And how exactly is printing more money (in the form of "tax rebate" checks funded through deficit spending) going to increase the value of the dollar? (Source) Doesn't it do the exact opposite?
"4. Percentage of bankruptcies caused by lack of health care coverage"
And Obama would replace that number with the "percentage of Americans completely losing their property rights to socialism", which of course would be 100%. McCain is of course doing the same thing, though possibly to a lesser degree (or maybe he's just better at hiding it).
"5. Number of houses lost to predatory lenders."
I have no sympathy for people who sign contracts without reading them, nor for banks that associate with such shady sources. Companies and individuals that purposely do not investigate the risk of such endeavors will fall. It is not our responsibility to provide a safety net for bad practices - doing so brings the whole system down, because everyone starts thinking they can make mistakes and someone will protect them from the consequences (for free at that!)
As for Iraq, all I see is a lot of empty talk from the candidates. I doubt either has a viable plan that is without dangerous consequences; they will instead elect to do nothing.
"'Cos I'd happily forgo some money if I didn't have to worry about things like the PATRIOT act, PRO-IP act, and other dubious acts that infringe upon my rights."
Feel free to donate your money as you see fit. But what about those people who wouldn't "happily forgo some money"? Do they not have a choice?
"my right to keep my money is far less important to me..."
Again, you are talking about your personal preference, but I am talking about something being applied to everyone regardless of their personal preference. Just because your personal preference is aligned with certain laws doesn't mean everyone's is. As far as rights go, they are all important and should be upheld equally. The whole point of the government is to uphold your rights, not to violate them. Unfortunately, in the current US political climate it is far better for candidates to pass laws violating rights. Whether you value one right higher than another does not matter. Once they start violating one, they will violate them all.
Nope. I'm proposing a situation, and asking you to respond as to how you would react in that situation. Whether or not you choose to respond is up to you.
"So again, you're still bashing on a strawman."
I'm going based on what little information you've provided. So far, you don't care if funding for your desires is private or public. I've proposed hypothetical situations to find out more about your stance, but you have yet to respond to them. If I am incorrect in my estimation of your response, let me know how and why. If I am correct, then say so. If you don't want to respond with anything of substance, then continue as you currently are.
"All of those possible factors are interesting, but somewhat beside the point from insurers point of view. "
We are not talking about an insurers POV, though, but about a consumer POV. The whole discussion is about what car to buy. It is not correct to tell someone that one car type is safer than another without having actual test data to back up the claim.
"So if the vast majority do, where's your evidence?"
I'm not making that assertion. I only said that all the exhibits I've seen were donated/leased by private collectors. You then said that the vast majority of artifacts were not. You need to back that up with some evidence.
"Saying that you see a lot of donated items in a museum doesn't translate into the saying that the vast majority of private collectors do the same."
Of course it doesn't. And that also explains why I never made that assertion.
I have backed up my one claim with my own anecdotal evidence, which you can accept or reject, but you have not backed up your claim ("vast majority...") with any evidence.
"I couldn't give a shit less if it's privately or publicly owned though."
So you want a situation to occur (artifacts to be in museums), but don't care where the funding comes from. In other words, if a bill was proposed to expand museum public funding through increased taxation, you would be all for it. That is where my original complaint comes into play. You would be supporting a bill that forces people to give up a part of their productivity to fund a cause you support. This violates their rights as human beings. See my original reply.
You made the assertion that the "vast majority don't" donate/lease their items to museums. You need to back that up with some source. Saying "reality" is not the same as providing a source. Other replies to your original statement have made the same observation.
"I said they should be in a museum rather than locked up in someone's private collection where it will most likely be unavailable for others to see."
Alright. I agree with that too. So your option then (that does not violate anyone's rights) is to donate and persuade others to donate.
Based on what? Almost every museum exhibit I've seen says that it was donated or leased from a private collector. Are you citing some statistics, or just making stuff up?
"Who exactly are you attacking with this statement?"
You opposed private ownership, so you must be for public ownership, no? How is this public ownership (and maintenance) achieved without public funding? You may not have realized it but you were implying increasing everyone's taxes when you opposed private ownership. If that is not what you intended to imply, please clarify. If you're for private museum ownership, that museum still needs to get the money to either buy and/or maintain the exhibit. If that money is not privately acquired it must be public money.
"private collector who will keep it locked up from the rest of the world?"
Private collectors regularly donate or lease their collections to museums for display. And what's to stop a private collector from making their own exhibit to show for a fee? If you would like to help support a museum, feel free to donate, but don't tell everyone that they must give up a portion of their income to support your own cause.
"Specifics of each accident or the driving behaviors for a specific class of vehicle really doesn't matter much"
They do matter when it comes to inferring a causal relation. You can't just say "more people have died in smaller cars than in larger ones" and conclude "therefore larger cars are safer". You have to see if there are any systemic driving differences between smaller cars and larger ones that need to be corrected before trying to make a causal relation.
"The fact that they didn't go into detail on why this was observed, doesn't negate the observation."
Yes but it negates the ability to derive a causal relation from the observation. Telling someone that if they buy an SUV they will be safer than in a small car assumes that they will drive exactly like the average person from statistics. The only way you can tell them that one is actually safer than another is to do tests on both cars and see which one protects the driver/passenger area more. However they drive is up to them, but at least you will be giving them more accurate information.
And of course you're inferring a causal relation from a correlation. None of those quoted statements take into account specific circumstances. Do people speed more in smaller cars than in large SUVs, thus leading to more accidents? Are people more likely to switch lanes more quickly in smaller cars than in large ones? Smaller cars also accelerate faster than SUVs, so at intersections the small cars will be the first into the intersection after a light turns green. None of these things are taken into account.
They make it sound like out-of-the-box you're going to get the best image possible. But that's not the case. The color profile for the monitor needs to be adjusted to match reality (using something like ColorVision's Spyder2)before you can make that claim. There's no point in having billions of colors if they're all wrong.
"It has already been determined that the right to property is not an absolute."
According to what? You can't legislate rights out of existence.
"Like it or not, that is the state of affairs."
That does not make it right. Your argument is basically that a majority disagree that you have certain rights, and therefore you don't have those rights. The government doesn't grant natural rights. They are charged with upholding those rights, and granting any additional right along the way.
"It has already been determined that all income earners in the US will contribute to programs such as social security, medicare, welfare, etc (the social safety net)."
Yes, bills and legislation have made that the current situation. That doesn't make it justified or morally sound. The moment you tell someone else what they can and can't do with their productivity, you are violating their rights as a human being. The whole point of my discussing it here is to help make another situation possible. Saying, "this is the status quo" is not a valid rebuttal to an argument against the status quo.
As for your smoking situation, I understand fully what you are trying to say, but you are deliberately ignoring property rights when it is convenient for you to do so. One need not look further than your initial analysis of your property rights in relation to the healthcare subsidization to see this is true.
"Note that this percentage always gets higher when there are conservatives in power."
There is quite a difference between labelling yourself a "liberal" or a "conservative" when it is politically profitable, and actually holding true the principles that are supposed to typify a liberal or a conservative. That is also how it is possible to have a Libertarian Party made up of liberals, conservatives, anarchists, etc, and who just nominated for their presidential candidate someone who has a long history of opposition to gay marriage and drug legalization (Bob Barr - he actually introduced the Defense of Marriage Act, and later said he opposed it when it was politically advantageous).
"Income redistribution"
You can call it whatever you like, it is still a violation of my and my family's and friends' and neighbors' rights as human beings.
Good, because if you were, we would definitely not be able to agree on anything.
"I believe that taxation with consent is justified."
Agreed, as long as that consent is on a per-individual basis, as rights are individual rights. I am fine with voluntary taxation. Just as you voluntarily get insurance to protect against emergencies, you would also voluntarily give to the government to help uphold your rights and the rights of everyone else.
"I believe that social safety networks are justified, necessary..."
I am not sure what you mean by "social safety nets". If the funding necessary for such safety nets to exist is acquired voluntarily, I have no problem with that. What you do with your productivity (ie money) is up to you. The moment you start having the government take this money by force from everyone regardless of their individual opinions on the matter, then you are violating their right to property.
"Those who speed should pay fines. Those who drive drunk should pay fines. Those who pollute should pay for remediation. Those who kill should pay restitution. See where I'm going here?"
Of course, I agree with all of this. However the first two situations would only be justified if roads were privately-owned. The private owner would determine what constitutes violating what they deem acceptable on their property (speeding, drunk driving, etc), and if someone violates those rules, they could take that person to court and get restitution. As far as pollution, that would only be true if the pollution spread outside one's property, which of course is almost always the case, so I agree with you on that as well.
"given that we do indeed have a social safety network funded via taxes, it *is* depriving me of my property when someone smokes their entire life without contributing more than me to their healthcare."
Do you see how you are being wishy-washy with property rights? You are saying getting taxed is fine, but you don't want your taxes to pay for a smoker because you say it violates your property rights, but you would rather have them get taxed more, except that you also claim that does not violate their property rights.
This is how we have gotten to our current situation where, for example in the US, Democrats are for "liberty", and Republicans are for "free market", except both groups are fine with deciding to violate all rights in certain cases where they deem something to be an unacceptable use of someone's private property. For them, rights are convenient except when they are not - then you can just ignore them. For me, rights are universal and should never be violated.
All government should start with upholding the rights of the citizenry, and then go from there. The present government has it the other way around. They know people like their rights, so they uphold those rights when it is politically profitable, and they ignore those rights when doing otherwise would be unprofitable.
"No, I am proposing removing one rights violation and replacing it with something that doesn't violate rights."
Your proposed replacement violates the individual smoker's right to their property, just as the original regulation violated your right to your property. They are both violations of the same right.
"How does making people responsible for the effetcs of their actions violate their rights?"
Forcing someone to give up a portion of their productivity to the government, or anyone else, is a violation of their right to property. Agreed? It is no different regardless of what the government deems to be a proper allocation of responsibility. The government is violating your rights now, and under your proposal, they would be violating the rights of smokers. I'm sure you're more inclined to be alright with that because you think that smokers should be forced to pay the government for state-sponsored healthcare, but it is still a violation of their rights, and we must support them (and everyone else) in their rights because rights are universal. Mocking someone else's rights makes a mockery of your own rights.
Bottom line: Who is forcibly taking a portion of your productivity (in the form of money) away from you - smokers, or the government?
"I was the original poster. And I did not mention giving up rights."
You said the quoted situation sounded like a good idea. The quoted situation involved the regulation of what people can and cannot choose to do to their own bodies. Are you saying this does not violate their natural liberty?
"When a smoker smokes, they are costing me money because we have a public safety net that subsidizes their treatment for illnesses caused by smoking. Rather than have *me* and *you* and everyone else pay for it, why don't they have to pay for it?"
You are proposing replacing one rights violation with another. Rights are universal and should never be violated by anyone.
"Who said anything about being forced to give up rights?"
The original poster in reference to the article's worst case scenario.
"How about this -- if you smoke, you pay a cigarette tax that is put into a fund to be used only for medical care. That way, you don't trample on my right to be secure in my property, when I get taxed more to pay for your care when you are suffering from lung cancer, heart disease, or any of the other illnesses smoking causes."
Your first sentence contradicts your second. You propose taxing others so that your right to property is not violated through taxation. That right is universal. Forcing someone - anyone - to give up some amount of their productivity is an immoral violation of their rights as a rational being.
As long as you are on the enforcement end, and not on the end being forced to give up all of your rights as a rational being, everything will always look win-win.
"That makes no sense! So everyone else must change, and then after they change, you will change too?"
You're using the same word ("change") to mean multiple things (changing views; voting). Here, let me fix it for you:
"A majority of voters must change their views - in order to make a viable, electable candidate possible - and then after that candidate exists, I will vote for that candidate."
Slashdot Mirror
"1. Value of the Dollar"
And how exactly is printing more money (in the form of "tax rebate" checks funded through deficit spending) going to increase the value of the dollar? (Source) Doesn't it do the exact opposite?
"4. Percentage of bankruptcies caused by lack of health care coverage"
And Obama would replace that number with the "percentage of Americans completely losing their property rights to socialism", which of course would be 100%. McCain is of course doing the same thing, though possibly to a lesser degree (or maybe he's just better at hiding it).
"5. Number of houses lost to predatory lenders."
I have no sympathy for people who sign contracts without reading them, nor for banks that associate with such shady sources. Companies and individuals that purposely do not investigate the risk of such endeavors will fall. It is not our responsibility to provide a safety net for bad practices - doing so brings the whole system down, because everyone starts thinking they can make mistakes and someone will protect them from the consequences (for free at that!)
As for Iraq, all I see is a lot of empty talk from the candidates. I doubt either has a viable plan that is without dangerous consequences; they will instead elect to do nothing.
"'Cos I'd happily forgo some money if I didn't have to worry about things like the PATRIOT act, PRO-IP act, and other dubious acts that infringe upon my rights."
Feel free to donate your money as you see fit. But what about those people who wouldn't "happily forgo some money"? Do they not have a choice?
"my right to keep my money is far less important to me..."
Again, you are talking about your personal preference, but I am talking about something being applied to everyone regardless of their personal preference. Just because your personal preference is aligned with certain laws doesn't mean everyone's is. As far as rights go, they are all important and should be upheld equally. The whole point of the government is to uphold your rights, not to violate them. Unfortunately, in the current US political climate it is far better for candidates to pass laws violating rights. Whether you value one right higher than another does not matter. Once they start violating one, they will violate them all.
"Healthcare costs money? Guess so, never saw a bill"
You do see the bill. They've just hidden it in your increased taxes and forced other people to pay for your healthcare costs. You should add:
5) Rights? Nonexistent.
Still waiting for the evidence to back up your "vast majority" claim...
Thank you!
"Where did I say anything of the sort?"
I never said you did.
"Pulling stuff out of thin air again, I see."
Nope. I'm proposing a situation, and asking you to respond as to how you would react in that situation. Whether or not you choose to respond is up to you.
"So again, you're still bashing on a strawman."
I'm going based on what little information you've provided. So far, you don't care if funding for your desires is private or public. I've proposed hypothetical situations to find out more about your stance, but you have yet to respond to them. If I am incorrect in my estimation of your response, let me know how and why. If I am correct, then say so. If you don't want to respond with anything of substance, then continue as you currently are.
"All of those possible factors are interesting, but somewhat beside the point from insurers point of view. "
We are not talking about an insurers POV, though, but about a consumer POV. The whole discussion is about what car to buy. It is not correct to tell someone that one car type is safer than another without having actual test data to back up the claim.
"So if the vast majority do, where's your evidence?"
I'm not making that assertion. I only said that all the exhibits I've seen were donated/leased by private collectors. You then said that the vast majority of artifacts were not. You need to back that up with some evidence.
"Saying that you see a lot of donated items in a museum doesn't translate into the saying that the vast majority of private collectors do the same."
Of course it doesn't. And that also explains why I never made that assertion.
I have backed up my one claim with my own anecdotal evidence, which you can accept or reject, but you have not backed up your claim ("vast majority...") with any evidence.
"I couldn't give a shit less if it's privately or publicly owned though."
So you want a situation to occur (artifacts to be in museums), but don't care where the funding comes from. In other words, if a bill was proposed to expand museum public funding through increased taxation, you would be all for it. That is where my original complaint comes into play. You would be supporting a bill that forces people to give up a part of their productivity to fund a cause you support. This violates their rights as human beings. See my original reply.
"You are an idiot."
Thanks!
You made the assertion that the "vast majority don't" donate/lease their items to museums. You need to back that up with some source. Saying "reality" is not the same as providing a source. Other replies to your original statement have made the same observation.
"I said they should be in a museum rather than locked up in someone's private collection where it will most likely be unavailable for others to see."
Alright. I agree with that too. So your option then (that does not violate anyone's rights) is to donate and persuade others to donate.
"That cross belongs in a museum!"
So do you!
"Sure some do, but the vast majority don't."
Based on what? Almost every museum exhibit I've seen says that it was donated or leased from a private collector. Are you citing some statistics, or just making stuff up?
"Who exactly are you attacking with this statement?"
You opposed private ownership, so you must be for public ownership, no? How is this public ownership (and maintenance) achieved without public funding? You may not have realized it but you were implying increasing everyone's taxes when you opposed private ownership. If that is not what you intended to imply, please clarify. If you're for private museum ownership, that museum still needs to get the money to either buy and/or maintain the exhibit. If that money is not privately acquired it must be public money.
"private collector who will keep it locked up from the rest of the world?"
Private collectors regularly donate or lease their collections to museums for display. And what's to stop a private collector from making their own exhibit to show for a fee? If you would like to help support a museum, feel free to donate, but don't tell everyone that they must give up a portion of their income to support your own cause.
"Specifics of each accident or the driving behaviors for a specific class of vehicle really doesn't matter much"
They do matter when it comes to inferring a causal relation. You can't just say "more people have died in smaller cars than in larger ones" and conclude "therefore larger cars are safer". You have to see if there are any systemic driving differences between smaller cars and larger ones that need to be corrected before trying to make a causal relation.
"The fact that they didn't go into detail on why this was observed, doesn't negate the observation."
Yes but it negates the ability to derive a causal relation from the observation. Telling someone that if they buy an SUV they will be safer than in a small car assumes that they will drive exactly like the average person from statistics. The only way you can tell them that one is actually safer than another is to do tests on both cars and see which one protects the driver/passenger area more. However they drive is up to them, but at least you will be giving them more accurate information.
And of course you're inferring a causal relation from a correlation. None of those quoted statements take into account specific circumstances. Do people speed more in smaller cars than in large SUVs, thus leading to more accidents? Are people more likely to switch lanes more quickly in smaller cars than in large ones? Smaller cars also accelerate faster than SUVs, so at intersections the small cars will be the first into the intersection after a light turns green. None of these things are taken into account.
They make it sound like out-of-the-box you're going to get the best image possible. But that's not the case. The color profile for the monitor needs to be adjusted to match reality (using something like ColorVision's Spyder2)before you can make that claim. There's no point in having billions of colors if they're all wrong.
"It has already been determined that the right to property is not an absolute."
According to what? You can't legislate rights out of existence.
"Like it or not, that is the state of affairs."
That does not make it right. Your argument is basically that a majority disagree that you have certain rights, and therefore you don't have those rights. The government doesn't grant natural rights. They are charged with upholding those rights, and granting any additional right along the way.
"It has already been determined that all income earners in the US will contribute to programs such as social security, medicare, welfare, etc (the social safety net)."
Yes, bills and legislation have made that the current situation. That doesn't make it justified or morally sound. The moment you tell someone else what they can and can't do with their productivity, you are violating their rights as a human being. The whole point of my discussing it here is to help make another situation possible. Saying, "this is the status quo" is not a valid rebuttal to an argument against the status quo.
As for your smoking situation, I understand fully what you are trying to say, but you are deliberately ignoring property rights when it is convenient for you to do so. One need not look further than your initial analysis of your property rights in relation to the healthcare subsidization to see this is true.
"Note that this percentage always gets higher when there are conservatives in power."
There is quite a difference between labelling yourself a "liberal" or a "conservative" when it is politically profitable, and actually holding true the principles that are supposed to typify a liberal or a conservative. That is also how it is possible to have a Libertarian Party made up of liberals, conservatives, anarchists, etc, and who just nominated for their presidential candidate someone who has a long history of opposition to gay marriage and drug legalization (Bob Barr - he actually introduced the Defense of Marriage Act, and later said he opposed it when it was politically advantageous).
"Income redistribution"
You can call it whatever you like, it is still a violation of my and my family's and friends' and neighbors' rights as human beings.
"I am not a libertarian"
Good, because if you were, we would definitely not be able to agree on anything.
"I believe that taxation with consent is justified."
Agreed, as long as that consent is on a per-individual basis, as rights are individual rights. I am fine with voluntary taxation. Just as you voluntarily get insurance to protect against emergencies, you would also voluntarily give to the government to help uphold your rights and the rights of everyone else.
"I believe that social safety networks are justified, necessary..."
I am not sure what you mean by "social safety nets". If the funding necessary for such safety nets to exist is acquired voluntarily, I have no problem with that. What you do with your productivity (ie money) is up to you. The moment you start having the government take this money by force from everyone regardless of their individual opinions on the matter, then you are violating their right to property.
"Those who speed should pay fines. Those who drive drunk should pay fines. Those who pollute should pay for remediation. Those who kill should pay restitution. See where I'm going here?"
Of course, I agree with all of this. However the first two situations would only be justified if roads were privately-owned. The private owner would determine what constitutes violating what they deem acceptable on their property (speeding, drunk driving, etc), and if someone violates those rules, they could take that person to court and get restitution. As far as pollution, that would only be true if the pollution spread outside one's property, which of course is almost always the case, so I agree with you on that as well.
"given that we do indeed have a social safety network funded via taxes, it *is* depriving me of my property when someone smokes their entire life without contributing more than me to their healthcare."
Do you see how you are being wishy-washy with property rights? You are saying getting taxed is fine, but you don't want your taxes to pay for a smoker because you say it violates your property rights, but you would rather have them get taxed more, except that you also claim that does not violate their property rights.
This is how we have gotten to our current situation where, for example in the US, Democrats are for "liberty", and Republicans are for "free market", except both groups are fine with deciding to violate all rights in certain cases where they deem something to be an unacceptable use of someone's private property. For them, rights are convenient except when they are not - then you can just ignore them. For me, rights are universal and should never be violated.
All government should start with upholding the rights of the citizenry, and then go from there. The present government has it the other way around. They know people like their rights, so they uphold those rights when it is politically profitable, and they ignore those rights when doing otherwise would be unprofitable.
"No, I am proposing removing one rights violation and replacing it with something that doesn't violate rights."
Your proposed replacement violates the individual smoker's right to their property, just as the original regulation violated your right to your property. They are both violations of the same right.
"How does making people responsible for the effetcs of their actions violate their rights?"
Forcing someone to give up a portion of their productivity to the government, or anyone else, is a violation of their right to property. Agreed? It is no different regardless of what the government deems to be a proper allocation of responsibility. The government is violating your rights now, and under your proposal, they would be violating the rights of smokers. I'm sure you're more inclined to be alright with that because you think that smokers should be forced to pay the government for state-sponsored healthcare, but it is still a violation of their rights, and we must support them (and everyone else) in their rights because rights are universal. Mocking someone else's rights makes a mockery of your own rights.
Bottom line: Who is forcibly taking a portion of your productivity (in the form of money) away from you - smokers, or the government?
"I was the original poster. And I did not mention giving up rights."
You said the quoted situation sounded like a good idea. The quoted situation involved the regulation of what people can and cannot choose to do to their own bodies. Are you saying this does not violate their natural liberty?
"When a smoker smokes, they are costing me money because we have a public safety net that subsidizes their treatment for illnesses caused by smoking. Rather than have *me* and *you* and everyone else pay for it, why don't they have to pay for it?"
You are proposing replacing one rights violation with another. Rights are universal and should never be violated by anyone.
"Who said anything about being forced to give up rights?"
The original poster in reference to the article's worst case scenario.
"How about this -- if you smoke, you pay a cigarette tax that is put into a fund to be used only for medical care. That way, you don't trample on my right to be secure in my property, when I get taxed more to pay for your care when you are suffering from lung cancer, heart disease, or any of the other illnesses smoking causes."
Your first sentence contradicts your second. You propose taxing others so that your right to property is not violated through taxation. That right is universal. Forcing someone - anyone - to give up some amount of their productivity is an immoral violation of their rights as a rational being.
Another overlooked factor: heredity and genetic mutation.
"Seems like a win-win to me."
As long as you are on the enforcement end, and not on the end being forced to give up all of your rights as a rational being, everything will always look win-win.
I found this photo of the robot.
"That makes no sense! So everyone else must change, and then after they change, you will change too?"
You're using the same word ("change") to mean multiple things (changing views; voting). Here, let me fix it for you:
"A majority of voters must change their views - in order to make a viable, electable candidate possible - and then after that candidate exists, I will vote for that candidate."