"Obamacare"
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
26-01-2014, 01:30 PM
RE: "Obamacare"
(26-01-2014 11:23 AM)frankksj Wrote:  
(25-01-2014 06:32 PM)BnW Wrote:  Seriously, what do you do that you have this much free time to just sit on the internet and argue with people? How is that even possible?

I'm an international porn superstar. What do you do?

You're right, though, that this is pointless arguing and not productive debating. For example, in a useful debate you have to decide what exactly you're debating. Early on I told cjlr the single defining issue of libertarianism is letting people exercise free will, and if the government is going to deny people free will, it should be done by the state/local government so people can relocate if the laws are too oppressive. Cjlr insisted this was not the sole issue separating him from libertarians, so I repeatedly asked him to identify one exception to the rule, at first asking politely, and then more aggressively. It's impossible to have a productive debate if we don't first identify what we're debating! He was backed into a corner, unable to identify an exception to the rule, but similarly unwilling to acknowledge that the issue we were debating was his desire to to deny people free will with national laws. So he just gave negative reputation for having the audacity to corner him like that. Ditto with Chas, and now Cathy, who was especially laughable because we were debating really basic black & white stuff, like the future ROI on an investment of $700/mo @ 7%. Once I gave the formulas proving my numbers were right, she too just gives negative reputation and refuses to engage. You're right that my "5,000 word essays" accomplished nothing and were a waste of time. The reason I did it is because I enjoy a good productive debate, I like having my views challenged, it keeps me on my toes. But when you make a solid point and your opponent is unable to rebut it, but rather than acknowledging you have a point and moving on to the next issue, they just skulk away and give you negative reputation, there's really no point in continuing.

You again mischaracterize what I said. Really, you need to stop doing that.

I disagreed with you that most things should be done at a local level, and that telling people to just move is not a solution. Most people cannot afford to move, or wouldn't want to move away from the familiar.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-01-2014, 01:33 PM
RE: "Obamacare"
(26-01-2014 01:26 PM)BnW Wrote:  
(26-01-2014 11:23 AM)frankksj Wrote:  I'm an international porn superstar. What do you do?

I'm Batman.

And, when I'm not beating the shit out of criminals I'm making the world safe for billionaires by providing legal cover for people who are defrauding the middle class and then evicting widows and orphans. I used to have trouble sleeping at night but then I realized that rich people who lie, steal and cheat are not criminals, they are "job creators" and, as such, should be able to do whatever the fuck they want because they only have societies best interests at heart. And, I know this is true because both political parties are in 100% agreement on this.

[Image: batsignal.jpg]

Please hurry! I need your help hiding money from the gun-toting IRS!

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-01-2014, 02:36 PM
RE: "Obamacare"
(26-01-2014 11:23 AM)frankksj Wrote:  Early on I told cjlr the single defining issue of libertarianism is letting people exercise free will, and if the government is going to deny people free will, it should be done by the state/local government so people can relocate if the laws are too oppressive. Cjlr insisted this was not the sole issue separating him from libertarians, so I repeatedly asked him to identify one exception to the rule, at first asking politely, and then more aggressively. It's impossible to have a productive debate if we don't first identify what we're debating! He was backed into a corner, unable to identify an exception to the rule, but similarly unwilling to acknowledge that the issue we were debating was his desire to to deny people free will with national laws. So he just gave negative reputation for having the audacity to corner him like that.

That never happened, my delusional chum. Citation needed.

(but I suppose it is rather interesting how apparently fixated you are; is there a purpose to be served here by petulantly whining about a strawman anecdote of past discussion?)

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-01-2014, 03:22 PM
RE: "Obamacare"
(26-01-2014 01:30 PM)Chas Wrote:  You again mischaracterize what I said. Really, you need to stop doing that.

I disagreed with you that most things should be done at a local level, and that telling people to just move is not a solution. Most people cannot afford to move, or wouldn't want to move away from the familiar.

Chas, not true, I understand your point. And it's a valid one. Nobody's disputing that, say, the Swiss system where all coercion is deferred to the local level, means that when you become an adult and move from home, you may have to relocate if you live in a community with laws you disagree with. And I'll give you that this is easier done in a tiny country like Switzerland where moving from a conservative canton like Appenzell to a liberal one like Zürich, means being only an hour drive away from your family, whereas in the US, moving from Mississippi to Boston is a much greater barrier.

The part I don't like is that to have a productive debate, both sides must acknowledge the other's points and debate the merits of both positions. I've acknowledged the merits of your position: by having one set of laws for the whole nation you've eliminated the problem of relocating if you don't like the laws since there's nothing you can do to escape the laws--resistance is futile and, so, everybody needs to just resign themselves to accepting these laws.

But I haven't seen you ever acknowledge the cons of this position, nor the merits of my positions.

Cons of your position: 1) It denies people their right to exercise free will since there's nothing they can do to escape. If you're a Saudi woman and want to drive, you can't just move to a more "liberal" community--it's a nationwide ban so you're stuck. 2) It's dangerous: when all the power is concentrated in a central body it often has led to tyranny. 3) It's slow to evolve since, if a bad set of laws are passed, you need to get a majority of the whole country to agree to revoke them. 4) You don't have competing systems with the strongest rising to the top.

Pros of my position: 1) Since participation in a community is voluntary, which is the key to any contract being valid, by choosing where you live you have invoked a valid social contract, voluntarily subjecting yourself to a certain set of laws in exchange for certain benefits. Thus free will is respected. 2) Advances in humanity come when people buck the status quo and try something outside the box. My system is that allows this since if you propose something that is wildly unpopular at the time, like evolution, which the majority consider blasphemous and worthy of execution, you have the ability to leave and you only need find one community in the whole country that will tolerate your views, or, worst case, pick an unincorporated area and start your own community of one. 3) Look at the deadlock in the US when you try to have a one system for everybody. The left can't get what they want, nor the right what they want, so both sides are permanently locked in battle trying to gain the upper hand and ram their laws down the others' throats. With my system, you can have ultra-liberal communities with socialized medicine and a strong safety net, and ultra-conservative ones.

I could go on and on.... But it's pointless because I've never seen you once acknowledge the merits of my position, as I have of yours.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-01-2014, 03:26 PM
RE: "Obamacare"
(26-01-2014 02:36 PM)cjlr Wrote:  That never happened, my delusional chum. Citation needed.

Gladly, but I'm not even sure WHAT you're claiming never happened, so I don't know which of your words to throw back you. Please be specific, are you disputing:

1) That I stated the only time I would disagree with you is when you were forcing people to do things against their will at the national level?

2) That you refused to acknowledge that our disagreement boiled down to the 1 issue?

3) That you failed to provide even one example of a disagreement that did not fit the profile I laid out?

If the answer is 1 or 2, I can provide a citation. If the answer is 3, it's impossible to prove a negative, so it's up to you to provide a citation.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-01-2014, 03:39 PM
RE: "Obamacare"
(26-01-2014 03:22 PM)frankksj Wrote:  
(26-01-2014 01:30 PM)Chas Wrote:  You again mischaracterize what I said. Really, you need to stop doing that.

I disagreed with you that most things should be done at a local level, and that telling people to just move is not a solution. Most people cannot afford to move, or wouldn't want to move away from the familiar.

Chas, not true, I understand your point. And it's a valid one. Nobody's disputing that, say, the Swiss system where all coercion is deferred to the local level, means that when you become an adult and move from home, you may have to relocate if you live in a community with laws you disagree with. And I'll give you that this is easier done in a tiny country like Switzerland where moving from a conservative canton like Appenzell to a liberal one like Zürich, means being only an hour drive away from your family, whereas in the US, moving from Mississippi to Boston is a much greater barrier.

The part I don't like is that to have a productive debate, both sides must acknowledge the other's points and debate the merits of both positions. I've acknowledged the merits of your position: by having one set of laws for the whole nation you've eliminated the problem of relocating if you don't like the laws since there's nothing you can do to escape the laws--resistance is futile and, so, everybody needs to just resign themselves to accepting these laws.

But I haven't seen you ever acknowledge the cons of this position, nor the merits of my positions.

Cons of your position: 1) It denies people their right to exercise free will since there's nothing they can do to escape. If you're a Saudi woman and want to drive, you can't just move to a more "liberal" community--it's a nationwide ban so you're stuck. 2) It's dangerous: when all the power is concentrated in a central body it often has led to tyranny. 3) It's slow to evolve since, if a bad set of laws are passed, you need to get a majority of the whole country to agree to revoke them. 4) You don't have competing systems with the strongest rising to the top.

I never said everything should be national, only that some things must be, and it is desirable for some things to be. Our lives in a mobile society are much easier with some basic homogeneity of law.

I don't accept the dueling systems premise, at least wildly different ones. We can't have one state communist, the next anarchical, the next a monarchy. There already are differences in laws among states, but not the basic systems.

An example of different laws that is problematic is firearms laws. They vary widely from state to state and there is no consistency in reciprocity - it's a hodgepodge.

Since we have a representative government, we don't actually have to get a majority of the people to agree to a change.

Quote:Pros of my position: 1) Since participation in a community is voluntary, which is the key to any contract being valid, by choosing where you live you have invoked a valid social contract, voluntarily subjecting yourself to a certain set of laws in exchange for certain benefits. Thus free will is respected. 2) Advances in humanity come when people buck the status quo and try something outside the box. My system is that allows this since if you propose something that is wildly unpopular at the time, like evolution, which the majority consider blasphemous and worthy of execution, you have the ability to leave and you only need find one community in the whole country that will tolerate your views, or, worst case, pick an unincorporated area and start your own community of one. 3) Look at the deadlock in the US when you try to have a one system for everybody. The left can't get what they want, nor the right what they want, so both sides are permanently locked in battle trying to gain the upper hand and ram their laws down the others' throats. With my system, you can have ultra-liberal communities with socialized medicine and a strong safety net, and ultra-conservative ones.

I could go on and on.... But it's pointless because I've never seen you once acknowledge the merits of my position, as I have of yours.

We already have fifty states with widely varied laws. Health care is one of those things that I believe is better mandated nationally.
My view on this is that there should be a baseline, or framework, established for all residents of the country and the states can be as different as they want to beyond that.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-01-2014, 03:46 PM
RE: "Obamacare"
(26-01-2014 03:26 PM)frankksj Wrote:  Gladly, but I'm not even sure WHAT you're claiming never happened, so I don't know which of your words to throw back you.

Dodgy

(26-01-2014 11:23 AM)frankksj Wrote:  Early on I told cjlr the single defining issue of libertarianism is letting people exercise free will, and if the government is going to deny people free will, it should be done by the state/local government so people can relocate if the laws are too oppressive. Cjlr insisted this was not the sole issue separating him from libertarians, so I repeatedly asked him to identify one exception to the rule, at first asking politely, and then more aggressively.

Or,

(26-01-2014 11:23 AM)frankksj Wrote:  He was backed into a corner, unable to identify an exception to the rule, but similarly unwilling to acknowledge that the issue we were debating was his desire to to deny people free will with national laws. So he just gave negative reputation for having the audacity to corner him like that.

I'm not picky.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-01-2014, 04:33 PM
RE: "Obamacare"
(26-01-2014 01:26 PM)BnW Wrote:  I'm making the world safe for billionaires by providing legal cover for people who are defrauding the middle class.... And, I know this is true because both political parties are in 100% agreement on this.

Finally, we agree. But here's a question for you. It wasn't always like this. Look at the US's historic gini co-efficient below. Throughout the 50's and 60's, no matter which party was in power, whether taxes went up or down, equality improved and the middle class thrived. The trend reversed around 1970, and ever since then, no matter what policy is tried, the middle class loses ground and wealth is concentrated at the top. Why is that? What happened around 1970?

[Image: us-gini-index-from-1947.png]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-01-2014, 04:46 PM
RE: "Obamacare"
(26-01-2014 03:39 PM)Chas Wrote:  Health care is one of those things that I believe is better mandated nationally.
My view on this is that there should be a baseline, or framework, established for all residents of the country and the states can be as different as they want to beyond that.

Please clarify. In the first sentence you use the word 'mandate', implying the stated are forced to comply. However in the second sentence you says 'the states can be as different as they want beyond that'.

So, let's assume that Sarah Palin got elected President, with a cooperative majority in both houses of Congress. She appointed a conservative justice that overturned Roe v Wade and arrested any woman who got an abortion. She thinks medicare and welfare encourage freeloading and got a national ban passed on any government at any level providing any type of assistance to the poor. She got Obamacare repealed and made it a crime to provide medical care to those who couldn't pay. And she repealed the current exemption that allows Canadians like yourself who have < $2m in assets to surrender their green card and return to Canada, so that you were trapped and couldn't return.

Would you still be glad that this was done at the national level and not at your state level so you weren't faced with the dilemma of moving? Or would you be outraged and wish she were still governor of Alaska instead of President, so the damage were contained? Would you wish that Massachusetts had the authority to reject the national mandate and keep their current system?

Chances are you and I both share the same social objectives, and both would be equally horrified if that Palin-scenario played out. But, to me, a good political system is not one that only works when your side wins, it's one that works even when those who are polar opposite of you win, and accommodates everyone, letting us all peacefully co-exist and not fighting constantly trying to get the club and force the other side to do it our way.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-01-2014, 05:39 PM
RE: "Obamacare"
Cjlr,

OK, fine I'll provide a citation. Here are direct quotes from the political ideology thread:

1) my first post #29: "All creatures on earth are born with the natural instinct to use force to get what we want, whether it be to make someone do something we want, to stop doing something we don't want, or to give us something we want.... Libertarian [means] free to do what you want with your life without being coerced through the threat of force and violence.... [later post] the ONLY thing I'm complaining about is when those laws get passed at the national level so that nobody can escape. Every time I disagree with someone about some law, it's always because it's a national law.... the libertarian rule is simple: Are people being forced to do something against their will? If yes, the law must be struck down at the national level, and left up to the local jurisdictions to sort out." Thus I have provided a citation backing up my claim #1 above.

2) At first you disputed this by insisting you couldn't get your head the concept of 'force'. See your post #30. Then you couldn't understand what 'initiation' meant. Then you kept ascribing false positions to me. In your post #124 you correctly quoted me as saying "I oppose ALL violence, the initiating of force by ANYBODY. It's irrelevant if he works for the government or not", but you couldn't accept that I actually believed what I said I did and made up this false position for me: "You oppose initiation of force unless it is necessary." It was untrue, since I oppose initiating force COMPLETELY at the federal level. Saying it's ok "when necessary" is meaningless since, of course, the one initiating force always thinks it's necessary. That's like saying "only beat your wife when it's necessary". Then you again made up a false premise, saying "A policy [of the majority] enforcing its will on [the minority] is consequence of democracy... as you have several times acknowledged!" That (a) was false since I do not believe it's inevitable at the national, and (b) makes it clear that you DO believe that it IS inevitable that the majority would initiate force against minority. However when I later restated this position saying I was "pointing out to you the cold hard facts that you are on the side of initiating force...", you clearly did dispute this replying "Citation needed" even though I already copied/pasted your prior statement. Then you AGAIN refused to accept that the issue I disagreed with you on was if the use of force should be permitted, saying "The disagreement is in when force is justified" (post #147). That is, just I said in my claim #2 today "That you refused to acknowledge that our disagreement boiled down to the 1 issue [of whether initiation of force should be allowed at the national level]". You kept insisting that this wasn't what I was saying, and that this wasn't the sole issue separating us, and that I must somehow really, like you, advocate initiating force at the national level. The idea of NOT forcing people to do things against their will was SOOOO foreign and incomprehensible to you, you just couldn't accept that I could possibly think like that.

Next I challenged you to "find examples where libertarians are 'breaking their rules'" of not forcing people to do things against their will (post #169). You never provided an example. And in post #222 I again challenged you: "@cjlr, let's settle this with a real world example. Why don't you pick one national policy which you disagree with libertarians on, and tell me what your view is." Again, you never provided even one example.

There are citations proving my claim #2.

3) As I mentioned re: my claim #3, it's impossible to prove a negative. So if you're disputing my claim that you never responded to those challenges I just mentioned, it's up to you to copy/paste where you actually did.

I don't know why I'm even wasting my time, cjlr, since you're unwilling to engage in a productive debate. A productive debate would mean that you acknowledge the sole issue I disagree with you on is having the federal government initiate force to make people do things against their will. Then you could explain why you think it's necessary, I could explain why it's not, and we could debate the pros and cons. But this is just useless bickering because you will NEVER accept that the only thing I disagree with you on is forcing people to do things against their will and not providing them a means of escape. I can safely predict you will STILL refuse to post even one example where you disagree with libertarians on ANY position at all that doesn't boil down to that issue, yet you STILL will not admit that this is the sole issue dividing us. I'm done re-hashing this issue.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: