We could refuse service, but that's immoral. We could refuse to defend ourselves, but that's immoral.
We don't take money from people by force. We provide services that they pay for. Not paying for services you use or benefit from is immoral. It's called theft.
I am not content to let irresponsible people be irresponsible. It affects me. They wind up in the emergency room and I have to pay for them, but it's a much more expensive way to pay for them.
Furthermore, you don't seem to realize that medical insurance is the biggest scam out there. Medicine isn't a market, and it doesn't follow market rules. Companies that sell insurance do it to make money, not to provide care. They treat it like a market, which in the best of situations is subject to pricing distortions. These pricing distortions actually kill people. But the medical "market" isn't really a market. Why? Because I'll pay ANYTHING to live. There's no point at which I'll say no thanks to something that will save my life because it's too expensive. So, we get expensive medicine that is paid for by companies which have no reason to fulfill their end of the bargain to pay for your care. They make you jump through some awful hoops, because they can. The alternative is death. A huge number of bankruptcies are due to people who are saddled by medical bills, even though they were "responsible" and had insurance. Good insurance. This is wrong.
When people can do all the right things and still wind up completely fucked by the system which is far more powerful than they are, that's wrong. That's not freedom at all. If you spend a decade or two of your life putting your life's dreams and goals on hold because you have to care for a sick parent with a rotting brain, and then you wind up hundreds of thousands of dollars in debt, it's a poor consolation to be expected to think "I'm independent, and that's what matters." No, you're not independent. You paid years of your life and owe hundreds of thousands of dollars to the people who completely screwed you with the idea that you're an independent agent who is somehow more free and more of a man because you took the libertarian view of things.
A libertarian wouldn't stubbornly stick to this crazy notion. A libertarian would voluntarily band together with his fellow man to pool the risk, recognizing that every person shares the single quality of being human. Every human is mortal, and every human is more free when they are free of the agents who use FORCE to take advantage of everybody's natural inclination to pay anything to live.
Libertarians are famous for not wanting to use force against anyone, except in self-defense. I am trying to persuade you here that these cocksuckers who sell you insurance that doesn't insure you, and who perpetuate the fiction that health care is a market like any other are using some pretty powerful force against you already. Defend yourself!
No, to be clear, I was arguing that if free speech is infringed in the slightest, then there's not really any free speech at all. Some things that limit free speech (because other rights must also not be infrindged) are not actually infringing free speech. There's a difference.
If I make speech 'A' in the context of a riot and it makes the riot worse, that can be limited. But those exact same words in the context of a calm assembly must not ever be restricted. Those were the examples we discussed earlier.
But if we outlaw the speech 'A' no matter what the circumstances (obscenity laws, etc.) that's an unjustified restriction. It's a blanket ban on words.
But on the other hand, it's not fair for you to want to live in a place where you benefit from services that other people pay for. Part of the robustness of a society is provided by people NOT worrying about their medical care and about their medical bills. That robustness benefits you and everybody. With paid-for home care for your parents, you could advance in your career. Lots of people have their lives limited because of an elderly parent they must care for. It's not really a choice for any of us.
There are places where you can go where the government provides no services at all. Just like you're free to NOT join the Boy Scouts if you don't want to pay the dues and earn their merit badges, you're free to move to one of these regulation-less areas.
We do have to provide medical service to people. It's a moral value. Withholding medical service to people is immoral. It's the same as not protecting them from an enemy.
Yes we should. If they are living in the USA, they're getting the benefits of it. It's a service for everyone that everyone pays for.
If you don't want to pay for it, leave the country. I'm serious. Get the fuck out. The Boy Scouts will kick you out for not paying your dues, and the USA should kick people out for not paying their dues. So leave.
The national security letter gag exactly what I'm talking about. Those are infringements on the First Amendment.
And what about "obscenity" laws?
Another good one, an example of a real infringement against the First. Obscenity is practically obsolete these days. Even a movie about a woman and her dog is protected speech if there's a plot somewhere. So, the laws are truly infringing to the First Amendment, but their impact has been lessened over the years. I'd take them off the books.
Also, if you told somebody else to commit murder, that would be conspiracy to commit murder, regardless of whether the murder was actually committed.
No, conspiracy is an agreement to perform the act together, not merely "telling" someone to do it. If I am encouraging you to kill someone, and you refuse to do it, there's no agreement, and no conspiracy.
There's no such thing as 100% free speech. Not in the United States, not anywhere.
I agree. That was my original point. If speech is infringed even a little bit, it's not really free, is it?
Everybody needs health care all the time. Take a look around at all the fatasses walking down the street. They aren't healthy, and their lack of health care affects everybody.
Gotta give those TSA pukes a little thrill. Or maybe I'll go through wearing a wig and a dress. The female screener will REALLY enjoy that. I wonder if anyone ever rubbed one out as the passed through the metal detector?
I'm just trying to make travel more enjoyable for everybody.
Now that's the FIRST time anybody ever accused me, Profane Muthafucka, of being on a high horse. I was almost accused of that two years ago, but the cops didn't get a chance to draw blood from the horse for the test.
If I had a simulation of the entire Internet, it'd be all over for me. I mean, there would then be absolutely no reason for me to leave my house. I'd just sit inside all day playing with this simulation of the Internet.
It's so awesome that I've completely forgotten about China using children to make toys for my children, or that one time, at band camp, they used some Tibetans for target practice. Amazing architecture.
That's pretty much right. Let's look at it another way. If I passed a law which said "no person shall utter the word 'fire' in a room filled with more than 30 people" that would be illegal. Suppose it's a physics laboratory, and the professor is very excited about the lesson? Suppose I yell fire in a theater and everybody says "STFU and watch the movie" but nothing else happens?
Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences. You're not liable for uttering syllables, you're liable for getting people killed. Inciting a riot makes you responsible for the riot, if it occurs. You're still completely free to say those same things in non-riot situations, such as the editorial pages of a newspaper, or whatever calmer situation.
These ideas are not my own. I'm just reporting on the law as it currently stands.
Slippery slope arguments make the case that one worse thing depends on some other thing. In your case you asked if I were to support socialized housing as well.
My answer is that socialized housing is not caused by socialized medicine. It's entirely plausible to have completely socialized medicine, but not socialized housing. The question you asked makes no sense.
Your latest post has no slippery slope argument, and is qualitatively much better as an argument. You make one point, and then you answer your point with the answer I would have given - the AMA does indeed restrict the quantity of doctors, and it's problem. I propose making that illegal. Anybody who passes proper qualifications should be able to be a doctor with no artificial restrictions.
If someone tells you that they can give you free, unlimited medical care, and you don't have to do anything for it, don't listen to them. It doesn't make any sense.
I don't think anybody's said that medical care would be free or unlimited, or without any cost. Did I say that?
We need socialized medicine for two reasons: it's cheaper, and it's better. Show me that capitalized medicine is cheaper and better and I'll go for it.
Also, show me how much "choice" you have if you're a half million dollars in hock with medical bills. You have the "choice" to die, in other words. That's no choice at all, and when other people have to make that choice, it hurts me. Not bleeding heart hurt, but actually take money from me hurt.
Also, if Libertarians hate it, it gets a slight bonus for the LOL factor.
Inciting commission of an offense IS illegal. I never said it wasn't. But if I tell you to Kill Commander Taco right now that's not illegal. If you don't actually Kill Commander Taco, then nothing illegal has happened.
Both fascism and communism promote close to 100% government, only the methods for achieving their "perfect society" differ; the basic concepts are very similar.
You said they were the same. They are not. When you say they are the same, educated people like me put you into the category of MORON and we ignore you.
If you had said that both are totalitarian, then we could talk, because they are totalitarian at least some of the time. Because they are both totalitarian does not mean they are the same.
And save your lectures on what each -ism is. I know what they are, and that's why I'm pointing out the morons in this thread who think fascism is the same as communism.
Slashdot Mirror
No, I'm masturbating. See the hand? See my cock?
We could refuse service, but that's immoral. We could refuse to defend ourselves, but that's immoral.
We don't take money from people by force. We provide services that they pay for. Not paying for services you use or benefit from is immoral. It's called theft.
I am not content to let irresponsible people be irresponsible. It affects me. They wind up in the emergency room and I have to pay for them, but it's a much more expensive way to pay for them.
Furthermore, you don't seem to realize that medical insurance is the biggest scam out there. Medicine isn't a market, and it doesn't follow market rules. Companies that sell insurance do it to make money, not to provide care. They treat it like a market, which in the best of situations is subject to pricing distortions. These pricing distortions actually kill people. But the medical "market" isn't really a market. Why? Because I'll pay ANYTHING to live. There's no point at which I'll say no thanks to something that will save my life because it's too expensive. So, we get expensive medicine that is paid for by companies which have no reason to fulfill their end of the bargain to pay for your care. They make you jump through some awful hoops, because they can. The alternative is death. A huge number of bankruptcies are due to people who are saddled by medical bills, even though they were "responsible" and had insurance. Good insurance. This is wrong.
When people can do all the right things and still wind up completely fucked by the system which is far more powerful than they are, that's wrong. That's not freedom at all. If you spend a decade or two of your life putting your life's dreams and goals on hold because you have to care for a sick parent with a rotting brain, and then you wind up hundreds of thousands of dollars in debt, it's a poor consolation to be expected to think "I'm independent, and that's what matters." No, you're not independent. You paid years of your life and owe hundreds of thousands of dollars to the people who completely screwed you with the idea that you're an independent agent who is somehow more free and more of a man because you took the libertarian view of things.
A libertarian wouldn't stubbornly stick to this crazy notion. A libertarian would voluntarily band together with his fellow man to pool the risk, recognizing that every person shares the single quality of being human. Every human is mortal, and every human is more free when they are free of the agents who use FORCE to take advantage of everybody's natural inclination to pay anything to live.
Libertarians are famous for not wanting to use force against anyone, except in self-defense. I am trying to persuade you here that these cocksuckers who sell you insurance that doesn't insure you, and who perpetuate the fiction that health care is a market like any other are using some pretty powerful force against you already. Defend yourself!
No, to be clear, I was arguing that if free speech is infringed in the slightest, then there's not really any free speech at all. Some things that limit free speech (because other rights must also not be infrindged) are not actually infringing free speech. There's a difference.
If I make speech 'A' in the context of a riot and it makes the riot worse, that can be limited. But those exact same words in the context of a calm assembly must not ever be restricted. Those were the examples we discussed earlier.
But if we outlaw the speech 'A' no matter what the circumstances (obscenity laws, etc.) that's an unjustified restriction. It's a blanket ban on words.
But on the other hand, it's not fair for you to want to live in a place where you benefit from services that other people pay for. Part of the robustness of a society is provided by people NOT worrying about their medical care and about their medical bills. That robustness benefits you and everybody. With paid-for home care for your parents, you could advance in your career. Lots of people have their lives limited because of an elderly parent they must care for. It's not really a choice for any of us.
There are places where you can go where the government provides no services at all. Just like you're free to NOT join the Boy Scouts if you don't want to pay the dues and earn their merit badges, you're free to move to one of these regulation-less areas.
We do have to provide medical service to people. It's a moral value. Withholding medical service to people is immoral. It's the same as not protecting them from an enemy.
No, I'm masturbating. You really must be ignorant if you can't tell the difference between crying and jerking off.
The only thing that increases the potential for violence and murder is the awful ReiserFS when it trashes all your data.
That got me thinking...what is the most expensive computer anyway? How does the fastest computer rank with the costliest computers?
Google Google Google, and presto. The Japanese Earth Simulator supercomputer cost $400 million dollars.
It's going to put an end to my activities on Slashdot. I've made many a conservative cry like a baby, and now those little girls might sue me.
Yes we should. If they are living in the USA, they're getting the benefits of it. It's a service for everyone that everyone pays for.
If you don't want to pay for it, leave the country. I'm serious. Get the fuck out. The Boy Scouts will kick you out for not paying your dues, and the USA should kick people out for not paying their dues. So leave.
The national security letter gag exactly what I'm talking about. Those are infringements on the First Amendment.
And what about "obscenity" laws?
Another good one, an example of a real infringement against the First. Obscenity is practically obsolete these days. Even a movie about a woman and her dog is protected speech if there's a plot somewhere. So, the laws are truly infringing to the First Amendment, but their impact has been lessened over the years. I'd take them off the books.
Also, if you told somebody else to commit murder, that would be conspiracy to commit murder, regardless of whether the murder was actually committed.
No, conspiracy is an agreement to perform the act together, not merely "telling" someone to do it. If I am encouraging you to kill someone, and you refuse to do it, there's no agreement, and no conspiracy.
There's no such thing as 100% free speech. Not in the United States, not anywhere.
I agree. That was my original point. If speech is infringed even a little bit, it's not really free, is it?
Everybody needs health care all the time. Take a look around at all the fatasses walking down the street. They aren't healthy, and their lack of health care affects everybody.
Gotta give those TSA pukes a little thrill. Or maybe I'll go through wearing a wig and a dress. The female screener will REALLY enjoy that. I wonder if anyone ever rubbed one out as the passed through the metal detector?
I'm just trying to make travel more enjoyable for everybody.
Meanwhile, please get off your high horse.
Now that's the FIRST time anybody ever accused me, Profane Muthafucka, of being on a high horse. I was almost accused of that two years ago, but the cops didn't get a chance to draw blood from the horse for the test.
If I had a simulation of the entire Internet, it'd be all over for me. I mean, there would then be absolutely no reason for me to leave my house. I'd just sit inside all day playing with this simulation of the Internet.
Can someone hurry up and write a Silverlight interpreter inside of a Flash control?
It's so awesome that I've completely forgotten about China using children to make toys for my children, or that one time, at band camp, they used some Tibetans for target practice. Amazing architecture.
Use PayPal. I can guarantee that all your money will be in a foreign country before you know it.
Short strokes saves lube.
some of the linked (computer-generated) images may be disturbing.
Aha! Your little trick worked. It made me actually read the article before posting.
That's pretty much right. Let's look at it another way. If I passed a law which said "no person shall utter the word 'fire' in a room filled with more than 30 people" that would be illegal. Suppose it's a physics laboratory, and the professor is very excited about the lesson? Suppose I yell fire in a theater and everybody says "STFU and watch the movie" but nothing else happens?
Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences. You're not liable for uttering syllables, you're liable for getting people killed. Inciting a riot makes you responsible for the riot, if it occurs. You're still completely free to say those same things in non-riot situations, such as the editorial pages of a newspaper, or whatever calmer situation.
These ideas are not my own. I'm just reporting on the law as it currently stands.
Slippery slope arguments make the case that one worse thing depends on some other thing. In your case you asked if I were to support socialized housing as well.
My answer is that socialized housing is not caused by socialized medicine. It's entirely plausible to have completely socialized medicine, but not socialized housing. The question you asked makes no sense.
Your latest post has no slippery slope argument, and is qualitatively much better as an argument. You make one point, and then you answer your point with the answer I would have given - the AMA does indeed restrict the quantity of doctors, and it's problem. I propose making that illegal. Anybody who passes proper qualifications should be able to be a doctor with no artificial restrictions.
If someone tells you that they can give you free, unlimited medical care, and you don't have to do anything for it, don't listen to them. It doesn't make any sense.
I don't think anybody's said that medical care would be free or unlimited, or without any cost. Did I say that?
Your slippery slope argument is unimpressive.
We need socialized medicine for two reasons: it's cheaper, and it's better. Show me that capitalized medicine is cheaper and better and I'll go for it.
Also, show me how much "choice" you have if you're a half million dollars in hock with medical bills. You have the "choice" to die, in other words. That's no choice at all, and when other people have to make that choice, it hurts me. Not bleeding heart hurt, but actually take money from me hurt.
Also, if Libertarians hate it, it gets a slight bonus for the LOL factor.
Inciting commission of an offense IS illegal. I never said it wasn't. But if I tell you to Kill Commander Taco right now that's not illegal. If you don't actually Kill Commander Taco, then nothing illegal has happened.
It's a subtle distinction, but it's there.
Both fascism and communism promote close to 100% government, only the methods for achieving their "perfect society" differ; the basic concepts are very similar.
You said they were the same. They are not. When you say they are the same, educated people like me put you into the category of MORON and we ignore you.
If you had said that both are totalitarian, then we could talk, because they are totalitarian at least some of the time. Because they are both totalitarian does not mean they are the same.
And save your lectures on what each -ism is. I know what they are, and that's why I'm pointing out the morons in this thread who think fascism is the same as communism.
Which ones are illegal? Can you name the law that prohibits the specific act of speech?