as soon as the judgement requires any expert knowledge whatsoever, you have strong selection at work
Sure. Like, for example, I saw on one of these betting sites the probability that Palin would be the GOP nominee for President in 2012. I'll tell you right now, the answer is barely above ZERO. There's extremely little chance. But many people on these sites apparently think there's a decent chance of it. They will lose their money.:-)
It's much worse when you ask for bets on scientific predictions.
But I was thinking more along the lines of predicting winners and losers in imminent competitions, and not intending to mention all sorts of predictions.
my congressman recently (snail) mailed out a survey to his constitutents, in theory to solicit their opinions.
I get these from political organizations sometimes: they send out a survey, pretending they care about what you think, but at the end they ask you for money. It's nothing more than a way to get you to read the fundraising pitch.
With a few well-placed Supreme Court decisions recently, America has been turned from a democracy to a plutocracy.
If you mean the Citizens United decision, you don't know what you're talking about. FWIW. A decision that says you can't restrict the free speech of citizens just because they are banding together as a group to exercise that speech -- which is, you know, what the First Amendment says -- does not harm democracy in any way.
I can't imagine what other decisions you could be referring to.
Come on. "America Speaking Out" is not about getting wisdom from people, any more than the White House's solicitation of ideas for the oil spill was. It's about allowing people to feel like they have a voice. Don't spoil the illusion!
As to the "wisdom of crowds" in general, it depends entirely on the context. We know for a fact that when crowds have significant enough motivation (like money), they do an excellent job of predicting things, for example. But if your motivation is to have people point at your comment and emote somehow (laugh, get angry, friend you, whatever), then obviously, truth and wisdom are not your goals, so you don't often find truth and wisdom there.
Yep. They would still have to prove he intended to use those items as weapons, but anything at all can become a weapon when it comes to charging someone.
I AM going camping tomorrow. Going almost all the way to Canada to do it. Thankfully, not exiting the U.S., else I'd be in trouble with all my "weapons.":-)
I don't hurt others. If I did, we could use force against me preventatively in some cases, or punish me after the fact.
We figure we'll just skim a little of your ill gotten gains.
I have no ill-gotten gains. If I did, we'd be welcome to take them from me.
That way nobody has any moral high ground, and everybody gets paid.. capiche?...
Yes, I understand your Marxist philosophy very well. From each according to his ability, to each according to his need. You think that when I earn what is mine, it should be "paid" to other people.
I asked for damage, not ideology. Who is suffering harm, and how.
When you take away my rights, my liberty, my freedom, that IS de facto damage. I don't need to say more than that, unless you are denying the inherent value of freedom, and denying the inherent harm caused by forced removal of such value. Are you?
I mean, I could get to obvious specifics: I have to put my resources into a system I don't like, leaving me fewer resources to put into health care I actually want, which leaves me fewer resources to put into my business and so on. But I shouldn't even need to get into specifics when I point out the fact that my liberty is being taken from me: that should be enough for anyone who respects liberty in the slightest bit.
I noticed you left out firefighters and utilities.
I was focusing on the most obvious ones, to make the point most clearly, yes. As I explicitly said I was doing. How clever of you to "notice" what I explicitly stated!
Public health care protects no one's rights. At all. In any way.
Sorry, but by the same argument of the police protecting your right [to live safely], so does public healthcare (by minimising things like contagious diseases and potentially fatal medical conditions).
No, you're incorrect. You didn't understand what I wrote. I have no right to live safely: the right I identified that the police and justice system secure on my behalf is my right to self-defense. Perhaps the word "self-defense" confused you, even though I explained what I meant: but it is not self-defense in the sense that they will be there to defend me, but in the sense that if someone attacks me, they will do what it takes to prevent them from harming me again, by apprehending them and punishing them.
Obviously, the police have no obligation to prevent bad things from happening to me: they CANNOT protect my right to live safely, if such a right existed. Mostly, all they can do is arrest people who have already caused harm to me. And on the rare occasions where they prevent harm, it's usually by accident, or by arresting someone who has already caused harm in another crime.
And -- again -- the reason why this exists is not because I have a right to them doing it, it's because the individual exercise of this right by everyone in society would result in chaos. Obviously, the individual exercise of the right to procure health care does not result in chaos: it's what we did, quite well, before HMOs and so on. That a small minority of people cannot exercise their right to procure health care (due to physical or financial difficulties) does not justify taking control of EVERYONE'S right to do so.
This should be a system of charity, not of control.
When you say I am not in Canada, that is precisely what ad hominem argumentum is. By definition. Ad hominem does not mean "insult" it means to argue against the man, instead of the man's argument.
The position, physical or argumentative, is not the man.
False. Where I live, or what position I hold, is irrelevant. Only the argument I am making is relevant. Arguing about a "position" I have is ad hominem. Arguing against my argument is the only valid thing for you to do.
You keep saying No, Yes, Liar-- always talking in absolutes. That too, is a position.
First, you're lying: I do not always talk in absolutes. Second, you saying you're not lying is just as much of an "absolute," so you're being hypocritical now. Third, whether I use absolutes is irrelevant to my argument: it is ad hominem.
That you do not understand ad hominem is a problem you should resolve.
What would a Free Market Canada do for Canada?
Increase freedom, prosperity, liberty, and happiness.
Nobody breaks into your home to take your money. It can be paid through your taxes.
It MUST be paid through my taxes. That is taking it from me by force. Literally.
So you're receiving a free service from the community, but you're not willing to provide something back.
You're lying. I am more than willing to provide back. I do provide back. I am not willing to be FORCED to provide something back.
That's the first time I hear that...
OK.
So why not use the taxes for healthcare?
Why provide healthcare?
I was just trying to understand why is your society taking such self-distructive decisions.
You have not identified a single "self-destruction decision."
I'm sorry, (kidding, I'm not) but your are the brainwashed one. You cannot find the words "force" and "government" in my post.
Yes, I can. Absolutely. Taxes == force by government. I'm sorry you don't realize that indisputable fact. We're talking about this entirely in the CONTEXT OF government force: universal healthcare. That is government force.
How do you not get this?
You're plain stupid. The wolves (and it applies to any animal living in a community) that do not help the others, do not get any help from the others. Soon, they die.
So? You're -- again -- lying by saying that I am in favor of people not helping others. I am saying I should not be FORCED to help others.
Also, I am not lying, you said yourself that people have to pay for healthcare and they must not receive free healthcare.
You're lying. I said no such thing. I defy you to quote me saying that, anywhere.
And there is no argument for force, just for taxes.
*headdesk* *headdesk* *headdesk*
Are you being forced to pay taxes?
OF COURSE. Everyone is.
Why don't you make a case against taxes altogether?
Taxes are fine, if they go to pay for legitimate expenses that expand, rather than harm, liberty.
you are using propaganda techniques to make the readers think I am advocating the use of force
Yeah, no, I'm really not. Taxes are force. Everyone knows this, apparently except for you.
you are lying to make me look like I'm lying
You identified not a single lie I told.
you are misrepresenting the human rights
You did not explain how I did such a thing. I pointed out that rights are not obligations on other people. I cannot have a right to a nice car, any more than I can have a right to health care. I can only have a right to ACT, not a right to GET.
and the role the community plays in humans' life
You're lying. I never said one thing against community, only FORCE.
you are pretending to fight for a liberty
You're lying. I pretended nothing.
all this in order to let the poor people die without medical treatment.
You're a damned liar.
Being raised under the worst dictature in Eastern Europe, I am - unlike you're usual audience - fully aware of the logical convolutions and disinformation techniques used to manipulate the masses and to justify the injustifiable.
Being myself half Slovakian, I know many people from Eastern Europe, and I know about -- for example -- the free market reforms that have taken place in countries like Estonia and the Czech Republic. Don't be stupid (if that's possible).
you're selfrighteous and immune to logic and common sense
This, from the person who says taxes aren't government force, from someone who -- despite me repeatedly saying I am not against helping people, but only against government force -- says I want people to die.
You keep insisting that the bill is preventing providers from providing locked phones and forcing them to provide only unlocked phones
I do not. I assert the fact that they must provide phones that CAN BE unlocked.
the bill is actually forcing providers to provide options. As in, they can still offer a locked phone, but must also... provide an option to unlock the phone under certain conditions.
Yes, those conditions are essentially "I no longer want your service, I want someone else's service, so you have to unlock it." That is no option, no choice: I cannot choose to pay less for a phone that cannot be unlocked in the future.
What part of this don't you understand?
No part of it at all. But I hope I've helped you understand some things you clearly don't.
So what, exactly, is the damage being caused here ?
Forcing people and companies into that system.
Healthcare is an "entitlement" in the same way the police, firefighters, utilities and a legal system are "entitlements". Trying to present it as a non-essential luxury, renders the world "entitlement" essentially meaningless.
Incorrect.
The police and legal system are the most obvious examples of how you're incorrect. Start with the fact that every person has an unalienable right to self-defense: if you physically attack me, try to harm me, I have a right to defend myself, including -- if necessary -- preventing you from being able to continue to attack me.
Obviously, however, at some point that right becomes untenable for every person in society to exercise: we end up with chaos, with everyone attacking each other, and no one's rights end up protected. So we collectively entrust that right to government to enforce on our behalf. We give up a little bit of liberty and in return, we get protection for our liberties as a whole.
So I don't have a right to police and a legal system, sure. But they exist to protect my rights.
Public health care protects no one's rights. At all. In any way.
Count how many times you told people they just didn't understand liberty or didn't understand economics.
No.
Count how many times you took a superior position and used that to degrade the insights and information of people who actually live within the country and with the phones that the article is about.
No.
Now add to that, all of the additional derogatory remarks as SilverEyes just pointed out, where you just gave single-word dismissals or outright insults.
No.
Then, take each time you've called me a liar for addressing what you've said, including just now.
No.
Call me out on assumptions, I don't mind, but liar?
Yes. You lied. You said I "clearly do not [believe in checks and balances] for business." That is a lie. Saying you didn't put those "words in my mouth" is a lie, too.
It's normal for people to be inaccurate in their assumptions, I have been plenty of times.
When you do it often and incessantly, and when there is NO BASIS for your claims, it's indistinguishable from a lie. Being directly dishonest, and saying false things without regard to whether they are true or false, are the same thing.
What I am criticizing you on, is a lack of nuance or moderation.
Yes. You've many times now lied about my lack of "moderation."
your position to me, is out-of-bounds both physically and idealistically.
I wonder why you say that as though anyone should give a damn.
There's nothing ad hominem about recognizing a position that just doesn't apply. All that's left is to address the lofty ideals and the person making them. Sorry, but it's true.
When you say I am not in Canada, that is precisely what ad hominem argumentum is. By definition. Ad hominem does not mean "insult" it means to argue against the man, instead of the man's argument.
If we were discussing U.S. cellular carriers and U.S. laws, I would probably defer more to your position.
I don't care.
You talk about micro and macro economies. I don't think you can do so when addressing people from a country with a greater land mass, 1/10th the population and corporations primarily owned by the neighbours.
You just don't understand the point I made. "Anti-competitive practices" have nothing directly to do with whether or not a product I bought can be used with another company than the one I bought it from. You stated, unequivocally, that a phone being locked was definitionally anti-competitive, and that's just not true. It is only when the EFFECT of locked phones reduces competition in the marketplace as a whole, that it can become anti-competitive, so simply describing the practice is meaningless, you have to talk about effects, which you really didn't do.
I don't care if you want to whine about me saying you don't understand. It's true. I demonstrated it. You offer no substantive rebuttal.
So yeah, I've been addressing the man who appears to enjoy telling others what systems they should live by. I believe my answers to that particular situation have been quite appropriate.
Believe what you want, but when you engage incessantly in ad homiem and then complain about someone else doing so, you just look stupid.
I'm pretty sure you believe in checks and balances for government, but you clearly do not for business.
You're lying about me. Please don't. It's unbecoming. I said absolutely nothing that you could infer that from.
I'm making an assumption. You haven't corrected it. I haven't put any words in your mouth
You said I "clearly do not [believe in checks and balances] for business." That is a lie. Saying you didn't put those "words in my mouth" is a lie, too.
The entire subject is a liberty I wish for.
No, it's not. You're inventing a liberty that definitionally cannot be a liberty. It cannot be a liberty to force someone else to give you what you want, even if you're willing to pay for it. That's nonsense.
your insistence that they should have freedoms at the expense of my own
I never insisted any such thing. I am saying, on the contrary, you have full and absolute freedom here already... except you can't force someone else to do anything they don't want to do. You can buy any phone they offer, for the price they offer it. You can do what you like with that phone, given whatever capabilities it has that it has, when you chose to purchase it.
There is no freedom you are being denied. You're making it up. You're pretending that because you WANT something, you therefore have a right to it, and therefore someone else has to provide it to you.
I don't know why I should even bother explaining something so obvious
You never did explain it. You just keep asserting that you have these rights that don't exist.
this is about a specific anti-competitive practice by Canadian cellular carriers
There isn't one, that you've identified. You've merely asserted that it is anti-competitive, but everything you've said to support that doesn't actually have anything to do with what "anti-competitive" means.
I haven't even considered your constitution on the topic, because well, it's your constitution, so how the hell does it apply?
You asked about checks and balances. I was pointing out that in a rational system of government, where government is constitutionally limited, the government is checked by enforcement of its constitution.
In Canada at least, we do have consumer laws that allow for a moderate amount of assumption on the part of the purchaser and the seller.
And I said up front that I am in favor of disclosure. I am usually in favor of disclosure to consumers, whenever there is a reasonable chance it's a relevant fact that consumers won't know.
I think it's reasonable that I'm actually purchasing a "cellular phone" and that it's also reasonable to expect that phone to work equally with compatible networks.
... unless they inform you it's a locked phone. Then, obviously, that expectation is not reasonable, because you've been informed that such an expectation is incorrect.
Allow me to explain the nuance of that insult.
Shrug.
You've spend this entire debate dictating to others your unwavering insistence of how you feel liberty should be.
How it IS, yes.
To citizens of another country!
Liberty knows no national boundaries. It's inherent.
I disagree with YOU.
Yes, but you've provided no cogent arguments, at yet you've acted as though you have. Hence: ignorant jackass.
Insult my intelligence, call me names, but can't take it in return.
You have it all wrong. I took it just fine, and took your ad hominems as a signal that it is acceptable to use them toward you. Or are you pretending that I "started it"? Heh. Perhaps in y
To me, that's the difference between a religious person and someone more moderate.
That makes no sense. I've met many non-religious people who do not believe in limitations, and many religious people who do.
Further, you are falsely implying I ever implied a lack of any limitations. "The right to swing your first ends where my nose begins"... that's a built-in limitation.
Moderate your beliefs, otherwise you cannot grow.
Seek deeper understanding, otherwise you cannot grow. You're arguing against a lack of limitations that no one is pushing, because you're either dishonest, or you just don't yet understand this simple philosophy.
It's bizarre to me that this comes forward in the middle of a discussion about locked cell phones.
Perfect case in point: you don't understand how a discussion of liberty can occur in a discussion about whether the government should forcibly prohibit companies and individuals from engaging in a transaction they want to engage in.
What about... what about... EATING A(N AMERICAN) FLAG?
Go for it.
Polygamy?
Shrug.
Incest?
Assuming you do not mean sex with minors, but adult relatives... shrug. It's gross, but so are many things.
Bestiality?
Let's not dwell on the disgusting when we can characterize this more generally as "animal rights." I am undecided on the matter. I won't argue against animal rights laws, but I do wonder whether they are valid. If animals have rights, anti-bestiality laws are valid. If they do not, they are not, as offensive as some animal practices are.
Sub-millimetre scanning in the airport
I don't really care much about that, in the legal sense. I don't HAVE to fly commercially. But I should not have to subject myself to this, with govt oversight, to fly in a private (non-commercial) airplane.
carrying a kirpan
Go ahead.
open carrying a gun
Absolutely.
creating homemade explosives or chemical weapons
It depends on the power. Some chemical weapons, by their uncontrolled existence, are potentially a de facto threat to everyone within a certain radius (biological weapons even moreso). That's really the line to look at: at what point is there a de facto threat to others, such that your exercise of liberty deprives me of liberty?
hate speech when not in the presence of targeted persons; hate speech on the Internet...?
Oh, absolutely in favor of legal hate speech, in all situations, except where they become "fighting words" that directly threaten safety of others. Again: where does your esxercise of liberty deprive others of liberty? I couldn't care less if you're offended or your feelings are hurt, I only care if your actual liberty is taken from you.
... is a funny accusation from someone who keeps classifying disagreements as inferiority.
I have never done that, let alone done it repeatedly. Please do not lie.
Some people may take offense at having their arguments (to be fair you didn't say that they were, just their arguments) repeatedly called "nonsense", "pathetic", "silly", "untrue" as one-word responses to whatever they were trying to say.
I honestly just don't care what people take offense at. If you have a rational claim to make, please do so, but I don't care about feelings.
It projects the impression that you can quickly put-down what they were saying without the need/being bothered to respond more fully.
Often that's true. In this specific thread I didn't do that, but I do that often when someone says something unsubstantiated. For example, maybe someone will say, "America's health care system is evil." I'll say, "False." Nothing more needs to be said. In this particular thread, I added more than that one word in each case.
To some people, this may give the implication that you think they are inferior
Shrug.
To be fair, he PRECISELY said you would make a good dictator. I don't think anyone was calling you a dictator.
I have been busy today, but yes, that is what he said and what I meant. I should have typed it more carefully. That hardly detracts from my point, however.:-)
How does getting something for free, that you have no right to, "hurting" you?
Do you mean humans do not have a right to health care?
Absolutely, they do not have a right to have health care provided to them. They have every right to use their resources to provide themselves health care, or pay someone else to provide health care to them, or convince people to provide it to them voluntarily. But no right to use force.
To say otherwise is to deny what rights are. There is no such thing as a "right" to force other people to give you something. That turns the whole concept of rights on its head.
That is the meaning of a community: protecting each other from bad things, predictable or not.
It is the meaning of charity, which is voluntary. There's no such thing as forced charity. I am all for taking care of each other when we're in need. But forcing us to do it is not within the legitimate powers of governent.
You have 100 people in your neighborhood. And 99 of them come up to you and say, you have more money than anyone else here, so we're going to make you pay for the food of everyone else in the neighborhood. If you don't do it, we're going to break into your home and take your money, or kidnap you.
That is precisely what you are doing here.
Are you telling us that you are paying your neighbours for "neighbourhood watch" or "community watch"?
Of course not. I implied no such thing. I am saying they do it of their free will, and are not forced.
Are you paying a bill when the street you live on is (re)paved?
Yes.
Are you paying a bill whenever the electricity poles (or whatever is used to carry electric power to your house) are being repaired?
Through my taxes, yes, I am.
Are you paying a bill whenever the water pipes or sewers are being repaired?
Yes. I pay someone to come out and deal with my septic tank.
Do you recieve a bill each time the police arrests a criminal? Or it's just a part of your taxes?
Usually it's through taxes.
Then why insist to pay for your health and deny the community the right to protect its members?
First, none of those things is like health care. We all share the telephone poles and streets. We do not share your MRI. You're not making a serious case at all.
Second, you are brainwashed. You think the only way for a community to "protect its members" is through government force. Break out of your chains and realize there's always been other ways.
Afterall, even wolves care for each other and the strong hunt and feed the weak. But, in your vision of society, the strong (or rich) should accumulate for themselves and let the weak and poor to die.
You're full of shit. In MY vision, some wolves don't force the rest of the wolves to care for other. You are flat-out LYING when you say I am in favor of people leaving others to die. I am simply arguing that it is illegitimate to use FORCE to get people to help each other.
This is incorrect. For example, private insurance will cover everything from home care to ambulances to travel insurance, all of which are provided under the public system to some degree.
I was talking about the health services themselves. But that said:
For example, here in BC ambulance fees are covered by the plan with a deductible of $80. If you buy supplemental insurance, that deductible disappears.
Right, so it's not really covered by the govt plan. You're paying for it out of pocket.
You could make that same argument for privatizing EVERY industry. It's not a good one.
Untrue. Canadians long ago decided that health-care in particular is special.
Irrelevant to what I said. You may think it is special, but the argument used did not treat it specially. I stated the argument used can apply to any industry, and that's true.
the US tops the list in percentage of GDP dedicated to health care
Sure, but with the best outcomes (among those who are paying the most money, which is the majority of us).
Slashdot Mirror
as soon as the judgement requires any expert knowledge whatsoever, you have strong selection at work
Sure. Like, for example, I saw on one of these betting sites the probability that Palin would be the GOP nominee for President in 2012. I'll tell you right now, the answer is barely above ZERO. There's extremely little chance. But many people on these sites apparently think there's a decent chance of it. They will lose their money. :-)
It's much worse when you ask for bets on scientific predictions.
But I was thinking more along the lines of predicting winners and losers in imminent competitions, and not intending to mention all sorts of predictions.
my congressman recently (snail) mailed out a survey to his constitutents, in theory to solicit their opinions.
I get these from political organizations sometimes: they send out a survey, pretending they care about what you think, but at the end they ask you for money. It's nothing more than a way to get you to read the fundraising pitch.
With a few well-placed Supreme Court decisions recently, America has been turned from a democracy to a plutocracy.
If you mean the Citizens United decision, you don't know what you're talking about. FWIW. A decision that says you can't restrict the free speech of citizens just because they are banding together as a group to exercise that speech -- which is, you know, what the First Amendment says -- does not harm democracy in any way.
I can't imagine what other decisions you could be referring to.
Come on. "America Speaking Out" is not about getting wisdom from people, any more than the White House's solicitation of ideas for the oil spill was. It's about allowing people to feel like they have a voice. Don't spoil the illusion!
As to the "wisdom of crowds" in general, it depends entirely on the context. We know for a fact that when crowds have significant enough motivation (like money), they do an excellent job of predicting things, for example. But if your motivation is to have people point at your comment and emote somehow (laugh, get angry, friend you, whatever), then obviously, truth and wisdom are not your goals, so you don't often find truth and wisdom there.
So anything that could be used as a weapon?
Yep. They would still have to prove he intended to use those items as weapons, but anything at all can become a weapon when it comes to charging someone.
I AM going camping tomorrow. Going almost all the way to Canada to do it. Thankfully, not exiting the U.S., else I'd be in trouble with all my "weapons." :-)
Wrong arrest.
Ahhh. The desciption seemed to fit. Thanks for the correction.
"building devices to collect unencrypted police broadcasts and relay them through twitter".
He's building a common police scanner? Anything of interest will be encrypted.
It will be interesting what is unencrypted!
I suspect the explosives on hand had way more to do with it. He may be smart but that was a dumbass move.
I heard the "explosives" were a handful of gas cans (dunno whether full or not). If that is an explosive, so is almost every car.
You have to prove that you're not killing people
In fact, I do not. Other way 'round. You have to prove -- or even provide a single shred of evidence -- that I am, and you've not done so.
You are, as expected, a liar.
in the more cowardly fashion
Says the Anonymous Coward.
you have others do it for you
You're a liar.
You live on stolen property
You're a liar.
"don't force me to help others."
Since we can't force you to stop hurting others..
I don't hurt others. If I did, we could use force against me preventatively in some cases, or punish me after the fact.
We figure we'll just skim a little of your ill gotten gains.
I have no ill-gotten gains. If I did, we'd be welcome to take them from me.
That way nobody has any moral high ground, and everybody gets paid.. capiche?...
Yes, I understand your Marxist philosophy very well. From each according to his ability, to each according to his need. You think that when I earn what is mine, it should be "paid" to other people.
Right, they allow private supplemental health insurance. That's what I said.
No, you didn't.
False.
You said "False. I was not referring to private supplemental insurance, but private primary insurance, which is illegal in Canada."
Yes. You just said I said what you just said I didn't say.
This is not supplemental insurance, it is primary insurance.
False.
A privately owned hospital taking a monthly fee to provide healthcare services.
So you admit you're wrong. (Hint: fee-for-service is not insurance.)
I know it might be a stretch, but it's the only way to deprogram you from the lies you have been fed.
What's apparent here is that you were programemd with the government lie that insurance and fee-for-service are the same thing.
They just have a single insurer.
Indeed.
What you are still dead wrong about it private insurance being illegal everywhere in Canada.
Except, you've provided no evidence that non-supplemental insurance is legal anywhere in Canada.
Forcing people and companies into that system.
I asked for damage, not ideology. Who is suffering harm, and how.
When you take away my rights, my liberty, my freedom, that IS de facto damage. I don't need to say more than that, unless you are denying the inherent value of freedom, and denying the inherent harm caused by forced removal of such value. Are you?
I mean, I could get to obvious specifics: I have to put my resources into a system I don't like, leaving me fewer resources to put into health care I actually want, which leaves me fewer resources to put into my business and so on. But I shouldn't even need to get into specifics when I point out the fact that my liberty is being taken from me: that should be enough for anyone who respects liberty in the slightest bit.
I noticed you left out firefighters and utilities.
I was focusing on the most obvious ones, to make the point most clearly, yes. As I explicitly said I was doing. How clever of you to "notice" what I explicitly stated!
Public health care protects no one's rights. At all. In any way.
Sorry, but by the same argument of the police protecting your right [to live safely], so does public healthcare (by minimising things like contagious diseases and potentially fatal medical conditions).
No, you're incorrect. You didn't understand what I wrote. I have no right to live safely: the right I identified that the police and justice system secure on my behalf is my right to self-defense. Perhaps the word "self-defense" confused you, even though I explained what I meant: but it is not self-defense in the sense that they will be there to defend me, but in the sense that if someone attacks me, they will do what it takes to prevent them from harming me again, by apprehending them and punishing them.
Obviously, the police have no obligation to prevent bad things from happening to me: they CANNOT protect my right to live safely, if such a right existed. Mostly, all they can do is arrest people who have already caused harm to me. And on the rare occasions where they prevent harm, it's usually by accident, or by arresting someone who has already caused harm in another crime.
And -- again -- the reason why this exists is not because I have a right to them doing it, it's because the individual exercise of this right by everyone in society would result in chaos. Obviously, the individual exercise of the right to procure health care does not result in chaos: it's what we did, quite well, before HMOs and so on. That a small minority of people cannot exercise their right to procure health care (due to physical or financial difficulties) does not justify taking control of EVERYONE'S right to do so.
This should be a system of charity, not of control.
To your credit, you seem absolutely true to your words, like Old Man Waterfall.
He engaged in things I find to be awful. I simply don't favor taking away the rights of people to do things I find to be awful. Big difference.
When you say I am not in Canada, that is precisely what ad hominem argumentum is. By definition. Ad hominem does not mean "insult" it means to argue against the man, instead of the man's argument.
The position, physical or argumentative, is not the man.
False. Where I live, or what position I hold, is irrelevant. Only the argument I am making is relevant. Arguing about a "position" I have is ad hominem. Arguing against my argument is the only valid thing for you to do.
You keep saying No, Yes, Liar-- always talking in absolutes. That too, is a position.
First, you're lying: I do not always talk in absolutes. Second, you saying you're not lying is just as much of an "absolute," so you're being hypocritical now. Third, whether I use absolutes is irrelevant to my argument: it is ad hominem.
That you do not understand ad hominem is a problem you should resolve.
What would a Free Market Canada do for Canada?
Increase freedom, prosperity, liberty, and happiness.
Nobody breaks into your home to take your money. It can be paid through your taxes.
It MUST be paid through my taxes. That is taking it from me by force. Literally.
So you're receiving a free service from the community, but you're not willing to provide something back.
You're lying. I am more than willing to provide back. I do provide back. I am not willing to be FORCED to provide something back.
That's the first time I hear that...
OK.
So why not use the taxes for healthcare?
Why provide healthcare?
I was just trying to understand why is your society taking such self-distructive decisions.
You have not identified a single "self-destruction decision."
I'm sorry, (kidding, I'm not) but your are the brainwashed one. You cannot find the words "force" and "government" in my post.
Yes, I can. Absolutely. Taxes == force by government. I'm sorry you don't realize that indisputable fact. We're talking about this entirely in the CONTEXT OF government force: universal healthcare. That is government force.
How do you not get this?
You're plain stupid. The wolves (and it applies to any animal living in a community) that do not help the others, do not get any help from the others. Soon, they die.
So? You're -- again -- lying by saying that I am in favor of people not helping others. I am saying I should not be FORCED to help others.
Also, I am not lying, you said yourself that people have to pay for healthcare and they must not receive free healthcare.
You're lying. I said no such thing. I defy you to quote me saying that, anywhere.
And there is no argument for force, just for taxes.
*headdesk*
*headdesk*
*headdesk*
Are you being forced to pay taxes?
OF COURSE. Everyone is.
Why don't you make a case against taxes altogether?
Taxes are fine, if they go to pay for legitimate expenses that expand, rather than harm, liberty.
you are using propaganda techniques to make the readers think I am advocating the use of force
Yeah, no, I'm really not. Taxes are force. Everyone knows this, apparently except for you.
you are lying to make me look like I'm lying
You identified not a single lie I told.
you are misrepresenting the human rights
You did not explain how I did such a thing. I pointed out that rights are not obligations on other people. I cannot have a right to a nice car, any more than I can have a right to health care. I can only have a right to ACT, not a right to GET.
and the role the community plays in humans' life
You're lying. I never said one thing against community, only FORCE.
you are pretending to fight for a liberty
You're lying. I pretended nothing.
all this in order to let the poor people die without medical treatment.
You're a damned liar.
Being raised under the worst dictature in Eastern Europe, I am - unlike you're usual audience - fully aware of the logical convolutions and disinformation techniques used to manipulate the masses and to justify the injustifiable.
Being myself half Slovakian, I know many people from Eastern Europe, and I know about -- for example -- the free market reforms that have taken place in countries like Estonia and the Czech Republic. Don't be stupid (if that's possible).
you're selfrighteous and immune to logic and common sense
This, from the person who says taxes aren't government force, from someone who -- despite me repeatedly saying I am not against helping people, but only against government force -- says I want people to die.
You're a tool.
You keep insisting that the bill is preventing providers from providing locked phones and forcing them to provide only unlocked phones
I do not. I assert the fact that they must provide phones that CAN BE unlocked.
the bill is actually forcing providers to provide options. As in, they can still offer a locked phone, but must also ... provide an option to unlock the phone under certain conditions.
Yes, those conditions are essentially "I no longer want your service, I want someone else's service, so you have to unlock it." That is no option, no choice: I cannot choose to pay less for a phone that cannot be unlocked in the future.
What part of this don't you understand?
No part of it at all. But I hope I've helped you understand some things you clearly don't.
So what, exactly, is the damage being caused here ?
Forcing people and companies into that system.
Healthcare is an "entitlement" in the same way the police, firefighters, utilities and a legal system are "entitlements". Trying to present it as a non-essential luxury, renders the world "entitlement" essentially meaningless.
Incorrect.
The police and legal system are the most obvious examples of how you're incorrect. Start with the fact that every person has an unalienable right to self-defense: if you physically attack me, try to harm me, I have a right to defend myself, including -- if necessary -- preventing you from being able to continue to attack me.
Obviously, however, at some point that right becomes untenable for every person in society to exercise: we end up with chaos, with everyone attacking each other, and no one's rights end up protected. So we collectively entrust that right to government to enforce on our behalf. We give up a little bit of liberty and in return, we get protection for our liberties as a whole.
So I don't have a right to police and a legal system, sure. But they exist to protect my rights.
Public health care protects no one's rights. At all. In any way.
Count how many times you told people they just didn't understand liberty or didn't understand economics.
No.
Count how many times you took a superior position and used that to degrade the insights and information of people who actually live within the country and with the phones that the article is about.
No.
Now add to that, all of the additional derogatory remarks as SilverEyes just pointed out, where you just gave single-word dismissals or outright insults.
No.
Then, take each time you've called me a liar for addressing what you've said, including just now.
No.
Call me out on assumptions, I don't mind, but liar?
Yes. You lied. You said I "clearly do not [believe in checks and balances] for business." That is a lie. Saying you didn't put those "words in my mouth" is a lie, too.
It's normal for people to be inaccurate in their assumptions, I have been plenty of times.
When you do it often and incessantly, and when there is NO BASIS for your claims, it's indistinguishable from a lie. Being directly dishonest, and saying false things without regard to whether they are true or false, are the same thing.
What I am criticizing you on, is a lack of nuance or moderation.
Yes. You've many times now lied about my lack of "moderation."
your position to me, is out-of-bounds both physically and idealistically.
I wonder why you say that as though anyone should give a damn.
There's nothing ad hominem about recognizing a position that just doesn't apply. All that's left is to address the lofty ideals and the person making them. Sorry, but it's true.
When you say I am not in Canada, that is precisely what ad hominem argumentum is. By definition. Ad hominem does not mean "insult" it means to argue against the man, instead of the man's argument.
If we were discussing U.S. cellular carriers and U.S. laws, I would probably defer more to your position.
I don't care.
You talk about micro and macro economies. I don't think you can do so when addressing people from a country with a greater land mass, 1/10th the population and corporations primarily owned by the neighbours.
You just don't understand the point I made. "Anti-competitive practices" have nothing directly to do with whether or not a product I bought can be used with another company than the one I bought it from. You stated, unequivocally, that a phone being locked was definitionally anti-competitive, and that's just not true. It is only when the EFFECT of locked phones reduces competition in the marketplace as a whole, that it can become anti-competitive, so simply describing the practice is meaningless, you have to talk about effects, which you really didn't do.
I don't care if you want to whine about me saying you don't understand. It's true. I demonstrated it. You offer no substantive rebuttal.
So yeah, I've been addressing the man who appears to enjoy telling others what systems they should live by. I believe my answers to that particular situation have been quite appropriate.
Believe what you want, but when you engage incessantly in ad homiem and then complain about someone else doing so, you just look stupid.
I'm pretty sure you believe in checks and balances for government, but you clearly do not for business.
You're lying about me. Please don't. It's unbecoming. I said absolutely nothing that you could infer that from.
I'm making an assumption. You haven't corrected it. I haven't put any words in your mouth
You said I "clearly do not [believe in checks and balances] for business." That is a lie. Saying you didn't put those "words in my mouth" is a lie, too.
The entire subject is a liberty I wish for.
No, it's not. You're inventing a liberty that definitionally cannot be a liberty. It cannot be a liberty to force someone else to give you what you want, even if you're willing to pay for it. That's nonsense.
your insistence that they should have freedoms at the expense of my own
I never insisted any such thing. I am saying, on the contrary, you have full and absolute freedom here already ... except you can't force someone else to do anything they don't want to do. You can buy any phone they offer, for the price they offer it. You can do what you like with that phone, given whatever capabilities it has that it has, when you chose to purchase it.
There is no freedom you are being denied. You're making it up. You're pretending that because you WANT something, you therefore have a right to it, and therefore someone else has to provide it to you.
I don't know why I should even bother explaining something so obvious
You never did explain it. You just keep asserting that you have these rights that don't exist.
this is about a specific anti-competitive practice by Canadian cellular carriers
There isn't one, that you've identified. You've merely asserted that it is anti-competitive, but everything you've said to support that doesn't actually have anything to do with what "anti-competitive" means.
I haven't even considered your constitution on the topic, because well, it's your constitution, so how the hell does it apply?
You asked about checks and balances. I was pointing out that in a rational system of government, where government is constitutionally limited, the government is checked by enforcement of its constitution.
In Canada at least, we do have consumer laws that allow for a moderate amount of assumption on the part of the purchaser and the seller.
And I said up front that I am in favor of disclosure. I am usually in favor of disclosure to consumers, whenever there is a reasonable chance it's a relevant fact that consumers won't know.
I think it's reasonable that I'm actually purchasing a "cellular phone" and that it's also reasonable to expect that phone to work equally with compatible networks.
... unless they inform you it's a locked phone. Then, obviously, that expectation is not reasonable, because you've been informed that such an expectation is incorrect.
Allow me to explain the nuance of that insult.
Shrug.
You've spend this entire debate dictating to others your unwavering insistence of how you feel liberty should be.
How it IS, yes.
To citizens of another country!
Liberty knows no national boundaries. It's inherent.
I disagree with YOU.
Yes, but you've provided no cogent arguments, at yet you've acted as though you have. Hence: ignorant jackass.
Insult my intelligence, call me names, but can't take it in return.
You have it all wrong. I took it just fine, and took your ad hominems as a signal that it is acceptable to use them toward you. Or are you pretending that I "started it"? Heh. Perhaps in y
To me, that's the difference between a religious person and someone more moderate.
That makes no sense. I've met many non-religious people who do not believe in limitations, and many religious people who do.
Further, you are falsely implying I ever implied a lack of any limitations. "The right to swing your first ends where my nose begins" ... that's a built-in limitation.
Moderate your beliefs, otherwise you cannot grow.
Seek deeper understanding, otherwise you cannot grow. You're arguing against a lack of limitations that no one is pushing, because you're either dishonest, or you just don't yet understand this simple philosophy.
It's bizarre to me that this comes forward in the middle of a discussion about locked cell phones.
Perfect case in point: you don't understand how a discussion of liberty can occur in a discussion about whether the government should forcibly prohibit companies and individuals from engaging in a transaction they want to engage in.
That it's bizarre to you is bizarre to me.
What about... what about... EATING A(N AMERICAN) FLAG?
Go for it.
Polygamy?
Shrug.
Incest?
Assuming you do not mean sex with minors, but adult relatives ... shrug. It's gross, but so are many things.
Bestiality?
Let's not dwell on the disgusting when we can characterize this more generally as "animal rights." I am undecided on the matter. I won't argue against animal rights laws, but I do wonder whether they are valid. If animals have rights, anti-bestiality laws are valid. If they do not, they are not, as offensive as some animal practices are.
Sub-millimetre scanning in the airport
I don't really care much about that, in the legal sense. I don't HAVE to fly commercially. But I should not have to subject myself to this, with govt oversight, to fly in a private (non-commercial) airplane.
carrying a kirpan
Go ahead.
open carrying a gun
Absolutely.
creating homemade explosives or chemical weapons
It depends on the power. Some chemical weapons, by their uncontrolled existence, are potentially a de facto threat to everyone within a certain radius (biological weapons even moreso). That's really the line to look at: at what point is there a de facto threat to others, such that your exercise of liberty deprives me of liberty?
hate speech when not in the presence of targeted persons; hate speech on the Internet...?
Oh, absolutely in favor of legal hate speech, in all situations, except where they become "fighting words" that directly threaten safety of others. Again: where does your esxercise of liberty deprive others of liberty? I couldn't care less if you're offended or your feelings are hurt, I only care if your actual liberty is taken from you.
... is a funny accusation from someone who keeps classifying disagreements as inferiority.
I have never done that, let alone done it repeatedly. Please do not lie.
Some people may take offense at having their arguments (to be fair you didn't say that they were, just their arguments) repeatedly called "nonsense", "pathetic", "silly", "untrue" as one-word responses to whatever they were trying to say.
I honestly just don't care what people take offense at. If you have a rational claim to make, please do so, but I don't care about feelings.
It projects the impression that you can quickly put-down what they were saying without the need/being bothered to respond more fully.
Often that's true. In this specific thread I didn't do that, but I do that often when someone says something unsubstantiated. For example, maybe someone will say, "America's health care system is evil." I'll say, "False." Nothing more needs to be said. In this particular thread, I added more than that one word in each case.
To some people, this may give the implication that you think they are inferior
Shrug.
To be fair, he PRECISELY said you would make a good dictator. I don't think anyone was calling you a dictator.
I have been busy today, but yes, that is what he said and what I meant. I should have typed it more carefully. That hardly detracts from my point, however. :-)
How does getting something for free, that you have no right to, "hurting" you?
Do you mean humans do not have a right to health care?
Absolutely, they do not have a right to have health care provided to them. They have every right to use their resources to provide themselves health care, or pay someone else to provide health care to them, or convince people to provide it to them voluntarily. But no right to use force.
To say otherwise is to deny what rights are. There is no such thing as a "right" to force other people to give you something. That turns the whole concept of rights on its head.
That is the meaning of a community: protecting each other from bad things, predictable or not.
It is the meaning of charity, which is voluntary. There's no such thing as forced charity. I am all for taking care of each other when we're in need. But forcing us to do it is not within the legitimate powers of governent.
You have 100 people in your neighborhood. And 99 of them come up to you and say, you have more money than anyone else here, so we're going to make you pay for the food of everyone else in the neighborhood. If you don't do it, we're going to break into your home and take your money, or kidnap you.
That is precisely what you are doing here.
Are you telling us that you are paying your neighbours for "neighbourhood watch" or "community watch"?
Of course not. I implied no such thing. I am saying they do it of their free will, and are not forced.
Are you paying a bill when the street you live on is (re)paved?
Yes.
Are you paying a bill whenever the electricity poles (or whatever is used to carry electric power to your house) are being repaired?
Through my taxes, yes, I am.
Are you paying a bill whenever the water pipes or sewers are being repaired?
Yes. I pay someone to come out and deal with my septic tank.
Do you recieve a bill each time the police arrests a criminal? Or it's just a part of your taxes?
Usually it's through taxes.
Then why insist to pay for your health and deny the community the right to protect its members?
First, none of those things is like health care. We all share the telephone poles and streets. We do not share your MRI. You're not making a serious case at all.
Second, you are brainwashed. You think the only way for a community to "protect its members" is through government force. Break out of your chains and realize there's always been other ways.
Afterall, even wolves care for each other and the strong hunt and feed the weak. But, in your vision of society, the strong (or rich) should accumulate for themselves and let the weak and poor to die.
You're full of shit. In MY vision, some wolves don't force the rest of the wolves to care for other. You are flat-out LYING when you say I am in favor of people leaving others to die. I am simply arguing that it is illegitimate to use FORCE to get people to help each other.
This is incorrect. For example, private insurance will cover everything from home care to ambulances to travel insurance, all of which are provided under the public system to some degree.
I was talking about the health services themselves. But that said:
For example, here in BC ambulance fees are covered by the plan with a deductible of $80. If you buy supplemental insurance, that deductible disappears.
Right, so it's not really covered by the govt plan. You're paying for it out of pocket.
You could make that same argument for privatizing EVERY industry. It's not a good one.
Untrue. Canadians long ago decided that health-care in particular is special.
Irrelevant to what I said. You may think it is special, but the argument used did not treat it specially. I stated the argument used can apply to any industry, and that's true.
the US tops the list in percentage of GDP dedicated to health care
Sure, but with the best outcomes (among those who are paying the most money, which is the majority of us).