"Obamacare"
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
20-01-2014, 08:47 PM (This post was last modified: 20-01-2014 09:34 PM by frankksj.)
RE: "Obamacare"
(20-01-2014 06:39 PM)Cathym112 Wrote:  I dunno if you know this, and this is probably why you like Friedman, but he was the MASTER at Reductio Ad Absurdum arguments.

BTW, yes, of course I know it. People always say the same of my arguments, and, of course, I learned that from Friedman. Libertarians often use this. What is your criticism of it? I think it's a very valid way to debate. If we do prove that the models and positions which Keynesians cling to result in absolutely absurd conclusions, that just means the opponent looks like an idiot. I always liked the old debates from Youtube where Friedman speaks before an audience of students and invites them to challenge him. They throw their best arguments at him, assuming they've got him stumped, and he shows them that if they think it through, it results in an absurd conclusion. Afterward the student always shrugs and feels stupid and skulks away. Reductio ad absurdum arguments only work when you're opponent is making absurd claims!

For example, I've heard Keynesians tell me a zillion times that raising the top marginal tax rates has no effect on people's willingness to work extra hard, at least not up until 70% or so. So, I always ask this: Well let's say we're talking about changing the tax rate on people making over $100k/year, and it's currently at 50%, and we can go up to 100% or down to 0% tax rate. Now, assume there's evidence that for most people currently earning $100k/year, if they take night/weekend courses and get a 2nd degree, they can double their gross income before taxes. So at the current 50% rate, by studying nights/weekends for 4 years, the person will take home an extra $50k/year. If you lower the tax rate to 0%, an extra $100k/year. If you raise it to 70%, only $30k/year. Now imagine you do a survey and call everybody who is currently making $100k/year, explain the stats, and ask them if they would be willing to put in the extra effort for an extra $30k/year, or $50k/year, or $100k/year. Will more people say 'yes' if the number is $50k/year or $30k/year? Will there be some people who are willing to do it for $30k/year but NOT for $50k/year? What about the other way around. Will some do it for $50k/year but not $30k? At what level of incentive will the highest % of people say 'yes', $30k, $50k, or $100k? The left always refuses to answer and skulks away. They have to admit that some people will put in the extra work for an extra $100k, but not for extra $30k. Therefore, the ONLY way their logic works is if there's an equal number of people who are willing to do the extra work for $30k, but NOT for $100k. Like anybody's going to say "I'll do it for $30k, but no way will I do it for $100k".

Sure, that's a reductio ad absurdum argument. But the only reason it works is because the other side is making an absurd argument which, if you just think it through, OF COURSE people respond to financial incentives. Duh. They've based their whole argument on the assumption that people are no more likely to respond to a $100k incentive than a $30k one. If they made a point that wasn't absurd, a reductio ad absurdum wouldn't cause them to run away with their tail between their legs.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-01-2014, 05:54 AM (This post was last modified: 21-01-2014 07:45 AM by Cathym112.)
RE: "Obamacare"
(20-01-2014 07:48 PM)frankksj Wrote:  
(20-01-2014 06:44 PM)Cathym112 Wrote:  Not per month, idiot. YEAR. Now try that math again, with a 450 car loan payment, (3 years left), and $60.50 per month for insurance.

Let's see who's the idiot. The case in point I was talking about is a 19 year old male with a new Corvette. I said the rate I was quoted was $700/month. You've done your math based on $60.50/month. Go to esurance.com, punch in the car/driver details in this example, assume a clean driving record (no accidents, dui's or tickets), and you get.... $685.86/month. So my estimate was off by precisely 2%. And yours by 1,140%. Screenshot below.

(20-01-2014 06:44 PM)Cathym112 Wrote:  also, for the last fucking time ROI of 7% is an unreasonable assumption for the conservative nature/risk tolerance. Bond Funds produce 2-3%

Here's the actual historical ROI data. Bonds, the lowest possible investment for the completely risk-averse, have averaged 5.5%/year. If you add just 30% stocks, which is still very low-risk, the ROI already exceeds the number I provided of 7%. Put it all in stocks, and even with all the crashes caused by the Fed, you still get 10%. And if you actually study this stuff and get out of the stock market when there's hysteria in the air (like right now), and park your money in gold for the crash, and then when there's doom and gloom put it back in, you can do much better than 10%.

So when I picked 7%, that is conservative, and I get much, much better than that. Again, you're figures are way off. And if you're only able to get 2-3% ROI on your investment, I don't believe you're as rich as you suggested.

