Why can't liberals get their around the concept of "insurance"?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
07-11-2013, 08:29 AM
RE: Why can't liberals get their around the concept of "insurance"?
(06-11-2013 06:20 PM)frankksj Wrote:  @Carlo_The_Bugsmasher_Driver,

You keep providing detailed response (thank you) but you keep ignoring the question that I'm asking over and over again. What if Texas did this? You keep saying it's not immoral for the Federal government to do it. So why not answer if you think it's also not immoral for a State government to do it?

Lastly, you still keep referring to Fischer as a "criminal". But what crime was he charged with? Am I missing something here, because the whole thing we're debating is if it SHOULD be criminal for an American expat to (a) visit countries the US has forbade, and (b) refuse to send his foreign earned income back to the US. As far as I know, the only laws he broke, are the very ones I'm arguing are immoral laws in the first place, and your insistence on calling him a criminal implies he broke SOME OTHER LAW besides the one we're debating.

As I've said many times, it's like me defending Rosa Parks saying the Jim Crow laws are immoral and you responding that I'm fucked up for taking the side of a criminal. Her only crime was breaking the law that we're debating! And remember, in the eyes of the rest of the world, Bobby Fischer was an oppressed victim of a tyrannical regime--not a criminal. Canada protested the US treatment, as did other US allies, and Iceland held a parliamentary session and overwhelmingly approved the government act on Fischer's behalf. You keep calling him a "criminal", the same way the Soviet's referred to defectors as "criminals".

That is a spectacularly stupid argument. First off. I DID actually answer the moral/immoral question about tax laws saying that they are AMORAL, provided they are applied fairly to all citizens of a state under the guidelines of the Constitution.

Which brings up why, sadly, your miserable comparison between tax policy / Bobby Fisher's plight and Rosa Parks / Jim Crow laws fails in an epic manner. The law that Rosa Parks broke as well as the southern Jim Crow laws only applied to SOME of the citizens of that state not ALL the citizens of that state in a manner which discriminated against them based on their race.

Conversely the tax laws you described do not.

If

Person A, a resident from State X living and working in State Y has to pay Income Tax Z for State X based upon income earned in State Y.

and

Person B, a resident from State X living and working in State Y does not have to pay Income Tax Z for State X based upon income earned in State Y.

then you have a potential case that State X's tax laws are discriminatory.

But if

Persons A and B, residents of State X living and working in State Y have to pay Income Tax Z for State X based upon income earned in State Y.

Then there is no discrimination under law.

Bobby Fisher isn't being picked on unfairly as there were perfectly valid and moral laws against capricious entry into a territory (Yugoslavia) controlled by a government hostile to the United States. We do this to provide unrestricted access to the US by spies, sabatouers, industrial criminals or others who may have malevolent designs on the United States at the behest of a hostile power and vice versa. You should not that if Bobby Fisher had simply traveled to a country which has good relations with the United States. Fisher is not singled out; ANY US citizen who attempted what he did would have had a warrant issued for his arrest and his Passport revoked. No unfair descrimination happened here.

"IN THRUST WE TRUST"

"We were conservative Jews and that meant we obeyed God's Commandments until His rules became a royal pain in the ass."

- Joel Chastnoff, The 188th Crybaby Brigade
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-11-2013, 09:35 AM
RE: Why can't liberals get their around the concept of "insurance"?
@Carlo_The_Bugsmasher_Driver, OK. I'll do it your way. Two can play at that game.

Carlo, you are an uneducated dinosaur for insisting the earth is flat. Here is live webcam video of a ship circling the globe! Touché! I win.

Now, before you tell me that you never argued the earth is flat, read your last post where you “pummel” me for suggesting the laws we're debating are discriminatory. Now, read my prior posts and I dare you to copy/paste anywhere that I ever said anything remotely of the sort. This is no more what we're debating than the earth being flat. Of course they're not discriminatory, every moron can see that, and debating that is an irrelevant strawman.

The comparison I made with Rosa Parks and Bobby Fischer is that we're debating whether certain laws are moral and just. And you keep attacking Fischer suggesting he deserved imprisonment because he was a “criminal”, and keep disparaging him for being a fugitive from the law. BUT, the only crime he committed, the only laws he broke, are the very ones that we're debating! So your attempt to smear him is a desperate measure, deliberately misleading the reader into thinking that he'd committed other crimes. And, yes, this is absolutely no different than us debating Jim Crow laws and I point to Rosa Parks, and you attack me for taking the side of some vile criminal and fugitive—the only crime she committed was breaking the same laws that I'm arguing weren't just laws to begin with. But, this is such an airtight comparison and you can't think of a rebuttal, so you go off on your discrimination strawman.

The bottom line is that you're backed into a corner when I asked you if it would be moral if Texas did the same thing. You cannot answer that question, and have no place to move. In chess, this is checkmate. But you can't admit it, so you're off on your irrelevant tangents. The reality is that that if you say it WOULD be moral and just for Texas to require that everyone born in Texas must pay taxes to Texas for life even if they move to another state, and that Texas gives its people a list of states they are and are not allowed to visit, then you sound like a tyrant. No rational person would suggest that this is moral and that a Texas native was a “criminal” and “fugitive” for having the audacity to go to Nebraska, one of Texas's banned states, and refusing to send his Nebraska income back to Texas. But, if you admit that it's immoral, then you're really stuck because it's no different when a federal vs. a state government does it. But, you're so dogmatic and closed-minded, you can't just bring yourself to say “Ok, the law is immoral”, so you're off on wild tangents.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-11-2013, 09:40 AM
RE: Why can't liberals get their around the concept of "insurance"?
P.S. This is no different than @Chas's situation on the very same laws, which Chas also was defending. I said "Ok, well you're a Canadian who expatriated and now work in the US. So would you support it if Canada passed the same law and required you to pay both US and Canadian taxes?" He can't answer that. It's checkmate. If he says "yes", everybody knows he'd be lying because such a law would make it very difficult for him to continue as an expat and would likely force him to abandon the life he has chosen and return to Canada against his will. If says "no", he sounds like a total hypocrite for saying that Americans should be subject to a law that makes it very difficult for us to live in Canada, when he admits he would never stand for it if it were the other way around.

So, rather than saying "Checkmate, yes, this is an unjust law", he too just dodges the question and keeps attacking other subjects.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-11-2013, 12:01 PM
RE: Why can't liberals get their around the concept of "insurance"?
(07-11-2013 09:40 AM)frankksj Wrote:  P.S. This is no different than @Chas's situation on the very same laws, which Chas also was defending. I said "Ok, well you're a Canadian who expatriated and now work in the US. So would you support it if Canada passed the same law and required you to pay both US and Canadian taxes?" He can't answer that. It's checkmate. If he says "yes", everybody knows he'd be lying because such a law would make it very difficult for him to continue as an expat and would likely force him to abandon the life he has chosen and return to Canada against his will. If says "no", he sounds like a total hypocrite for saying that Americans should be subject to a law that makes it very difficult for us to live in Canada, when he admits he would never stand for it if it were the other way around.

So, rather than saying "Checkmate, yes, this is an unjust law", he too just dodges the question and keeps attacking other subjects.

Fuck you. I never said that. I did not defend that U.S. law.

Take your attitude and dishonest posts and shove them up your ass.

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
07-11-2013, 12:31 PM
RE: Why can't liberals get their around the concept of "insurance"?
(07-11-2013 12:01 PM)Chas Wrote:  Fuck you. I never said that. I did not defend that U.S. law.

Take your attitude and dishonest posts and shove them up your ass.

Chas, you forget... The internet leaves a permanent record. When I first complained that it was unfair, and contrary to the values of freedom and liberty, for the US to have these laws designed to make it very difficult to expatriate, you did _NOT_ respond "Yeah, you're right. That's an unfair law. I wouldn't like it if Canada did that to me." Rather you responded:

(05-09-2013 09:28 AM)Chas Wrote:  Your assumptions and misconceptions are typical 'libertarian' garbage.... U.S. citizens are free to leave the U.S.... Chinese citizens are not free to leave China. Repair your ignorance, then we can have a useful discussion.

Then when you were proven wrong by (a) me copying/pasting the exact laws in question, and (b) HU.Junyuan explaining that as a Chinese citizen he IS free to leave China with no strings or barriers, rather than saying "Gosh, I didn't realize that, thanks for the clarification" you responded:

(05-09-2013 11:37 AM)Chas Wrote:  Go live in China, no one in the U.S. will try to stop you.

