to fail.
i will no longer speak for Rush. I dont know what is in Rush's heart. dont pretend that YOU do.
We're glad Goldman wants to flee Barney Frank's embrace, but it's still only half way back to the promised land of capitalism -- which includes the freedom to fail.
amen.
good to see something being improved on. the faster the banks pay off the government the closer they are to Capitalism.
This one isn't. So the government controls the auto industry, the banks, insurance companies, and next are wanting to take control of the media... At least one advisor wants to. Where will this stop and how in the hell can ANYONE say these aren't moves towards socialism?
I don't think your political beliefs classify you as extremist at all, more like normal conservative. I think extremists under the heat are people like Rush Limbaugh who have no desire to help the country progress in any direction, they just want Obama to fail...end of story. That sucks.
it is quite clear that you have never once tuned into his program and really listened to what he had to say. I dont agree with rush. i dont even call myself a conservative. but i listen to his show because he has made a good point or two.
He does not want Obama to fail. He wants Obama's attempts to make the government bigger and have higher taxes and more control to fail. this, he believes, will further the country because when left to their won devices people will better themselves and therefor, the country.
pleas be informed when you try and call someone out. or at least take the time to understand it first.
This is just semantics. Yes, he does want Obama to fail, maybe for the reasons you state and others, but he still wants him to fail. I've listened to Limbaugh, watched him on televised interviews and read his opinions. He symbolizes all that is wrong with the Republican party. The funny part about it, he's followed so devoutly by the dittoheads who believe in his "passion," yet all that bluster is nothing more than him milking it for all it's worth. That, I give him credit for. He and Bill O'Reilly.
so why is it wrong for Rush to want Obama to fail when MANY democrats wanted Bush to fail?
there seems to be a disconnect here.
i want Obama, the man, to lead a successful life. I want him to do things that bring him wealth, comfort for his family, and good to the people around him.
I dont want him to do it at the cost of the freedom of others. this is why i hope his policies that limit freedom fail.
there is a difference in wanting the man to fail and the policy to fail.
i will no longer speak for Rush. I dont know what is in Rush's heart. dont pretend that YOU do.
kuzi, listen to the man. He cares for nothing but himself. really just look at how he leads his life and who he really answers too. Yeah sure he doesn't want things to change since he'd be taking a pay cut. I do think he is what is wrong with the current R party. He is to a lot of people a poster for it. Though that can be argued on both fronts. I use to be a R, but now I'm really getting tired of the D and how they are acting. I swear it's becoming really pathetic.
Oh ok, it all makes sense now. You don't like Rush because he is rich. I don't blame the guy. He worked his ass off to become as successful as he is but people like you think he should be punished for that... It's sad that people are so bitter in this country they think wealth and success should be punished.
being rich has nothing to do about it puro. and I doubt he knows what work is... but hey you and I haven't agree on anything in the political world..
How many years have you spent in radio? How well do you know how hard it is to do a daily radio show? Just curious because I did a show for 4 years. You have no idea the amount of work and dedication it takes to put together a radio show that will produce listeners and ratings. It is one of the most challenging things you can ever do. The fact that Rush has been on the air and made the money and dawn the audiences he does is amazing. Just because he isn't on the end of a shovel or wrench doesn't mean he doesn't work for a living. Also it's not true that we don't agree on anything, we both thought the SCHIP was a bad idea, and I am not a far right religious nut that tries to impose my moral views on people. I believe that is very wrong. I just have very strong beliefs, just as you do.
being rich has nothing to do about it puro. and I doubt he knows what work is... but hey you and I haven't agree on anything in the political world..
How many years have you spent in radio? How well do you know how hard it is to do a daily radio show? Just curious because I did a show for 4 years. You have no idea the amount of work and dedication it takes to put together a radio show that will produce listeners and ratings. It is one of the most challenging things you can ever do. The fact that Rush has been on the air and made the money and dawn the audiences he does is amazing. Just because he isn't on the end of a shovel or wrench doesn't mean he doesn't work for a living. Also it's not true that we don't agree on anything, we both thought the SCHIP was a bad idea, and I am not a far right religious nut that tries to impose my moral views on people. I believe that is very wrong. I just have very strong beliefs, just as you do.
eh, you got me there. but onto rush, okay so he had to do something to get where he is, but the guy has some wires out of whack. I know my father use to listen to him quite a bit a few years ago, but has stopped and when I asked why he only said, "he has gone all f**ked up". Rush knows his base that's for sure.
I'm on my way back out of this thread, as it's a little too aptly named, but one last question for kuzi. Is your argument that if one treatment is being offered for free, there will be no market for a different treatment?
I'm on my way back out of this thread, as it's a little too aptly named, but one last question for kuzi. Is your argument that if one treatment is being offered for free, there will be no market for a different treatment?
my argument is that if you have one treatment for free no other treatment will be able to compete with free. the free one will force all other "choices" out. you will have no choice because it is not profitable for there to be other choices. thats what happens when you take away competition.
So there's no such thing as bottled water. For a libertarian, your faith in markets is very weak.
bottled water is paying for the convenience of portable water.
if i want to take water on a hike, or in the car, or to a picnic, or carry it with me while running, or biking, or backpacking, etc.. i cant take my kitchen sink with me. this is the market for bottled water.
the thought that water is "free" is a bit on the ideological side isnt it?
i get a water bill every month. i still pay for it.
...and
If i had to leave my house every time i had to get a drink, id go where the water was free... especially if the water was not free elsewhere.
So there's no such thing as bottled water. For a libertarian, your faith in markets is very weak.
bottled water is paying for the convenience of portable water.
if i want to take water on a hike, or in the car, or to a picnic, or carry it with me while running, or biking, or backpacking, etc.. i cant take my kitchen sink with me. this is the market for bottled water.
No offense, kuz, but that's just goofy. We've had the convenience of portable water for millenia. When I go on an long bike ride, I don't stop by the convenience store and buy a couple of Dasanis. I turn on the tap and fill the two water bottles I've had for years.
Bottled water isn't about convenience. It's about different water. If it were about convenience, we wouldn't see 50 different brands advertising different exotic sources.
kuzi16:
the thought that water is "free" is a bit on the ideological side isnt it?
i get a water bill every month. i still pay for it.
Not ideological; econometric. Pennies a gallon is effectively free at the quantities needed for drinking; especially relative to $2.50 a liter.
kuzi16:
...and
If i had to leave my house every time i had to get a drink, id go where the water was free... especially if the water was not free elsewhere.
Kuzi, let's stop talking about what you hypothetically would do if some counterfactual condition existed (that's the sense in which your arguments are all ideological), and stick to what you and billions of other people actually do in the real world. Bottled water is just one of millions of empirical data points that falsify your hypothesis: people do not stop buying what they can get for free or at drastically lower cost.
People do pay more -- much, much more -- to get what they want, even when something that will do just as well is available at extremely low or even effectively zero cost. Billions of us do it every single day, many times a day. Whole industries are based on it; a lot of them. Most of the businesses in the world are based on it. Your chocolate business is based on it.
People will pay more to get what they want, and people will sell what people are willing to pay more for. That's Adam Smith 101, kuz.
It's as true of health care as of anything else. And, once again, we don't have to talk in counterfactual hypotheticals about it. There is actual empirical data we can look at. The U.K. has had national health care for decades, and yet there remains a robust private health care market wherein people buy treatments and medicines that the gov't system won't pay for. Google "private health care in the uk" and you'll get about a gozillion such companies.
Just as a gov't (municipal) water system doesn't eliminate the buying and selling of other kinds of water, a gov't health system doesn't eliminate the buying and selling of other treatments and medicines. If you want treatment D and the gov't system will only provide A, B, and C, you absolutely can go buy D from a private provider.
It's what classical market economics predicts, and it's what the empirical data show. What makes you think it's not true?
water, even bottled water, is cheap. when faced with water from the tap that you dont like the taste of or $2 for a gallon of bottled water from the store (a slightly different service in the minds of the buyer), the ramifications are a lot less costly.
compare this to being faced with $10,000 medical bill or a "free" medical bill for EQUAL service... what would YOU chose?
people like bottled water. there is a market because of this. there are many different reasons why people buy bottled water. taste. portability. maybe they think its more pure. maybe they think it makes them look cool. It does not matter what the reason is. bottled water is viewed as a luxury. im not arguing if people pay more for luxuries. they do.
and again, you are right, my chocolate business is based on that as well. along those lines; if someone comes along and gives away the exact same product that i offer only theirs is free, how can i compete? i cant. I would have to make my chocolate better to make it a slightly different product and worth buying
if they make a slightly different chocolate than me, that isnt as good, and give it away, then i still have a chance. why? because people are willing to pay for luxuries. my chocolate is a luxury.
If we are going to have equal health care for every American (Obamas goal) then the service the government gives out for free is the exact same thing as service from a private practice. (by definition of the word "equal") And If it is the exact same service, the private company cannot compete with the "free" service.
But, lets assume that private health care will be better than what the government will offer, making it a (slightly) different service, and unequal.
i want better health care. I go out and pay for it. I am now paying for myself and others through taxation. why would i be willing to pay more? because health care IS A LUXURY THAT I AM WILLING TO PAY FOR. this is still the same problem we have today. "only the "rich" can afford GOOD health care" that is not "change we can believe in." Its just more bureaucratic BS and higher taxes. Id be paying for a service twice, and getting it only once
But in that system I dont have a choice to drop the cost for the service i dont want or use and im forced to pay for a cost of service that someone else is using.
if i forced you to buy me something, anything, that you didnt want to buy me, using a threat of incarceration, (or limitation of other rights) if you did not comply, it would be theft, or extortion. ...somehow its ok for the government to do that?
... i know, i know ... because i VOTED for them.
funny thing is, i didnt. I voted for someone else. we dont run by mob rule. We are a REPUBLIC. we, as a nation, by law, have to respect the rights of the minority. I am a minority. quit trampling my rights.
Now you've shifted to a whole new argument.
Your original argument was based on your experience with an illness a few years ago. You didn't want the recommended treatment, so you went and got an alternative treatment. You said that would be impossible if we had a national health system, because: a) the nat'l system would not offer the alternative treatment, and b) the free treatments it did offer would put all the alternative treatments out of business.
Now you're saying the nat'l system will offer the alternative treatment, but a private provider might do it better and you don't want to have to pay for a nat'l system you don't use, and that this is somehow a violation of your rights.
On that theory, everything the gov't spends money on that I don't like is a violation of my rights. Which means you're not a libertarian. You're an anarchist. Because if that theory were true, there could be no gov't at all.
There is nothing -- nothing -- any gov't could spend money on that somebody somewhere doesn't object to.
I don't want my tax money spent to maintain a defense budget that's triple that of Russia and China combined. I didn't want my tax money spent on a war in Iraq. That doesn't make the existence of the U.S. military a violation of my rights.
I don't have the right to insist the world (or the country) revolve around me and bow to my every wish. I have the right to express my preferences, to vote to make them policy, to protest if they aren't, to take my argument to the courts for redress if I think I have a case. But I don't have the right to win at any step along that path. When I lose, that is not a violation of my rights. And when taxes are levied and appropriated to pay for the programs I don't like, my rights are not being violated. Neither are yours.
(To head off misunderstanding: yes, there absolutely are rights that are guaranteed even against the will of the majority. The right to have my way on every policy isn't one of them.)
kuzi16:
...somehow its ok for the government to do that?
... i know, i know
... because i VOTED for them.
No no no. Wrong. Hugely, fundamentally wrong. Not because you voted for them. Because you voted, period. More accurately, because you had the right to vote, even if you didn't exercise it.
You got your say in the outcome, and so did everybody else. You lost. Others won. That is not a violation of your rights, nor is it mob rule. I don't know what you think a "REPUBLIC" is, but a system in which every citizen has a right to have his or her own way on every issue is not one. That's a system (if it can even be called a system) in which there's no res publica at all.
Nobody's trampling your rights. It's not all about you. Come down off the cross.
I did an impromptu (and unscientific) survey at work. I asked two questions:
1) do you drink bottled water?
2) why?
for those who answered "yes" to number one the most common response for the second question was "it tastes better"
this means that there is a market for bottled water because it tastes better and thus is a luxury Item. A luxury they are willing to pay for. of course we are not arguing over bottled water. we are arguing over health care. so the connection that you made was that in the UK you can get private health care even though there is government health care, much like you can get bottled water instead of (almost) free water. to extend the comparison between the two i would like to add that i can turn off my public water all together if i wanted to. I would just call up the waterworks and tell them to shut me down. I could survive. of course i wont, mainly because i am like you in the way that i have a bottle that i carry water in. i dont mind the taste of tap. but if i did, and i didnt want tap water in my house, i could opt out of the system. i could opt to not buy this good or service. my problem with the government health care is that i cannot opt out of it because it is imposed on me by taxes.
urbino:
Now you've shifted to a whole new argument.
Your original argument was based on your experience with an illness a few years ago. You didn't want the recommended treatment, so you went and got an alternative treatment. You said that would be impossible if we had a national health system, because: a) the nat'l system would not offer the alternative treatment, and b) the free treatments it did offer would put all the alternative treatments out of business.
right. i did say that. wont argue that i said that. this entire debate has done what debates are supposed to do. It made me think. so i looked up what the real plan was. i read more. my views have changed because of something you said.
isnt that what debate is for? neither of us is running for office. we can ( and should be aloud to) change our views a bit in the light of new information. to do anything less would be poor reasoning.
urbino:
Now you're saying the nat'l system will offer the alternative treatment, but a private provider might do it better and you don't want to have to pay for a nat'l system you don't use, and that this is somehow a violation of your rights.
no. not exactly that. i am saying that the national system will offer a bit more choice than i previously thought it would. but it will not be as choice laden as a private system. There will however be no on-the-spot out-of-pocket for those who use it.
I am saying that i dont want to be forced to pay for a good or service that i wont use because it would infringe on my rights. I would be paying for that service that i didnt use because i am being taxed for its existence.
urbino:
On that theory, everything the gov't spends money on that I don't like is a violation of my rights. Which means you're not a libertarian. You're an anarchist. Because if that theory were true, there could be no gov't at all.
wrong.
its not a "if im happy with it" thing its a rights thing.
It would be OK to spend money for a national system that protects the rights of the individuals within that country (as long as that system does not violate the rights of others). ... such as police. the police are there to make sure that another person does not violate my right to peacefully walk down the street without being robbed, and to help catch and eventually punish those who do protection of rights is the only thing that a government is supposed to be for. that is not Anarchy.
urbino:
There is nothing -- nothing -- any gov't could spend money on that somebody somewhere doesn't object to.
true. they have every right to object as much as they want. ...even if they want no government. it is their right to free speech to express that they want no government. as long as they do so with out infringing on the rights of others. It is the governments job to protect the right of the guy who wants no government.
this brings back the point of anarchy vs. libertarianism.
Anarchism is defined as a concept in which all forms of government are bad and that the best government is ’NO’ government. This kind of practice tends to be destructive as well as violent. When there is ’NO’ government, there is destruction of property and lives as well as unwarranted intrusion and "extortion taxes". In the end, there is the mentality of every person for themselves.
Libertarianism, on the other hand, is based on the principles and writings of Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin. Libertarianism is based on one concept, which is freedom. Libertarianism respects the rights of individuals to do whatever they want to do with their lives without the intrusion of a nanny state that dictates behavior.
Libertarianism respects the rights of people to be themselves without reprisals ...under the condition that the rights of others be respected.
Libertarianism also believes in free trade that is fair and without government restriction.
The concept of Libertarianism is based on the thought that the government is necessary but must be limited and/or changed via peaceful means by the people who elect it. The state must be separated from the church, from business, and other non governmental entity ( such as health care) so as to avoid lobby groups and conflicts of interests.
this group of ideas was the concept of the US Constitution/Bill of Rights from the beginning. Unfortunately, we have lost sight of this. we can clearly see in this very debate for government run/owned health care.
urbino:
I didn't want my tax money spent on a war in Iraq. That doesn't make the existence of the U.S. military a violation of my rights.
not the mere existence of military. but going there was a violation of the rights of the people in Iraq and the right of that nation as a sovereign nation.(this harkens back to "the government is necessary but must be limited and/or changed via peaceful means by the people who elect it." we, the US, did not elect the Iraqi leaders.Further more, the concept of Libertarianism is also a belief that interference in the affairs of other countries is counter productive to what George Washington said in his farewell address in 1797) i am not in favor of that either. the government is forcing YOU to violate the rights of others and other nations. that in and of itself is a violation of your rights. sucks, doesnt it?
urbino:
I don't have the right to insist the world (or the country) revolve around me and bow to my every wish.
im not insisting the world revolves around me. i am fighting for the concept that the world or country does not violate the rights of human beings. Individual rights are worth fighting for. they always will be.
urbino:
I have the right to express my preferences, to vote to make them policy, to protest if they aren't, to take my argument to the courts for redress if I think I have a case. But I don't have the right to win at any step along that path. When I lose, that is not a violation of my rights. And when taxes are levied and appropriated to pay for the programs I don't like, my rights are not being violated. Neither are yours.
yes they are.
how? by claiming that a government program (health care) is a right. it is not. it is a luxury good or service. we have the right to pursue that good or service but not the right to simply have it.
If we have a right to a thing, an object, then we have a right to coerce another human being to provide it, thus depriving him of liberty.
it’s a recipe for violation of all rights because to have a right to something means you have a right to initiate the use of physical force or deceit to get it.
The initiation of physical force, or the use of its intellectual equivalent, deceit or fraud, is the only way to violate rights. In each instance, you have deprived the individual of his freedom to make choices about how to support and enjoy his life ...the life that he alone owns.
there are goods and services that are highly desirable, even necessary for life, but these things cannot be rights, and this is demonstrable through a simple exercise in logic:
Let us say your house is on fire, and you live in isolation, with no government around. If we post a “right to fire service” then your rights have apparently been violated, but by who? If you have a “right” to food, water, and clothing, who has violated your rights by not providing them, in the absence of government? God? The Universe itself? It’s easy to see how this is a nonsensical formulation.
Rights refer to action, not objects. We have a right to seek food, but not to food itself; we have a right to seek an education, but not to education itself; we have a right to seek shelter, but not to shelter itself. A right does not ensure that someone will acquire something, it just ensures he may seek to do so.
I claim that a necessary property of a true right is that it is cost-free. For example, equal rights is cost free because there is no cost to saying that everyone should be treated equally. You can treat everyone equally even when you have no money left. Free speech can be a valid right because it costs nothing to let people speak.
urbino:
(To head off misunderstanding: yes, there absolutely are rights that are guaranteed even against the will of the majority. The right to have my way on every policy isn't one of them.)
i agree with every part of this statement. it is my right to think that a policy is a poor one because i feel it violates my rights. I have the right to SAY that i feel it does so. this isnt an expectation that the world will bend down and bow to me and my needs. it is my way of spreading the thought of individual liberties and responsibilities with the hopes that others will see what i am saying, and agree with me, then vote for people that will more express what I/they would like to see the government do/not do.
urbino:
kuzi16:
...somehow its ok for the government to do that?
... i know, i know
... because i VOTED for them.
No no no. Wrong. Hugely, fundamentally wrong. Not because you voted for them. Because you voted, period. More accurately, because you had the right to vote, even if you didn't exercise it.
You got your say in the outcome, and so did everybody else. You lost. Others won. That is not a violation of your rights, nor is it mob rule.
so by this rationale, if 51% of the nation voted for slavery it would be ok? of course not. that is a violation of the rights of the would be slaves. (even if the 49% did vote and are the would be slaves) they voted, and lost. sucks to be them.
that is an absurd example. i know that. it is also overly simple. i just used that to point out that it IS in fact mob rule. just because my ideas lost in an election does not mean i have to sit back and take it. i have a right to disagree with this administration or any administration. I have a right to point out what i believe are its flaws. I have responsibility to do so if i wish to take an active roll in my life in conjunction with the government. I'm not asking to have my way. i am asking to have my fundamental rights ( and yours) respected. if you want to be a part of a system that takes part of your income to give a good or service to someone else then go be a part of that system. but dont force me to give up what is mine that i have worked for to give a hand out and claim that it is a "right" it is not a right. rights exist in and of themselves. they do not need to be funded.
urbino:
I have the right to express my preferences, to vote to make them policy
you dont vote on policy. you vote for people who in turn make policy.... often againt the wishes of the people that voted FOR them.
cigarette and cigar smokers are a good example. most of the smokers didnt want the new tax on this particular good. If those smokers voted Obama, obama didnt represent them. they had no say in that policy. according to you they did. maybe that was the ONLY issue they had with obama but they had to vote for him anyway because McCain was not representative of them in any way shape or form. ...except big tobacco. few of us are single (minor) issue voters. they did not get to cherry pick policy.
you also did not get to vote against the bailouts.
So I have heard nothing but this damn Miss Callifornia thing for days now and I've become fed up to the point I'm about to explode. The woman was asked a question and gave an honest answer which was her personal opinion and they are acting like she is some kind of crazed nut job. When did the thought police get such a strong grip on our country that you are demonized for having thoughts that aren't considered politically correct? If Mr. Hilton didn't want to hear what she said and believed that the Miss USA stage wasn't the place for political thoughts, then he shouldn't have asked the question. Why isn't anyone going after him for asking such a stupid question? Gay marrige has nothing to do with being Miss USA and she should have never been asked this.
Before anyone goes nuts and says that I am only on her side because I agree with her, slow your roll... I don't agree with her. Thats right, they right wing nut job here on the board doesn't oppose gay marrige. I honestly don't understand why gay people are so fired up to get married though... What guy here wouldn't love that deal? "I know we have been together for 10 years baby, and I would love to pledge our love and get married... but we can't... hehe It's ILLEGAL!" Why not let them get hitched? Give them the same right to lose half their sh*t as the rest of us!
But back on point, this woman has every right to believe what ever she wants to and feel however she wants about the issue. It's a sad day when you can't express an honest sincere thought without being torn down and called the new Hitler.
if im not mistaken, somthing like 60-70% of the nation shared the same view as Miss California. (im not part of that 60-70%). i dont think she lost BECAUSE of this question and i respect that she didnt take the "politically correct" answer. i cant force her to think any way. i never would. i dont think that this should be that big of a stir.
as far as "what guy wouldnt love that dea?" nice. why shouldnt they be able to be as miserable as the rest of us? but in all seriousness by making gay marriage illegal is actually infringing on religious rights. doesnt sound right does it? but it is. If you are gay and you want to get married in a Catholic church, you cant. the Catholics do not do that. it is their religious right not to do that. but if you are gay and want to get married in a church of a religion that DOES do that, you cant by law in the US. we... you can in that church, but the law wont recognize that. so, legalizing gay marriage in the US will make is so the rights of religions that do support gay marriage are not being infringed on. the ones that dont support gay marriage, well, they dont have to change. most gays turn away from those religions anyway. not that many gay born agains running around out there.
i support religious rights, therefore i support gay marriage.
Comments
More generally, you really should take something for these panic attacks.
Now you're saying the problem is that the gov't will drive others out of business because they're providing the same services for free.
Which is it? Either the gov't system does offer the treaments you want, in which case they're free and you don't need to buy them elsewhere, or the gov't system doesn't offer the treatments you want, in which case they are not available for free and someone else will be selling them for profit. I cut it out in the interest of brevity, but I'd just acknowledged that you want things to change.
In general, kuzi, your arguments on health care reform are ideological arguments, not arguments that deal with the actual facts of the actual proposals under consideration to reform our actual health care system. Philosophical arguments can be interesting, but talking about the kinds of hypothetical proposals that your philosophy says must be the proposals on the table (because of the inherent nature of gov't or what have you) are out of place when there are actual concrete proposals on the table that are not the proposals your philosophy predicts.
"It may include groups and individuals that are dedicated to a single issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration,"
This is a line directly from the report, now tell me that isn't speaking directly of MOST conservatives in our country, because I promise you I am VERY VERY dedicated to the immigration issue.
You know, Hitler gave similar speaches demonizing his opposition. Facism by any other name...
it isnt that hard to follow.
your arguments are ideological as well. you cant pretend that they arent.
obamas ACTUAL plan:
health care agenda
Require insurance companies to cover pre-existing conditions so all Americans regardless of their health status or history can get comprehensive benefits at fair and stable premiums.
“Hello, is this the insurance company? I want fire insurance for my house. Yes, my house is already on fire, but I have a right to insurance.” This kind of persecution of insurance companies has prevailed for many years, causing premiums to skyrocket. this has been going on in California with HIV for years. Obamas plan will make this persecution more complete, making health care even more expensive. let me replace the above with something more applicable
"Hello, is this the insurance company? I want heath insurance. Yes, i have already contracted HIV but i have a right to affordable insurance.
how is this going to be affordable to the guy with HIV( who costs more to treat)? the government subsidizing it? i mean, taxpayers paying for it?
so that means that everyone else has to pay more for a service THEY DONT USE.
ideological? not so much now.
there seems to be a disconnect here.
i want Obama, the man, to lead a successful life. I want him to do things that bring him wealth, comfort for his family, and good to the people around him.
I dont want him to do it at the cost of the freedom of others. this is why i hope his policies that limit freedom fail.
there is a difference in wanting the man to fail and the policy to fail.
i will no longer speak for Rush. I dont know what is in Rush's heart. dont pretend that YOU do.
good to see something being improved on. the faster the banks pay off the government the closer they are to Capitalism.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/04/16/obama-appointee-suggests-radical-plan-newspaper-bailout/
This one isn't. So the government controls the auto industry, the banks, insurance companies, and next are wanting to take control of the media... At least one advisor wants to. Where will this stop and how in the hell can ANYONE say these aren't moves towards socialism?
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,517035,00.html
if i want to take water on a hike, or in the car, or to a picnic, or carry it with me while running, or biking, or backpacking, etc.. i cant take my kitchen sink with me. this is the market for bottled water.
the thought that water is "free" is a bit on the ideological side isnt it?
i get a water bill every month. i still pay for it.
...and If i had to leave my house every time i had to get a drink, id go where the water was free...
especially if the water was not free elsewhere.
...I have been thinking about building a coal-fire power plant in my back yard...
Bottled water isn't about convenience. It's about different water. If it were about convenience, we wouldn't see 50 different brands advertising different exotic sources. Not ideological; econometric. Pennies a gallon is effectively free at the quantities needed for drinking; especially relative to $2.50 a liter. Kuzi, let's stop talking about what you hypothetically would do if some counterfactual condition existed (that's the sense in which your arguments are all ideological), and stick to what you and billions of other people actually do in the real world. Bottled water is just one of millions of empirical data points that falsify your hypothesis: people do not stop buying what they can get for free or at drastically lower cost.
People do pay more -- much, much more -- to get what they want, even when something that will do just as well is available at extremely low or even effectively zero cost. Billions of us do it every single day, many times a day. Whole industries are based on it; a lot of them. Most of the businesses in the world are based on it. Your chocolate business is based on it.
People will pay more to get what they want, and people will sell what people are willing to pay more for. That's Adam Smith 101, kuz.
It's as true of health care as of anything else. And, once again, we don't have to talk in counterfactual hypotheticals about it. There is actual empirical data we can look at. The U.K. has had national health care for decades, and yet there remains a robust private health care market wherein people buy treatments and medicines that the gov't system won't pay for. Google "private health care in the uk" and you'll get about a gozillion such companies.
Just as a gov't (municipal) water system doesn't eliminate the buying and selling of other kinds of water, a gov't health system doesn't eliminate the buying and selling of other treatments and medicines. If you want treatment D and the gov't system will only provide A, B, and C, you absolutely can go buy D from a private provider.
It's what classical market economics predicts, and it's what the empirical data show. What makes you think it's not true?
water, even bottled water, is cheap. when faced with water from the tap that you dont like the taste of or $2 for a gallon of bottled water from the store (a slightly different service in the minds of the buyer), the ramifications are a lot less costly.
compare this to being faced with $10,000 medical bill or a "free" medical bill for EQUAL service... what would YOU chose?
people like bottled water. there is a market because of this. there are many different reasons why people buy bottled water. taste. portability. maybe they think its more pure. maybe they think it makes them look cool. It does not matter what the reason is. bottled water is viewed as a luxury. im not arguing if people pay more for luxuries. they do.
and again, you are right, my chocolate business is based on that as well.
along those lines; if someone comes along and gives away the exact same product that i offer only theirs is free, how can i compete?
i cant.
I would have to make my chocolate better to make it a slightly different product and worth buying
if they make a slightly different chocolate than me, that isnt as good, and give it away, then i still have a chance.
why?
because people are willing to pay for luxuries. my chocolate is a luxury.
If we are going to have equal health care for every American (Obamas goal) then the service the government gives out for free is the exact same thing as service from a private practice. (by definition of the word "equal") And If it is the exact same service, the private company cannot compete with the "free" service.
But, lets assume that private health care will be better than what the government will offer, making it a (slightly) different service, and unequal.
i want better health care. I go out and pay for it. I am now paying for myself and others through taxation.
why would i be willing to pay more? because health care IS A LUXURY THAT I AM WILLING TO PAY FOR. this is still the same problem we have today. "only the "rich" can afford GOOD health care"
that is not "change we can believe in." Its just more bureaucratic BS and higher taxes.
Id be paying for a service twice, and getting it only once
But in that system I dont have a choice to drop the cost for the service i dont want or use and im forced to pay for a cost of service that someone else is using.
if i forced you to buy me something, anything, that you didnt want to buy me, using a threat of incarceration, (or limitation of other rights) if you did not comply, it would be theft, or extortion.
...somehow its ok for the government to do that?
... i know, i know
... because i VOTED for them.
funny thing is, i didnt. I voted for someone else. we dont run by mob rule. We are a REPUBLIC. we, as a nation, by law, have to respect the rights of the minority.
I am a minority. quit trampling my rights.
Now you're saying the nat'l system will offer the alternative treatment, but a private provider might do it better and you don't want to have to pay for a nat'l system you don't use, and that this is somehow a violation of your rights.
On that theory, everything the gov't spends money on that I don't like is a violation of my rights. Which means you're not a libertarian. You're an anarchist. Because if that theory were true, there could be no gov't at all.
There is nothing -- nothing -- any gov't could spend money on that somebody somewhere doesn't object to.
I don't want my tax money spent to maintain a defense budget that's triple that of Russia and China combined. I didn't want my tax money spent on a war in Iraq. That doesn't make the existence of the U.S. military a violation of my rights.
I don't have the right to insist the world (or the country) revolve around me and bow to my every wish. I have the right to express my preferences, to vote to make them policy, to protest if they aren't, to take my argument to the courts for redress if I think I have a case. But I don't have the right to win at any step along that path. When I lose, that is not a violation of my rights. And when taxes are levied and appropriated to pay for the programs I don't like, my rights are not being violated. Neither are yours.
(To head off misunderstanding: yes, there absolutely are rights that are guaranteed even against the will of the majority. The right to have my way on every policy isn't one of them.) No no no. Wrong. Hugely, fundamentally wrong. Not because you voted for them. Because you voted, period. More accurately, because you had the right to vote, even if you didn't exercise it.
You got your say in the outcome, and so did everybody else. You lost. Others won. That is not a violation of your rights, nor is it mob rule. I don't know what you think a "REPUBLIC" is, but a system in which every citizen has a right to have his or her own way on every issue is not one. That's a system (if it can even be called a system) in which there's no res publica at all.
Nobody's trampling your rights. It's not all about you. Come down off the cross.
I asked two questions:
1) do you drink bottled water?
2) why?
for those who answered "yes" to number one the most common response for the second question was "it tastes better"
this means that there is a market for bottled water because it tastes better and thus is a luxury Item. A luxury they are willing to pay for.
of course we are not arguing over bottled water. we are arguing over health care. so the connection that you made was that in the UK you can get private health care even though there is government health care, much like you can get bottled water instead of (almost) free water.
to extend the comparison between the two i would like to add that i can turn off my public water all together if i wanted to. I would just call up the waterworks and tell them to shut me down. I could survive.
of course i wont, mainly because i am like you in the way that i have a bottle that i carry water in. i dont mind the taste of tap. but if i did, and i didnt want tap water in my house, i could opt out of the system. i could opt to not buy this good or service. my problem with the government health care is that i cannot opt out of it because it is imposed on me by taxes. right. i did say that. wont argue that i said that.
this entire debate has done what debates are supposed to do. It made me think. so i looked up what the real plan was. i read more. my views have changed because of something you said.
isnt that what debate is for? neither of us is running for office. we can ( and should be aloud to) change our views a bit in the light of new information. to do anything less would be poor reasoning. no.
not exactly that. i am saying that the national system will offer a bit more choice than i previously thought it would. but it will not be as choice laden as a private system. There will however be no on-the-spot out-of-pocket for those who use it.
I am saying that i dont want to be forced to pay for a good or service that i wont use because it would infringe on my rights. I would be paying for that service that i didnt use because i am being taxed for its existence. wrong. its not a "if im happy with it" thing its a rights thing. It would be OK to spend money for a national system that protects the rights of the individuals within that country (as long as that system does not violate the rights of others).
... such as police. the police are there to make sure that another person does not violate my right to peacefully walk down the street without being robbed, and to help catch and eventually punish those who do
protection of rights is the only thing that a government is supposed to be for.
that is not Anarchy. true. they have every right to object as much as they want. ...even if they want no government. it is their right to free speech to express that they want no government. as long as they do so with out infringing on the rights of others. It is the governments job to protect the right of the guy who wants no government.
this brings back the point of anarchy vs. libertarianism.
Anarchism is defined as a concept in which all forms of government are bad and that the best government is ’NO’ government. This kind of practice tends to be destructive as well as violent. When there is ’NO’ government, there is destruction of property and lives as well as unwarranted intrusion and "extortion taxes". In the end, there is the mentality of every person for themselves.
Libertarianism, on the other hand, is based on the principles and writings of Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin. Libertarianism is based on one concept, which is freedom. Libertarianism respects the rights of individuals to do whatever they want to do with their lives without the intrusion of a nanny state that dictates behavior.
Libertarianism respects the rights of people to be themselves without reprisals ...under the condition that the rights of others be respected.
Libertarianism also believes in free trade that is fair and without government restriction.
The concept of Libertarianism is based on the thought that the government is necessary but must be limited and/or changed via peaceful means by the people who elect it. The state must be separated from the church, from business, and other non governmental entity ( such as health care) so as to avoid lobby groups and conflicts of interests.
this group of ideas was the concept of the US Constitution/Bill of Rights from the beginning. Unfortunately, we have lost sight of this. we can clearly see in this very debate for government run/owned health care. not the mere existence of military. but going there was a violation of the rights of the people in Iraq and the right of that nation as a sovereign nation.(this harkens back to "the government is necessary but must be limited and/or changed via peaceful means by the people who elect it." we, the US, did not elect the Iraqi leaders.Further more, the concept of Libertarianism is also a belief that interference in the affairs of other countries is counter productive to what George Washington said in his farewell address in 1797) i am not in favor of that either. the government is forcing YOU to violate the rights of others and other nations. that in and of itself is a violation of your rights. sucks, doesnt it? im not insisting the world revolves around me. i am fighting for the concept that the world or country does not violate the rights of human beings. Individual rights are worth fighting for. they always will be. yes they are.
how?
by claiming that a government program (health care) is a right. it is not. it is a luxury good or service. we have the right to pursue that good or service but not the right to simply have it.
If we have a right to a thing, an object, then we have a right to coerce another human being to provide it, thus depriving him of liberty.
it’s a recipe for violation of all rights because to have a right to something means you have a right to initiate the use of physical force or deceit to get it.
The initiation of physical force, or the use of its intellectual equivalent, deceit or fraud, is the only way to violate rights. In each instance, you have deprived the individual of his freedom to make choices about how to support and enjoy his life
...the life that he alone owns.
there are goods and services that are highly desirable, even necessary for life, but these things cannot be rights, and this is demonstrable through a simple exercise in logic:
Let us say your house is on fire, and you live in isolation, with no government around. If we post a “right to fire service” then your rights have apparently been violated, but by who? If you have a “right” to food, water, and clothing, who has violated your rights by not providing them, in the absence of government? God? The Universe itself? It’s easy to see how this is a nonsensical formulation.
Rights refer to action, not objects. We have a right to seek food, but not to food itself; we have a right to seek an education, but not to education itself; we have a right to seek shelter, but not to shelter itself. A right does not ensure that someone will acquire something, it just ensures he may seek to do so.
I claim that a necessary property of a true right is that it is cost-free. For example, equal rights is cost free because there is no cost to saying that everyone should be treated equally. You can treat everyone equally even when you have no money left. Free speech can be a valid right because it costs nothing to let people speak. i agree with every part of this statement. it is my right to think that a policy is a poor one because i feel it violates my rights. I have the right to SAY that i feel it does so. this isnt an expectation that the world will bend down and bow to me and my needs. it is my way of spreading the thought of individual liberties and responsibilities with the hopes that others will see what i am saying, and agree with me, then vote for people that will more express what I/they would like to see the government do/not do. so by this rationale, if 51% of the nation voted for slavery it would be ok?
of course not. that is a violation of the rights of the would be slaves. (even if the 49% did vote and are the would be slaves)
they voted, and lost. sucks to be them.
that is an absurd example. i know that. it is also overly simple. i just used that to point out that it IS in fact mob rule.
just because my ideas lost in an election does not mean i have to sit back and take it. i have a right to disagree with this administration or any administration. I have a right to point out what i believe are its flaws. I have responsibility to do so if i wish to take an active roll in my life in conjunction with the government. I'm not asking to have my way. i am asking to have my fundamental rights ( and yours) respected. if you want to be a part of a system that takes part of your income to give a good or service to someone else then go be a part of that system. but dont force me to give up what is mine that i have worked for to give a hand out and claim that it is a "right"
it is not a right. rights exist in and of themselves. they do not need to be funded.
you dont vote on policy. you vote for people who in turn make policy.... often againt the wishes of the people that voted FOR them.
cigarette and cigar smokers are a good example. most of the smokers didnt want the new tax on this particular good. If those smokers voted Obama, obama didnt represent them. they had no say in that policy. according to you they did. maybe that was the ONLY issue they had with obama but they had to vote for him anyway because McCain was not representative of them in any way shape or form. ...except big tobacco. few of us are single (minor) issue voters. they did not get to cherry pick policy.
you also did not get to vote against the bailouts.
Before anyone goes nuts and says that I am only on her side because I agree with her, slow your roll... I don't agree with her. Thats right, they right wing nut job here on the board doesn't oppose gay marrige. I honestly don't understand why gay people are so fired up to get married though... What guy here wouldn't love that deal? "I know we have been together for 10 years baby, and I would love to pledge our love and get married... but we can't... hehe It's ILLEGAL!" Why not let them get hitched? Give them the same right to lose half their sh*t as the rest of us!
But back on point, this woman has every right to believe what ever she wants to and feel however she wants about the issue. It's a sad day when you can't express an honest sincere thought without being torn down and called the new Hitler.
as far as "what guy wouldnt love that dea?"
nice. why shouldnt they be able to be as miserable as the rest of us?
but in all seriousness
by making gay marriage illegal is actually infringing on religious rights. doesnt sound right does it? but it is. If you are gay and you want to get married in a Catholic church, you cant. the Catholics do not do that. it is their religious right not to do that. but if you are gay and want to get married in a church of a religion that DOES do that, you cant by law in the US. we... you can in that church, but the law wont recognize that. so, legalizing gay marriage in the US will make is so the rights of religions that do support gay marriage are not being infringed on. the ones that dont support gay marriage, well, they dont have to change. most gays turn away from those religions anyway. not that many gay born agains running around out there.
i support religious rights, therefore i support gay marriage.