do you also consider the money used to pay firefighters and to pave the roads to be "stolen"
Roads are self-funding. In order to use a road, you buy fuel. There's a tax on that fuel that funds the roads. Roads are therefore self-funding. A system of automatically collected tolls would be better, but in general, roads are a fee-for-use system.
Fire departments are similar. We still have places where fire departments charge a fee. If you pay the fee and have a fire, they put it out. If you don't pay the fee, they let your house burn. Property owners should pay for fire departments.
Lack of understanding of human nature is a major tell for that condition.
I understand that people hate the CEO and envy the CEO and want to steal the money from the CEO and otherwise harm him to make themselves feel better. It's just morally wrong and counterproductive to the continuation of civilization. That's all.
No. Evidence shows that the problems in "universal health care" systems are worse.
US-style health care is better for the sick and the health-care providers.
Universal health care is better for the government and people who value "equality" over sick people getting the care they need. Also, universal health care is better for people who want other people to pay their bills for them.
And so you want to steal from people to buy yourself health care. Or have the government steal from people for you. Because "fundamental is not enough". When you can just take what you want from other people, when is anything ever enough?
...there is a greater likelihood of disenfranchisement and subsequent violence...
If he argues that, then he's incorrect.
"Violence" happens because a person decides to do violent things. It's not a "likelihood", it's a decision. It's not determined by uncontrollable factors. It's 100% controllable by the perpetrator in every case (except insanity).
... provide a fundamental level of health care coverage combined with more resources geared towards public housing and support of small to mid-size business.
We already have a fundamental level of health care. Go to the emergency room, you get health care. What's the "coverage" for? So someone else pays for it? That's already happening when you go to the emergency room and can't pay.
What's the goal of your plan to change the "coverage"? You pay less and others pay more?
Other than that, I'd like to see less government in our lives with respect to politically and religiously motivated agendas.
So you like government when it's your agenda, but not when it's the agenda of someone else. What an amazing principled stance!
How about we just go with less government for everyone's agenda? You can contribute to charity to implement your agenda.
There is a limited amount of wealth in our society.
You lost me already. Wealth is essentially the "wellbeing" of people. How is that limited?
In a free society, there are transactions. Both parties enter into those transactions willingly, with the goal of increasing their wealth (wealth is another word for "wellbeing"). When I buy an item, I trade cash for it. To me, the item is worth more than the cash. The merchant I buy it from makes the opposite trade. To him, the cash is worth more than the item. Who is better off? Both. In a free society, each transaction benefits both parties. The benefit is an increase in wealth for each.
What's the limitation? The only limitations I can see are when government steps in and limits the transactions or fails to prevent fraudulent ones. To the extent "our society" is a free society, wealth is not limited.
I think that Eni company is "evil" because it's a oil company.
Polio vaccines should be transported to Africa without the "evil" fossil fuels, via sailing ships, or perhaps tethered to a migratory bird -- like a swallow.
It's still 2 groups of irrelevant blowhards in a pissing contest, regardless of what technology they're using. Relevancy used to be a criteria to define what is news and what isn't.
If I'm around smoke, then breathing secondhand smoke is hardly voluntary.
But your presence at a location is voluntary. If you're around smoke, that's by your choice.
My whole point is that I hardly feel this falls under the ACLU's purview...
The ACLU is a joke and it has been for a long time. They use "civil liberties" as a club to advance a left-wing world view and then ignore "civil liberties" when it would harm that world view. It's OK with the ACLU for leftists to take away "civil liberties" because leftists are The Good People (tm). Often the ACLU even helps to take those liberties away.
The ACLU is just another arm of the worldwide socialist movement.
Your feelings about the ACLU are your concern. No one can argue with "feelings".
Larceny isn't as agressive as your invasion of my air space with your smoke.
You don't own the air-space unless you own the property. Prohibit smoking on your own property. Taking away the freedom of property owners (and therefore some of the value of the property) by force is aggressive. Smoking and breathing secondhand smoke are voluntary.
So you support gender or racially exclusive clubs?
I don't support closing them down by force. I don't support making them illegal and hunting down or persecuting the people who would be members of such clubs. I support the freedom to establish and join such clubs, or not to. I'm pro-freedom.
Oh, and you can still mingle with whom you wish, you just can't create a place of business that does that.
Because if I do, I'll be oppressed by the government for paying insufficient respect to the anti-smoking moral/political code. And you'll support that oppression.
How about if we have places where people smoke and places where they don't? Then you can choose to go in the ones you prefer and the smokers can choose to go in the ones they prefer. Then everyone can choose the air quality that suits them and no one needs to breathe smoke unless they want to.
Oh. That's what we had before the choice was taken away by the anti-smoking nazis.
Huh? By that reasoning, nothing should be illegal.
Almost nothing should be illegal. Yes.
What happens if I get "caught" stealing?... I'll be killed.
The difference between stealing and smoking is that stealing is an aggressive, harmful action against another person without their consent. Smoking is not, even in the case of secondhand smoke, even if it were actually harmful -- you're still consenting unless you're being held down against your will.
A person has the right to defend his property against thieves by force. A person doesn't have the right to invade someone else's property and enforce their smoking preference by force.
Protecting what America stands for is more important than saving theoretical lives.
I like how your interpretation of "what America stands for" is real and "lives" are theoretical. Nice reality inversion.
Also "stands for" tends to imply some sort of strength and steadfastness, not cynical political calculation, hindsight, and sheepish running-away in the face of danger or press criticism.
... the media... Their job is to expose what is wrong with the gov.
I thought their job was to report what's happening (or has happened) to people who aren't there to see it firsthand.
...they have been wrong...
Careful. You're violating their civil rights according to TFA.
Can you cite studies that show that insignificance?
Can a negative be proven?
How would such a study be conducted? Isolate people their entire lives and expose one group to a whiff of secondhand smoke for 30 minutes a month and compare their health?
What would be the point anyway? They'd just say the people who conducted the study were biased because their third cousin once knew someone who touched a cigarette -- so nevermind what the study says. (Smoke smells bad. Don't you know that?)
Protecting suspected terrorists' rights is just as important than preventing terrorism.
Why?
It seems to me that the US government has a responsibility to protect US citizens from attack that is greater than their responsibility to protect the rights non-US-citizens who appear to be enemies of the US.
Governments are formed to provide protection, not to implement some sort of abstract "virtue".
How in the world does your "civil liberty" to eat trans-fats or stick a cancer stick in your puss compare with being tortured or having habeas corpus revoked?
They are different in terms of degree only.
What happens if I get "caught" smoking? I get a ticket. What happens if I decline to pay the ticket? Eventually, I'll be arrested. What happens if I decline to be arrested? They'll come to my house to take me. What happens if I try to defend myself and my home from this injustice? If I do it vigorously enough, I'll be killed.
That's how they compare.
Oh, and the purpose of the ones you're complaining about is to protect the US from terrorist attacks. The purpose of smoking bans is "smoking smells bad". (And some people believe the junk science health-scares even though it's completely irrational. Occasional incidental exposure to secondhand smoke is insignificant in terms of health.)
Slashdot Mirror
do you also consider the money used to pay firefighters and to pave the roads to be "stolen"
Roads are self-funding. In order to use a road, you buy fuel. There's a tax on that fuel that funds the roads. Roads are therefore self-funding. A system of automatically collected tolls would be better, but in general, roads are a fee-for-use system.
Fire departments are similar. We still have places where fire departments charge a fee. If you pay the fee and have a fire, they put it out. If you don't pay the fee, they let your house burn. Property owners should pay for fire departments.
Lack of understanding of human nature is a major tell for that condition.
I understand that people hate the CEO and envy the CEO and want to steal the money from the CEO and otherwise harm him to make themselves feel better. It's just morally wrong and counterproductive to the continuation of civilization. That's all.
No. Evidence shows that the problems in "universal health care" systems are worse.
US-style health care is better for the sick and the health-care providers.
Universal health care is better for the government and people who value "equality" over sick people getting the care they need. Also, universal health care is better for people who want other people to pay their bills for them.
Income inequality is a fact of life in a capitalistic society...
Income inequality is a fact of life in a free society.
It's a natural result of differing abilities. No two people are identically the same, so the income they earn tends to differ.
The only way to have equality is to eliminate all freedom. North Korea is the best modern example of this.
And so you want to steal from people to buy yourself health care. Or have the government steal from people for you. Because "fundamental is not enough". When you can just take what you want from other people, when is anything ever enough?
In this case the CEO:FMW annual salary is 5300:1, give or take a bit.
What business is it of yours how much the CEO makes?
If a CEO gets an extra $100 and his employee gets an extra $1, is the employee worse off? No, he's better off by $1.
...increasing income inequality is dangerous.
Also, danger is a part of life.
...there is a greater likelihood of disenfranchisement and subsequent violence...
If he argues that, then he's incorrect.
"Violence" happens because a person decides to do violent things. It's not a "likelihood", it's a decision. It's not determined by uncontrollable factors. It's 100% controllable by the perpetrator in every case (except insanity).
... provide a fundamental level of health care coverage combined with more resources geared towards public housing and support of small to mid-size business.
We already have a fundamental level of health care. Go to the emergency room, you get health care. What's the "coverage" for? So someone else pays for it? That's already happening when you go to the emergency room and can't pay.
What's the goal of your plan to change the "coverage"? You pay less and others pay more?
Other than that, I'd like to see less government in our lives with respect to politically and religiously motivated agendas.
So you like government when it's your agenda, but not when it's the agenda of someone else. What an amazing principled stance!
How about we just go with less government for everyone's agenda? You can contribute to charity to implement your agenda.
There is a limited amount of wealth in our society.
You lost me already. Wealth is essentially the "wellbeing" of people. How is that limited?
In a free society, there are transactions. Both parties enter into those transactions willingly, with the goal of increasing their wealth (wealth is another word for "wellbeing"). When I buy an item, I trade cash for it. To me, the item is worth more than the cash. The merchant I buy it from makes the opposite trade. To him, the cash is worth more than the item. Who is better off? Both. In a free society, each transaction benefits both parties. The benefit is an increase in wealth for each.
What's the limitation? The only limitations I can see are when government steps in and limits the transactions or fails to prevent fraudulent ones. To the extent "our society" is a free society, wealth is not limited.
African swallows are non-migratory.
How long have you been working for Big Oil?
I think that Eni company is "evil" because it's a oil company.
Polio vaccines should be transported to Africa without the "evil" fossil fuels, via sailing ships, or perhaps tethered to a migratory bird -- like a swallow.
This is a horrible analogy
Analogies are horrible. People need to stop using them and just explain what they mean.
The government opens mail all the time looking for drugs. This is not new.
It's still 2 groups of irrelevant blowhards in a pissing contest, regardless of what technology they're using. Relevancy used to be a criteria to define what is news and what isn't.
Wow, I got "mobile security" for Christmas. Thanks! This is going to change my life.
If I'm around smoke, then breathing secondhand smoke is hardly voluntary.
But your presence at a location is voluntary. If you're around smoke, that's by your choice.
My whole point is that I hardly feel this falls under the ACLU's purview...
The ACLU is a joke and it has been for a long time. They use "civil liberties" as a club to advance a left-wing world view and then ignore "civil liberties" when it would harm that world view. It's OK with the ACLU for leftists to take away "civil liberties" because leftists are The Good People (tm). Often the ACLU even helps to take those liberties away.
The ACLU is just another arm of the worldwide socialist movement.
Your feelings about the ACLU are your concern. No one can argue with "feelings".
Larceny isn't as agressive as your invasion of my air space with your smoke.
You don't own the air-space unless you own the property. Prohibit smoking on your own property. Taking away the freedom of property owners (and therefore some of the value of the property) by force is aggressive. Smoking and breathing secondhand smoke are voluntary.
So you support gender or racially exclusive clubs?
I don't support closing them down by force. I don't support making them illegal and hunting down or persecuting the people who would be members of such clubs. I support the freedom to establish and join such clubs, or not to. I'm pro-freedom.
Oh, and you can still mingle with whom you wish, you just can't create a place of business that does that.
Because if I do, I'll be oppressed by the government for paying insufficient respect to the anti-smoking moral/political code. And you'll support that oppression.
you can go smoke in a closed room all you want
I don't smoke.
How about if we have places where people smoke and places where they don't? Then you can choose to go in the ones you prefer and the smokers can choose to go in the ones they prefer. Then everyone can choose the air quality that suits them and no one needs to breathe smoke unless they want to.
Oh. That's what we had before the choice was taken away by the anti-smoking nazis.
Huh? By that reasoning, nothing should be illegal.
... I'll be killed.
Almost nothing should be illegal. Yes.
What happens if I get "caught" stealing?
The difference between stealing and smoking is that stealing is an aggressive, harmful action against another person without their consent. Smoking is not, even in the case of secondhand smoke, even if it were actually harmful -- you're still consenting unless you're being held down against your will.
A person has the right to defend his property against thieves by force. A person doesn't have the right to invade someone else's property and enforce their smoking preference by force.
I like how your interpretation of "what America stands for" is real and "lives" are theoretical. Nice reality inversion.
Also "stands for" tends to imply some sort of strength and steadfastness, not cynical political calculation, hindsight, and sheepish running-away in the face of danger or press criticism.
I thought their job was to report what's happening (or has happened) to people who aren't there to see it firsthand.
Careful. You're violating their civil rights according to TFA.
Can you cite studies that show that insignificance?
Can a negative be proven?
How would such a study be conducted? Isolate people their entire lives and expose one group to a whiff of secondhand smoke for 30 minutes a month and compare their health?
What would be the point anyway? They'd just say the people who conducted the study were biased because their third cousin once knew someone who touched a cigarette -- so nevermind what the study says. (Smoke smells bad. Don't you know that?)
Protecting suspected terrorists' rights is just as important than preventing terrorism.
Why?
It seems to me that the US government has a responsibility to protect US citizens from attack that is greater than their responsibility to protect the rights non-US-citizens who appear to be enemies of the US.
Governments are formed to provide protection, not to implement some sort of abstract "virtue".
How in the world does your "civil liberty" to eat trans-fats or stick a cancer stick in your puss compare with being tortured or having habeas corpus revoked?
They are different in terms of degree only.
What happens if I get "caught" smoking? I get a ticket.
What happens if I decline to pay the ticket? Eventually, I'll be arrested.
What happens if I decline to be arrested? They'll come to my house to take me.
What happens if I try to defend myself and my home from this injustice? If I do it vigorously enough, I'll be killed.
That's how they compare.
Oh, and the purpose of the ones you're complaining about is to protect the US from terrorist attacks. The purpose of smoking bans is "smoking smells bad". (And some people believe the junk science health-scares even though it's completely irrational. Occasional incidental exposure to secondhand smoke is insignificant in terms of health.)