"Obamacare"
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
21-01-2014, 02:10 PM (This post was last modified: 21-01-2014 02:14 PM by Cathym112.)
RE: "Obamacare"
(21-01-2014 01:19 PM)frankksj Wrote:  
(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?

You are by far, the most ridiculous person I have ever met. You conflate issues to absurd proportions, and most of your answers are completely irrelevant to the question. More african safari shit.

You have no knowledge of the semantics of the law, nor the application thereof. Its that "we" against "you" kind of mentality, simply because we have a different perspective, that frightening. I would bet dollars to doughnuts that you would be front and center leading a lynch mob. I can see how people would respond to your highly exaggerated and passionately riot-like battle cries. Exaggeration is your bag, baby. You also have a penchant for conspiracy theories, I see.

You and I will never see eye to eye on regulation, and the acts of government by which they are created.

that road analogy was completely nonsensical to the point I was making, which is that not every law that limits your choice is pointing a gun to your head.


Are you honestly going to tell me that a cop making a lawful arrest is REMOTELY comparable to an armed robbery?!?!?!?!??!

We are done talking, Frank.

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, 02:13 PM
RE: "Obamacare"
(21-01-2014 01:34 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  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.

Girly, I like your reply because I agree it's not productive to argue whether laws/regulations enforced by the police is 'force' or not. It is, unquestionably. It's so frustrating that so many are stuck on this non-issue. It's much more productive to call a spade a spade, admit that they're advocating the 'forcing people to do things at gunpoint', but ask: (a) what are the unintended consequences, (b) what do we hope to accomplish, © is there a non-violent way to accomplish those goals, and (d) if not, can the regulation be done at the state level instead of nationally so that if we're wrong, other states are free to try something else. THAT is a productive discussion.

I like your reply because you acknowledge that calling it 'pitchforks' is immaterial, let's talk about a real-life case. While regulation helped clean up the waters, I disagree that a lack of regulation created the pollution in the first place. It was a lack of enforcing property rights. The companies that dumped pollutants in the water were destroying property that belonged to others, including public waterways that belonged to the State. Every propertarian-libertarian (like me, but like Chomsky) will agree that nobody has the right to harm another's property, and the role of government/courts is to make sure the perpetrators pay for damages when they harm the property of another. If the government simply did its job and enforced property rights, the first company that polluted like that would have been bankrupted paying for the cleanup damage.

I think that if the government had enforced property rights it actually would have been MORE effective than regulation. With regulation, the EPA says "You must not use chemical Y, if you stay within our guidelines, you are immune from prosecution." So, a company can instead switch to using chemical z, fully aware that it's even more dangerous than the banned chemical y, but, if the regulators permit it, the company is immune from prosecution for the damages they cause. If you use property rights INSTEAD of regulation, companies would have to thoroughly research the effects of their chemicals to be sure they won't hurt anyone, and be much more cautious since a slip-up will no longer be limited to a symbolic slap on the wrist, but rather will bankrupt them as they have to reimburse all the people they harmed.

Besides, with regulation, it's unavoidable that since the big companies have the most to gain or lose, they will do anything possible to get in bed with the regulators and ensure the regulation is written to make them winners. I mentioned, for example, how Searle picked the head of the FDA to push approval of their product despite objections from the review board, and then to ban their competitors products. If you used property rights instead of regulation you wouldn't get these perverse incentives, since the goal of the company would be to do no harm--not get the regulators on their side.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-01-2014, 02:20 PM
RE: "Obamacare"
(21-01-2014 02:13 PM)frankksj Wrote:  
(21-01-2014 01:34 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  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.

Girly, I like your reply because I agree it's not productive to argue whether laws/regulations enforced by the police is 'force' or not. It is, unquestionably. It's so frustrating that so many are stuck on this non-issue. It's much more productive to call a spade a spade, admit that they're advocating the 'forcing people to do things at gunpoint', but ask: (a) what are the unintended consequences, (b) what do we hope to accomplish, © is there a non-violent way to accomplish those goals, and (d) if not, can the regulation be done at the state level instead of nationally so that if we're wrong, other states are free to try something else. THAT is a productive discussion.

I like your reply because you acknowledge that calling it 'pitchforks' is immaterial, let's talk about a real-life case. While regulation helped clean up the waters, I disagree that a lack of regulation created the pollution in the first place. It was a lack of enforcing property rights. The companies that dumped pollutants in the water were destroying property that belonged to others, including public waterways that belonged to the State. Every propertarian-libertarian (like me, but like Chomsky) will agree that nobody has the right to harm another's property, and the role of government/courts is to make sure the perpetrators pay for damages when they harm the property of another. If the government simply did its job and enforced property rights, the first company that polluted like that would have been bankrupted paying for the cleanup damage.

I think that if the government had enforced property rights it actually would have been MORE effective than regulation. With regulation, the EPA says "You must not use chemical Y, if you stay within our guidelines, you are immune from prosecution." So, a company can instead switch to using chemical z, fully aware that it's even more dangerous than the banned chemical y, but, if the regulators permit it, the company is immune from prosecution for the damages they cause. If you use property rights INSTEAD of regulation, companies would have to thoroughly research the effects of their chemicals to be sure they won't hurt anyone, and be much more cautious since a slip-up will no longer be limited to a symbolic slap on the wrist, but rather will bankrupt them as they have to reimburse all the people they harmed.

Besides, with regulation, it's unavoidable that since the big companies have the most to gain or lose, they will do anything possible to get in bed with the regulators and ensure the regulation is written to make them winners. I mentioned, for example, how Searle picked the head of the FDA to push approval of their product despite objections from the review board, and then to ban their competitors products. If you used property rights instead of regulation you wouldn't get these perverse incentives, since the goal of the company would be to do no harm--not get the regulators on their side.

*sigh* you don't understand how regulation works do you? Do you know that regulation is designed to be REACTIONARY and not PREVENTATIVE.

The EPA, the FDA, SEC, FINRA, and any other regulatory agency has whats called the "bad actor" rules. Which states, that if you knowingly [pollute the environment, defraud the public, engage in activity otherwise considered just and equitable principals of trade] that you will still be held liable for your actions regardless if there is an actual law in place to prevent the use of chemical Z, the selling of product Y, or the trading of ABC corporation on the market.

Educate. Yourself.

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, 02:21 PM
RE: "Obamacare"
(21-01-2014 02:10 PM)Cathym112 Wrote:  Are you honestly going to tell me that a cop making a lawful arrest is REMOTELY comparable to an armed robbery?!?!?!?!??!

So are you honestly going to tell me that when the cops were the Nazi SS and they were making lawful arrests based on eugenics laws passed by a democratically-elected government, that it was proper and moral because they're cops?

Even here in the US... Obama admits he was a stoner in school. Obviously if he had been caught, as a young black ex-con who dropped out of community college to serve time for a drug conviction, his opportunities would have been very limited. He'd be lucky to even be employed at all. The only reason he got to be President is because he slipped through the fingers of the police. If he had been caught, so that this whole life he would build had been taken away from him, yes, imo, that is pretty much like armed robbery. In fact, if I had pulled a gun to a young Obama and stolen his watch, the future prospects I would have stolen from him would be MUCH less than if I were a cop and arrested him for smoking pot. The cops, making lawful arrests, would have taken much more from young Obama than a robber ever could.

Like I said to Girly, if you could just get passed the denial stage and admit that the only thing that separates you, Chas, Cjlr, etc., and us libertarians, is that you guys want to use force against people, THEN we could move on to a productive debate about which system is better. But we're stuck in this stupid, useless circle where, when you force someone to do something at gunpoint you insist it's not violence, but if someone does it to you, suddenly then it is.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-01-2014, 02:26 PM
RE: "Obamacare"
Girly, do you have a gun I can borrow and one bullet I can have? I'd like to stick it in my mouth.

I'm talking about lawful arrests not being comparable to armed robbery and he's dropping Nazi bombs.

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, 02:26 PM
RE: "Obamacare"
(21-01-2014 02:20 PM)Cathym112 Wrote:  The EPA, the FDA, SEC, FINRA, and any other regulatory agency has whats called the "bad actor" rules. Which states, that if you knowingly [pollute the environment, defraud the public, engage in activity otherwise considered just and equitable principals of trade] that you will still be held liable for your actions regardless if there is an actual law in place to prevent the use of chemical Z, the selling of product Y, or the trading of ABC corporation on the market. Educate. Yourself.

I'd say the same to you. Bad actor laws apply to those who deceive regulators. If I go to the EPA in a secret meeting and disclose to the regulators that I'm making this product which I know pollutes the air, but I manage to get the regulators to approve it anyway, I'm not a bad actor, and yes, I'm immune from prosecution. Remember, for example, big tobacco cut a deal with the government, and now they are immune from prosecution. Even if you're grandma is the victim of their fraud, when they knowingly deceived her, publishing false reports that smoking was good for your health, and now granny has lung cancer, she CANNOT SUE. The tobacco companies cut a deal with government, and so they are immune from prosecution. Educate yourself.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-01-2014, 02:29 PM
RE: "Obamacare"
Cathym112,

P.S. If, in practice, the regulation works to reign in corporate interests and protect consumers, how come corporations are most often the biggest supporters of regulation? Why is it that the Taxi companies are arguing that the ride sharing industry needs to be tightly regulated, if the regulation serves to protect the public from the taxi companies? Why are the insurance companies now the biggest supporters of Obamacare?

Because if you're a corporation regulation is your best friend. You can use it to block competition and to get immunity for doing bad things that hurt people.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-01-2014, 02:31 PM
RE: "Obamacare"
(21-01-2014 02:26 PM)Cathym112 Wrote:  Girly, do you have a gun I can borrow and one bullet I can have? I'd like to stick it in my mouth.

I'm talking about lawful arrests not being comparable to armed robbery and he's dropping Nazi bombs.

Why don't you address the point I made? You always run from them.

What would have been "stolen" a young Obama's future prospects more:

1. The police arrest him for smoking pot

2. A robber steals his wallet

Which ones would he have been able to recover from, and which one would have left him destitute? Why don't you answer that?!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-01-2014, 02:33 PM
RE: "Obamacare"
JP morgan, Goldman Sachs, Citigroup and the financial industry at large are fiercely opposed to FINRA and SEC regulation!!! You have no idea what you are talking about!! Its the largely ignorant PUBLIC that demands the regulations, and the politicians that try to get voters.

Regulation does not give you immunity. Regulation has become a lumbering bureaucracy that has lost all aspects of discretion and common sense application...but thats another issue.

No way was FINRA in bed with Citibank to allow them to defraud investors with CMOs, even though there was no specific rule for such a product.

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, 02:37 PM
RE: "Obamacare"
(21-01-2014 02:31 PM)frankksj Wrote:  
(21-01-2014 02:26 PM)Cathym112 Wrote:  Girly, do you have a gun I can borrow and one bullet I can have? I'd like to stick it in my mouth.

I'm talking about lawful arrests not being comparable to armed robbery and he's dropping Nazi bombs.

Why don't you address the point I made? You always run from them.

What would have been "stolen" a young Obama's future prospects more:

1. The police arrest him for smoking pot

2. A robber steals his wallet

Which ones would he have been able to recover from, and which one would have left him destitute? Why don't you answer that?!

Because its a nonsensical question!!!!! And in no way relates to the fucking point, is that a lawful arrest is not a robbery. If Obama chose to break the law, it is not the police stealing his "future prospects" anymore than the police are stealing the future of someone who drinks and drives. Its illegal. He chose to do it. The ONUS is on HIM

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
Post Reply
Forum Jump: