Ah, well then I suppose we disagree on the definition of "theft," (I would have thought that most would say that wrongness is the difference between taking and theft, just as it is the difference between killing and murder) but that's OK. So you are saying that something can be "theft" but not wrong.
How then is it a criticism of health insurance reform to call it "theft" if calling it "theft" doesn't mean it is wrong? Why isn't it a kind of "permissable theft" like seizing an enemy's property in wartime?
Here's another way to get at the point I'm trying to make that you might prefer:
The U.S. constitution (probably there most restrictive founding document there has ever been) straightforwardly grants the federal government the power to levy taxes and spend the money raised thereby to further the general welfare. Art 1, Sec 8, Cl. 1. This would seem to endorse rampant theft, on your definition of "theft."
Surely you don't agree with this conclusion. But if not, how do you escape it?
Simply reiterating the mistake doesn't make it go away. Taking by force is not theft. Wrongful taking by force (or, in fact, without force) is theft.
Otherwise how do you explain that it is not theft to:
Levy taxes for road construction. (Even on people who don't drive, or will never drive on the roads the taxes pay for)
Seize the fruits of Bernie Madoff's ponzi scheme.
Levy taxes to pay for a judicial system you may never use.
Seize enemy property during wartime.
The list goes on...
I think it is obvious that these sorts of examples show that theft requires more than mere "taking by force." I reiterate that that element is wrongfulness. (And, while we're at it, I think the "by force" requirement can be tossed.) I don't mean for this suggestion to be controversial; it really shouldn't be.
In fact, I'm not even saying that I think you lack a theory of why these sorts of takings are wrongful. All I want is for you to tell me what it is so we can have a productive debate.
"Many of the current tort reform initiatives, such as caps on noneconomic damages, are motivated by a perception that ‘jackpot’ awards in frivolous suits are draining the system....But nearly 80% of the administrative costs of the malpractice system are tied to resolving claims that have merit."
- Michelle Mello, Associate Professor of Health Policy and Law at the Harvard School of Public Health
The answer is yes, but you have the substance of the "Slaughter Solution" a bit wrong.
Basically, there are two bills, the senate bill and the reconciliation bill. The house needs to pass the senate bill (because the dems in the senate no longer have the votes to pass a new bill there). But many house members' votes are contingent on the subsequent passage by both houses of a separate reconciliation bill to make alterations to the spending components of the senate bill to take out some of the special deals, etc. that made the senate bill ugly.
But the house dems have a problem: they want to pass the bill with fixes, but don't want to be seen as voting for exactly the nasty parts of senate bill that they later want to remove through reconciliation.) But, because of the nature of reconciliation bills, the bill it modifies has to already have been passed before the reconciliation bill can. So the idea is to just vote directly on the reconciliation bill under rules (rules that would also have to be voted on by the house) that would deem the senate bill to have passed upon passage of the reconciliation bill. The rules of the house do allow this, and this "deem and pass" technique has been used pretty frequently by both parties to pass legislation for at least the last 20 years.
So, there will be a vote. It's just that the vote will result in passage of the Senate bill in a somewhat indirect way. Though in some real sense there is nothing indirect about it; the members will all know what they are voting on and the passage of the bill will require just as many yea votes as it would under a "conventional" vote.
Forcing an insurance company to pay for a pre-existing condition is simple theft.
This is the sort of comment that gets us nowhere. "Theft" implies moral wrongfulness. Obviously those in favor of this health insurance reform bill don't think it is morally wrong and, thus, we obviously don't think it is theft. Without an argument for wrongfulness to back up your your claim of theft, then you're just calling the policy names. You will add nothing but noise to the debate this way, let alone convince anybody of anything.
Now if you could give us your argument as to why this is "theft" as opposed to "a legitimate exercise of federal power under Art I, Sec. 8, Cl. 3 and Art I, Sec. 8, Cl. 18 of the U.S. Constitution" then we would be getting somewhere.
A quick note about the "individual mandate": The reason that individuals are required to buy insurance is to avoid the so-called "adverse selection problem." Basically, if you are forcing insurers to take all applicants without regard to preexisting condition, then the natural tendency will be for nobody to buy insurance until they are already sick. This would make selling insurance impossible because there would be no healthy people in the risk pool and, thus, the insurer would be guaranteed to lose money. The solution to this problem is to require everyone by law to get insurance.
The democrats understand, though, that there is a big ick factor involved in requiring people to buy private insurance (particularly given how much everyone hates health insurers). That is one of the big reasons they were pushing the public option. But, unfortunately, the conservatives convinced everyone that the creation of a public option was but a small step away from the creation of death camps, so it's out and we're left with a "giveaway to insurance companies."
And do you really think the states would not be biased in the opposite direction? What happens if states disagree with each other in their constitutional interpretations?
And why would the courts, a totally separate branch of the federal government, care what powers are granted to the executive and congress? Maybe they would tend to be biased in favor of growing federal judicial power, but that is not at all what we're talking about.
You should not have to pay for a single tax, or program, unless it's authorized by the U.S. Constitution or your local State Constitution.
Well then good news! That is, indeed, the law of the United States. And it is overwhelmingly adhered to. Your problem, I take it, is that you do not agree with what courts have said that the constitution allows. For that, my friend, I'm afraid there is no cure that I can offer you, except maybe to read the opinions you have a problem with. In many cases you will find them quite sensible if you understand the law and approach them with an open mind.
Of course, I am NOT saying that I agree with every opinion ever to be written by the supreme court. What I am saying, though, is that the reasoning in almost every opinion I've read at least commands respect.
Interesting. I'm not sure that I see personal risk taking to be such an important qualification for a president, but I can see how one might. (And, to be sure, I certainly do think it has some importance. I just don't see how it's crucial.) Other than military service (kudos, then, John McCain), though, would you agree that there are pretty few national politicians that have taken serious personal risks?
As for Obama's risk-taking past, there is certainly no denying that things have always gone well for him. I would argue that this is mostly because he is incredibly intelligent and talented politically (as well as in a number of other ways). But the fact does remain that one could make the argument that this past means that he is not accustomed to dealing with high-stakes decisions. There may be something to that. (Though, again, I would count this as, at most, a single substantial mark against Obama in the face of many marks in favor.)
It bears pointing out, though, that after graduating Harvard law and working for a big law firm for a few years (presumably to help pay off his student loan debt; I'm in law school now so I certainly know how this goes!) he left BigLaw and the $150,000/yr+ salary that comes with it to go into community organizing and civil rights. This decision might not fit neatly into the definition of risk-taking behavior, but it does, I think, clearly show that Obama is capable of making difficult choices.
This sounds like a lot of the same wilful ignorance.
A convenience store has a concrete, objective measure of whether it succeeds or not. Namely, can the owner keep it in business? None of the above jobs has such a criteria.
Really? Non profits can and do go out of business all the time. But, for example, in the case of DCP we know that in the three years Obama was there he grew the organization from one (him) to 13 employees, and from an annual budget of $70,000 to $400,000. (While being paid $13,000/year, by the way.)
And in any event, are you seriously telling me that you think running a convenience store is a better qualification to be president than being the president of the Harvard Law Review?
[Writing his books] would be valid experience, assuming he wrote them, which again he probably did not.
Supposedly he wrote both of them. It certainly makes sense for the first one: he was just out of law school at that point and didn't have the money to hire a ghostwriter. (Not to mention that he was pretty much a nobody when the book came out, so why hire a ghostwiter?) And his editor says he didn't use one for The Audacity of Hope either. See e.g. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/02/22/opinion/main3865576.shtml
Again, I'm not saying that I think that these jobs necessarily qualify one to be president (I think they're mostly irrelevant). I'm just struck by the willingness of some to jump to these sorts of conclusions to paint Obama in the worst light possible when they could just think and Google for five minutes.
he has never run even so much as a convenience store
I realize this is really only intended as empty rhetoric but, come on. Here are a few things Obama has run, for everyone's information:
The Harvard law Review Chicago's Developing Communities Project (DCP) Illinois's Project Vote Chicago Annenberg Challenge Illinois Senate's Health and Human Services U.S. Senate's subcommittee on European Affairs
Now, I realize that it is at least arguable that none of these provide the leadership experience required to be an effective president. You probably would like to have seen a former governor/mayor/head of a large agency. I don't think that sort of experience is strictly necessary, but I see how reasonable people could disagree. (Though, if I may ask, what leadership experience does John McCain have that qualifies him in your eyes? Is it just length of service in the Senate?)
But to say that Obama has not run so much as a convenience store is just totally false and it smacks of an either mean spirited (or, at best, willfully ignorant) parroting of the popular right-wing line that Obama is somehow a lightweight.
Bear in mind that even if copyright law provides no protection to databases, a database owner can still choose to only allow you access to their database under a license that prohibits you from reselling the information (and I believe many large database owners do just this). So, what you can't enforce through copyright law you probably could enforce through contract law.
I can also report that almost all law students take notes on laptops. Personally, I do it because, in most classes, we can take our notes (electronic or otherwise) into the final exam and if they're electronic, then that means they can easily be searched. Big advantage.
And it's true, generally that it's also probably easier for us because of the lack of diagrams (though there are certainly some...and typing notes certainly makes it a pain to get them down.)
Well, maybe it does reduce your salary, but I doubt that's the point. Rather, I imagine it's to get bright, foreign-educated workers to put down roots in the US so that we get to reap the economic benefits of the educational systems of their home countries, thus causing a brain drain into the US. Only really works if the US has a much higher standard of living though...
Slashdot Mirror
FYI, the same is true of the U.S.
Thank you for writing this so I didn't have to.
So far so good. But how then do you reply to this: http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1588498&cid=31541828&art_pos=1 ?
Ah, well then I suppose we disagree on the definition of "theft," (I would have thought that most would say that wrongness is the difference between taking and theft, just as it is the difference between killing and murder) but that's OK. So you are saying that something can be "theft" but not wrong.
How then is it a criticism of health insurance reform to call it "theft" if calling it "theft" doesn't mean it is wrong? Why isn't it a kind of "permissable theft" like seizing an enemy's property in wartime?
Then I invite you to respond to this: http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1588498&cid=31541828&art_pos=1
Here's another way to get at the point I'm trying to make that you might prefer:
The U.S. constitution (probably there most restrictive founding document there has ever been) straightforwardly grants the federal government the power to levy taxes and spend the money raised thereby to further the general welfare. Art 1, Sec 8, Cl. 1. This would seem to endorse rampant theft, on your definition of "theft."
Surely you don't agree with this conclusion. But if not, how do you escape it?
Simply reiterating the mistake doesn't make it go away. Taking by force is not theft. Wrongful taking by force (or, in fact, without force) is theft.
Otherwise how do you explain that it is not theft to:
I think it is obvious that these sorts of examples show that theft requires more than mere "taking by force." I reiterate that that element is wrongfulness. (And, while we're at it, I think the "by force" requirement can be tossed.) I don't mean for this suggestion to be controversial; it really shouldn't be.
In fact, I'm not even saying that I think you lack a theory of why these sorts of takings are wrongful. All I want is for you to tell me what it is so we can have a productive debate.
"Many of the current tort reform initiatives, such as caps on noneconomic damages, are motivated by a perception that ‘jackpot’ awards in frivolous suits are draining the system....But nearly 80% of the administrative costs of the malpractice system are tied to resolving claims that have merit."
- Michelle Mello, Associate Professor of Health Policy and Law at the Harvard School of Public Health
The answer is yes, but you have the substance of the "Slaughter Solution" a bit wrong.
Basically, there are two bills, the senate bill and the reconciliation bill. The house needs to pass the senate bill (because the dems in the senate no longer have the votes to pass a new bill there). But many house members' votes are contingent on the subsequent passage by both houses of a separate reconciliation bill to make alterations to the spending components of the senate bill to take out some of the special deals, etc. that made the senate bill ugly.
But the house dems have a problem: they want to pass the bill with fixes, but don't want to be seen as voting for exactly the nasty parts of senate bill that they later want to remove through reconciliation.) But, because of the nature of reconciliation bills, the bill it modifies has to already have been passed before the reconciliation bill can. So the idea is to just vote directly on the reconciliation bill under rules (rules that would also have to be voted on by the house) that would deem the senate bill to have passed upon passage of the reconciliation bill. The rules of the house do allow this, and this "deem and pass" technique has been used pretty frequently by both parties to pass legislation for at least the last 20 years.
So, there will be a vote. It's just that the vote will result in passage of the Senate bill in a somewhat indirect way. Though in some real sense there is nothing indirect about it; the members will all know what they are voting on and the passage of the bill will require just as many yea votes as it would under a "conventional" vote.
Forcing an insurance company to pay for a pre-existing condition is simple theft.
This is the sort of comment that gets us nowhere. "Theft" implies moral wrongfulness. Obviously those in favor of this health insurance reform bill don't think it is morally wrong and, thus, we obviously don't think it is theft. Without an argument for wrongfulness to back up your your claim of theft, then you're just calling the policy names. You will add nothing but noise to the debate this way, let alone convince anybody of anything.
Now if you could give us your argument as to why this is "theft" as opposed to "a legitimate exercise of federal power under Art I, Sec. 8, Cl. 3 and Art I, Sec. 8, Cl. 18 of the U.S. Constitution" then we would be getting somewhere.
A quick note about the "individual mandate": The reason that individuals are required to buy insurance is to avoid the so-called "adverse selection problem." Basically, if you are forcing insurers to take all applicants without regard to preexisting condition, then the natural tendency will be for nobody to buy insurance until they are already sick. This would make selling insurance impossible because there would be no healthy people in the risk pool and, thus, the insurer would be guaranteed to lose money. The solution to this problem is to require everyone by law to get insurance.
The democrats understand, though, that there is a big ick factor involved in requiring people to buy private insurance (particularly given how much everyone hates health insurers). That is one of the big reasons they were pushing the public option. But, unfortunately, the conservatives convinced everyone that the creation of a public option was but a small step away from the creation of death camps, so it's out and we're left with a "giveaway to insurance companies."
And what would they say, exactly?
I don't think his plan is a good idea, but what provision of the bill of rights does it violate?
Have you read Art III 2 of the constitution?
And do you really think the states would not be biased in the opposite direction? What happens if states disagree with each other in their constitutional interpretations?
And why would the courts, a totally separate branch of the federal government, care what powers are granted to the executive and congress? Maybe they would tend to be biased in favor of growing federal judicial power, but that is not at all what we're talking about.
You should not have to pay for a single tax, or program, unless it's authorized by the U.S. Constitution or your local State Constitution.
Well then good news! That is, indeed, the law of the United States. And it is overwhelmingly adhered to. Your problem, I take it, is that you do not agree with what courts have said that the constitution allows. For that, my friend, I'm afraid there is no cure that I can offer you, except maybe to read the opinions you have a problem with. In many cases you will find them quite sensible if you understand the law and approach them with an open mind.
Of course, I am NOT saying that I agree with every opinion ever to be written by the supreme court. What I am saying, though, is that the reasoning in almost every opinion I've read at least commands respect.
Interesting. I'm not sure that I see personal risk taking to be such an important qualification for a president, but I can see how one might. (And, to be sure, I certainly do think it has some importance. I just don't see how it's crucial.) Other than military service (kudos, then, John McCain), though, would you agree that there are pretty few national politicians that have taken serious personal risks?
As for Obama's risk-taking past, there is certainly no denying that things have always gone well for him. I would argue that this is mostly because he is incredibly intelligent and talented politically (as well as in a number of other ways). But the fact does remain that one could make the argument that this past means that he is not accustomed to dealing with high-stakes decisions. There may be something to that. (Though, again, I would count this as, at most, a single substantial mark against Obama in the face of many marks in favor.)
It bears pointing out, though, that after graduating Harvard law and working for a big law firm for a few years (presumably to help pay off his student loan debt; I'm in law school now so I certainly know how this goes!) he left BigLaw and the $150,000/yr+ salary that comes with it to go into community organizing and civil rights. This decision might not fit neatly into the definition of risk-taking behavior, but it does, I think, clearly show that Obama is capable of making difficult choices.
This sounds like a lot of the same wilful ignorance.
A convenience store has a concrete, objective measure of whether it succeeds or not. Namely, can the owner keep it in business? None of the above jobs has such a criteria.
Really? Non profits can and do go out of business all the time. But, for example, in the case of DCP we know that in the three years Obama was there he grew the organization from one (him) to 13 employees, and from an annual budget of $70,000 to $400,000. (While being paid $13,000/year, by the way.)
And in any event, are you seriously telling me that you think running a convenience store is a better qualification to be president than being the president of the Harvard Law Review?
[Writing his books] would be valid experience, assuming he wrote them, which again he probably did not.
Supposedly he wrote both of them. It certainly makes sense for the first one: he was just out of law school at that point and didn't have the money to hire a ghostwriter. (Not to mention that he was pretty much a nobody when the book came out, so why hire a ghostwiter?) And his editor says he didn't use one for The Audacity of Hope either. See e.g. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/02/22/opinion/main3865576.shtml
Again, I'm not saying that I think that these jobs necessarily qualify one to be president (I think they're mostly irrelevant). I'm just struck by the willingness of some to jump to these sorts of conclusions to paint Obama in the worst light possible when they could just think and Google for five minutes.
he has never run even so much as a convenience store
I realize this is really only intended as empty rhetoric but, come on. Here are a few things Obama has run, for everyone's information:
The Harvard law Review
Chicago's Developing Communities Project (DCP)
Illinois's Project Vote
Chicago Annenberg Challenge
Illinois Senate's Health and Human Services
U.S. Senate's subcommittee on European Affairs
Now, I realize that it is at least arguable that none of these provide the leadership experience required to be an effective president. You probably would like to have seen a former governor/mayor/head of a large agency. I don't think that sort of experience is strictly necessary, but I see how reasonable people could disagree. (Though, if I may ask, what leadership experience does John McCain have that qualifies him in your eyes? Is it just length of service in the Senate?)
But to say that Obama has not run so much as a convenience store is just totally false and it smacks of an either mean spirited (or, at best, willfully ignorant) parroting of the popular right-wing line that Obama is somehow a lightweight.
Ironically modded "informative"...
Bear in mind that even if copyright law provides no protection to databases, a database owner can still choose to only allow you access to their database under a license that prohibits you from reselling the information (and I believe many large database owners do just this). So, what you can't enforce through copyright law you probably could enforce through contract law.
(I am a law student, not a lawyer)
You're pretty dumb for someone getting a PhD.
Perhaps the field in which GP is getting a PhD is, you know, not technical?
Yeah...two words: Kinsman, torts.
I can also report that almost all law students take notes on laptops. Personally, I do it because, in most classes, we can take our notes (electronic or otherwise) into the final exam and if they're electronic, then that means they can easily be searched. Big advantage.
And it's true, generally that it's also probably easier for us because of the lack of diagrams (though there are certainly some...and typing notes certainly makes it a pain to get them down.)
Well, maybe it does reduce your salary, but I doubt that's the point. Rather, I imagine it's to get bright, foreign-educated workers to put down roots in the US so that we get to reap the economic benefits of the educational systems of their home countries, thus causing a brain drain into the US. Only really works if the US has a much higher standard of living though...
Could you point me to a source? I believe you, but I'm curious about the science.