So I reminded you how difficult it would be for me to live in China.

(05-09-2013 12:22 PM)Chas Wrote:  You could have renounced your U.S. citizenship at any time, yet you didn't. Why not?

I explained that I would then be stateless and wouldn't be admitted into China anyway, so this isn't an option. But you STILL defended it and said:

(05-09-2013 04:02 PM)Chas Wrote:  It does not appear that it is as difficult as you imply.

And then you STILL kept defending the US law:

(05-09-2013 07:49 PM)Chas Wrote:  The point is that it is straightforward and legal for a U.S. citizen to emigrate from the U.S. There is not any restriction by the U.S. on doing so.

Once you have found a country to accept you as a permanent resident, you're free to stay there - Uncle Sam won't hold you.

You then even read the law and misinterpreted it thinking that the US defined expatriate as the rest of the world does (someone who chooses to live abroad) and wrote:

(05-09-2013 08:42 PM)Chas Wrote:  Read the IRS publication referenced. Once you are a "covered expatriate" you are no longer subject to U.S. taxes.

Then you backpeddled and denying saying what you did, even though there was a clear record:

(06-09-2013 08:26 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(06-09-2013 05:51 PM)frankksj Wrote:  [This is the same as the first post from @Chas. He said all my assertions were libertarian garbage, ...

I did not say that.

And then subsequent to that you've said "fuck you" and resorted to calling me all sorts of names.

The transcript speaks for itself. Yes, you have defended the law. It appears you now realize that you would hate it if Canada had such a law since it would likely make living your chosen life here in the US very difficult and probably force you to return to Canada against your will. But you can't just admit "Yeah, you were right, it's not fair and I wouldn't like it if I were in your shoes." No, you keep up with calling me names.

Look, if you're ever asked a question, like that "Would you like it if Canada did it", and get backed into a corner, then the pragmatic, open-minded thing to do is accept that it's "checkmate" and there was some flaw in your original position, and adjust your position accordingly. This works much better in the long run. Many, many times I've said "Checkmate, you're right, I was wrong" and abandoned wrong positions. Therefore, the only ones that I cling to, like these expatriation laws, are the ones that have stood the test of the time. I've debated them 100 times, and every time the other side ends up either having the open-mindedness to say "thanks for explaining that to me", or the closed-mindedness to say "fuck you", therefore, I know this position has merit and I can safely stick to it and not back down. That's not a sign of arrogance. To the contrary, it takes humility to continually say "I was wrong" and back down on all your false views until you have just one or two left that stand the test of the time. As I said in the beginning, the ONLY core view that I still cling to is that people should be able to exercise free will. And the ONLY time I will ever disagree with you is if you're using force to coerce people into doing things against their will. That's NOT arrogance, because, like every human being, I was not born with that view. Like everyone else, I thought that I knew what was best for society and that I should support politicians who will pass laws that force people to live by my vision. I've abandoned these old views because I used to be on your side of the debate, and I kept getting 'checkmated' in corners trying to defend them. Now, I'd support a politician, like Ron Paul, who is the exact opposite of me in every way, and whose world view is 180 degrees the opposite of mine, BUT he is committed to letting everyone exercise their free will. Libertarians still want equality and all the rest that today's liberals want. We just accept that liberty has to come first, because it's the only way to achieve those goals, and if you sacrifice liberty for those other goals, you end up losing both liberty and those goals.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-11-2013, 12:44 PM
RE: Why can't liberals get their around the concept of "insurance"?
"1. Somebody should invest some time in you" etc.
If there were such a "somebody" they might be kind of "booked". But, as far as I know their ain't! As for the "price you can afford": That price can be zero dollars some months. Why? Let's say the truck breaks down, as it did last week. I earn barley enough money to put bread on the table, now I have to pay a mechanic. Luckily I had some guns (inherited) to sell to kind of cover it. Which brings us to:

"2. Wealthy people who can afford more should help you out."
Well they could. Like, maybe, by paying me a reasonable wage for my efforts in bringing wealth to the company. So I would be able to pay for healthcare myself! Or. . . They could make their usual choice: Which seems to be pissing on my grave.

"3. Force you to buy your own health insurance against your will and if you refuse, secretly take it out of your paycheck anyway, and if you don't have a paycheck, force other low income people to pay for it."
I think it's a little more complicated than that. Think it has something with the many helping the few. Kind of like "We all pull together as a team"? Ever thought of doing something like that?

"First, I've already shown many times that Obamacare _IS_ option #3"
"you'll ultimately pay for it any with a lower salary)"
Want to know why we (the poor) will ultimately pay for it? Because the rich are so greedy that they will do everything in their power to protect life styles that feed the empty "souls" they all claim to have, while watching their brothers and sisters struggle to support them with their labor! The labor that keeps the company afloat.

"thousands of charity hospitals throughout the country that provided quality, free health care"
Really? And we professional leeches couldn't find them? Probably because of our low I.Q.s

"1/10 the normal price by simply going south of the border"
O.K????!!!! I posted my I.Q. What's yours?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-11-2013, 12:56 PM
RE: Why can't liberals get their around the concept of "insurance"?
(07-11-2013 12:31 PM)frankksj Wrote:  Yes, you have defended the law.

What colour is the sky in your world?

Saying he disagrees as to what the content of the law is is not the same as defending it.

So far as that distinction is concerned it quite literally doesn't even matter what it actually says. You seem to have serious problems with this sort of thing.

You say, "the law says A".
Chas says, "actually the law says B".
You say, "why are you defending it?".

Sure. But for the part where that's not defending it.

This is a rather startling disconnect from reality. And you do it all the time.

(07-11-2013 12:31 PM)frankksj Wrote:  Look, if you're ever asked a question, like that "Would you like it if Canada did it", and get backed into a corner, then the pragmatic, open-minded thing to do is accept that it's "checkmate" and there was some flaw in your original position, and adjust your position accordingly. This works much better in the long run. Many, many times I've said "Checkmate, you're right, I was wrong" and abandoned wrong positions. Therefore, the only ones that I cling to, like these expatriation laws, are the ones that have stood the test of the time. I've debated them 100 times, and every time the other side ends up either having the open-mindedness to say "thanks for explaining that to me", or the closed-mindedness to say "fuck you", therefore, I know this position has merit and I can safely stick to it and not back down. That's not a sign of arrogance. To the contrary, it takes humility to continually say "I was wrong" and back down on all your false views until you have just one or two left that stand the test of the time.

Your every discussion here belies either dishonesty or delusion.

If acting like a tosser until nobody bothers talking to you counts as being right, well, you're the rightest person going.

(07-11-2013 12:31 PM)frankksj Wrote:  As I said in the beginning, the ONLY core view that I still cling to is that people should be able to exercise free will. And the ONLY time I will ever disagree with you is if you're using force to coerce people into doing things against their will.

Society is by definition coercive. Are there any laws lacking consequences for breaking them? I'm not aware of any.

(07-11-2013 12:31 PM)frankksj Wrote:  That's NOT arrogance, because, like every human being, I was not born with that view. Like everyone else, I thought that I knew what was best for society and that I should support politicians who will pass laws that force people to live by my vision. I've abandoned these old views because I used to be on your side of the debate, and I kept getting 'checkmated' in corners trying to defend them. Now, I'd support a politician, like Ron Paul, who is the exact opposite of me in every way, and whose world view is 180 degrees the opposite of mine, BUT he is committed to letting everyone exercise their free will. Libertarians still want equality and all the rest that today's liberals want. We just accept that liberty has to come first, because it's the only way to achieve those goals, and if you sacrifice liberty for those other goals, you end up losing both liberty and those goals.

Who are you talking to?

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes cjlr's post
07-11-2013, 02:27 PM
RE: Why can't liberals get their around the concept of "insurance"?
Chaz! Dude, you really should leave! Because frankksj is clearly capable of writing what you should have said for you! Like, for instance (and this is just me speaking FOR you) "Take every inch of it "frankksj" baby! Which could have been considered inappropriate. But he would have corrected you!

In fact, NOBODY except "frankksj" should really speak, here! He's fully capable of handling this conversation by himself!

I know that I, as a lifelong learner!, await his correction of what I should have said, with the appropriate level of love for this dear man!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-11-2013, 02:39 PM
RE: Why can't liberals get their around the concept of "insurance"?
"I should support politicians who will pass laws that force people to live by my vision."
"I kept getting 'checkmated'

Really? It's easy to see how you got 'checkmated'. Chess (The game where you get checkmated) is not your game! Try "Tic Tac Toe"! Many people have a 50/50 chance there!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-11-2013, 03:00 PM
RE: Why can't liberals get their around the concept of "insurance"?
(07-11-2013 12:56 PM)cjlr Wrote:  Saying he disagrees as to what the content of the law is is not the same as defending it.

Same as always, blanket statements with no specifics so that it's impossible to address. Please copy/paste what SPECIFICALLY I said about the content of the law that was not 100% accurate? Considering how much I've spent on lawyers over the past 10 years trying to get my freedom to live in Switzerland, and how many times I've read the law forwards and backwards, I know this law pretty well, and I don't recall Chas ever pointing out any time where I was wrong about the content of the law. If so, I will gladly thank Chas for the new information.

(07-11-2013 12:56 PM)cjlr Wrote:  Society is by definition coercive. Are there any laws lacking consequences for breaking them? I'm not aware of any.

Strawman. I'm not saying there should be no consequences for breaking the law. I'm arguing that the laws should be written to protect people from coercion not subject them to it. Take a law that says you cannot rape someone in the street. Am I suggesting there should be no consequences for breaking that law? Hardly! I'm saying this is a good law because it does not subject anyone to coercion (other than telling them not to coerce others), so it's defending us from coercion. The opposite would be a law, like in Saudi Arabia, that a woman has to make herself “available” to pleasure her husband at his whim. This law I would oppose because it is initiating force. It is creating coercion. It has nothing to do with whether or not there are consequences for breaking the law. It has to do with it being a positive law (ie offensive) or negative (ie defensive).

Further, I've already said that I know it's impossible to get people agree to not pass laws that initiate coercion (or force). It's an innate part of human nature, and there's never been more than a few % of the population that opposes this. So I know we'll never get a majority. Therefore, all I'm asking for is that when you DO pass laws that initiate coercion (ie positive laws), do not put up barriers to prevent people from leaving if they find the law too much. That's the one and only action item I'm asking for. Namely, if you're threatening someone with violence for not doing something against their will, let me leave if I find it too much. That's all we libertarians want. I don't see why this is considered such an extreme position.

(07-11-2013 12:56 PM)cjlr Wrote:  If acting like a tosser until nobody bothers talking to you counts as being right, well, you're the rightest person going.

No. Here's what makes me feel I'm right: I first explained to you that I would accept any policy you proposed that did not (a) use threats of force to coerce people into doing things against their will, and (b) do it the national level to ensure citizens have no means of escaping the laws.

IF you had responded that this was utopian and explained WHY you feel it is necessary to have coercive laws at the national level, THEN we could have had a productive debate. We could have picked an issue we disagreed on, and debated if it really was necessary to have a national coercive law, or if I had viable non-coercive alternatives.

But this wasn't your position. Rather, you refused to concede that the only difference between us was coercion vs. free will at the national level. So, I repeatedly asked you to name one issue you thought we might disagree on which did NOT boil down to you wanting a national law that coerced people into doing things against their will. An honest response would be to either say (a) Here's an example: X, or (b) I can't think of any example, so I guess this really is the fundamental issue we're debating after all, let's pick a policy item and debate whose approach is better.

Instead, you kept attacking me, and I kept asking the question over and over again, and you kept dodging it. Yes, after several failed attempts to get an answer out of you I resorted to taunts, like saying 'Name one difference that doesn't resort to you being a club-wielding neanderthal.' But the only reason it got that far is because you were unable to find one disagreement that didn't boil down to this issue, yet at the same time you refused to acknowledge that this was the issue we were disagreeing on.

So, I'll try one more time, a basic yes/no questions. Let's see if you answer them or run:

Can you name one policy we disagree on that does not boil down to you wanting a law at the national level that coerces people into doing things against their will? YES OR NO. If Yes, what is the policy, and let's debate it.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: