I didn't say they are wrong. People just tend to defer to the WHO as if they are a neutral source when they're not. If the Cato Institute was viewed the same way, I'd be saying the same thing, except I'd be getting modded up for "insightful" instead of down for "overrated".
Well, I was thinking about the possibility of banning cigarettes and moreso "regulating" the actual content of fast food rather than the existence of fast food (which will never be banned).
The real question is why anyone thinks government health care would ever 'deny' anything.
The government still has to keep in mind cost vs. benefit and may push for what turns out to be less effect (or slightly less effective) treatments to save money.
Finally, you say that the government isn't about protecting people's rights anymore. That may or may not be true, I don't pretend to have all the answers. But I will say this, there are some people that believe even the laziest freeloader has a right to food on his plate, a roof over his head, and necissary medical care. In my opinion, that's what the argument for 'spread the wealth' is all about; it's not about giving people a free ride or robbing the rich and giving to the poor. It's about protecting everyone's right to at least the chance of a good life, even if you do think they're a lazy SOB.
The problem is is that people have two views of rights. One is that people can do anything as long as it doesn't harm someone else; government steps in when actual harm is done. The other is that people have a right to demand property or other things from people, more of a "we're all connected" philosophy. I was speaking from the first perspective. It's the whole privileges vs. rights debate.
Has it ever occurred to you that maybe the reason that many people like fast food is that fast food corporations are currently free to bombard 4-year olds with the message that if they have a Big Mac, they will be happy?
The reason people like fast food is primarily because, for evolutionary reasons, we tend to prefer fatty, salty, and sweet foods.
It's a possibility, not a guarantee. I was using it to illustrate a broader point. Who knows what could happen in the future?
I didn't mean fast food in general, I meant generally any unhealthy vice. And even then I didn't mean fast food itself, but the nutrition content (possibly).
I'm not saying you (or the WHO) is wrong, I just want to point out that the WHO is an organization biased for socialized healthcare, so don't assume they are an unbiased source of information on this topic.
Problem is, people don't believe that anymore. America IS becoming Europeanized and more populist. Just sit back and read what people say, everyone blames corporations for their problems (and only rarely the government, for ideological reasons pertaining to belief that government = democracy = our society) despite having every opportunity to chose to boycott those corporations.
Boycotting doesn't work, because not enough people participate or are educated enough to make the "right" decision? Welcome to a democracy!
Ah, forcing opinions on others! I'm not throwing anyone in jail or fining them over my opinion, not like a certain Asian country with a monarchy I know:)
All I can really say is the obvious: That people don't believe that government is there mostly to just protect rights anymore (if that ever was really the case), so socialized healthcare will be a reality whether we (or I) like it or not,
and that once you get government in healthcare, the incentives to cut costs in places that aren't immediately visible and to pass laws that limit what we can do (and eat, and so forth) are even more likely to go into effect to keep costs low. Expect more restrictions on things like fast food if this goes into effect. People, apparently, cannot take care of themselves, so we need "Democracy" and mass opinion to do it for us. Some people might get the shaft and lose things they love, but in a democracy you sometimes gotta break a few eggs to make an omlette, right?
Actually, I'd never heard of them before and found the whole idea that people couldn't figure out what chord he was playing rather interesting, and I have no real interest in music, either.
I hate them all. So what if there are worse? He's a symptom of, and a player in, the corruption. If he really cared about the censorship he'd do a lot more to fight it than just moral support and pardoning after all the harassment.
But some people just love defending unaccountable leaders as long as they wear a nice mask. You do see it in the United States, too--Lincoln and FDR, two of our most loved presidents, are treated like heroes and yet few ever discuss the terrible things that they did that really do stand out as being some of the worst actions our presidents have ever done.
A king gets his wealth through taxation, not through business venture or otherwise, like anyone else born into a rich family.
It's easy to do charity work when you don't have a real job and live easily because you've been shoveled money that didn't belong to you in the first place.
Most of these "selfish westerners" got their money legitimately. Did this King?
No, you're absolutely right, however, I was referring to the "cultural relativism" aspect so frequently employed whenever China or some other similar country is caught with its pants down on some silly censorship law of this type. Not much further than that. I had Huge Chavez partly in mind, actually.
Any man that allows himself to be revered in such a manner isn't a man that deserves it at all. Especially *royalty*. The fact that his image is apparently everywhere and it's illegal to insult him, a person in a position of power, out of so many people in the country, tells me something stinks.
The only good "King" is one that steps down from the throne and ends the monarchy.
...and I mean as a principle, not as whatever backwards law they have there.
Look, I don't really care how many people get their panties in a twist over people saying and doing things that doesn't hurt others. The simple truth is is that this is yet another case where some majority is oppressing a minority due to some backwards belief system. It's not right, and should not be condoned the way some fanatics are doing it here.
But perhaps they want to instate similar laws here in the USA, once Dear Leader Obama (or McCain?) become president.
A man of such influence having his own pleas ignored? I have a feeling there is some behind-the-scenes action here.
Anyway, to even remain a king, to even have a position of power and wealth (that isn't really even yours) isn't exactly a sign of humility. If I was royalty I'd reject the position as being bogus.
And the people are simply wrong. They can chose not to listen to the dissenters if they so wish.
But many on the far-far-left have a certain affection for dictators or otherwise Top Dogs in power, even if it is symbolic. Why, I don't know. As long as they're "popular"--I guess that appeals to some sort of perverted democratic notion in their head where mob rules.
Slashdot Mirror
I didn't say they are wrong. People just tend to defer to the WHO as if they are a neutral source when they're not. If the Cato Institute was viewed the same way, I'd be saying the same thing, except I'd be getting modded up for "insightful" instead of down for "overrated".
Well, I was thinking about the possibility of banning cigarettes and moreso "regulating" the actual content of fast food rather than the existence of fast food (which will never be banned).
The real question is why anyone thinks government health care would ever 'deny' anything.
The government still has to keep in mind cost vs. benefit and may push for what turns out to be less effect (or slightly less effective) treatments to save money.
Finally, you say that the government isn't about protecting people's rights anymore. That may or may not be true, I don't pretend to have all the answers. But I will say this, there are some people that believe even the laziest freeloader has a right to food on his plate, a roof over his head, and necissary medical care. In my opinion, that's what the argument for 'spread the wealth' is all about; it's not about giving people a free ride or robbing the rich and giving to the poor. It's about protecting everyone's right to at least the chance of a good life, even if you do think they're a lazy SOB.
The problem is is that people have two views of rights. One is that people can do anything as long as it doesn't harm someone else; government steps in when actual harm is done. The other is that people have a right to demand property or other things from people, more of a "we're all connected" philosophy. I was speaking from the first perspective. It's the whole privileges vs. rights debate.
Has it ever occurred to you that maybe the reason that many people like fast food is that fast food corporations are currently free to bombard 4-year olds with the message that if they have a Big Mac, they will be happy?
The reason people like fast food is primarily because, for evolutionary reasons, we tend to prefer fatty, salty, and sweet foods.
It's a possibility, not a guarantee. I was using it to illustrate a broader point. Who knows what could happen in the future?
I didn't mean fast food in general, I meant generally any unhealthy vice. And even then I didn't mean fast food itself, but the nutrition content (possibly).
Also in other words, "The candidate whose smile I like the most."
I'm not saying you (or the WHO) is wrong, I just want to point out that the WHO is an organization biased for socialized healthcare, so don't assume they are an unbiased source of information on this topic.
Problem is, people don't believe that anymore. America IS becoming Europeanized and more populist. Just sit back and read what people say, everyone blames corporations for their problems (and only rarely the government, for ideological reasons pertaining to belief that government = democracy = our society) despite having every opportunity to chose to boycott those corporations.
Boycotting doesn't work, because not enough people participate or are educated enough to make the "right" decision? Welcome to a democracy!
Ah, forcing opinions on others! I'm not throwing anyone in jail or fining them over my opinion, not like a certain Asian country with a monarchy I know :)
All I can really say is the obvious: That people don't believe that government is there mostly to just protect rights anymore (if that ever was really the case), so socialized healthcare will be a reality whether we (or I) like it or not,
and that once you get government in healthcare, the incentives to cut costs in places that aren't immediately visible and to pass laws that limit what we can do (and eat, and so forth) are even more likely to go into effect to keep costs low. Expect more restrictions on things like fast food if this goes into effect. People, apparently, cannot take care of themselves, so we need "Democracy" and mass opinion to do it for us. Some people might get the shaft and lose things they love, but in a democracy you sometimes gotta break a few eggs to make an omlette, right?
As an American he could've had me fooled (had I not known he was British and heard him before).
I'm an atheist.
Actually, I'd never heard of them before and found the whole idea that people couldn't figure out what chord he was playing rather interesting, and I have no real interest in music, either.
I hate them all. So what if there are worse? He's a symptom of, and a player in, the corruption. If he really cared about the censorship he'd do a lot more to fight it than just moral support and pardoning after all the harassment.
But some people just love defending unaccountable leaders as long as they wear a nice mask. You do see it in the United States, too--Lincoln and FDR, two of our most loved presidents, are treated like heroes and yet few ever discuss the terrible things that they did that really do stand out as being some of the worst actions our presidents have ever done.
I'm absolutely sure they are all "idiot foreigners". Yep. And the United States is a "Christian Nation", too.
Your religion, centered around a living person, is quite scary.
It presents the Thai people? If that was true it wouldn't be necessary to ever prosecute based upon it because there would be no one to prosecute! :)
You're right, I should just learn to love unelected, unaccountable rulers.
A king gets his wealth through taxation, not through business venture or otherwise, like anyone else born into a rich family.
It's easy to do charity work when you don't have a real job and live easily because you've been shoveled money that didn't belong to you in the first place.
Most of these "selfish westerners" got their money legitimately. Did this King?
No, you're absolutely right, however, I was referring to the "cultural relativism" aspect so frequently employed whenever China or some other similar country is caught with its pants down on some silly censorship law of this type. Not much further than that. I had Huge Chavez partly in mind, actually.
Any man that allows himself to be revered in such a manner isn't a man that deserves it at all. Especially *royalty*. The fact that his image is apparently everywhere and it's illegal to insult him, a person in a position of power, out of so many people in the country, tells me something stinks.
The only good "King" is one that steps down from the throne and ends the monarchy.
Well, this is type of RIAA is just Belgian's culture. You have to respect and understand that.
...and I mean as a principle, not as whatever backwards law they have there.
Look, I don't really care how many people get their panties in a twist over people saying and doing things that doesn't hurt others. The simple truth is is that this is yet another case where some majority is oppressing a minority due to some backwards belief system. It's not right, and should not be condoned the way some fanatics are doing it here.
But perhaps they want to instate similar laws here in the USA, once Dear Leader Obama (or McCain?) become president.
A man of such influence having his own pleas ignored? I have a feeling there is some behind-the-scenes action here.
Anyway, to even remain a king, to even have a position of power and wealth (that isn't really even yours) isn't exactly a sign of humility. If I was royalty I'd reject the position as being bogus.
And the people are simply wrong. They can chose not to listen to the dissenters if they so wish.
But many on the far-far-left have a certain affection for dictators or otherwise Top Dogs in power, even if it is symbolic. Why, I don't know. As long as they're "popular"--I guess that appeals to some sort of perverted democratic notion in their head where mob rules.