(20-01-2014 06:44 PM)Cathym112 Wrote:  Math is not your strong suit.

Okay, well I stated that if you invested $700/month for 120 months and got a 7% annual ROI you would have $121k. If my math is so wrong, please, tell us what the real number is. I'm waiting....

Besides which one of us forgot to factor in any ROI at all when calculating how much money someone would have by self-insuring and investing the insurance money.

(20-01-2014 06:44 PM)Cathym112 Wrote:  And I don't believe for a second that you bought a new Lamborghini. Unless you want to post a picture of yourself with it.

Like I said, I always buy them when they're 3 years old, so I got the Murcielago back in 2004 when I was living in the US and sold it many years ago. Besides I'm currently not in my main home, so all I've got at this condo is a Bentley Continental GT. I attached a pic with your name on the front seat as proof. As always, paid for cash, and not insured. I do have a pic from last summer, however, when I took the Aventador from Switzerland to Italy for some training on the track with a test driver from Ferrari. I deliberately didn't mention the Aventador because at that point, spending $400k on a car, it was costing me quite a bit more than what the average Joe pays for a Cadillac each year. What I gave you was actual cars that a person of average means really could buy simply by always getting a used car and not insuring it, and putting the savings in a safe investment, like 70% bonds, that yields 7%/year.

The bottom line is that I think you'd be doing people a disservice if you tell them they can't get more than 2-3% ROI from investing, and that they should spend a big chunk of their income on health and car insurance. By contrast, I put up the spreadsheets showing people how much insurance costs, how much they'll save if they invest it instead.

Hahahahahaha!!! When you use RoI data over the span of 87 years, no wonder you think 7% is reasonable ROI.

You have a time horizon of 10-25 years. Not 87!!!

Historical Risk/Return (1926–2012)
Average annual return 6.7%
Best year (1982) 29.8%
Worst year (1931) –10.1%
Years with a loss 12 of 87

Also, your scenario of a 19 year old insurance a "brand new corvette" at 40,000 is ridiculous. MSRB for the baseline coupe starts at $51,000. Further, a 19 year old with this kind of car is so far out of the normal ranges statisticians have a word for this. Di minimis. Further, in your scenario, nothing ever happens. The car doesn't get so much as a scratch. That's again an assumption I won't grant you. I've never been in an accident with another vehicle. But I totaled my car when a 10 point buck decided to jump directly in front of my car on the highway. I've also walked out of a store to find my fender cracked because some asshole backed into it in the parking lot and drove off. Since that's not covered under your basic PL/PD, it's unreasonable to think that the average person won't at some point have to do body work on their car. To be reasonable, your Self insurance must assume that you will need even a portion of it throughout your lifetime.

Economists also don't really consider outliers such as this as indicative of what the population will do as a whole. Let's stick within reasonable time frames and reasonable norms shall we?

Second, do you have a problem with reading? Where did I say that those were MY portfolio returns? I said those returns were what the bond funds were doing in the last 5 years. In your example, even if I gave you the ROI of 7%, how are you accounting for fees and commissions for account management? You assume everyone is savvy enough to manage their portfolio on their own? I think this is an even more ridiculous assumption. The majority of average Americans do not understand the market, nor have the time to monitor their accounts for trade timing. I certainly don't have time for this. I pay 1% management fee to a financial advisor to manage my accounts. And since I'm only 31, my investments are highly speculative. My portfolio returns are between 10-12 %. Also - I don't invest 100% of my accounts because I need liquidity. It is common for my savings account to hold a large position in cash.

Third, nice car! Bowing I will give that to you. Buying cars that are 3 years old is not what we are talking about though. We are talking about insuring new cars.

I generally buy my cars lightly used too, since I agree, it's nt with 1/3 of the value to buy it new.

I will do the math for you when I get home to my computer. I'm on my mobile right now. Fair enough?

Further, I want to point out that again, your scenario of self insurance for HEALTHcare, must consider ROI that is extremely conservative. That money has to be there.

If your self insurance ("SI") account tanks for your car, well no one dies from not having a car. But your SI account for your healthcare is anther thing entirely. That money has to be there. Extremely low risk can only be tolerated and in only highly liquid investments. Remember when the bond market crashed in 2009?

A little rudeness and disrespect can elevate a meaningless interaction to a battle of wills and add drama to an otherwise dull day - Bill Watterson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-01-2014, 06:05 AM
RE: "Obamacare"
If you think "I think it's a very valid way to debate." Then you are the kind of person tht bases decisions on anecdotal evidence.
If this is true, we are so far apart we will never understand each-other.

Further, it's interesting why you think this is a valid form of argument, since it is so close to the strawman fallacy you hate.

A little rudeness and disrespect can elevate a meaningless interaction to a battle of wills and add drama to an otherwise dull day - Bill Watterson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-01-2014, 11:34 AM
RE: "Obamacare"
(21-01-2014 05:54 AM)Cathym112 Wrote:  You have a time horizon of 10-25 years. Not 87!!!

You don't need to go back 87 years. During the 1990's when I was starting out, the bond market was returning 7%. So, you're basing all your assumptions on the craziness of the past 10 years, but, I put up a 87 year chart to show that this isn't normal. It's the exception. So sure, right now, ever since the Fed's been buying up all the bonds, it's near 0, and bonds make no sense. However, this won't go on forever. The Fed will either have to rapidly shrink the money supply, like they did before the Great Depression and the early 1970's, and we'll suffer a painful economic downturn, or they can just keep printing money until the dollar collapses with high inflation. Either way, the bond market will return to its normal level. Of course, when it does, the US will have to default on its debt since there's no way it could afford 7% interest on $20 trillion in debt, but, since they've got a fiat currency and can, technically, not default just by printing $20 trillion to pay off the debt, my bet is they'll do a 'silent default' where the debt is wiped out through high inflation. Naturally, it's the poor and middle class who will get wiped out, and those of us with private bankers will make sure our wealth is secure.

My scenario was not ridiculous. It was a real story, my story. This wasn't a hypothetical. In the early 90's, I had a little software business and could take a $3k salary after taxes. Rent was $1k, I needed $1k for food, and was going to spend $1k on a car. Yes, that's unbalanced, but how many 19 year old men are balanced? I'm not the only one who wanted to blow as much money on a car as on rent. And when I went to the dealership, they said if I put $7k up front as a cap reduction, I could get my lease payments to something like $600/month, and the insurance was $700/month. And I was really on the brink, ready to sign. And a lot of young guys in my situation DO sign on the dotted line. And then at the end of the lease, they hand in the car and have absolutely zero, and have to start all over again, and they remain in that cycle their whole life leasing a new car every 3 years. But I stopped to do the math and was curious if I could afford the Corvette, but instead kept the same car I had and invested the money, how would that change things. I realized that in just over 2 years I'd be able to buy that same car used--cash. Therefore, if I didn't get insurance and wrecked out, I'd actually be no worse off than I would have been at the end of the lease anyway--no car and no money. So I figured I had nothing to lose. And for about 12 years I just kept socking away in my car fund the same amount I agreed to budget for the car lease+insurance. And by self-insuring, I drove MUCH more carefully. That Corvette would have probably been in a ditch within a month if I had bought insurance. And after 12 years I had a late-model Ferrari, without spending any money more than I would have if I had followed the traditional 3-year lease+insure trap.

The same thing with health insurance. I made a decision, when I was young and healthy, to go the non-traditional route and pass on the health management plans everybody else was getting, and instead just get a low-cost emergency-only insurance package, take care of routine care myself in Mexico, which was practical since I was living in SoCal and went to Mexico all the time anyway. And I invested the money I saved. It worked very, very well. Even if I had not made money selling my first software business, and had just continued to draw a normal, mid-range salary like most Americans, I still would have been able to retire with several million dollars just from the money I saved by managing my health care myself, and I still would have been driving a high-end car for the same price as the person leasing+insuring a new car every 3 years.

However, the key issue I'm trying to drive home is that the difference between us libertarians is that we may have ideas about the best way for people to live their lives. But we present them as suggestions only, and respect that everybody is free to decide for themselves. If you don't like my recommendation on cars, fine, lease+insure a car every 3 years. Just don't complain that it's unfair when somebody else who has the same income and spends the same amount on cars, but follows a plan like mine, is driving a Bentley instead of a Cadillac. Similarly, if you want to pay $500/month to the health insurance companies, fine. I think it's not wise. But I respect that it's your decision. Just don't come at with me pitchforks in hand demanding my head because I made different decisions and ended up in a much more comfortable position. To me, someone is greedy and selfish when they try to keep others down. I have a system that works for me, and I openly share it in case anybody is interested. All I can do is lay out my case, but it's up to each individual to decide.

Non-libertarians are, however, the exact opposite. Like us they have ideas about how people should live their lives, what they should spend their money on, etc. But, they rally together to get enough votes to pass laws forcing everybody to do it their way—or else law enforcement will haul them off at gunpoint.

So, my point here is NOT that I'm trying to convince everybody to do things my way. I'm trying to convince everybody to stop forcing everybody to do things their way. I'm showing that there are alternatives to healthcare which, I can prove from first hand experience, work very well and will leave you millions in savings. If somebody doesn't like my system and thinks it's better to buy a Blue Cross policy, fine. But they should make it a suggestion--not a law. Let the individual make up his own mind. Non-libertarians instead pass laws that force people to do it their way at gunpoint. That, really, for me is the key issue.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-01-2014, 11:40 AM
RE: "Obamacare"
Frank, when did I ever come after you with a pitchfork demanding your head because these were the decisions YOU made? Never. Not once.

the only thing I even proverbially came after you about was that you were trying o make this recommendation to people as a whole. or trying to make the argument that trucking off the Mexico or canada was a viable option for people. Its not! That is the difference. You assume your solutions would work for the majority, when in fact, they work for a SMALL minority.

So in essence, you are flapping your trap about solutions to the problem, when they aren't real solutions for anyone but yourself and a few select groups.

of course, I don't expect you to see the difference of this variance....

A little rudeness and disrespect can elevate a meaningless interaction to a battle of wills and add drama to an otherwise dull day - Bill Watterson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-01-2014, 11:46 AM (This post was last modified: 21-01-2014 12:13 PM by frankksj.)
RE: "Obamacare"
(21-01-2014 06:05 AM)Cathym112 Wrote:  If you think "I think it's a very valid way to debate." Then you are the kind of person tht bases decisions on anecdotal evidence.
If this is true, we are so far apart we will never understand each-other.

Further, it's interesting why you think this is a valid form of argument, since it is so close to the strawman fallacy you hate.

Huh? When you say 'so close to the strawman', I'm sorry, but 'close doesn't count'.

If you make a point and I show how, if you think YOUR POINT through, it leads to an absurd conclusion, that is a valid method of debate.

It's totally different, however, if I want to make your position look absurd and so, in order to do so, instead of taking YOUR POINT, I make up my own strawman argument, falsely attribute it to you, and THEN show how this strawman arguments leads to an absurd conclusion.

Sure, in both cases, they're reductio ad absurdum arguments. But there's a huge difference between pointing out someone's real position is absurd vs. pointing out some fantasy position is absurd.

RE: anecdotal evidence.. No, it's the opposite. When have I ever relied on anecdotal evidence? Go back to my post about whether income tax rates effect people's behavior.

Warren Buffet said he thinks the LTCG tax rate is too low, and he should pay at least as much in taxes as his secretary. He justified this by saying "I don't know one investor who would stop investing if the capital gains rate was raised to the same level as normal income." __THAT__ is anecdotal.

When he said this, however, I went to taxpolicy.org and downloaded all the historic CG tax rates vs. the amount of tax paid and the amount of profit from investment. The empirical data was crystal clear--the 2 figures are mirror opposites. Every time you raise the CG rate, the amount of CG tax revenue goes DOWN, and every time you lower the CG rate, the government collects MORE CG taxes. It's happened consistently like clockwork for as long as there's been a LTCG tax. Then I took a list of all countries from the CIA world factbook, sorted by per capita income, and compared it to a sheet which listed tax rates around the world. The top 46 countries ALL taxed LTCG lower than earned income. The wealthiest country in the world that managed to tax LTCG the same as earned income was Argentina. Even Scandinavian countries taxed CG lightly. In the 80's they used to tax CG rates like income, but they all abandoned it, even the countries most focused on equality. Why did they all do this if, as Warren Buffet said, it was possible to tax CG at a higher rate and not effect people's investment behavior?

This is NOT anecdotal evidence. That is empirical evidence combined with logic & reason.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-01-2014, 11:47 AM (This post was last modified: 21-01-2014 12:14 PM by frankksj.)
RE: "Obamacare"
(21-01-2014 11:40 AM)Cathym112 Wrote:  Frank, when did I ever come after you with a pitchfork demanding your head because these were the decisions YOU made? Never. Not once.

Every time you advocate laws or regulations that force me to do something against my will and threaten me with arrest at gunpoint and incarceration if I don't comply, that IS effectively coming at me with pitchforks for making decisions you don't agree with.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-01-2014, 12:33 PM
RE: "Obamacare"
(21-01-2014 11:47 AM)frankksj Wrote:  
(21-01-2014 11:40 AM)Cathym112 Wrote:  Frank, when did I ever come after you with a pitchfork demanding your head because these were the decisions YOU made? Never. Not once.

Every time you advocate laws or regulations that force me to do something against my will and threaten me with arrest at gunpoint and incarceration if I don't comply, that IS effectively coming at me with pitchforks for making decisions you don't agree with.

Interesting. So forcing you to drive the speed limit by setting laws regarding those limits is coming at you with a pitchfork because its your choice to go faster? I guess murder, theft, vandalism and any other law that regulates your behavior should be abolished.

For the last time. It is not illegal to refuse to buy insurance. You will incur a penalty tax and this is your choice. Not paying your taxes is a different story, and is illegal. But not buying health insurance and opting to pay the penalty is your choice. No guns involved.

Please. Stop with the "at gunpoint" shit. Its a hysterical reaction. In fact, most times when you get arrested, they don't even unholster their weapon unless you resist arrest....so the "at gunpoint" analogy is unfounded.

A little rudeness and disrespect can elevate a meaningless interaction to a battle of wills and add drama to an otherwise dull day - Bill Watterson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-01-2014, 01:19 PM
RE: "Obamacare"
(21-01-2014 12:33 PM)Cathym112 Wrote:  Interesting. So forcing you to drive the speed limit by setting laws regarding those limits is coming at you with a pitchfork because its your choice to go faster?

Jeez, how many times will I have to answer this same question? I thought through my answer the first time, so it's not going to change. For the 3rd time on this forum alone:

If I buy 1,000 acres in Montana, far from everybody, and build my own private racetrack so I can drive as fast as I want, and you, in California, hear about it, decide you need to save me from my own stupidity, so you rally to pass a universal speed limit and send in the cops to arrest me if I keep it up, then YES, the speed limit is coming at me with a pitchfork. It's my road, my rules. I should be able to set up a MINIMUM speed limit—you drive below 150 mph, and you get a ticket. You don't like my rules, then don't drive on my fucking road. Now if the people of Texas collectively build and own roads and decide to establish conditions upon which you're allowed to use those roads, including not driving over 65 mph, fine, that's their prerogative. Their roads—their rules. If you don't like it and want to drive 100 mph, then don't drive on their fucking roads. If you voluntarily enter into a contract where, in exchange for the privilege of driving on their roads, you agree to abide by their rules and agree to allow the police to arrest you if you break those rules, that's fine. It's not force when the police pull a gun to your head and haul you off. It's enforcing a voluntary contract. You knew the terms and you agreed to them.

(21-01-2014 12:33 PM)Cathym112 Wrote:  I guess murder, theft, vandalism and any other law that regulates your behavior should be abolished.

I've said a million times, all we libertarians care about is not initiating force to make people do things against their will. We see the appropriate role of government being to STOP the initiation of force (such as murder, rape, burglary, kidnapping, etc.), not to INITIATE force (such as drug policies). So it's a beyond a strawman to suggest that libertarians are somehow in favor of force, such as murder, because it's the exact opposite: YOU'RE the ones who are in favor of force, murder even—WE are the ones against it. Your side just has a very selective definition of the use of force. If you're the victim, then it's force. If you're the perpetrator, then it's not. If they're shooting, they're terrorists. If you're shooting, you're freedom fighters. For example, in the 90's when the UN published a report that Clinton's blockade of Iraq resulted in the deaths of half a million children, it was only us libertarians who got outraged against it, you guys were busy fretting about Monica Lewinsky. There was a great interview of Ron Paul where he was asked if he would vote to impeach Clinton. He was screaming in genuine fury and contempt “YES!!! I'm voting for impeachment!!!! But it has nothing to do with that stupid Monica tabloid nonsense. His sex life is nobody's business. But he killed half a million children and he needs to be held accountable!” Of course, the interviewer went on like “oh, that crazy libertarian” and found someone another politician to interview about Lewinsky. The killing of half a million kids wasn't even worth consideration. When Secty of State Albright was asked about it in an interview, she casually said “it was worth it”. Even though nothing was accomplished—like killing half a million kids just for the sport of it is worth it. But that's because when it's your side doing the killing, well it's not murder, it's not violence, it's not force. But what happened when the tables were turned and 20 American kids got killed in Newtown? Oh, NOW, suddenly the death of a child is significant. NOW, it's murder. What about the Iraq War? Republicans and Democrats both supported it—only us libertarians were screaming that it's murder to invade and destroy a foreign nation that is not attacking anybody else.

IMO, my position is consistent and unwavering. The initiation of force is wrong. PERIOD. No matter who does it, whether it's the police or a terrorist. And no matter who is the victim, whether it's an American child or an Iranian. You will not find one instance where I have ever advocated the initiation of force. You're simply trying to find excuses to justify using force when you want to, but still be able to play the victim when it's used against you, so you're twisting this stuff in circles.

Regarding vandalism, as I've said many times before, libertarians fall into 2 categories: 1) Those like Noam Chomsky who do not believe that individual liberty extends to property (ie humans cannot own matter) vs 2) Those who do believe that if you obtain property through legitimate means, such as voluntary trade, it is yours and you have the right to defend an attack on your property (vandalism), just like you do against your body (rape), and you can delegate that authority to a security firm (such as the police).

(21-01-2014 12:33 PM)Cathym112 Wrote:  For the last time. It is not illegal to refuse to buy insurance. You will incur a penalty tax and this is your choice. Not paying your taxes is a different story, and is illegal. But not buying health insurance and opting to pay the penalty is your choice. No guns involved.

Please. Stop with the "at gunpoint" shit. Its a hysterical reaction. In fact, most times when you get arrested, they don't even unholster their weapon unless you resist arrest....so the "at gunpoint" analogy is unfounded.

Ah, ok, so you're argument then is that if the gun will not be revealed provided one complies, then it's not “at gunpoint”. So, if I go into a bank with a gun under my shirt and tell the teller that if she complies and doesn't resist, she will be unharmed and I will never use my gun, then, by your definition I didn't rob at gunpoint because I didn't actually put the weapon to her head? With that twisted logic almost any kind of evil can be justified. The fact is that the only reason people comply with the laws and regulations is because the threat of guns hangs over them. If the police come to arrest you for shoot heroin, the only reason you don't fight back and defend yourself is because you know they will increase the force until you break, so resistance is futile.

So, answer this, then.... Just like you guys tell me I can't shoot heroin, what if I thought it was wrong for your daughter to chew gum (rots her teeth), and I enforced my rule the same way you enforce yours, namely telling your daughter that if she obeys and doesn't chew gum, I'll leave her alone. If I catch her chewing gum, I will handcuff her and lock her in my basement for 10 years, and as long as she doesn't resist, I will never unholster my gun. I will only shoot and/or tase her if she refuses to obey my orders. Are you seriously going to tell me you have no problem with that? That it's not violence and that I'm not forcing you to do something at gunpoint? If not, then why is it that when you (referring to voters collectively) do the EXACT same thing, you flip/flop and suddenly it becomes acceptable behavior? Also, remember that I've already resigned that only a tiny percentage of the population will ever agree with us libertarians that the use of violence is wrong, so I accept the compromise our founders came up. Pass whatever fucking laws and regulations you want, point your guns at each other and try to micro-manage each others lives all you want, just do it at the state/local level so that if someone finds it too oppressive, he can leave. Why is that so unthinkable to you? Seriously, why do you need to have all your laws and regulations be universal, covering every square inch where a person can legally reside with no means of escape?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-01-2014, 01:34 PM
RE: "Obamacare"
(21-01-2014 11:47 AM)frankksj Wrote:  
(21-01-2014 11:40 AM)Cathym112 Wrote:  Frank, when did I ever come after you with a pitchfork demanding your head because these were the decisions YOU made? Never. Not once.

Every time you advocate laws or regulations that force me to do something against my will and threaten me with arrest at gunpoint and incarceration if I don't comply, that IS effectively coming at me with pitchforks for making decisions you don't agree with.

Sometimes it is warranted to keep rivers from burning and shit and West Virginians having potable water and what not. I mean hell, you still can't safely eat the fish you catch from DuPont Delaware waters. Call it pitchforks if you like, but sometimes regulation is warranted. We can argue whether the state of health care in the US warranted it or not, but it is now moot.

[Image: river.jpg]

As it was in the beginning is now and ever shall be, world without end. Amen.
And I will show you something different from either
Your shadow at morning striding behind you
Or your shadow at evening rising to meet you;
I will show you fear in a handful of dust.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: