Liar. False. Shrug. Prove it. Show an example where I "like you use to force people to do things you think they 'should' do."
True lovers of liberty know that we don't decide who "should" be treated. False. We do not decide who anyone should be FORCED to treat. Not the same thing.
You think sick people "should" be treated because you are a communist. Yawn. You are lying by claiming my "should" implies any type of force.
Government is only of one of the methods that communists like you use to force people to do things you think they "should" do. Yawn. Except, of course, that I do not favor force of any kind.
you have a million sneaky ways to enforce compliance with your unnatural wishes. Liar.
I understand. False.
When you say, "I do believe we should make sick people well", you don't actually mean that anyone has any responsibility to make sick people well. False.
You're just saying empty words without thinking about what they mean. False; that, is, in fact, what YOU are doing. For example, yu incorrectly and unthinkingly assume "responsibility" means "government should enforce it."
I do believe we should make sick people well What sort of constrains on my precious, precious liberty do you plan to impose by force in order to implement this unnatural desire of yours? It's not unnatural, and I would impose absolutely nothing on anyone. It's sad that you would assume otherwise.
Exactly. People who love liberty are proud to say we should not force health care providers to make sick people well. People who love liberty are proud to say we do not force anyone to do anything, unless they have violated someone else's rights and have earned punishment deserving of the use of force.
It's obvious to all of us that you're trying to weasel out of your own words. Which words would those be? In fact, no such thing is true, and you are, typically, just making things up. Yawn.
Since you've never said that we shouldn't make sick people well, it's obvious that you hate liberty and love to force health care providers into a life of indentured servitude. Nope. That is an illogical train of thought, for many reasons, the most obvious of which is that not saying something does not imply anything, but further, just because I do believe we should make sick people well does nothing to imply that I believe it is government's job to do it, let alone to force anyone else to do it. Try again!
You are a communist. False, of course.
The private sector's doing it now and they're doing a horrible job of it, like I said. But it is NOT doing it entirely. It is under very heavy regulation that makes it WORSE for us. We do not have a free market system in health care. We should do what we need to do to create one.
Health care is not a power delegate to the U.S. government by the Constitution Health care isn't a power. True. But anything the government would do in regards to health care IS a power.
The Constitution was amended to allow them to levy taxes, that's a power. It doesn't say what they must use those monies for. False. It does say precisely that, in Article I, Section 8. It has a whole list of things that constitute either the "general welfare" or "common defence" that the federal government may use those monies for. Adding a new stream of income to the government did not broaden its powers, it simply gave them more money to use to fund the existing powers.
Most electricity is private sector, and like I said it's more expensive and less reliable. For you. Not for most people. That's my point No, it's not. For most people, I said, it is NOT more expensive and less reliable in the private sector.
Oh, and please drop the "I" pay for it bit from elsewhere. The rest of us pay taxes, too! No, I won't drop it. It is accurate and meaningful. I'm saying it should be WE pay taxes. Because the implication that the rest of us (WE disjoint from I) is flat-out wrong. No such implication exists. I pay for it. So do you.
Nope. I will absolutely pay more for my health care under any socialized health care plan. This is not borne out in practice by those countries which have implemented it. False.
Note that I recommend socializing insurance, NOT health care. The former would result in the latter, inevitably.
Because most people in this country are not sick or dead AND poor. And yet we don't have universal health care. So... I'll disagree that without universal health care, everyone winds up sick or dead AND poor. You pay for all the people who don't have insurance, but only emergency care, and you do this whether you want to or not. No, they're not going to just start turning people away. And sooner or later, everyone DOES wind up sick, though (and dead, for that matter). Even the responsible can be bankrupted by a layoff + illness. That's why full coverage is so important. So you change the subject by bringing up something completely irrelevant to anything I've said, and in doing so, you introduce a question-begging fallacy, assuming that the only way to protect people from bankruptcy is full coverage.
We COULD have a decent system. We COULD have better care, cheaper. We COULD still allow those with money to try experimental treatments and whatnot. We COULD save lives.
But money is more important, right? No. LIBERTY is more important, though. And any system you have that does not respect liberty is unacceptable. Liberty is your STARTING point, not something you try to shoehorn in after the fact.
Again: that doesn't mean that therefore government should do it... And again, if not government, then who? Ummmmm. I already said. Private sector.
...especially when doing so means violating my constitutional rights, such as in federal health care, which violates my Tenth Amendment rights. In what way? Pretty obvious, isn't it? "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people." Health care is not a power delegate to the U.S. government by the Constitution, nor prohibited by the Constitution to the states, and therefore is a power of the states, or the people. Can't get much clearer than that.
When choice is opened up, your comparison to electrical transmission and roads no longer makes sense Well, if it ever happens I may agree with you. Um. So I say the private sector should do it, so we should have more choice, and then you say no, government has to do it, because we have no choice. Oooooooooo K.
Not that we shouldn't have private sector roads and electrical transmission, too. Most electricity is private sector, and like I said it's more expensive and less reliable. For you. Not for most people. We have one of the best electricity distribution systems in the world.
Some things the private sector just doesn't do well at, and infrastructure and health care are two of them. False on both counts.
In some circumstances the private sector does an abysmal job. Again: that doesn't mean that therefore government should do it... especially when doing so means violating my constitutional rights, such as in federal health care, which violates my Tenth Amendment rights.
Those circumstances are almost always where the one who pays has no choice: like health care, you can't choose insurance companies (you're stuck with your employer's choice) and in many cases you can't even choose the doctor you want, as you have to use one approved by your insurance company. Yes, and a big reason for this lack of choice is GOVERMENT REGULATION! Tax breaks for companies who offer health care (making it cheaper for businesses to do it, than to pay their employees), insurance regulations that push for consolidation and lack of choice and control, wide-open lawsuit regulations, and more.
When choice is opened up, your comparison to electrical transmission and roads no longer makes sense.
Not that we shouldn't have private sector roads and electrical transmission, too.
Yes, FDR did a good job convincing people of this. That doesn't make it true.
So what did cause it, then? You believe that government intervention in economics caused the GD.
No, but was a significant contributing factor.
... that runs counter to what most economists believe.
No, it does not.
That is ENTIRELY beside the point of how to interpret the Constitution. If the Constitution has failed, fine, change it. If we've failed to change it, fine, change it.
Perhaps you misunderstand. Because the Constitution is now considered sacred, it cannot be changed to the extent required.
First, that is false. People say that, but there's no evidence backing it up. Second, even if it WERE true, that does not justify violating it. How many serious efforts have there been to amend the Constitution since the last significant change, in 1971? (1992 does not count because it was a very different circumstance, a ratification process that lasted 200 years.) I can only think of a few -- the ERA, Flag Burning -- and all of them failed simply because most people were against them, or thought them unnecessary. So where is your evidence that the Constitution cannot be amended "to the extent required"? Note that any evidence that could be interpreted as people not WANTING to amend the Constitution is insufficient.
Second, even if this were true, it is not a rational argument. If the law doesn't change, for whatever reason -- except for lack of respect of rights -- then the law must be followed. As this is not an issue of rights at all, no, there is no justification for ignoring the law.
You lose here.
... since it is ridiculous that we should attempt to abide by the decree of a document that no longer functions well.
You are making a failed attempt at question-begging.
I believe we should have a new Constitutional Convention, and rewrite the whole thing.
Shrug. If you do that, fine. Until you do, or the Constitution is amended, we must follow the law. To not do so is to IGNORE our rights, our liberty, our democracy, our republic.
Do you think the Senate and House would ever do something so drastic when it would jeopardize their members' careers?
You are basically saying, "the people do not want such a change, so therefore it is not possible to make such a change." If the people wanted it, it would be possible. It is not that the Constitution cannot be changed, it is that the people do not agree with you. Deal with it.
I think your philosophy is one of an optimist bent, and fails to account for the reality that most people don't care as long as they have housing, food, and entertainment.
Nope, that's utterly backward. If that were true, then the people would be perfectly willing to change the Constitution to allow the federal government to take everything over. The fact that they are not is BECAUSE they care much more about how the nation works, about liberty, than you realize.
A Constitution that won't be changed is a Constitution that can't be changed, and has thus failed.
Question-begging again.
Your philosophy denies that these rights even exist: the only standard for a law is whether that law promotes your idea of an "ideal society." But there is only one definition of an "ideal society" that matters: the one the people have agreed on (and are fully capable of amending).
Well, first off, you misread my philosophy. I believe that actions taken by government officials need to assessed in the context of the greatest good. Certain things are off-limits -- anything that overrides a personal right, for example.
No, that is not your philosophy at all. If it were, you would be against violating the Tenth Amendment. But you are,
Your example of watching your neighbor's house is a good one, because you leave unmentioned the responsibilities with respect to his house that are, indeed, codified and enforced by government - those that regard individual property.
You point was that responsibilities should be codified and enforced by government.
You misunderstand my point entirely.
Shrug. I went by what you actually said.
I stated that government is *how* we collectively codify and enforce certain social responsibilities that we have collectively agreed are of a high degree of importance
You did no such thing. You said it is how we codify and enforce responsibilities, not "certain" ones. You said, if it is a responsibility, therefore, we we should use government to codify and enforce it. I quote you replying to me:
The issue here is not whether I have responsibilities to others, but whether government should be the means by which those responsibilities are codified and enforced.
The whole *point* of government is to codify and enforce those responsibilities toward others; it has no other purpose. Whatever mechanism you have in place for doing so is equivalent to a form of government. As such, we must collectively decide whether universal health care is such a responsibility. If it is, then it is absolutely the place of our government to codify that agreement.
You said IF universal health care is a responsibility we have to others THEREFORE government should codify and enforce it.
I am not misunderstanding what you said, at all.
I absolutely disagree. The right of property necessarily flows from the right of liberty, which necessarily flows from the right of life. Property is the product of our liberty. If the right of property is denied, it rejects the expression of our right of liberty.
Many societies have existed in which no right to property was recognized.
So? Many socieities have also existed where no right to life or liberty was recognized.
In the animal world...
Irrelevant. Moving on.
your assertion that the right of property "flows from the right of liberty" needs a bit of elaboration.
The right of liberty means the freedom to do, to act, to make. This freedom has no meaning without the right of property, because the product of our liberty IS property.
Let's look at trespass as a reasonable example. Here in the U.S., our social contract states that you can't be on someone else's land without permission, and one can call for the enforcement of that contract through the government (you can't, actually, use force yourself according to the law in many places unless you're physically in danger.)
Nope. Force is ALWAYS acceptable to protect your property from trespass, in every single situation. You're confused. If you are on my property and I tell you leave and you do not, I have every right in every state in this county to physically remove you.
Both systems have their notions of personal property, but the responsibilities of the social contracts are different. Calling your particular view of property a "natural right" seems a bit specious to me.
Saying I ever did so is far more specious. First, it is not a social contract, it is something much more: a legal framework. Second, I simply asserted a right of property, and how the legal framework deals with that right is irrelevant to the discussion.
With regard to the Prisoner's Dilemma, it seems to me that guaranteeing universal health care is analogous to a cooperative, and hence mutually beneficial strategy.
Also irrelevant. It is VERY easy to construct a mutually beneficial strategy where we have to give up the freedom of speech, or religion, or freedom from unwarranted search and seizure. But those thing
Except of course you are wrong. False.
No bank was rewarded for rotten loans False. The federal government has long provided incentives to lenders to make loans to people unqualified to have them.
yep. damn public education. you said it yourself. You're a liar (or just stupid). I never said any such thing.
Perhaps you are not lying, and, instead, you are just so completely stupid that you think calling federal funding of public schools unconstitutional by virtue of the Tenth Amendment (which, in fact, the author of the Tenth Amendment himself said, specifically) means that I am therefore against public education, because you are apparently so dumb, so ignorant, that you don't know that most public school funding already comes from property taxes via state and local governments, not the federal government.
And here we have the greatest arrogance. False.
This post of yours will be bookmarked to haunt you every time you post on this subject now. Yawn.
Blatant and unbased declarations. You say this as though there's something wrong with it. There isn't.
You have no idea what I've seen in my lifetime, for instance. I never implied I did. I only stated that in regards to media deregulation, you, in fact, have no idea what you are talking about, as evidenced by the fact that the example you gave has nothing to do with media deregulation.
Every other major broadcast news org is left of center *takes out pointer* And here gentlemen we have an example of the lemmini classification. This particular example follows the assertions of such leader lemmings as hannity that there is a so called "liberal media bias", ignoring for instance the extremity of their own view, which they in their arrogance or intellectual dishonesty describe as centerist or "down to earth". First, I never watch Hannity. Or any other show on Fox News.
Granted, it is true that where the "center" is, is relative. However, my preferred news source is NewsHour, which most people classify as center/moderate/etc. And on that standard, yes, most of the national TV news is to the left.
As to my views being "extreme," shrug. Most of my views are shared by a majority of Americans. Calling that "extreme" makes you look pretty stupid.
In reality the media is majority conservative False.
pudge, stop being disingenuous. It will cost the Federal government a lot, but people are going to be paying less in taxes than they were in insurance. If by "people" you mean "all people," you are flatly incorrect.
If by "people" you mean "most people," I don't believe it, and you can't prove it.
If by "people" you mean "some people," I never implied otherwise.
Do you have any citation for your claim that the percentage of routine health care costs covered by insurance started to go up around 1983? Do you have any citation that I MADE that claim? (Pssst: no.)
Second, do you have any citation for your claim that the percentage of people who experienced bankruptcy as a result of health care costs started to climb around 1983? Ditto.
I favor the so-called line-item veto plan that I believe DOES pass constitutional muster, which would allow the President to strike portions of a bill and then send it back to both houses of Congress for approval. That doesn't require any new legislation. The President just has to veto the bill in full, take a printout of the bill, strike out portions of it, make 535 photocopies, mail them to every Representative and Senator, and say "This is the bill I'm willing to sign". Yes, but the bill proposed would create a "fast-track" procedure. Instead of being a brand-new bill, or starting over with a vetoed bill, it would just bring the changes of the "vetoed" bill to an up-or-down vote, without amendments, with limited debate (no filibusters), etc. It would also be more limited, as it would only apply to certain types of items that could be "vetoed."
So yes, this can be done now, but not nearly with this type of efficiency.
Right you are: the Court would have accepted a full statewide recount... Yes. And my only problem with the decision is that it told Florida it could not even try to do such a recount, because there was not enough time. Granted, they were right, there was not enough time, but I think the court has no business telling Florida it couldn't try. cf. Souter's opinion.
...something which was the only mathematical scenartio that could have given Gore the state's electoral votes, though that wasn't known at the time. Yeah, that's the funniest part.:-)
True, I am implying that a system that scales in numerous western democracies who share a large number of similarities to each other would likely work here.
No, I said it is a false implication to say that it WOULD work here. To think it is "likely" is fine, as long as you recognize the fact that you don't know for sure.
You argue that a universal coverage system that failed in oregon could not scale
I said that there is evidence that shows it doesn't. That doesn't make it impossible.
That is false as it has scaled in other western countries.
Incorrect. I was speaking specifically in the context of the U.S., so whatever has happened in other countries is irrelevant to the truth or falsity of my statement.
False. First, the "another system" fails in MANY ways, some of which I have already enumerated. And second, the "third way" solves problems that neither "#1" or "#2" do ANYTHING for: particularly: minimized federal control as per the Tenth Amendment, increased competition, decreased costs, and more choice. Neither #1 or #2 does anything to those ends.
First, you've not enumerated them to me anywhere.
I did in the very post you were replying to, that you were quoting! And again in the post you were replying to now!
Secondly, the third way does not solve many problems
Yes, it does. It solves ALL of the problems, except for one: guaranteed coverage for all needs. But since that does not exist anywhere under any system, that is a bit moot, although I do concede there are more guarantees under other systems than this one. Other than that? Solves all problems. Reduces costs as much possible, while preserving liberty and maximizing choice and control.
and invents other ones
False.
*and* unlike the two former, is purely speculative.
False.
One word: CONTROL. It is, in fact, all about control, and nothing more.
Nope, your conspiracy theories aside, it's about uniformity.
False. It is not about a conspiracy. It is about the fact that you think uniformity is so valuable that you want to force it on others. This NECESSARILY means you want control. It is amazing to me that you say "we must enforce uniformity" on one hand and then deny that it is about control on the other. Does not compute.
False. I know exactly what I am talking about. You are buying into the lies the liberals tell you.
Funny, if you look two states down you'll find that school budgets (& programs for the poor) are decreasing rapidly.
I lived in California for a decade, and went to its public schools for 8th-12th grade. Most of my family still lives there, as do a great many of my friends. I know all about it. And I know that California spends $43b on K-12 education, which is 31 percent of the budget. Which means that they spend 69 percent on other things. Which means they are CHOOSING to put other priorities above any cuts in education.
It is very simple: make those things the top priority, and cut everything else. It has NEVER been necessary to cut those programs, for any state, ever.
Would be great if we lived in that world, where education and support for poor were even close to top priorities.
Shrug. The point is that it is a choice. The state can do it. If it chooses not to, that is its problem. Note that if the feds were not taxing us to pay for these things the states should be doing, the states could increase our taxes to compensate for the our lower federal taxes and federal expenditures.
Nope. Cutting those things is a CHOICE made by the states because they decide to have other priorities.
No shit sherlock. That's the point. State/local gov't is not positioned to manage through recessions/depressi
Correct, that is not liberty. It is an unrelated thing, so I am not sure why you bring it up at all. I believe the phrase was "Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" Um. And? Are you honestly telling me you think that the right to life that Jefferson wrote about it implied that everyone else had an obligation to keep you alive? Because that's just ridiculous to assert.
of course, from everything you've said in this thread. It's obvious a few hundred more dollars in your bank is worth more than the lives of your fellow human beings. You're a liar.
If we had less regulation and more competition ah a fallacy of association. False.
less regulation does not mean more competition. Which is why I mentioned both separately.
every deregulation I've seen in my lifetime has resulted in extreme levels of consolidation and a general drop in the general welfare. False.
the absolute worst has been the relaxation of media regulation, which has resulted in the disgustingly centralized propaganda machines like clear channel and murdoch's news empire (fox, etc. etc.) False. You do not know what you are talking about. FIrst of all, "etc. etc." would be filled by... what? Every other major broadcast news org is left of center, except for PBS, which is as close to unbiased as we can probably get.
Second, and more importantly to this context, Fox News has nothing whatsoever to do with media deregulation, as it is on cable/satellite, which never has been, nor should be, regulated for "fairness." The reason for media regulation was always for the unique nature of broadcast.
If you think cable and satellite (and presumably therefore the Internet, since it is no different) should be content-regulated, then what you say no longer matters because government control of content is just about the most un-American idea I can think of.
That is entirely backward. When it is funded by the taxpayers there is LESS incentive to reduce costs, because you never pay for ANYTHING out of your pocket. you heard it from pudge.. taxes are paid with magic beans! they dont exist! Translation: plasmacutter does not know what the colloquialism "out of pocket" means.
Nope. The Fourteenth Amendment guarantees that everyone's vote is equal in a given election for electors for President. The Florida recount treated some votes as more important than others. Therefore it was unconstitutional. and the predominantly republican appointed USSC treated all those votes not counted as less important than others, preventing them being counted so they could hand their man the presidency. You are making things up that never happened. The case was not about votes not being counted, but having uniform standards.
Slashdot Mirror
But money is more important, right? No. LIBERTY is more important, though. And any system you have that does not respect liberty is unacceptable. Liberty is your STARTING point, not something you try to shoehorn in after the fact.
...especially when doing so means violating my constitutional rights, such as in federal health care, which violates my Tenth Amendment rights. In what way? Pretty obvious, isn't it? "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people." Health care is not a power delegate to the U.S. government by the Constitution, nor prohibited by the Constitution to the states, and therefore is a power of the states, or the people. Can't get much clearer than that. When choice is opened up, your comparison to electrical transmission and roads no longer makes sense Well, if it ever happens I may agree with you. Um. So I say the private sector should do it, so we should have more choice, and then you say no, government has to do it, because we have no choice. Oooooooooo K. Not that we shouldn't have private sector roads and electrical transmission, too. Most electricity is private sector, and like I said it's more expensive and less reliable. For you. Not for most people. We have one of the best electricity distribution systems in the world. Some things the private sector just doesn't do well at, and infrastructure and health care are two of them. False on both counts.When choice is opened up, your comparison to electrical transmission and roads no longer makes sense.
Not that we shouldn't have private sector roads and electrical transmission, too.
Yes, FDR did a good job convincing people of this. That doesn't make it true.
So what did cause it, then? You believe that government intervention in economics caused the GD.
No, but was a significant contributing factor.
... that runs counter to what most economists believe.
No, it does not.
That is ENTIRELY beside the point of how to interpret the Constitution. If the Constitution has failed, fine, change it. If we've failed to change it, fine, change it.
Perhaps you misunderstand. Because the Constitution is now considered sacred, it cannot be changed to the extent required.
First, that is false. People say that, but there's no evidence backing it up. Second, even if it WERE true, that does not justify violating it. How many serious efforts have there been to amend the Constitution since the last significant change, in 1971? (1992 does not count because it was a very different circumstance, a ratification process that lasted 200 years.) I can only think of a few -- the ERA, Flag Burning -- and all of them failed simply because most people were against them, or thought them unnecessary. So where is your evidence that the Constitution cannot be amended "to the extent required"? Note that any evidence that could be interpreted as people not WANTING to amend the Constitution is insufficient.
Second, even if this were true, it is not a rational argument. If the law doesn't change, for whatever reason -- except for lack of respect of rights -- then the law must be followed. As this is not an issue of rights at all, no, there is no justification for ignoring the law.
You lose here.
... since it is ridiculous that we should attempt to abide by the decree of a document that no longer functions well.
You are making a failed attempt at question-begging.
I believe we should have a new Constitutional Convention, and rewrite the whole thing.
Shrug. If you do that, fine. Until you do, or the Constitution is amended, we must follow the law. To not do so is to IGNORE our rights, our liberty, our democracy, our republic.
Do you think the Senate and House would ever do something so drastic when it would jeopardize their members' careers?
You are basically saying, "the people do not want such a change, so therefore it is not possible to make such a change." If the people wanted it, it would be possible. It is not that the Constitution cannot be changed, it is that the people do not agree with you. Deal with it.
I think your philosophy is one of an optimist bent, and fails to account for the reality that most people don't care as long as they have housing, food, and entertainment.
Nope, that's utterly backward. If that were true, then the people would be perfectly willing to change the Constitution to allow the federal government to take everything over. The fact that they are not is BECAUSE they care much more about how the nation works, about liberty, than you realize.
A Constitution that won't be changed is a Constitution that can't be changed, and has thus failed.
Question-begging again.
Your philosophy denies that these rights even exist: the only standard for a law is whether that law promotes your idea of an "ideal society." But there is only one definition of an "ideal society" that matters: the one the people have agreed on (and are fully capable of amending).
Well, first off, you misread my philosophy. I believe that actions taken by government officials need to assessed in the context of the greatest good. Certain things are off-limits -- anything that overrides a personal right, for example.
No, that is not your philosophy at all. If it were, you would be against violating the Tenth Amendment. But you are,
Your example of watching your neighbor's house is a good one, because you leave unmentioned the responsibilities with respect to his house that are, indeed, codified and enforced by government - those that regard individual property.
You point was that responsibilities should be codified and enforced by government.
You misunderstand my point entirely.
Shrug. I went by what you actually said.
I stated that government is *how* we collectively codify and enforce certain social responsibilities that we have collectively agreed are of a high degree of importance
You did no such thing. You said it is how we codify and enforce responsibilities, not "certain" ones. You said, if it is a responsibility, therefore, we we should use government to codify and enforce it. I quote you replying to me:
The issue here is not whether I have responsibilities to others, but whether government should be the means by which those responsibilities are codified and enforced.
The whole *point* of government is to codify and enforce those responsibilities toward others; it has no other purpose. Whatever mechanism you have in place for doing so is equivalent to a form of government. As such, we must collectively decide whether universal health care is such a responsibility. If it is, then it is absolutely the place of our government to codify that agreement.
You said IF universal health care is a responsibility we have to others THEREFORE government should codify and enforce it.
I am not misunderstanding what you said, at all.
I absolutely disagree. The right of property necessarily flows from the right of liberty, which necessarily flows from the right of life. Property is the product of our liberty. If the right of property is denied, it rejects the expression of our right of liberty.
Many societies have existed in which no right to property was recognized.
So? Many socieities have also existed where no right to life or liberty was recognized.
In the animal world ...
Irrelevant. Moving on.
your assertion that the right of property "flows from the right of liberty" needs a bit of elaboration.
The right of liberty means the freedom to do, to act, to make. This freedom has no meaning without the right of property, because the product of our liberty IS property.
Let's look at trespass as a reasonable example. Here in the U.S., our social contract states that you can't be on someone else's land without permission, and one can call for the enforcement of that contract through the government (you can't, actually, use force yourself according to the law in many places unless you're physically in danger.)
Nope. Force is ALWAYS acceptable to protect your property from trespass, in every single situation. You're confused. If you are on my property and I tell you leave and you do not, I have every right in every state in this county to physically remove you.
Both systems have their notions of personal property, but the responsibilities of the social contracts are different. Calling your particular view of property a "natural right" seems a bit specious to me.
Saying I ever did so is far more specious. First, it is not a social contract, it is something much more: a legal framework. Second, I simply asserted a right of property, and how the legal framework deals with that right is irrelevant to the discussion.
With regard to the Prisoner's Dilemma, it seems to me that guaranteeing universal health care is analogous to a cooperative, and hence mutually beneficial strategy.
Also irrelevant. It is VERY easy to construct a mutually beneficial strategy where we have to give up the freedom of speech, or religion, or freedom from unwarranted search and seizure. But those thing
Perhaps you are not lying, and, instead, you are just so completely stupid that you think calling federal funding of public schools unconstitutional by virtue of the Tenth Amendment (which, in fact, the author of the Tenth Amendment himself said, specifically) means that I am therefore against public education, because you are apparently so dumb, so ignorant, that you don't know that most public school funding already comes from property taxes via state and local governments, not the federal government.
And here gentlemen we have an example of the lemmini classification. This particular example follows the assertions of such leader lemmings as hannity that there is a so called "liberal media bias", ignoring for instance the extremity of their own view, which they in their arrogance or intellectual dishonesty describe as centerist or "down to earth". First, I never watch Hannity. Or any other show on Fox News.
Second, shrug.
Granted, it is true that where the "center" is, is relative. However, my preferred news source is NewsHour, which most people classify as center/moderate/etc. And on that standard, yes, most of the national TV news is to the left.
As to my views being "extreme," shrug. Most of my views are shared by a majority of Americans. Calling that "extreme" makes you look pretty stupid. In reality the media is majority conservative False.
If by "people" you mean "most people," I don't believe it, and you can't prove it.
If by "people" you mean "some people," I never implied otherwise.
So yes, this can be done now, but not nearly with this type of efficiency.
...something which was the only mathematical scenartio that could have given Gore the state's electoral votes, though that wasn't known at the time. Yeah, that's the funniest part.True, I am implying that a system that scales in numerous western democracies who share a large number of similarities to each other would likely work here.
No, I said it is a false implication to say that it WOULD work here. To think it is "likely" is fine, as long as you recognize the fact that you don't know for sure.
You argue that a universal coverage system that failed in oregon could not scale
I said that there is evidence that shows it doesn't. That doesn't make it impossible.
That is false as it has scaled in other western countries.
Incorrect. I was speaking specifically in the context of the U.S., so whatever has happened in other countries is irrelevant to the truth or falsity of my statement.
False. First, the "another system" fails in MANY ways, some of which I have already enumerated. And second, the "third way" solves problems that neither "#1" or "#2" do ANYTHING for: particularly: minimized federal control as per the Tenth Amendment, increased competition, decreased costs, and more choice. Neither #1 or #2 does anything to those ends.
First, you've not enumerated them to me anywhere.
I did in the very post you were replying to, that you were quoting! And again in the post you were replying to now!
Secondly, the third way does not solve many problems
Yes, it does. It solves ALL of the problems, except for one: guaranteed coverage for all needs. But since that does not exist anywhere under any system, that is a bit moot, although I do concede there are more guarantees under other systems than this one. Other than that? Solves all problems. Reduces costs as much possible, while preserving liberty and maximizing choice and control.
and invents other ones
False.
*and* unlike the two former, is purely speculative.
False.
One word: CONTROL. It is, in fact, all about control, and nothing more.
Nope, your conspiracy theories aside, it's about uniformity.
False. It is not about a conspiracy. It is about the fact that you think uniformity is so valuable that you want to force it on others. This NECESSARILY means you want control. It is amazing to me that you say "we must enforce uniformity" on one hand and then deny that it is about control on the other. Does not compute.
False. I know exactly what I am talking about. You are buying into the lies the liberals tell you.
Funny, if you look two states down you'll find that school budgets (& programs for the poor) are decreasing rapidly.
I lived in California for a decade, and went to its public schools for 8th-12th grade. Most of my family still lives there, as do a great many of my friends. I know all about it. And I know that California spends $43b on K-12 education, which is 31 percent of the budget. Which means that they spend 69 percent on other things. Which means they are CHOOSING to put other priorities above any cuts in education.
It is very simple: make those things the top priority, and cut everything else. It has NEVER been necessary to cut those programs, for any state, ever.
Would be great if we lived in that world, where education and support for poor were even close to top priorities.
Shrug. The point is that it is a choice. The state can do it. If it chooses not to, that is its problem. Note that if the feds were not taxing us to pay for these things the states should be doing, the states could increase our taxes to compensate for the our lower federal taxes and federal expenditures.
Nope. Cutting those things is a CHOICE made by the states because they decide to have other priorities.
No shit sherlock. That's the point. State/local gov't is not positioned to manage through recessions/depressi
Second, and more importantly to this context, Fox News has nothing whatsoever to do with media deregulation, as it is on cable/satellite, which never has been, nor should be, regulated for "fairness." The reason for media regulation was always for the unique nature of broadcast.
If you think cable and satellite (and presumably therefore the Internet, since it is no different) should be content-regulated, then what you say no longer matters because government control of content is just about the most un-American idea I can think of.