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, 08:32 PM
RE: Why can't liberals get their around the concept of "insurance"?
(07-11-2013 05:32 PM)frankksj Wrote:  I still feel Chas's response constitutes defending the law.

That's nice.

He wasn't. Did you ask him?

(07-11-2013 05:32 PM)frankksj Wrote:  Chas... is so angry...

That's nice.

Your repeated gross mischaracterisation tends to have that effect. Did you ask him?

(07-11-2013 05:32 PM)frankksj Wrote:  
(07-11-2013 03:00 PM)cjlr Wrote:  My opinion is that coercive pressure to do something and coercive pressure not to do something are equivalent insofar as both are overriding individual free will. This is necessarily contained within any social agreement.

Your ignoring the fact that when I've been separating laws into 2 sides (just vs. unjust) I've been separating them based on reciprocal laws vs. non-reciprocal. Reciprocity is the foundation of any moral argument. I believe nearly all moral philosophers agree reciprocal laws are NOT morally equivalent to laws which are not.

Well, right there you say nearly all, so I guess you're finally admitting of the possibility for equally valid alternatives. That's progress.

(07-11-2013 05:32 PM)frankksj Wrote:  A law which says "You will be threatened with physical force ONLY if you threaten me with physical force", is reciprocal. It is NOT morally equivalent to a law that says "do what I tell you to or else you'll get thrown in jail", which is not.

That's nice. I didn't say they were morally equivalent, I said they were restrictions on potential freedom of action, which is not the same thing.

OH GOD WHY AM I BOTHERING.

(07-11-2013 05:32 PM)frankksj Wrote:  Yes, the police are authorized to use force. I'm not debating that. What I am debating is if that force should ONLY be used in kind to stop force (ie reciprocal, defensive), or if the police should initiate force against people who themselves are not initiating force against anyone else (ie not reciprocal, offensive).

Laws which prohibit the initiation of force against others (rape, murder, etc.) are morally justified because they only affect you if you are already breaking them (initiating force against others). It's reciprocal and moral because once you initiate force against others, you have no moral ground to say that force should not be initiated against you. If I see a girl on the street and beat her with a stick and rape her, how can I possibly claim that she is not entitled to hire (such as through taxes) police who will come to her defense?

And if you'll recall from a million years ago, I wanted you to supply your definitions of 'force' and 'initiation'. I then found those definitions simplistic and overly narrow.

(07-11-2013 05:32 PM)frankksj Wrote:  This is very different than a law that says if you smoke pot the police will come down on you with force. That is not reciprocal, because what's happening to you is NOT what you yourself are doing to others. Rather it's based on someone else's subjective opinion of how you should live your life. Some chain-smoking nicotine-addicted politician is arbitrarily deciding that his vice is ok, and yours is not, and subjects you to violence when in fact you were peacefully minding your own business and not subjecting others to violence.

And I further pointed out that this is how you handle moral reasoning. This is not how everyone handles moral reasoning. Moral precepts are subject to variation.

(And you project the impetus for a hypothetical anti-marijuana law onto a hypothetically singular tobacco smoking politician. So that right there's a bit of a bizarrely irrelevant distraction, consisting as it does of deliberate character assassination of an opponent who's not even real.)

Let me spell this out for you in very explicit terms. One of several means by which human beings morally judge actions is by their relative emphasis on the perceived good to the individual and their perceived good to the group.

You say 'subjective opinion' as though there were some alternative. There isn't. Even were it possible to quantify (shall we say) 'harm done' on an individual and societal level by any given action or set of interactions – people will nonetheless disagree as to what ought to be permissible and what ought not to be permissible.

What you have repeatedly done, and what I have found repulsive, is to disparage and condemn any deviation from your own reasoning.

You think you're correct; that's fine. We all think we're correct. That's how human beings roll. You think correctness is objective. That's problematic.

(07-11-2013 05:32 PM)frankksj Wrote:  So, answer this, please:

Do you believe that reciprocal laws which state physical force will ONLY be used against you if you are using physical force against others are the moral equivalent to laws which subject you to physical force even if you're just peacefully sitting in your home merely doing something that some politicians or voters think you ought not to be doing?

Oh, for fuck's sake.

No.

Your question amounts to “are all laws morally equivalent”. Gee, I wonder.

Two identical answers to the (leading, inadequate) question are not indicative of any broader agreement. They are implicitly depending on many other definitions, including but not limited to 'reciprocal', 'physical', 'force', 'initiation', and 'peacefully', not to mention one's relative weighting of the various factors in play.

(07-11-2013 05:32 PM)frankksj Wrote:  I keep asking because I hope that someday you'll get tired of being stuck at the starting line, and will acknowledge WHAT it is that we're debating so that we can actually get started.

I've said a million times, there's only one core issue that I feel strongly enough about to debate, and that is if peaceful, non-threatening solutions and reciprocal laws are a viable alternative to the traditional system where laws threaten people with violence if they don't do something against their will.

If you're not interested in debating that topic, or don't have an opinion on it, then you have no justification for bashing classic liberals (libertarians) since that is the one and only issue we're arguing for.

And I've said a million times that your opinion is extraordinarily presuppositional, standing as it does on many subjective personal definitions and precepts.

What I have a problem with is the pervasive mischaracterisation, the dishonesty, and the sanctimonious arrogance.

I find your parameters insufficient. To which you accuse me of wanting to get good old slavering primitive violent on the asses of anyone who disagrees with you. Keeping this up for long enough that people give up apparently means you win. Good for you.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like cjlr's post
07-11-2013, 09:42 PM (This post was last modified: 07-11-2013 10:12 PM by Carlo_The_Bugsmasher_Driver.)
RE: Why can't liberals get their around the concept of "insurance"?
(07-11-2013 09:35 AM)frankksj Wrote:  @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.

Oh you brought the stick back! Good Boy. I do enjoy these nightly pleasures of drubbing you so, then reading your response tirades where you thoughtlessly bang away at your keyboard with your paws without the slightest idea that you're digging yourself into an even bigger hole of stupid. So again your pride gets the best of you and its time for you to assume the position for another behind reddening!

First off, your devotion to the sad case of Bobby Fisher proves you're a thoughtless poltroon who can't wrap his head around a reasonable answer. If it were in my power, I'd immediately offer you a top flight position with Answers in Genesis or the Institute for Creation Research in their propaganda departments.

In my last posts I clearly demonstrated that Fisher had a warrant for his arrest, which prevents the State Department from expatriating someone.

Next you asked if the tax you proposed was moral or immoral and I told you specifically that I felt tax law was amoral, then spent the last two posts having you ask me the same tired question again, even after you had been schooled properly.

Third, you're the one who keeps alluding to the case of Rosa Park as a comparison to this tax issue and expatriation, and I clearly demonstrated the comparison was false because the law rosa parks broke was based discrimination. You're the one who wants to create an emotional false equivalency, not I and you got your snout rubbed in it.

Now you run along and fetch me an example of where I am wrong, M'Kay?

"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, 11:32 PM
RE: Why can't liberals get their around the concept of "insurance"?
(07-11-2013 09:42 PM)Carlo_The_Bugsmasher_Driver Wrote:  Oh you brought the stick back! Good Boy

Well, I was able to accurately predict that you would, yet again, run from my simple yes/no question about Texas passing the same laws we're debating, and instead lash out on a strawman rather than address the issue I placed before you. Since you keep behaving just as I predict, which one of us fetching the stick? Here, Carlo, is my order to you: "Do not answer that Texas question I asked in the last post. Ever. Run from it every time you hear it. Just change the subject." I can safely bet that as my faithful lap dog you'll do exactly as I tell you and continue to run from the question I've posed so many times.

(07-11-2013 09:42 PM)Carlo_The_Bugsmasher_Driver Wrote:  Now you run along and fetch me an example of where I am wrong, M'Kay?

Fortunately, that's VERY easy. Here you go:

(07-11-2013 09:42 PM)Carlo_The_Bugsmasher_Driver Wrote:  you're the one who keeps alluding to the case of Rosa Park as a comparison to this tax issue and expatriation, and I clearly demonstrated the comparison was false because the law rosa parks broke was based discrimination. You're the one who wants to create an emotional false equivalency, not I and you got your snout rubbed in it.

I dared you to find one instance where I ever compared the laws Rosa Parks to the laws Bobby Fischer broke. I challenged you to copy/paste exactly what I said. Naturally, you were unable to because you're simply attacking a strawman. I never compared the laws. I never said they were equivalent. That whole attack--I never said it. You're just attacking something I never said. That's why you can't copy/paste what I actually said. As always when you're backed into a corner, you attack your made up strawman.

I will repeat yet again what I've said now many times is that when two people are debating if a law is just, it shows you're in a weak position when you keep disparaging someone as a "criminal", when, in fact, the only law that person broken is the one we're debating. It's misleading, because readers will assume the person broke some OTHER law than the one being debated, and it's presumptuous because, before we've debated whether the law is just or not, you're already disparaging someone for breaking it.

Therefore, I applied your approach to Rosa Parks. Obviously, the Jim Crow laws are in a totally different league of immorality than tax laws. I never suggested otherwise. What I said is that _IF_ we were debating Jim Crow laws, and I was defending Rosa Parks, your rebuttal is that I've taken the side of a criminal. I used the Jim Crow laws not because I ever suggested it was a moral equivalent, but because I assumed that they were such extreme laws that even you would consider them unjust and see that it's not fair to disparage and dismiss a person as "criminal" if the "crime" in question is breaking an unjust law.

We're debating if the law Fischer broke is just. And without reaching any consensus on the matter, you just kept disparaging him as some "criminal" who got what he deserved. Your defense of the law was that Fischer was a criminal--yet the only "crime" he committed was breaking the law in question. Therefore, you created a cyclical logic problem. If breaking a law makes you a criminal who deserves punishment, and someone counters that the law is unjust, and you reply that the law is just because it's only applied to criminals who break it, well that could be used to justify ANY law, including the Jim Crow laws.

How many times do I need to say thing over and over before it sticks?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-11-2013, 11:56 PM
RE: Why can't liberals get their around the concept of "insurance"?
@cjlr, thank you for a breakthrough. I've been trying to rephrase the classic liberal position and every single time it seems it doesn't connect. You don't dispute it. You just act like it's incomprehensible. But, with this last post, you finally answered the question and conceded the point I've been making all along: Reciprocal laws which state physical force will ONLY be used against you if you are using physical force against others are NOT moral equivalent to laws which subject you to physical force even if you're just peacefully sitting in your home merely doing something that some politicians or voters think you ought not to be doing.

Naturally you keep insisting that this classic liberal view is subjective, and just an opinion. And you are right. All issues of morality are. However, what is unique about the classic liberal (libertarian) position is that it applies the golden rule to politics, effectively saying "People (society) can ONLY do to you, what YOU have done to them." So, if you're initiating physical force against people (rape, murder, etc.), physical force will be initiated against you (arrest, tased, etc.). But if you're peacefully minding your own business and not initiating force against other people (against society), then society will not initiate force against you."

It embodies the spirit of reciprocity, and we, classic liberals, believe reciprocity is a key component of any moral framework. I've never said that it's not subjective. Many people HATE the golden rule. Here is a fairly typical example of the public response every time libertarians talk about the golden rule. You'll see, the very concept of the golden rule, the notion of reciprocity, is despised and booed by many in the audience.

So I am NOT saying that my moral code is right. In fact, I've acknowledged that this position I have taken is only shared with a very small minority, and that we have no chance of getting the majority to limit laws to those that are reciprocal. I agree with your statement: "And I further pointed out that this is how you handle moral reasoning. This is not how everyone handles moral reasoning. Moral precepts are subject to variation." I don't dispute this at all. This notion that reciprocity should be the foundation of a moral system is uniquely classic liberal. So, I'm not saying that this position is right. All I'm asking is that you acknowledge the position, so we can debate if it's a valid one or not, if it's really possible to have only reciprocal laws at the national level, and limit the jurisdiction of non-reciprocal laws to the state/local level, so people can relocate if they find them too oppressive.

Since you are more responsive to the concept of reciprocity that coercion, I will rephrase my earlier statement that the only time I will disagree with you is if you are defending a non-reciprocal law and insisting it must be passed at the national level. Do you have any policy in mind (drug policy, regulatory policy, etc.) where you believe that non-reciprocal law must be passed at the national level? If not, then we're in complete agreement on everything. If so, then why don't you state what it is?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-11-2013, 06:12 AM (This post was last modified: 08-11-2013 12:37 PM by Cathym112.)
RE: Why can't liberals get their around the concept of "insurance"?
(07-11-2013 05:31 PM)I and I Wrote:  Insurance is a scam whether it is government or private.

The concept is, you pay x people money and they keep the money regardless of whether or not you use insurance. If you pay car insurance and don't have a wreck in a certain amount of years shouldn't you receive your money back?

Health insurance is a scam for similar reasons. And health is not the purpose of health insurance. Corporations push bullshittin foods that they know are bad for your health and know that they are addicting, as long as this happens then any talk of "health" insurance is a scam.

This is a classic example of having your cake, eating the entire thing, and then trying to get a refund because you didn't like it.

Because insurance is pooled risk. You agree to share the risk, which means that your premiums essentially go to pay for someone else's catastrophe. You might not have gotten a payout, but you got the safety of that coverage should anything have happened. Don't wanna pool the risk, there is always self insurance. Pay yourself an insurance payment into a principal protected fixed income product of some sort, then if you don't need it, it is still yours.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-11-2013, 01:34 PM
Why can't liberals get their around the concept of "insurance"?
(08-11-2013 06:12 AM)Cathym112 Wrote:  
(07-11-2013 05:31 PM)I and I Wrote:  Insurance is a scam whether it is government or private.

The concept is, you pay x people money and they keep the money regardless of whether or not you use insurance. If you pay car insurance and don't have a wreck in a certain amount of years shouldn't you receive your money back?

Health insurance is a scam for similar reasons. And health is not the purpose of health insurance. Corporations push bullshittin foods that they know are bad for your health and know that they are addicting, as long as this happens then any talk of "health" insurance is a scam.

This is a classic example of having your cake, eating the entire thing, and then trying to get a refund because you didn't like it.

Because insurance is pooled risk. You agree to share the risk, which means that your premiums essentially go to pay for someone else's catastrophe. You might not have gotten a payout, but you got the safety of that coverage should anything have happened. Don't wanna pool the risk, there is always self insurance. Pay yourself an insurance payment into a principal protected fixed income product of some sort, then if you don't need it, it is still yours.

The insurance companies don't provide medical coverage, they aren't doctors any more then me and you are. Why is there a middle man in the first place?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-11-2013, 01:37 PM
RE: Why can't liberals get their around the concept of "insurance"?
(08-11-2013 01:34 PM)I and I Wrote:  
(08-11-2013 06:12 AM)Cathym112 Wrote:  This is a classic example of having your cake, eating the entire thing, and then trying to get a refund because you didn't like it.

Because insurance is pooled risk. You agree to share the risk, which means that your premiums essentially go to pay for someone else's catastrophe. You might not have gotten a payout, but you got the safety of that coverage should anything have happened. Don't wanna pool the risk, there is always self insurance. Pay yourself an insurance payment into a principal protected fixed income product of some sort, then if you don't need it, it is still yours.

The insurance companies don't provide medical coverage, they aren't doctors any more then me and you are. Why is there a middle man in the first place?

You and I, love, it is you and I.
You and I agree that it would be better if we could completely cut out the middle man.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-11-2013, 01:58 PM
RE: Why can't liberals get their around the concept of "insurance"?
(07-11-2013 04:20 PM)frankksj Wrote:  
(07-11-2013 03:32 PM)Ameron1963 Wrote:  "I would accept any policy you proposed that did not (a) use threats of force to coerce people into doing things against their will"

"things against their will" You mean like, turn the volume of your music down? If I ask you to turn the volume of your music down: That might be against your will! But your music might be keeping the entire neighborhood awake. So, we might have to weigh the needs of the neighborhood against your will.

When you deliberately misquote someone by cropping out the key piece of their statement, you don't get any points. You cropped off the last half of the sentence: "and (b) do it the national level to ensure citizens have no means of escaping the laws."

So, YES, I _DO_ oppose a national law on noise. I would oppose it if old politicians in Washington DC who think the neighborhood should be silent after 8pm, instead of passing a local ordinance, insist that they're going to have a national noise ordinance, which saves the people of NYC from themselves, forcing to be silent after 8pm. YES, I oppose that. If you don't crop off the key points in my statement, you'll see my statement is quite reasonable.

Personally, as a libertarian, I wouldn't pass a noise ordinance because I want to be as tolerant and accommodating with others as possible. So if my neighbors make noise in the middle of the night, I'll just put in earplugs, but wouldn't ever call the police or try to get a law passed. However, that's just me, I admit it's a minority position, and that's not what I'm asking for. I'm simply asking that you don't do it at the national level, and accept that what YOU, say a Californian, think is the right rule, to a New Yorker, it may be wrong. And you're both entitled to your opinion. So pass your own local laws and stop trying to force people across the nation to change since it's not even affecting you anyway.

"and (b) do it the national level to ensure citizens have no means of escaping the laws."

Well, I didn't quote this, because I don't know what the fuck it means. Does this mean that states should control whether you should be able to keep your neighbors awake, because your shitty music means so much to you? Should murder be controlled on a state level? Legal in West Virginia, but not in Topeka? How many laws do you feel you should be able to "escape"?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-11-2013, 01:58 PM
RE: Why can't liberals get their around the concept of "insurance"?
(07-11-2013 04:20 PM)frankksj Wrote:  
(07-11-2013 03:32 PM)Ameron1963 Wrote:  "I would accept any policy you proposed that did not (a) use threats of force to coerce people into doing things against their will"

"things against their will" You mean like, turn the volume of your music down? If I ask you to turn the volume of your music down: That might be against your will! But your music might be keeping the entire neighborhood awake. So, we might have to weigh the needs of the neighborhood against your will.

When you deliberately misquote someone by cropping out the key piece of their statement, you don't get any points. You cropped off the last half of the sentence: "and (b) do it the national level to ensure citizens have no means of escaping the laws."

So, YES, I _DO_ oppose a national law on noise. I would oppose it if old politicians in Washington DC who think the neighborhood should be silent after 8pm, instead of passing a local ordinance, insist that they're going to have a national noise ordinance, which saves the people of NYC from themselves, forcing to be silent after 8pm. YES, I oppose that. If you don't crop off the key points in my statement, you'll see my statement is quite reasonable.

Personally, as a libertarian, I wouldn't pass a noise ordinance because I want to be as tolerant and accommodating with others as possible. So if my neighbors make noise in the middle of the night, I'll just put in earplugs, but wouldn't ever call the police or try to get a law passed. However, that's just me, I admit it's a minority position, and that's not what I'm asking for. I'm simply asking that you don't do it at the national level, and accept that what YOU, say a Californian, think is the right rule, to a New Yorker, it may be wrong. And you're both entitled to your opinion. So pass your own local laws and stop trying to force people across the nation to change since it's not even affecting you anyway.

"and (b) do it the national level to ensure citizens have no means of escaping the laws."

Well, I didn't quote this, because I don't know what the fuck it means. Does this mean that states should control whether you should be able to keep your neighbors awake, because your shitty music means so much to you? Should murder be controlled on a state level? Legal in West Virginia, but not in Topeka? How many laws do you feel you should be able to "escape"?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-11-2013, 02:05 PM
RE: Why can't liberals get their around the concept of "insurance"?
(08-11-2013 01:58 PM)Ameron1963 Wrote:  
(07-11-2013 04:20 PM)frankksj Wrote:  When you deliberately misquote someone by cropping out the key piece of their statement, you don't get any points. You cropped off the last half of the sentence: "and (b) do it the national level to ensure citizens have no means of escaping the laws."

So, YES, I _DO_ oppose a national law on noise. I would oppose it if old politicians in Washington DC who think the neighborhood should be silent after 8pm, instead of passing a local ordinance, insist that they're going to have a national noise ordinance, which saves the people of NYC from themselves, forcing to be silent after 8pm. YES, I oppose that. If you don't crop off the key points in my statement, you'll see my statement is quite reasonable.

Personally, as a libertarian, I wouldn't pass a noise ordinance because I want to be as tolerant and accommodating with others as possible. So if my neighbors make noise in the middle of the night, I'll just put in earplugs, but wouldn't ever call the police or try to get a law passed. However, that's just me, I admit it's a minority position, and that's not what I'm asking for. I'm simply asking that you don't do it at the national level, and accept that what YOU, say a Californian, think is the right rule, to a New Yorker, it may be wrong. And you're both entitled to your opinion. So pass your own local laws and stop trying to force people across the nation to change since it's not even affecting you anyway.

"and (b) do it the national level to ensure citizens have no means of escaping the laws."

Well, I didn't quote this, because I don't know what the fuck it means. Does this mean that states should control whether you should be able to keep your neighbors awake, because your shitty music means so much to you? Should murder be controlled on a state level? Legal in West Virginia, but not in Topeka? How many laws do you feel you should be able to "escape"?

Actually, I don't even think noise ordinance should be on a state level. It is more of a city thing. Every city should make their own noise ordinance or choose to have no noise ordinance depending on the needs of the people living in that city.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: