Why can't liberals get their around the concept of "insurance"?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
08-11-2013, 02:25 PM
RE: Why can't liberals get their around the concept of "insurance"?
"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"

frankksj: This is YOU, in response to Carlo. I know that you don't realize it, but some of us are being NICE to you. I, hereby, am no longer being nice!

"when two people are debating if a law is just, it shows you're in a weak position"

Read what you posted! Because it's gibberish! When two people debate "you're" in a weak position???? First. You're one of the two people. (Meaning YOU are in a weak position!) Second: God just spoke to me! like 19.5 seconds ago: He said that he forgot to tell you to make your user name: "I AM A DIPSHIT!"

While we are praising god's absent minded ass, let's not forget to mention that some of the folks here, on the Thinking Atheist, might float a notch or two above your pay grade!!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Ameron1963's post
08-11-2013, 02:30 PM
RE: Why can't liberals get their around the concept of "insurance"?
(08-11-2013 02:05 PM)LostandInsecure Wrote:  
(08-11-2013 01:58 PM)Ameron1963 Wrote:  "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.

We are in agreement that noise levels should be as local as possible, and that even the state level is too big to give room for different preferences. Libertarians always want the laws to be as local as possible, because communities tend to be more homogeneous with common values, and the bigger the geographic area, the more diverse the viewpoints, and therefore, you are more likely to have people unable to agree. Imagine if we had to agree to a noise level ordinance, and you made the jurisdiction SO big that we had one law for the entire planet!

Yes, local is better for a lot of reasons. If you want a law that everyone has to paint their house a certain color, and all the Democratic states want it to be blue, and the Republican states want it to be red, if you insist on having one law for the whole nation, then either one side will get 51% of the vote and the others will hate their houses, or they'll compromise, such as having purple houses, and then EVERYBODY is miserable. If the goal of democracy is to have rule by the people, the more local you limit the jurisdiction, the more democratic because the more likely a high percentage will approve of the law.

Now, I've conceded that I'll never convince the majority of people to agree to pass only defensive, reciprocal laws. It's a given that most people will always want to use force to make other people do what they want. Therefore, the only condition I ask is: please pass this law at the local level, or worst case the state level, but NOT at the Federal level. I am only legally authorized to live in the US. Therefore, if you make it a law at the Federal level, it is IMPOSSIBLE for me to escape it no matter how oppressive the law is.

Now there is one law that really need larger jurisdiction because they directly effect multiple states, namely pollution of shared air and water. BUT, I've to hear a compelling reason why all other million laws need to be at the national level, and not the state or local level. When I ask liberals to explain WHY they want a particular law to be at the Federal level, they generally respond by saying "well look at pollution", and I say "fine, but we're not talking about pollution laws, we're talking about X, why does X law need to be at the national level?" There's usually a lot of resistance and it's difficult to get a straight answer. But usually it boils down to "Because I'm smarter than those morons over in [X some other place] and I know better how they should live and I am going to save them from themselves. IF this law is at the local level, it will only save me, my family, my friends, my neighbors, but the bumbfuck stupid rednecks over in X are still going to be carrying on with their stupidity." Now they won't DIRECTLY come out and say it, because if they did, I would naturally respond "But the idiots in X state similarly think they are right and YOU are stupid and they feel just as strongly they want to force YOU to do it your way. So why can't you all just lay down your clubs, and let those "idiots" live their lives the way the want, and if they're hurting themselves by not following your direction, fine, it's their life. Just focus on your local community, getting it to function how you want."

I also point out that if the laws are the state/local level, it (a) allows everyone to exercise their free will because they can relocate if they feel strongly they need to escape the law, (b) it's compatible with the golden rule and reciprocity because you don't want the idiots in X state telling you how to live your life anymore than they want you to do it, and © it allows us all to focus on productive things, building our lives, innovating, exploring, and not get tied up in stupid nationwide battles and gridlock where both sides are fighting to the death.

This is why I said I only voice a strong objection when others argue for laws at the national level. If they argue for a local law, I may still hate it, but if it passes anyway, at least I can move. I hate it when liberals think they are anointed and omnipotent and know so much better how I should live my life and insist on having their law cover every square inch of land which I am legally allowed to live on (ie the whole nation) so I have no way to escape.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-11-2013, 02:35 PM
RE: Why can't liberals get their around the concept of "insurance"?
(08-11-2013 02:25 PM)Ameron1963 Wrote:  "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"

frankksj: This is YOU, in response to Carlo. I know that you don't realize it, but some of us are being NICE to you. I, hereby, am no longer being nice!

"when two people are debating if a law is just, it shows you're in a weak position"

Read what you posted! Because it's gibberish! When two people debate "you're" in a weak position???? First. You're one of the two people. (Meaning YOU are in a weak position!) Second: God just spoke to me! like 19.5 seconds ago: He said that he forgot to tell you to make your user name: "I AM A DIPSHIT!"

While we are praising god's absent minded ass, let's not forget to mention that some of the folks here, on the Thinking Atheist, might float a notch or two above your pay grade!!

Since we're trading insults, is English your first language? You seriously don't know the meaning of "YOU"? Look it up on dictionary.com. Yes, the first definition is the 2nd person pronoun, which would imply that I was referring to Carlo. But the second definition is 'anyone'. It's obvious from the context I was using it the 2nd way. Read my sentence again:

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.

YOU are in a week position clearly does NOT refer to Carlo, because I preface it by stating we're talking about 2 arbitrary people in a hypothetical discussion. So when I said 'you are in a weak position when', that means 'anyone who is doing this is in a weak position'. Of course I realize that if _I_ did it, I would be in a weak position. But I didn't do it. I never said that a law is just because it only applies to criminals who break it. If I ever said that, YES, that would mean I was in a weak position to debate the law.

What I said is that WHOEVER uses that cyclical logic to defend a law is in a weak position. And then I point out that is what Carlo is doing by saying Fischer was a criminal who deserved to be punished, when the fact is the only crime he committed was breaking the law I am arguing is unjust.

Got it?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-11-2013, 02:39 PM
RE: Why can't liberals get their around the concept of "insurance"?
Murder is against the law, nationally? Should that be a local matter?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-11-2013, 02:46 PM
RE: Why can't liberals get their around the concept of "insurance"?
You're very good at derailing other peoples arguments. But you such at defending your own! Should murder be a local matter?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-11-2013, 02:54 PM
RE: Why can't liberals get their around the concept of "insurance"?
(08-11-2013 02:46 PM)Ameron1963 Wrote:  You're very good at derailing other peoples arguments. But you such at defending your own! Should murder be a local matter?

What difference does it make?? This is a silly argument.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-11-2013, 03:23 PM
RE: Why can't liberals get their around the concept of "insurance"?
(08-11-2013 02:54 PM)LostandInsecure Wrote:  
(08-11-2013 02:46 PM)Ameron1963 Wrote:  You're very good at derailing other peoples arguments. But you such at defending your own! Should murder be a local matter?

What difference does it make?? This is a silly argument.

Sorry, I had to run off and find the quote that I thought was perfect for this.


(29-10-2013 02:21 PM)Revenant77x Wrote:  Where oh where do they find these strawmen? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Evoluti...ooperation Game Theory is the answer you seek. Humans work better in groups and groups require cooperation. Disruption of the group hurts each member of the group (to some degree depending on the size of the group) the smaller the group the more harm cause by disruption. Ultimately it does require the threat of force to uphold Social structure IE: Tit for Tat, or cheaters (in your example a murderer) would overwhelm the abilities of the group to compensate.

It doesn't matter if murder is on the national level or not. It will ultimately be outlawed on whatever level.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-11-2013, 03:27 PM
RE: Why can't liberals get their around the concept of "insurance"?
(07-11-2013 07:05 PM)Cathym112 Wrote:  I'm on my mobile so I can't quote that well but I completely disagree with you. What is your familarity with economics?

Viagra is not a life savings medication. That demand is not inelastic. I was talking about life saving medication. To be fair - let's compare apples to apples. Also - I'm not too sure why force is applied in this scenario? You aren't forced to buy Viagra...or even life saving medication. Applying force dynamics to this economic proposition is completely nonsensical.

Also - comparing apples to apples - I did not include any success rate parameters in the assumption. Assuming the 90% vs 80% is a no brainer. But what about 90 vs 10? That changes what you will do.

Public Transportation? You do realize that unless you live in a major metropolitan area, there is no real public transportation to speak of? I said the demand for gas was mostly inelastic - not completely. While you will drive less, you will still drive.

You are paying for healthcare no matter which way you look at it. Pay for Medicare? Medicaid? Tax dollars. So what's the difference if you pay more up front temporarily to save more on the back end. The rising healthcare costs are the tax payers and private insurance ultimate problem. The more people that fail to pay their maintenance costs, the more the hospital charges to cover the difference. The more premium you pay goes up. You pay either way, my friend.


The average doctor out of medical school, if paying for it himself or herself, owes more than $214,000 out of med school if private, 120,000 if a state school. They can't charge you 150/h, pay for everyday living expenses, business costs and pay student loans. The math doesn't work.

Also - canning the FDA isn't wise. How do you know what's in that white oblong pill? You need to have regulations in place to ensue you aren't taking nothing more than sugar pills and arsenic.

So like I said - you want low cost health care - but you don't want to pay for it!!

Not to derail a derailment, but I'm still waiting for Frank to respond to this…...

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
08-11-2013, 03:58 PM (This post was last modified: 08-11-2013 04:02 PM by frankksj.)
RE: Why can't liberals get their around the concept of "insurance"?
(08-11-2013 02:46 PM)Ameron1963 Wrote:  You're very good at derailing other peoples arguments. But you such at defending your own! Should murder be a local matter?

Please, read your US Constitution. Murder _IS_ a local matter, and always has been. There is no Federal law against murder, rape, etc. And, YES, it SHOULD be a local matter. Why? Because, although everybody in all 50 states agrees murder must be illegal, they all differ as to WHAT murder even is.

In Texas, afaik, if somebody comes on your property and you pull out a machine gun and blow them to bits, that's not murder; it's defending your home.

In New York City, afaik, it IS murder, and guns are illegal.

Personally, I'm a peace-loving pacifist New Yorker so I REALLY do not want murder to be a national law because I know we'll be outnumbered by the 'stand your grounders', and I shutter to imagine what Texas-style justice would like in the big apple. Like pretty much every law, local is better imo.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-11-2013, 03:58 PM (This post was last modified: 08-11-2013 04:17 PM by GirlyMan.)
RE: Why can't liberals get their around the concept of "insurance"?
(08-11-2013 02:25 PM)Ameron1963 Wrote:  I know that you don't realize it, but some of us are being NICE to you. I, hereby, am no longer being nice!

"I am afraid we have awakened a sleeping giant." Calm down there big fella, leave the politics thread and go back to the poetry one before you hurt someone. You can write a poem about Frank. I might write one too. Big Grin

The thing about Frank,
His arguments are always moot,
Like Girly whining about this bullshit Rain Tax.
Why I gotta pay for something I don't need?
I pay so they don't take my house, I got mouths to feed.
Can't let my responsibility go lax.
But Frank is a hoot.
The thing about Frank.

As it was in the beginning is now and ever shall be, world without end. Amen.
And I will show you something different from either
Your shadow at morning striding behind you
Or your shadow at evening rising to meet you;
I will show you fear in a handful of dust.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like GirlyMan's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: