"Obamacare"
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
21-01-2014, 03:34 PM
RE: "Obamacare"
(21-01-2014 03:25 PM)frankksj Wrote:  Here's another question you'll run from (I think we're getting close to 100). Remember the scandal in Tenaha, TX? Throughout the country the asset forfeiture laws state that if a cop suspects you might be a drug dealer, the police dept can seize your property. But most police are discrete about it. In Tenaha, however, a tiny town of 1,100 people, they set up a speed trap and when they saw a black person driving a nice car they pulled them over, basically said that the only way a black person could have a nice car was to deal drugs, so they confiscated them. Thousands of them. When one woman who tried to resist and call her lawyer, the cops took her kids and threatened to turn them over to CPS if the woman didn't stop resisting. It created a national outcry only because of the scale of it and the fact that they targeted minorities. However, the courts confirmed what they did was legal.


So you are saying that a few instances of abuse of power, or unlawful S&S, means that we should remove the police's ability to ALL S&S?

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, 03:43 PM
RE: "Obamacare"
Is Obama care anywhere in our future? (in THIS discussion if not real application) ??

When I want your opinion I'll read your entrails.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-01-2014, 04:21 PM
RE: "Obamacare"
(21-01-2014 03:30 PM)Cathym112 Wrote:  Well what about being in possession of stolen property? You had reason to believe it was stolen, but you purchased it anyway... Still think the cops shouldn't arrest you.

Congratulations. You identified a gray area. I'll concede it's not clear if it's a positive or negative law, and depends a lot on the circumstances. Did you offer someone you knew was a thief to sell you a Rolex if he could “find” one, where you're an accomplice? Or did you buy it off craigslist for a ridiculous price that you should have known it was stolen? I don't have the answer, and I agree we need judges and juries to decide these gray areas. However, 99.9% of the people in jail are there for breaking laws that are clearly negative or clearly positive, so focusing on a handful of fringe gray areas is, imo, unproductive.

(21-01-2014 03:30 PM)Cathym112 Wrote:  you seem to have this thought in your head that recreational drugs like cocaine, have no effect on OTHER people and therefore aren't harmful. I disagree.

Where did I ever say that? Everything one does has an effect on others. I've never said otherwise. I even believe in chaos theory, you know that a hurricane in Florida might not have happened were it not for a butterfly flapping its wings in Africa at just the right time. And I agree with you that some behaviors are destructive and harmful and that we, as society, should do everything possible to encourage good behavior and minimize harm. The question is simply how to accomplish it.

For 7,000 years this was done by having laws that told people what to do and law enforcement. But, human progress was painfully slow and after 7,000 years of this, people were living miserable lives and dead at 40. Then some philosophers realized that progress comes from the odd ball individuals who think outside of the box and who, to the mainstream, seem bizarre and dangerous at first. So, as long as they're allowed to make positive laws, they will always suppress these unpopular minorities, and we'll be perpetually stuck with the status quo. They argued we should turn the system upside down and give the government the role of blocking the use of force—not initiating it. Sure, this made some things more difficult. For example, back then you could buy cocaine at the corner store, heck it was even in Coca-Cola. But, by freeing minorities from the need to comply with the majority, and allowing oddball individuals to test unpopular theories which society as a whole found offensive, we had an instantaneous EXPLOSION in human progress, precisely at the moment when the system of banning positive laws was implemented, and precisely in those countries that implemented it. In the blink of eye the world was transformed, people are living to be over 80 on average, there's a middle class that's occupied with which smartphone to get their kids instead of how to feed them, the world is connected, we're walking on the moon. And if you look at all the major breakthroughs and think them through, most of them only happened because of the ban on positive laws.

The issue we're debating is if it was a good idea to go back to the old system of positive laws, or it's better to return to the new concept of only enforcing negative laws.

Thus, I don't want people using cocaine. Sure, if my neighbor does it, it affects me. The issue is “Do I have the right to use violence to make my neighbor stop?” Or should I find peaceful, non-violent methods of persuasion, like supporting a charity rehab clinic. The fact is that if I'm given the power to make my neighbor stop using cocaine, I also may use that power to stop him from doing something else that I think is bad for society but was, in fact, the next breakthrough. And, what if I am doing something that I am convinced is what's right for me and is the next breakthrough, but my neighbor thinks it's bad. Can he use violence to stop me?

(21-01-2014 03:30 PM)Cathym112 Wrote:  So you are saying that a few instances of abuse of power, or unlawful S&S, means that we should remove the police's ability to ALL S&S?

If someone is suspected of breaking a NEGATIVE law (like murder, theft, etc.), then, yes, I'm in favor of the police presenting the evidence to a neutral judge and getting a search warrant. With negative laws there is ALWAYS by definition a victim, and if seizure is necessary to make the victim whole, then I'm fine with that too. However, 99% of S&S is when the police are enforcing positive laws (like drugs) and keeping the stuff they confiscate for themselves. That I'm against, and I feel it leads to abuse. If the s&s is limited to property rights and negative laws, there's no incentive for the police to abuse it--they are providing a service. But with this system, abuse is inevitable and you'll find some leaked police manuals where agencies around the nation are advising cops to step up s&s because it's easier to fund the dept by taking people's stuff than getting it through taxes, so long as they don't go batshit crazy like Tehana.

There was an example in California several years ago of an elderly guy who owned several acres of land adjacent to a national park. The park service wanted to annex the land, but he wouldn't sell for a low enough price. So some ranger claimed that, while flying at 10,000 feet over the guy's property, they saw some pot. So they raided the place, and the guy thought it was a burglary and was groggy after surgery, came out with a gun, and the cops shot him dead. And the raid was carried out with park service rangers, so it was pretty clear who was behind it. These are the kind of abuses that happen with your system. You don't object because you personally haven't been affected. But what if you were the one getting shot in your front yard because you wouldn't sell your house?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-01-2014, 04:55 PM
RE: "Obamacare"
What is the definition of Negative law? Its not anywhere on a google search under "Negative law definition"

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, 05:01 PM
RE: "Obamacare"
(21-01-2014 04:21 PM)frankksj Wrote:  There was an example in California several years ago of an elderly guy who owned several acres of land adjacent to a national park. The park service wanted to annex the land, but he wouldn't sell for a low enough price. So some ranger claimed that, while flying at 10,000 feet over the guy's property, they saw some pot. So they raided the place, and the guy thought it was a burglary and was groggy after surgery, came out with a gun, and the cops shot him dead And the raid was carried out with park service rangers, so it was pretty clear who was behind it. These are the kind of abuses that happen with your system. You don't object because you personally haven't been affected. But what if you were the one getting shot in your front yard because you wouldn't sell your house?

Right there. "The guy thought it was a burglary and he was groggy after surgery, came out with a gun and the cops shot him dead."

You are equating him being shot to what you would consider a violation of his 4th amendment rights.

However, he was shot because he waived a gun at the police. Are you saying the police do not have a right to defend themselves? ridiculous.

Do you understand cause and effect? He waived a gun at police = he gets shot.

not Cops violated 4th amendment = he gets shot.

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, 05:02 PM
RE: "Obamacare"
(21-01-2014 05:01 PM)Cathym112 Wrote:  
(21-01-2014 04:21 PM)frankksj Wrote:  There was an example in California several years ago of an elderly guy who owned several acres of land adjacent to a national park. The park service wanted to annex the land, but he wouldn't sell for a low enough price. So some ranger claimed that, while flying at 10,000 feet over the guy's property, they saw some pot. So they raided the place, and the guy thought it was a burglary and was groggy after surgery, came out with a gun, and the cops shot him dead And the raid was carried out with park service rangers, so it was pretty clear who was behind it. These are the kind of abuses that happen with your system. You don't object because you personally haven't been affected. But what if you were the one getting shot in your front yard because you wouldn't sell your house?

Right there. "The guy thought it was a burglary and he was groggy after surgery, came out with a gun and the cops shot him dead."

You are equating him being shot to what you would consider a violation of his 4th amendment rights.

However, he was shot because he waived a gun at the police. Are you saying the police do not have a right to defend themselves? ridiculous.

Do you understand cause and effect? He waived a gun at police = he gets shot.

not Cops violated 4th amendment = he gets shot.



(hands you an energy drink and a Nespresso)

When I want your opinion I'll read your entrails.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes WitchSabrina's post
21-01-2014, 05:05 PM
RE: "Obamacare"
(20-01-2014 05:51 PM)Buddy Christ Wrote:  (Only read the first 4 pages of the thread)

As I was reading this, I was thinking to myself how strange it was to be having an honest discussion about Obamacare like rational adults. I can't think of another social medium (media?) where it isn't just uninformed parrots shouting Fox News talking points and referring to Obama as Nobama or Obummer like the children that they are. I was proud of the site and had hope it would continue.

Then along comes Alla.

(23-12-2013 09:23 PM)Alla Wrote:  Obamacare is:
if you like your doctor you can NOT keep your doctor. Period.
Obamacare is Unaffordable Care Act

It really is a mental condition. The mindset of the religious bleeds over into other aspects of life. Everything is black and white, one extreme or another. God exists and there is no room for argument. Obama is a Kenyan socialist and there is no room for argument - emphasized with a "period." It's a certain immaturity that is apparent to those not currently dangling by puppet strings.



And as for the whole "website was a disaster" thing, it was kind of expected by anyone who knows how these things work. As a gamer, I've witnessed many many million dollar game campaigns ruined on launch because of the simple fact that servers get overloaded when flooded by an entire nation. The newest Sims comes to mind. If Electronic Arts - one of the reigning kings of the gaming community and have been doing this since 1982 - can't get it right, do you really expect a tech team who works for the government to do any better?
I am against big government. I don't care if Obama is Kenyan. I am against single payer, too.

English is not my native language.
that awkward moment between the Premortal Existence and your Resurrection
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-01-2014, 05:13 PM
RE: "Obamacare"
(21-01-2014 04:55 PM)Cathym112 Wrote:  What is the definition of Negative law? Its not anywhere on a google search under "Negative law definition"

See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_rights
and
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_liberties

Positive rights are the right to force people to do what you want so that you have the resources you need. The traditional role of government. Negative rights are the rights to NOT be forced to do something against your will. The classic liberal role of government. However, non-libertarians don't typically discuss this philosophy, so I often refer to 'offensive laws' and 'defensive laws', just because it's easier for people to understand.

This is rooted in the concept of inalienable rights, that all individuals have a natural right to life, liberty (meaning to be able to exercise free will without threats of force), and property. Classic liberals believed these rights were inalienable, meaning even if the majority of voters wanted to deny some unpopular minority their rights, they couldn't. Any federal laws which infringed on a person's liberty were unconstitutional, and the Supreme Courts role was to strike them down. In the US Constitution, the laws start out as "Congress shall [b]NOT[/b...", so the point was to limit what the Federal government could do. The states were free to do most anything, so long as they didn't prevent people from leaving if they found the laws too burdensome. Thus, a VOLUNTARY social contract was enacted when one chose to live in a given state and agreed to subject himself to that state's laws. Liberals today use the social contract in the exact opposite way, ignoring the necessary 'voluntary' component, and just saying "I want you to do X, and I have a right to force you to do it because we have a social contract that you were born into and can never escape." Which is, to a libertarian, purely non-sense.

In a system which imposes only negative rights, and reject positive rights, you cannot have murder, rape, theft, etc., because you're violating the negative rights of another--and the government's job is to prevent it. But, it also means the government will make sure nobody violate your negative rights--including the government.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-01-2014, 06:12 PM
RE: "Obamacare"
(21-01-2014 05:13 PM)frankksj Wrote:  
(21-01-2014 04:55 PM)Cathym112 Wrote:  What is the definition of Negative law? Its not anywhere on a google search under "Negative law definition"

See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_rights
and
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_liberties

Positive rights are the right to force people to do what you want so that you have the resources you need. The traditional role of government. Negative rights are the rights to NOT be forced to do something against your will. The classic liberal role of government. However, non-libertarians don't typically discuss this philosophy, so I often refer to 'offensive laws' and 'defensive laws', just because it's easier for people to understand.

This is rooted in the concept of inalienable rights, that all individuals have a natural right to life, liberty (meaning to be able to exercise free will without threats of force), and property. Classic liberals believed these rights were inalienable, meaning even if the majority of voters wanted to deny some unpopular minority their rights, they couldn't. Any federal laws which infringed on a person's liberty were unconstitutional, and the Supreme Courts role was to strike them down. In the US Constitution, the laws start out as "Congress shall [b]NOT[/b...", so the point was to limit what the Federal government could do. The states were free to do most anything, so long as they didn't prevent people from leaving if they found the laws too burdensome. Thus, a VOLUNTARY social contract was enacted when one chose to live in a given state and agreed to subject himself to that state's laws. Liberals today use the social contract in the exact opposite way, ignoring the necessary 'voluntary' component, and just saying "I want you to do X, and I have a right to force you to do it because we have a social contract that you were born into and can never escape." Which is, to a libertarian, purely non-sense.

In a system which imposes only negative rights, and reject positive rights, you cannot have murder, rape, theft, etc., because you're violating the negative rights of another--and the government's job is to prevent it. But, it also means the government will make sure nobody violate your negative rights--including the government.


Hmmm...so in other words, there is no such thing as negative LAW.

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
[+] 1 user Likes Cathym112's post
21-01-2014, 06:23 PM
RE: "Obamacare"
Unintended consequence of Obamacare.

I have a small business. I employ a total of 65 people, 1/3rd are part time. Health Insurance premiums run approximately $583 per person, per month. Now before, I was allowed to ask employees to pay 10% of their gross salary toward their health insurance, up to $150 per insured individual. I stipulated in their employment contract that if they got "exceeds expectations" on their employee reviews, and consistently came into work, and were loyal to me in terms of working, I gave back all the money they paid toward their health insurance, plus 20% of their salary as a bonus, if the company saw profits.

Now, thanks to obamacare, I can only ask an employee to pay 10% of their HOUSEHOLD income, which could mean that they don't help me pay for their health insurance at all...they get that free ride...whether they deserved it or not. That sounds fair.

I also used to give my part time employees health care as well, with the same requirement that they pay a portion of that out of their paycheck.

However, now that the overall premiums are increasing by at least 10%, I can no longer afford to give these part timers health insurance. I do not even have the option of making them pay more for this insurance, being that its household income requirement and all.

Now, Obama considers anything over 50 employees to be a bigger business. So I guess I have the option of letting go 15 people so that 50 can see bonus'. Bottomline, Obamacare is eating away at my profits...profits that I am not greedily stuffing into my pocket, but profits that I share with my employees that EARN it through hard work and dedication.

Its sad, but a lot of small business are facing very difficult decision due to Obamacare.

If I do have to lay off people...I am going to do something I saw on Facebook. I'm going to find everyone who has an Obama sticker on their car. They will be the first ones to go...since they wanted "change" and all.

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: