"I exist, therefore I exist" (which is an identity principle) is a meaningful construction that leads to "the government should defend my private possessions." No. Again, those are separate discussions. You are not very bright. You decided to have a tangential discussion about self-evident rights. I can link the two -- very easily -- but that is not the point of this discussion you started.
You see that you were thinking in the past, but you aren't now, nor have you ever been thinking. False. I am thinking right now. This is unavoidably and necessarily true, and any claim to the contrary makes no logical sense and is provably -- and proven -- false.
Seeing is not thinking, as you said so yourself. That I'm able to reduce it to a possibility that your supposed thinking is merely just an act of observation Observation -- or, at least, being able to process the observation -- IS thinking.
Just saying it's self-evident doesn't make it so. Correct. However, I proved it is self-evident.
But if you said, I observe (and one of those observations is my existence through the instantiation of "I"), therefore I exist, I wouldn't care, because they are merely identical, tautological statements that are truly self-evident. Exactly. Now you understand Descartes. Congratulations.
But self-evidence is not meaningful for understanding reality. Red herring fallacy.
That you're ignorant about basic logic and geometry and it shows in your ignorant philosophy... Tell me again how you weren't committing a textbook example of an appeal to authority fallacy.
... is not an argument for your philosophy. Straw man fallacy.
You appear to -- quite incorrectly -- think that Descartes was saying that thinking somehow creates existence. No, it is merely evidence of it. That's a huge straw man argument. False. Unsurprisingly, you do not understand basic logical fallacies. I said what your argument APPEARED to be doing.
in fact I said, "to instantiate 'I' implies its existence" Yes, and then you went on to mangle that into something else, trying to say that you have to exist before you can think, which DOES imply that Descartes was saying that thinking creates existence.
You just said "thinking is required to think that something exists" (but you said recognize instead of think, but cognition is the process of thinking) So by restating my argument into a self-evidently true statement, you express your agreement with me.
I don't think thinking is relevant to the existence question. Except that it proves it.
If you can doubt what you "see", you can surely doubt that you "see" that you're thinking. False. That's utter nonsense. Seeing is not self-evident, but thinking is. Seeing is mere sensory input. Thinking is not a sense, it is an activity that necessarily proves that something exists.
It's just a statement that he exists (observed) and that he's, in addition to existing, thinking as well. So you agree with Descartes. This is precisely his, and my, point.
Existence comes first No shit. No one ever said differently. Again, this is you implying that Descartes or someone else said that thinking creates existence, which no one ever did.
and his implication is thus redundant because he's instantiated it already. Calling it redundant is irrelevant. All that matters is whether it is true, and you have several times admitted it is.
That he thinks is merely CONSISTENT with his existence. No, it is more than that. It NECESSARILY IMPLIES existence.
You can prove you defecate with as much certainty as you can prove that you can think -- not absolute False. Thinking is a necessarily self-evident activity. It is, in fact, logically impossible to appear to yourself to be thinking, and yet not actually be thinking.
In fact, you might not be thinking about thinking, but, you might have been made to have the impression that you thought, but you were just given memories of thinking in the past with the impression of continuity backwards, now, and even forward progression of thinking memories. That's a bunch of bullshit. Fine, I was given fake memories. So what? That has nothing to do with the fact that I am thinking, right now, about those memories.
It might be more accurate to say, "I have memories, therefore I exist". No, because as I just proved above, memories are completely beside the point.
How far back does that go? Descartes was just an imperfect skeptic and confused his observations with self-evidence. False. And you even agreed with Descartes several times, you're just too dumb to know it.
But I guess I'm just a shitload smarter than you and this is way over your head. If that were true you would not be agreeing with Descartes and thinking you were disagreeing with him and changing your argument every other sentence. You're not smarter than anyone. You're quite the moron. And I don't say that lightly. You have some little bits of knowledge, but you are incapable of bringing them together and recognizing how they all fit, and you make shit up that has no basis in logic or fact or even history of thought, just to support your unsupportable mishmash of self-made bullshit.
Not a single thing you've ever said or thought in your entire life is over my head. That you don't realize how truly ignorant you are is kinda sad. Well, it would be, if you weren't such an asshole.
Repeating your mantra doesn't make you right Um. Yes, and? I never implied it did.
Forget Hillary No.
you are arguing against the very idea of universal healthcare In part. That particular comment is not directed at "the very idea of universal healthcare," no. It was explicitly and obviously directed only at mandated insurance coverage.
BTW, healthcare costs are usually tied to your income Yes, which is extremely evil. It puts the government in the position of saying "you have no needs beyond what we say you have, therefore you have the ability to pay what we say you can," which the government has no right -- let alone ability -- to say. It has only force, and force used in this way destroys justice.
And no, not being insured is neither good for you nor for the community Saying so doesn't make it true. Who the hell are YOU to tell me what is good for myself? This is the problem Americans have with socialists: thinking they know what is best for every individual. They do not.
Please, please look at working existing implementations before rushing to conclusions.) Please, please do not assume my disagreement implies ignorance. Because that would be, well, pretty damned ignorant.
are you okay with me quoting you as: "Universal healthcare destroys liberty, which destroys justice."? (This is a direct quote from you.) Of course. And it is absolutely true.
Hah, you think it's unassailable... It is.
Descartes never doubted his existence, even though he should have False.
his mind may merely be a computed automaton exposed to external inputs of contrived sensory data If that is the case, he still exists. So... you're not doing anything to dismiss his premise.
What he thinks of himself may all be totally wrong Yes, of course. But that he exists cannot be wrong.
But the important thing is that by saying "I think", he really means to say, "I exist and think", since to instantiate "I" implies its existence: Yes, to think the word "I" means you necessarily exist. That is, of course, his point.
Existence was the observation necessary to establish that he existed Exactly; but in order to establish this existence, the existence has to be observed, as you note. That is where the thinking comes in. So you are agreeing with Descartes.
The thinking was merely additional The thinking was necessary in order to recognize existence.
You appear to -- quite incorrectly -- think that Descartes was saying that thinking somehow creates existence. No, it is merely evidence of it.
It's no more meaningful than "I defecate, therefore I exist." Except that you cannot prove that you defecate. It could be an illusion. You CAN prove that you think.
[...] (insert "health care" into his list) [...] Let me ask you: do you oppose taxation to finance basic services and infrastructure in principle? No. I am against income tax, and I dislike property tax, but it is preferable to income, and consumption taxes can't solve all the taxation needs, so I support a combination of low property taxes and consumption taxes.
But if you're not, you may want to point out why healthcare is any different As I have been saying over and over, it is a tax on BEING ALIVE. We tax income, we tax property, we tax consumption, we tax other activities: we have never ever before taxed BEING ALIVE.
I refer you to my other posts as to why people who don't pay taxes generally don't pay for healthcare and as such isn't A TAX ON BEING ALIVE Yes, and I refer you to my last post where I pointed out that this is beside the point, for two reasons: first, because you are still required to HAVE health insurance even if you do not pay financially for it, which means the government is still taking from you (your time, your liberty, your privacy); second, because people who don't have income still have to pay for it if they are able, according to Hillary, who said that those who can afford it will have to buy it.
And further, just because SOME people don't pay the health-care-tax-on-being-alive does not mean it is not such a tax on those who DO have to pay it, so your point is moot anyway.
see, I can use caps too! Shrug. There's nothing wrong with using caps.
It works fabulously elsewhere That is simply not true. Okay, so I may have a rather poor command of the English language, but as far as I'm aware, "elsewhere" doesn't mean "everywhere else." It's rather ignorant to claim that it doesn't work anywhere else. I didn't claim that. I said it doesn't work "fabulously." Refer to my previous point about how whether or not it "works," it destroys liberty, which destroys justice. As Bastiat -- a Frenchman! -- said (insert "health care" into his list), "Since the law organizes justice, the socialists ask why the law should not also organize labor, education, and religion. Why should not law be used for these purposes? Because it could not organize labor, education, and religion without destroying justice. We must remember that law is force, and that, consequently, the proper functions of the law cannot lawfully extend beyond the proper functions of force."
Here is, however, one of my favorite pssages: "Now, legal plunder can be committed in an infinite number of ways. Thus we have an infinite number of plans for organizing it: tariffs, protection, benefits, subsidies, encouragements, progressive taxation, public schools, guaranteed jobs, guaranteed profits, minimum wages, a right to relief, a right to the tools of labor, free credit, and so on, and so on. All these plans as a whole -- with their common aim of legal plunder -- constitute socialism.
"Now, since under this definition socialism is a body of doctrine, what attack can be made against it other than a war of doctrine? If you find this socialistic doctrine to be false, absurd, and evil, then refute it. And the more false, the more absurd, and the more evil it is, the easier it will be to refute. Above all, if you wish to be strong, begin by rooting out every particle of socialism that may have crept into your legislation. This will be no light task."
If you are FORCED to have such insurance, then it is a tax on BEING ALIVE. It has nothing to do with being employed. Where exactly is this the case? I just said that in every country I know you don't have to be insured if you choose to stay outside the system (i.e. aren't employed, self-employed etc.) I already told you: Hillary's plan.
Not even Evil Hillary (tm) could force people who don't make money to pay for healthcare She said she would. Shrug. She said everyone must get insurance. If you can't afford it, then you STILL have to have it, which is an affront on its own: you are required to still sign up for it. But I never said anything about not being able to afford it: I said you have no income. Lack of income != lack of ability to pay.
Oh well, sorry, your mentioning only Canada and the UK as examples of universal healthcare led me to believe that you get your information from mainstream media. I barely get ANYTHING from the mainstream media. I watch PBS NewsHour every night, and use Google for any more news than that.
I still haven't seen a compelling argument why it could never work in the US. I gave you a reason why; you have yet to show why my reason doesn't matter.
It works fabulously elsewhere That is simply not true. It is well-known that many countries -- yes, including Canada and the UK -- have major problems with single-payer health care. We have, on the record, people who have died because they could not see a doctor within days, instead of weeks or months. We have lawsuits in Canada over the freedom to practice medicine privately, a fundamental right in any free society. And so on.
If I want to not own a home, not have income... I am allowed to. And I won't pay any taxes.
Okay, clarification: pretty much like that everywhere. _If_ you are employed (or self-employed), however, you pay for health insurance (if you're on unemployment you don't pay anything and still have health insurance, much like the US I think). So see it as a tax if that helps.
If you are FORCED to have such insurance, then it is a tax on BEING ALIVE. It has nothing to do with being employed.
It's not illegal not to be insured
Under Hillary's plan, yes, it absolutely is.
I would have to pay for that anyway
Irrelevant. I own a car, and am a Christian, but if you say it is illegal to NOT own a car or be a Christian, I am gonna be pretty pissed off about it. The fact that it is forced is the point.
That's like saying someone's zealotry in attacking the government for wiretapping or torture doesn't help us catch terrorists.
Sorry, I don't follow. Let's not get absurd here.
In fact, it is not absurd at all. The analogy is perfectly apt. I am not sure why you think it isn't.
JFTR, I don't believe in the currently fashionable terrorism boogeyman.
I don't care what you believe specifically; I doubt you disagree that terrorism IS a threat, and that we should use at least SOME resources to prevent attacks. We've plenty of evidence to this. Whether you think it is as great a threat as some others, is beside the point, which is simply that just because we can agree on the goal (preventing terrorism, making health care available) doesn't mean that I cannot attack the methods (violating the Fourth and Fifth Amendments, or the Ninth and Tenth Amendments) without directly addressing a solution to the problem.
I am concerned, however, that some of your earlier statements (no choice of doctors, can't choose private healthcare, more expensive overall) stem from a lack of information about the rest of the world
No. I have plenty of information about the rest of the world. That is irrelevant, as just because it "works" in one place doesn't mean it will work the same way here. It won't. And further, as expressed above, just because it "works" doesn't make it right. I think it is very, very wrong: it violates my rights, and doing so undermines democracy itself.
The whole point of a republican democracy is that a. the people get to make the decisions (directly or through representation) and b. there are overriding principles at play to protect individuals FROM the majority. Taking away my rights at BEST violates the latter, but it also undermines the former, as it is the people who first put those protections in place.
Our society is built on these things. We are on a slippery slope where we will soon enough have no rights at all, if things continue in this direction. Lines must be drawn. This is a far more important issue than whether people have health care. Those who would give up essential liberty for temporary security deserve neither.
When I showed you that this doesn't have to happen if done right, your only reply was "no, it won't work here, because we're the US, period."
Yes. Which means two things: many of us have rights we are not willing to give up, and we do not and will not operate as other countries do. People of many other countries have this notion that they will just accept some inconveniences for the "common good." We do not believe that here, not when it involves the government stealing our rights and forcing us to comply. And I am very thankful for that fact.
I just think you should research the supposed facts you justify them with a little bit more.
You should try to understand America a bit more.
BTW, I've just seen your videos on YouTube. Very funny. That being said, I just can't get int
So Hume is a moron. Plato and Aristotle, too, like in The Princess Bride? Nope. Plato was a genius. Aristotle was smart, but way to full of himself, and he lacked perspective. He had some good ideas but didn't think about them critically enough.
You just ad hominem'd the man who demonstrated the is-ought problem that you haven't figured out how to get around Except I already proved that I didn't fall afoul of it. Try again.
Have you ever read Kant's Prolegomena to Any Future Metaphysics or the Critique of Pure Reason or the Critique Practical Reason? Nah, he was a real pissant.
What's yours, just Descartes' armchair bullshitting? No. The only thing I borrow from Descartes is cogito ergo sum, which is, in fact, unassailably true.
They tax your land and/or the improvements (depending on the exact scheme), not the area above.
I never talked about "the area above."
So you don't own the airspace above the land and the ability to build on it.
It is not possible to build on airspace.
The debate is, as you agree, about what you actually own, not over takings itself.
False. The court decisions are quite clear. I agreed that when the Democrats take what I own, they pretend they are not taking what I own. That is where the debate lies: whether they actually ARE taking what I own, or merely restricting its use.
There is a reasonable reply to it
Not possible. It was a logical fallacy. The only reasonable reply is to point out that fact, which I did, in my own way. Whether you had a hidden point within the red herring is unimportant, since the entire claim is invalidated by the fallacy.
Actually, expertise is the qualification and is an affirmative defense against the fallacy
Utterly false. You demonstrate again that you completely misunderstand the fallacy. The fallacy rests on the fact that logical argumentation is built on ARGUMENTS and not PEOPLE MAKING THEM. So no, EVERY TIME you say "this argument has validity because of who is making it" -- which is what you did -- you are committing a fallacy.
The only exception is sometimes when the argument is about the person making the claim. For example, your saying "I like cheese, this is fact because I said so" is not a fallacy. But that is obviously not the case here.
I'm merely stating that you aren't qualified to merely assert things without evidence
Ummm. NO ONE is. You're committing the fallacy again, by implying YOU CAN do that.
And you are lying anyway, because your point had nothing to do with evidence, it had to do with my presumed lack of exerience. Please don't lie.
which is what you were doing
False.
If you gave evidence, then my whole point would be mooted, as I've never said you couldn't bring evidence to the table, just that you aren't qualified to discuss it until you bring evidence or expertise to the table.
You're lying. You talked only about experience, not evidence. And besides, those are two different things, and one is not a substitute for the other. You said you were qualified because of experience, and I was not because of lack of it. Do not lie and say you talked about evidence, and do not be an idiot and pretend that your experience exempts you from needing to provide evidence.
You have no clue what metaphysics is, apparently.
No, sorry, that is MY line to YOU.
Hume would be disappointed!
Hume was a moron.
You need to invoke metaphysics in order to make your point
Shrug. You brought up metaphysics when you decided to set out to show self-evident rights do not exist.
If you can't say why here on earth things would be better because of your idea (which would bring it back down to the physical), then you're just talking bullshit
Sorry, that is a textbook example of the begging-the-question fallacy, and therefore it cannot be logically responded to. Try again.
Hah, unclean hands, again. You're admitting that you did make an ad hominem remark
There is nothing fallacious about an ad hominem remark, as long as it is not trying to win a logical point. When met with a hostile foe (as you first turned hostile to me, clearly, with your personal attacks), I will insult them in return. That may not say much for me in some ways, but in comparison to you it means nothing, and it has no impact on my arguments.
You do realize the main reason I'm still here is because for everybody else in thi
For now. I know the Obama and Clinton plans do not go there. But the ultimate goal is complete government control. Oh, paranoid much?;-). I see the winky face, but really, no, it is not paranoia. I've been watching this debate carefully for a long time, and I've noticed that all the "mainstream" UHC proponents have all gone to an incrementalist approach. Like here in WA, the state insurance commissioner proposed a universal CATASTROPHIC (+basic preventative) care policy. It would cover everyone in the state. And the plan literally is a mess, because it would mean most people have two policies... there is no way it would last. Clearly the goal is to eventually make it full coverage.
And that is just one of the more obvious examples. Hillary's record is pretty clear too: she has never disavowed her firmly held beliefs about UHC from 15 years ago.
Mandatory health insurance OF ANY KIND is evil. And I do not use that word lightly. It is literally a tax on BEING ALIVE. We have nothing like that in our society now, and I will fight against it with all I've got. Okay, you call it a tax. Fair enough. Time to privatize the fire brigade then? Some things, like healthcare, prisons and law enforcement just don't work that well if they're privatized. No, you are missing my point.
If I want to not own a home, not have income... I am allowed to. And I won't pay any taxes. We decide that we tax certain activities: ownership, income, and so on. This is the first example of where I would be taxed FOR BEING ALIVE. It is a fundamental shift in the way we do things, and it is very, very wrong.
I don't think your zealotry in this regard does anything to help the poor get health insurance That's like saying someone's zealotry in attacking the government for wiretapping or torture doesn't help us catch terrorists. I reject the premise that everything I say has to involve trying to solve the specific goal at hand. I am talking about fundamental rights here, and it is not acceptable to ignore rights to solve another problem. I have, and have expressed, many ideas for helping the poor get health care (not insurance, as insurance is utterly unimportant). But it's beside the point I am making.
I think a little bit of pragmatism would go a long way. I reject too that I have some obligation to speak to solving the problem in order to criticize someone else's solution to the problem. Again, same analogy: it is not fair for me to say to someone, "fine, you don't like warrantless wiretapping, but you won't tell me how we can get intelligence without it." That is beside the point. They are allowed to say "you can't do that because it violates my rights" without coming up with their own solution.
This, to me, is a form of framing the issue that I find to be fallacious. When you propose something, EVERYTHING that proposal is about is fair game, and I have no obligation to do anything in addition to criticizing it. I should work toward a common solution, but that is not necessarily a part of the same process.
And here's the rub: the government, not you or your doctor, in such cases, decide what types of procedures have wait times of days, and which have wait times of months or years. Well, what you're talking about is shortage of hospital staff I assume? No. There are many reasons for delays.
But my point is: government-mandated medical insurance does not mean that there aren't private doctors and hospitals For now. I know the Obama and Clinton plans do not go there. But the ultimate goal is complete government control. And even if my prediction there does not come true, the private care providers will be mostly run out of business, except for those for the super-rich, due to massively increased regulations and price controls.
If I wanted to set up a new healthcare system, I'd try to pick the best bits from all over the world. I wouldn't.
You don't have to dream up theories and doomsday scenarios, just look at what's out there. What's been shown consistently is that just because something works in the U.S. does not mean it will work elsewhere, and vice versa.
I'd also urge you to look at countries where mandatory government-established insurance Mandatory health insurance OF ANY KIND is evil. And I do not use that word lightly. It is literally a tax on BEING ALIVE. We have nothing like that in our society now, and I will fight against it with all I've got.
because you accuse me of misinterpreting you whenever you do it and I attempt to figure out what you actually meant.
False. I accuse you of misinterpreting me when you ASSERT that I said something I did not.
Each time, it turns out that you didn't actually mean what you said.
False.
but if they've prohibited building permanent structures on it, then that's something you simply don't own
Exactly. The Democrats pretend you DO own it, but you do not. They make you pay taxes on it, your name is on the deed as the owner, but they prevent you from doing anything with it.
What's so difficult about the logic?
Nothing. Why do you ask? It's the Democrats who don't understand it, not property-rights advocates, who understand it completely. This is what I said in the last reply.
Again, you think you own something ancillary to the land itself
False.
which was what I was complaining that property-rights activists don't understand
Yes, and you were wrong.
Thanks for demonstrating my point.
I didn't.
In fact, it is the property-rights activists who DO realize that this is a debate over what people own. They are the ones who consistently and properly refer to restrictions of their property rights as a rejection of the premise that they own the land in the first place.
That's a false conclusion
False.
... which is why you've consistently lost the argument in court. No court recognizes that an ability to use X with your land is an extension of your land ownership.
Also false. Unsurprisingly, you do not know what you are talking about. Indeed, there are many decisions, including Supreme Court decisions, that regard certain land use restrictions as takings. Nollan v. California Coastal Commission (1987), Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council (1992), and so on.
That level of nuance isn't understood by property fundamentalists like yourself.
Yawn. Tell me again how you aren't committing a textboook appeal to authority logical fallacy.
When you don't have a reasonable reply
Ummmmmmm. You want a "reasonable reply" to an ad hominem/red herring fallacy? That is what "That level of nuance isn't understood by property fundamentalists like yourself" is. It is a fallacious claim. There is NO SUCH THING as a reasonable response to such a claim, except to call it a fallacy. And instead of doing that, I just brought up the fallacy you've been working on since the beginning, since that is more entertaining.
you repeat this even though I've addressed it over and over
Oh, I know you have addressed it. And you are absolutely and unequivocally incorrect: your claim that you are qualified to discuss the issue because of your "expertise," and that I am not because I have no similar "expertise," is, in fact, a textbook example of an appeal to authority logical fallacy. It has no logical merit whatsoever. And so when you make ad hominem attacks against me, it is, and will remain, my reply of choice.
I can discuss what you own without appealing to metaphysics.
No, you really can't, because the rights being discussed ARE METAPHYSICAL RIGHTS. That you do not understand this fact is unsurprising, and yet telling.
Nice, you just lost the argument. False.
Now you have to support metaphysics, which all logicians have failed to do.
Ummmmmm. No. You don't understand what you are talking about. Metaphysics is not something that needs to be supported. Metaphysics is just the study of things that transcend physics. If we HAVE rights, they are not physical, obviously; therefore, they must be met
I said they weren't different to you, then you disagreed and brought up only certain contexts and brought up a higher power yourself. Yes, and then you mischaracterized what I said further.
But since you still insist that ability and right are synonymous False.
I'll give you definitions Also false. You apparently are unaware of the undisputed fact that dictionaries do not define words, they describe common definitions, and often do so incorrectly. A dictionary is absoultely the wrong tool to use to try to prove philosophical terms.
you have a right to have what you have a right to have, since the definition of property is merely, what you have a right to have. A redundant and _circular_ statement Yes, this I proved this reasoning of yours is false, since I proved that it is deduced from the self-evident fact that I am alive.
Unfortunately most property-rights activists don't realize that the debate around property right is really a debate over what people own, not over whether or not to protect what people own. So, you think the leftists who try to take away such rights are liars. For example, the King County executive who said that their critical areas ordinance that prohibited you from developing a majority of your own land was not taking your land, or saying you didn't own it. He said it is yours, and you can still pick blackberries on it, you just can't build on it.
In fact, it is the property-rights activists who DO realize that this is a debate over what people own. They are the ones who consistently and properly refer to restrictions of their property rights as a rejection of the premise that they own the land in the first place.
That level of nuance isn't understood by property fundamentalists like yourself. Yawn. Tell me again how you aren't committing a textboook appeal to authority logical fallacy.
I don't believe in "higher metaphysical powers" Exactly. So you have no justification for saying that I do not have rights.
You're kinda slow, aren't you? I can discuss what you own without appealing to metaphysics. No, you really can't, because the rights being discussed ARE METAPHYSICAL RIGHTS. That you do not understand this fact is unsurprising, and yet telling.
In addition to that book on logic Yawn. Tell me again how you weren't committing a textbook appeal to authority logical fallacy. I'm an expert. The only thing you've shown yourself to be an expert on is actually COMMITTING logical fallacies, and then sticking to them. On everything else, I've been proven superior to you.
You keep handing the ball back to me despite your not scoring, but I'm trying to give you points. Why not try? Because I have no reason to. You have yet to win a single argument. I have won every one of the dozens of arguments we've discussed.
That would apply to things that don't exist, but your weight problem still stands. Shrug. Nope, I have no weight problem whatsoever. You are welcome to try to prove otherwise, to compound your many and continuing logical fallacies in two ways: by asserting a red herring/ad hominem, and by stating something as fact that has absolutely no evidence supporting it.
It loses because it ruins healthcare for those of us who have it already, destroys liberty, and costs more money. Pudge, on the off-chance that you're still following this thread: According to Novick, around 20% of the GDP go towards Medicare/Medicaid alone. In my (Western European) country, overall healthcare expenditure (public and private spending, including mandatory and supplementary private insurance) is about 10% of the GDP. In light of this and other successful examples around the world, how can you claim that universal healthcare would be more expensive? Thanks. First, I do not believe any claims that it will not cost more than what it costs now. Comparisons to other countries are not what matter: comparisons to the U.S. government itself is what matter. And when it takes on functions from the private sector, things ALWAYS end up costing more. Either it will cost more, or the quality will go down, or both.
Second, it is an undisputed fact that I, and many other people, would have to pay a LOT more.
In response to your opinion that universal healthcare would increase waiting times and limit your choice of doctors and hospitals: this is simply not what I've experienced here. I've never waited more than a few days for anything. Then you are one of the lucky ones. It is also undisputed that -- in many countries, at least, including England and Canada -- depending on the procedure, wait times can be months or years. And here's the rub: the government, not you or your doctor, in such cases, decide what types of procedures have wait times of days, and which have wait times of months or years. This is one of many I reasons call it "liberty-destroying."
You said they're different but only in relation to a "higher power" False. I said no such thing. Here's where you did False.
The only way you can say I don't have the right to murder is if you say there is some higher metaphysical power which says so. Otherwise, my existential abilities necessarily ARE existential rights. That doesn't mean all abilities are rights, but in this case, they are. Yes, I said that. No, it does not say abilities and rights are only different in relation to a higher power. I am not sure where in there you think I did.
First, I was talking about only certain rights/abilities, as I explained from the outset, and you claimed (again) that I was referring to all. Second, I said here in this context that they are NOT different, but I left room for you to try to claim that they are by superimposing some higher power, since that is the only possible way to do it. Obviously, not the same thing as how you characterized it.
I don't believe in "higher metaphysical powers" Exactly. So you have no justification for saying that I do not have rights.
You're kinda slow, aren't you?
In addition to that book on logic Yawn. Tell me again how you weren't committing a textbook appeal to authority logical fallacy.
Your use of "existential" is meaningless False.
If you mean it in terms of, say, an existential school of thought No.
Aren't you going to say why government should support your property abilities now? Nope. Foundational principles first You don't think you supported them well enough? Of course I did. Yet, you still don't get it. When you do, then we can continue.
Ball's been in your court for some time now. False. All along you have been trying to grasp the simple concepts involved. This is all about you, not me.
little one. Your weight problem has no bearing on the quality of your argument. Of course it doesn't. Something that does not exist cannot have a bearing on anything.
You said they're different but only in relation to a "higher power" False. I said no such thing.
Aren't you going to say why government should support your property abilities now? Nope. Foundational principles first, little one.
I'm fine using the term "ability" when you say right, since that' the meaning you're giving. False.
You still haven't said how rights are any different from abilities. False.
Why should we use government to enforce your property Pudge-right? No such thing.
... and that your "proof" of existence of an ability doesn't have any bearing on how we should run government! False.
Since you're using the words "ability" and "right" synonymously Only in certain contexts, such as existentially, where they necessarily ARE synonymous. There is no rational distinction. If I have the ability to think and act, I therefore have the right to do so. That is a given. How else could it possibly be? Can you give a single counterexample? You mentioned murder, but I absolutely do have the right to murder. And everyone else has both the individual and collective right to prevent me from doing so, or punish me for the attempt.
The only way you can say I don't have the right to murder is if you say there is some higher metaphysical power which says so. Otherwise, my existential abilities necessarily ARE existential rights. That doesn't mean all abilities are rights, but in this case, they are.
But I do find it odd that you don't prove that abilities should be protected by the government. I never would. I am talking about rights, not abilities.
Maybe you want to take one more stab at explaining how rights are different than abilities There's no need.
and how to derive a _right_ that should be supported without falling into the is-ought trap. No, this discussion is about whether rights exist. That is the discussion YOU started, with your attack on the existence of rights, and whether they can be self-evident, which is not a discussion of rights in government. A discussion about whether those rights "should be supported" is a separate discussion that cannot continue without this foundation being laid first.
Nothing I said, or would say, about rights falls into your "is-ought" trap.
It's not a fallacy to appeal to authority I never said it was.
I didn't say you assumed that only life exists in all parts of the world Yes, you did.
I already explained that you need more assumptions and deductions You were incorrect.
You meant to say it would be irrational to come to the opposite conclusion. No, I do not recognize any "opposite" conclusion. I meant, a conflicting conclusion, which is what I actually did say, using a very common and longstanding English idiom that has precisely that meaning, for most people.
But then, you just fell to the false dichotomy False. I did not compare my view to any other particular view (some mythical "opposite conclusion"). That is why I said ANY OTHER. Although it is very funny (read: stupid) for you to say I meant something I didn't say, and then claim that what I didn't say is fallacious.
But of course, you're just a troll, disinterested in a reasonable discussion. You just want to "win points", even if the arguments aren't sound. Yawn. Tell me again how you didn't commit a textbook example of an appeal to authority fallacy.
The more accurate term is proof by contradiction False. That is a different thing. Process of elimination would be bring up all the logical possibilities and eliminating them, and the only one not eliminated is the answer. Proof by contradiction is very different: it tries to prove the opposite is not true, and therefore it must be true. For example, I am told four men are in the room, one is black, three are white. I can show that the three white men are white, therefore showing the black man is black. Or, I could show directly that the black man is not white, and is therefore black. Two different things.
I don't think you actually control your own thoughts as completely as you think you do Irrelevant to my argument. That you control them in any significant way is sufficient.
... if somebody buys your argument, then you've only shown that you have liberty to think and act as you choose Um. Yes. Exactly.
You've not explained why we should go from your having some ability to the idea that your having the ability *should* be *enforced by government*. Um. Where the hell did you come up with that? The topic in this specific branch of the discussion is that I have rights. I was never discussing the intersection of rights and government. You denied that these rights can be deduced from self-evident principles. I showed that you are wrong. Government recognition of those rights is beside that point.
You are -- as usual -- extremely confused.
Since you're into fallacies, what you're doing is called the is-ought problem If I were saying that because we have rights, therefore the government should recognize them, yes, I would be doing that. But as I am not, nope.
Either way, the system does not appreciably change. Nonsense. I will end up paying MUCH more in taxes. That is an appeciable change in the system, from any rational perspective. What I meant was the Health Care system. That doesn't change because of taxes. Yes it does. The Health Care system is significantly different because it costs me -- and many others -- a lot more. That is in itself a significant difference of the Health Care system, but further, it is also a fundamental difference that WILL necessarily have significant and lasting effects on other parts of that system.
I do agree that higher taxes are probably going to be required, because for the forseeable future our defense costs are unlikely to go down much. John Edwards -- oddly, since he is generally quite dishonest -- was the only one really honest about the costs of his plan, and it was going to cost more than the war does on an annual basis.
I appealed to my information through my expertise. Please, do not continue to lie. What you did is say you were qualified to discuss the topic because of your "expertise" and I was not because I lacked it.
You're not qualified to discuss either issue. Yes, like that. That you do not recognize the unassailable fact that this is a logical fallacy shows YOU are not qualified to discuss logic.
It shows here. False.
If you had information that helped your cause I do.
you refuse to discuss the actual particulars of health care False.
so you're using a philosophical argument for ignoring the real issues to ignore real issues. False.
Then I questioned your philosophical arguments Illogically.
and you came back with absurd unsound reasoning. False.
You assume only life exists. False. I neither stated or implied any such thing. You are lying again.
That's your only assumption: you say so yourself. False. I said it was the only assumption in a given statement, not that it is my only assumption. And even if it was my only assumption -- and it certainly is not, as I also assume that math exists, for example, that 2+2 must always equal 4 -- it would not stand to reason that nothing other than life exists, which is what you said I assume.
How do you get to liberty Obvious deduction. How do you NOT? Indeed, it is entirely irrational to come to any OTHER conclusion. If nothing else, liberty must be deduced by process of elimination. That is not necessary, but it would stand just the same. If I exist, and I know I exist, and am capable of controlling my own thoughts and acts -- all necessarily true, both by deduction and observation -- that necessarily means I have the liberty to think and act as I choose.
You can outline a two-column proof here right now and end the debate with your powerful mastery of logic. Shrug. I can do lots of things. I do not, however, do things just because someone is taunting me to do them. I do not recognize your illogical assertions that there is any need for me to do so. You have not presented ANY case for this. What has happened is that you have lost every single one of your arguments against me, and so you resort to trying to get down to a technical proof you are incapable of even understanding, that has nothing to do with any of what has been discussed.
I already showed how your proof is flawed. False. On the contrary, I already showed how your attempt to do so was flawed.
I'll let up and wait until you've read a book on the subject. Yawn. Tell me again you how you were not committing a textbook example of the appeal to authority fallacy.
you clearly have no grasp of how to do a logical proof Yawn. Tell me again you how you were not committing a textbook example of the appeal to authority fallacy.
If you were drunk or high when you were replying -- or temporarily incapacitated in some other way, say that too, and we can start fresh and hopefully use logic. Yawn. Tell me again you how you were not committing a textbook example of the appeal to authority fallacy.
I'm trying to give you an out here. Just say the word. Yawn. Tell me again you how you were not committing a textbook example of the appeal to authority fallacy.
Slashdot Mirror
... is not an argument for your philosophy. Straw man fallacy.Not a single thing you've ever said or thought in your entire life is over my head. That you don't realize how truly ignorant you are is kinda sad. Well, it would be, if you weren't such an asshole.
You appear to -- quite incorrectly -- think that Descartes was saying that thinking somehow creates existence. No, it is merely evidence of it. It's no more meaningful than "I defecate, therefore I exist." Except that you cannot prove that you defecate. It could be an illusion. You CAN prove that you think.
And further, just because SOME people don't pay the health-care-tax-on-being-alive does not mean it is not such a tax on those who DO have to pay it, so your point is moot anyway. see, I can use caps too! Shrug. There's nothing wrong with using caps.
Here is, however, one of my favorite pssages: "Now, legal plunder can be committed in an infinite number of ways. Thus we have an infinite number of plans for organizing it: tariffs, protection, benefits, subsidies, encouragements, progressive taxation, public schools, guaranteed jobs, guaranteed profits, minimum wages, a right to relief, a right to the tools of labor, free credit, and so on, and so on. All these plans as a whole -- with their common aim of legal plunder -- constitute socialism.
"Now, since under this definition socialism is a body of doctrine, what attack can be made against it other than a war of doctrine? If you find this socialistic doctrine to be false, absurd, and evil, then refute it. And the more false, the more absurd, and the more evil it is, the easier it will be to refute. Above all, if you wish to be strong, begin by rooting out every particle of socialism that may have crept into your legislation. This will be no light task."
Cheers.
If I want to not own a home, not have income ... I am allowed to. And I won't pay any taxes.
Okay, clarification: pretty much like that everywhere. _If_ you are employed (or self-employed), however, you pay for health insurance (if you're on unemployment you don't pay anything and still have health insurance, much like the US I think). So see it as a tax if that helps.
If you are FORCED to have such insurance, then it is a tax on BEING ALIVE. It has nothing to do with being employed.
It's not illegal not to be insured
Under Hillary's plan, yes, it absolutely is.
I would have to pay for that anyway
Irrelevant. I own a car, and am a Christian, but if you say it is illegal to NOT own a car or be a Christian, I am gonna be pretty pissed off about it. The fact that it is forced is the point.
That's like saying someone's zealotry in attacking the government for wiretapping or torture doesn't help us catch terrorists.
Sorry, I don't follow. Let's not get absurd here.
In fact, it is not absurd at all. The analogy is perfectly apt. I am not sure why you think it isn't.
JFTR, I don't believe in the currently fashionable terrorism boogeyman.
I don't care what you believe specifically; I doubt you disagree that terrorism IS a threat, and that we should use at least SOME resources to prevent attacks. We've plenty of evidence to this. Whether you think it is as great a threat as some others, is beside the point, which is simply that just because we can agree on the goal (preventing terrorism, making health care available) doesn't mean that I cannot attack the methods (violating the Fourth and Fifth Amendments, or the Ninth and Tenth Amendments) without directly addressing a solution to the problem.
I am concerned, however, that some of your earlier statements (no choice of doctors, can't choose private healthcare, more expensive overall) stem from a lack of information about the rest of the world
No. I have plenty of information about the rest of the world. That is irrelevant, as just because it "works" in one place doesn't mean it will work the same way here. It won't. And further, as expressed above, just because it "works" doesn't make it right. I think it is very, very wrong: it violates my rights, and doing so undermines democracy itself.
The whole point of a republican democracy is that a. the people get to make the decisions (directly or through representation) and b. there are overriding principles at play to protect individuals FROM the majority. Taking away my rights at BEST violates the latter, but it also undermines the former, as it is the people who first put those protections in place.
Our society is built on these things. We are on a slippery slope where we will soon enough have no rights at all, if things continue in this direction. Lines must be drawn. This is a far more important issue than whether people have health care. Those who would give up essential liberty for temporary security deserve neither.
When I showed you that this doesn't have to happen if done right, your only reply was "no, it won't work here, because we're the US, period."
Yes. Which means two things: many of us have rights we are not willing to give up, and we do not and will not operate as other countries do. People of many other countries have this notion that they will just accept some inconveniences for the "common good." We do not believe that here, not when it involves the government stealing our rights and forcing us to comply. And I am very thankful for that fact.
I just think you should research the supposed facts you justify them with a little bit more.
You should try to understand America a bit more.
BTW, I've just seen your videos on YouTube. Very funny. That being said, I just can't get int
Re-read it.
There is none.
I didn't assert them
False.
They tax your land and/or the improvements (depending on the exact scheme), not the area above.
I never talked about "the area above."
So you don't own the airspace above the land and the ability to build on it.
It is not possible to build on airspace.
The debate is, as you agree, about what you actually own, not over takings itself.
False. The court decisions are quite clear. I agreed that when the Democrats take what I own, they pretend they are not taking what I own. That is where the debate lies: whether they actually ARE taking what I own, or merely restricting its use.
There is a reasonable reply to it
Not possible. It was a logical fallacy. The only reasonable reply is to point out that fact, which I did, in my own way. Whether you had a hidden point within the red herring is unimportant, since the entire claim is invalidated by the fallacy.
Actually, expertise is the qualification and is an affirmative defense against the fallacy
Utterly false. You demonstrate again that you completely misunderstand the fallacy. The fallacy rests on the fact that logical argumentation is built on ARGUMENTS and not PEOPLE MAKING THEM. So no, EVERY TIME you say "this argument has validity because of who is making it" -- which is what you did -- you are committing a fallacy.
The only exception is sometimes when the argument is about the person making the claim. For example, your saying "I like cheese, this is fact because I said so" is not a fallacy. But that is obviously not the case here.
I'm merely stating that you aren't qualified to merely assert things without evidence
Ummm. NO ONE is. You're committing the fallacy again, by implying YOU CAN do that.
And you are lying anyway, because your point had nothing to do with evidence, it had to do with my presumed lack of exerience. Please don't lie.
which is what you were doing
False.
If you gave evidence, then my whole point would be mooted, as I've never said you couldn't bring evidence to the table, just that you aren't qualified to discuss it until you bring evidence or expertise to the table.
You're lying. You talked only about experience, not evidence. And besides, those are two different things, and one is not a substitute for the other. You said you were qualified because of experience, and I was not because of lack of it. Do not lie and say you talked about evidence, and do not be an idiot and pretend that your experience exempts you from needing to provide evidence.
You have no clue what metaphysics is, apparently.
No, sorry, that is MY line to YOU.
Hume would be disappointed!
Hume was a moron.
You need to invoke metaphysics in order to make your point
Shrug. You brought up metaphysics when you decided to set out to show self-evident rights do not exist.
If you can't say why here on earth things would be better because of your idea (which would bring it back down to the physical), then you're just talking bullshit
Sorry, that is a textbook example of the begging-the-question fallacy, and therefore it cannot be logically responded to. Try again.
Hah, unclean hands, again. You're admitting that you did make an ad hominem remark
There is nothing fallacious about an ad hominem remark, as long as it is not trying to win a logical point. When met with a hostile foe (as you first turned hostile to me, clearly, with your personal attacks), I will insult them in return. That may not say much for me in some ways, but in comparison to you it means nothing, and it has no impact on my arguments.
You do realize the main reason I'm still here is because for everybody else in thi
And that is just one of the more obvious examples. Hillary's record is pretty clear too: she has never disavowed her firmly held beliefs about UHC from 15 years ago. Mandatory health insurance OF ANY KIND is evil. And I do not use that word lightly. It is literally a tax on BEING ALIVE. We have nothing like that in our society now, and I will fight against it with all I've got. Okay, you call it a tax. Fair enough. Time to privatize the fire brigade then? Some things, like healthcare, prisons and law enforcement just don't work that well if they're privatized. No, you are missing my point.
If I want to not own a home, not have income
This, to me, is a form of framing the issue that I find to be fallacious. When you propose something, EVERYTHING that proposal is about is fair game, and I have no obligation to do anything in addition to criticizing it. I should work toward a common solution, but that is not necessarily a part of the same process.
Cheers.
I can't reply to a syntax error
There is none.
because you accuse me of misinterpreting you whenever you do it and I attempt to figure out what you actually meant.
False. I accuse you of misinterpreting me when you ASSERT that I said something I did not.
Each time, it turns out that you didn't actually mean what you said.
False.
but if they've prohibited building permanent structures on it, then that's something you simply don't own
Exactly. The Democrats pretend you DO own it, but you do not. They make you pay taxes on it, your name is on the deed as the owner, but they prevent you from doing anything with it.
What's so difficult about the logic?
Nothing. Why do you ask? It's the Democrats who don't understand it, not property-rights advocates, who understand it completely. This is what I said in the last reply.
Again, you think you own something ancillary to the land itself
False.
which was what I was complaining that property-rights activists don't understand
Yes, and you were wrong.
Thanks for demonstrating my point.
I didn't.
In fact, it is the property-rights activists who DO realize that this is a debate over what people own. They are the ones who consistently and properly refer to restrictions of their property rights as a rejection of the premise that they own the land in the first place.
That's a false conclusion
False.
... which is why you've consistently lost the argument in court. No court recognizes that an ability to use X with your land is an extension of your land ownership.
Also false. Unsurprisingly, you do not know what you are talking about. Indeed, there are many decisions, including Supreme Court decisions, that regard certain land use restrictions as takings. Nollan v. California Coastal Commission (1987), Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council (1992), and so on.
That level of nuance isn't understood by property fundamentalists like yourself.
Yawn. Tell me again how you aren't committing a textboook appeal to authority logical fallacy.
When you don't have a reasonable reply
Ummmmmmm. You want a "reasonable reply" to an ad hominem/red herring fallacy? That is what "That level of nuance isn't understood by property fundamentalists like yourself" is. It is a fallacious claim. There is NO SUCH THING as a reasonable response to such a claim, except to call it a fallacy. And instead of doing that, I just brought up the fallacy you've been working on since the beginning, since that is more entertaining.
you repeat this even though I've addressed it over and over
Oh, I know you have addressed it. And you are absolutely and unequivocally incorrect: your claim that you are qualified to discuss the issue because of your "expertise," and that I am not because I have no similar "expertise," is, in fact, a textbook example of an appeal to authority logical fallacy. It has no logical merit whatsoever. And so when you make ad hominem attacks against me, it is, and will remain, my reply of choice.
I can discuss what you own without appealing to metaphysics.
No, you really can't, because the rights being discussed ARE METAPHYSICAL RIGHTS. That you do not understand this fact is unsurprising, and yet telling.
Nice, you just lost the argument. False.
Now you have to support metaphysics, which all logicians have failed to do.
Ummmmmm. No. You don't understand what you are talking about. Metaphysics is not something that needs to be supported. Metaphysics is just the study of things that transcend physics. If we HAVE rights, they are not physical, obviously; therefore, they must be met
In fact, it is the property-rights activists who DO realize that this is a debate over what people own. They are the ones who consistently and properly refer to restrictions of their property rights as a rejection of the premise that they own the land in the first place. That level of nuance isn't understood by property fundamentalists like yourself. Yawn. Tell me again how you aren't committing a textboook appeal to authority logical fallacy. I don't believe in "higher metaphysical powers" Exactly. So you have no justification for saying that I do not have rights.
You're kinda slow, aren't you? I can discuss what you own without appealing to metaphysics. No, you really can't, because the rights being discussed ARE METAPHYSICAL RIGHTS. That you do not understand this fact is unsurprising, and yet telling. In addition to that book on logic Yawn. Tell me again how you weren't committing a textbook appeal to authority logical fallacy. I'm an expert. The only thing you've shown yourself to be an expert on is actually COMMITTING logical fallacies, and then sticking to them. On everything else, I've been proven superior to you. You keep handing the ball back to me despite your not scoring, but I'm trying to give you points. Why not try? Because I have no reason to. You have yet to win a single argument. I have won every one of the dozens of arguments we've discussed. That would apply to things that don't exist, but your weight problem still stands. Shrug. Nope, I have no weight problem whatsoever. You are welcome to try to prove otherwise, to compound your many and continuing logical fallacies in two ways: by asserting a red herring/ad hominem, and by stating something as fact that has absolutely no evidence supporting it.
Second, it is an undisputed fact that I, and many other people, would have to pay a LOT more. In response to your opinion that universal healthcare would increase waiting times and limit your choice of doctors and hospitals: this is simply not what I've experienced here. I've never waited more than a few days for anything. Then you are one of the lucky ones. It is also undisputed that -- in many countries, at least, including England and Canada -- depending on the procedure, wait times can be months or years. And here's the rub: the government, not you or your doctor, in such cases, decide what types of procedures have wait times of days, and which have wait times of months or years. This is one of many I reasons call it "liberty-destroying."
First, I was talking about only certain rights/abilities, as I explained from the outset, and you claimed (again) that I was referring to all. Second, I said here in this context that they are NOT different, but I left room for you to try to claim that they are by superimposing some higher power, since that is the only possible way to do it. Obviously, not the same thing as how you characterized it. I don't believe in "higher metaphysical powers" Exactly. So you have no justification for saying that I do not have rights.
You're kinda slow, aren't you? In addition to that book on logic Yawn. Tell me again how you weren't committing a textbook appeal to authority logical fallacy. Your use of "existential" is meaningless False. If you mean it in terms of, say, an existential school of thought No. Aren't you going to say why government should support your property abilities now? Nope. Foundational principles first You don't think you supported them well enough? Of course I did. Yet, you still don't get it. When you do, then we can continue. Ball's been in your court for some time now. False. All along you have been trying to grasp the simple concepts involved. This is all about you, not me. little one. Your weight problem has no bearing on the quality of your argument. Of course it doesn't. Something that does not exist cannot have a bearing on anything.
... and that your "proof" of existence of an ability doesn't have any bearing on how we should run government! False. Since you're using the words "ability" and "right" synonymously Only in certain contexts, such as existentially, where they necessarily ARE synonymous. There is no rational distinction. If I have the ability to think and act, I therefore have the right to do so. That is a given. How else could it possibly be? Can you give a single counterexample? You mentioned murder, but I absolutely do have the right to murder. And everyone else has both the individual and collective right to prevent me from doing so, or punish me for the attempt.The only way you can say I don't have the right to murder is if you say there is some higher metaphysical power which says so. Otherwise, my existential abilities necessarily ARE existential rights. That doesn't mean all abilities are rights, but in this case, they are. But I do find it odd that you don't prove that abilities should be protected by the government. I never would. I am talking about rights, not abilities. Maybe you want to take one more stab at explaining how rights are different than abilities There's no need. and how to derive a _right_ that should be supported without falling into the is-ought trap. No, this discussion is about whether rights exist. That is the discussion YOU started, with your attack on the existence of rights, and whether they can be self-evident, which is not a discussion of rights in government. A discussion about whether those rights "should be supported" is a separate discussion that cannot continue without this foundation being laid first.
Nothing I said, or would say, about rights falls into your "is-ought" trap.
... if somebody buys your argument, then you've only shown that you have liberty to think and act as you choose Um. Yes. Exactly. You've not explained why we should go from your having some ability to the idea that your having the ability *should* be *enforced by government*. Um. Where the hell did you come up with that? The topic in this specific branch of the discussion is that I have rights. I was never discussing the intersection of rights and government. You denied that these rights can be deduced from self-evident principles. I showed that you are wrong. Government recognition of those rights is beside that point.You are -- as usual -- extremely confused. Since you're into fallacies, what you're doing is called the is-ought problem If I were saying that because we have rights, therefore the government should recognize them, yes, I would be doing that. But as I am not, nope.
It is impossible for it to be otherwise.
Sad that you don't realize it. But predictable.