Why can't liberals get their around the concept of "insurance"?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
04-11-2013, 07:49 PM
RE: Why can't liberals get their around the concept of "insurance"?
(04-11-2013 07:20 PM)LostandInsecure Wrote:  Uhh I believe what you are referring to is law enforcement. It is unlikely that the fun (this should say gun lol) part will be brought in to these scenarios. Why do you think this is a left thing? All sides believe in the necessity of law enforcement. They disagree on laws sure, but I've never heard anyone from any side say, "hey let's get rid of the police, no need to use violence to force people to follow laws".
Maybe I am totally lost on this and that is not what you're talking about, but I can't think of anyone else with a gun forcing people to follow laws besides law enforcement.

That is precisely what I'm talking about. The very premise of classical liberalism (today referred to as libertarianism), starting with John Locke, Frédéric Bastiat, Thomas Jefferson is that it doesn't matter who the person holding the gun to your head has a badge or not, the threat of a bullet in your body is violence, and is immoral. If you believe that the police should be free to initiate force (threats of violence) against the people because they work for the government, then you've just justified the Nazi's Stasi police force.

Classic liberals separate rights (and laws) into positive and negative, which effectively means defensive laws that protect you from violence, and offensive laws which subject you to it. We accept that only defensive laws are moral. So, sure, there is a police force to defend you if someone is threatening you with violence (rape, murder, etc.), but the police should NOT be initiating violence against you to coerce you into doing things against your will (like not taking drugs).

When looking for the solution to a problem, both liberals and conservatives immediately go for the easy solution: pass a law and get the police to hold a gun to your head and force you to do it.

Classic liberals (libertarians) go for a more sophisticated approach. We come up with systems which align interests so that people want to do what's right because it benefits them. We want all exchanges to be entered into voluntarily by all parties because it's a win-win.

Now, since we know that liberals and conservatives will never accept this and believe that for EVERY problem the ONLY solution is to use violence, the compromise we've agreed to, which is what's embodied in most Western constitutions, is to have a federalist system, where at the national level the government is classically liberal, meaning it ONLY enforces defensive laws (basic civil rights), and all offensive laws must be done at the state or local level and all citizens must be guaranteed freedom of mobility so that if they find the laws too oppressive they are free to leave, and if they stay and subject themselves to the offensive laws, they are doing so voluntarily.

The US, Canada, and most of Western Europe have constitutions that mandate this system, which was the compromise reached by the classic liberals in the 17th and 18th centuries. To my knowledge, Switzerland is the only country that continued to practice the system throughout the 20th century, with only a few minor exceptions, such as this case in point, the Swiss national mandate to get health insurance.

My observation is that the classic liberal system works much better in the vast majority of cases, and therefore I oppose passing such laws at the national level. And I cannot STAND Obamacare because unlike the systems in the rest of the world, Obamacare's mandate is based on where you were born, not where you live. If you were born in the US, and now live in the UK and pay taxes in the UK and are part of the UK health system, and are covered by the UK system whenever you spend time in the US, Obamacare STILL forces you to buy US health insurance, even though you'll never use it. That level of draconianism, telling people they cannot opt out of a system by emigrating to another country, only exists in N. Korea, Cuba and the US. The rest of the world says "if you don't like it, you're free to leave, no strings attached."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-11-2013, 07:51 PM (This post was last modified: 04-11-2013 07:55 PM by WeAreTheCosmos.)
RE: Why can't liberals get their around the concept of "insurance"?
"Why can't liberals get their around the concept of "insurance"? "
"...liberals get their around the concept..."
"...their around..."

I'm sure nothing is wrong with your. You seem to have a good on your shoulders.
Angel
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes WeAreTheCosmos's post
04-11-2013, 07:55 PM
RE: Why can't liberals get their around the concept of "insurance"?
I go the doctor about once a month. I have three very young children and my youngest may or may not be developing slowly (we will find out eventually). I have never been to Mexico, but I can assure you that I cannot afford to pack up my kids and pop over for a visit once a month. On top of that I'm not really sure I would feel safe alone in Mexico with three small kids. So that is just not an option.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-11-2013, 08:01 PM
RE: Why can't liberals get their around the concept of "insurance"?
(04-11-2013 07:49 PM)frankksj Wrote:  
(04-11-2013 07:20 PM)LostandInsecure Wrote:  Uhh I believe what you are referring to is law enforcement. It is unlikely that the fun (this should say gun lol) part will be brought in to these scenarios. Why do you think this is a left thing? All sides believe in the necessity of law enforcement. They disagree on laws sure, but I've never heard anyone from any side say, "hey let's get rid of the police, no need to use violence to force people to follow laws".
Maybe I am totally lost on this and that is not what you're talking about, but I can't think of anyone else with a gun forcing people to follow laws besides law enforcement.

That is precisely what I'm talking about. The very premise of classical liberalism (today referred to as libertarianism), starting with John Locke, Frédéric Bastiat, Thomas Jefferson is that it doesn't matter who the person holding the gun to your head has a badge or not, the threat of a bullet in your body is violence, and is immoral. If you believe that the police should be free to initiate force (threats of violence) against the people because they work for the government, then you've just justified the Nazi's Stasi police force.

Classic liberals separate rights (and laws) into positive and negative, which effectively means defensive laws that protect you from violence, and offensive laws which subject you to it. We accept that only defensive laws are moral. So, sure, there is a police force to defend you if someone is threatening you with violence (rape, murder, etc.), but the police should NOT be initiating violence against you to coerce you into doing things against your will (like not taking drugs).

When looking for the solution to a problem, both liberals and conservatives immediately go for the easy solution: pass a law and get the police to hold a gun to your head and force you to do it.

Classic liberals (libertarians) go for a more sophisticated approach. We come up with systems which align interests so that people want to do what's right because it benefits them. We want all exchanges to be entered into voluntarily by all parties because it's a win-win.

Now, since we know that liberals and conservatives will never accept this and believe that for EVERY problem the ONLY solution is to use violence, the compromise we've agreed to, which is what's embodied in most Western constitutions, is to have a federalist system, where at the national level the government is classically liberal, meaning it ONLY enforces defensive laws (basic civil rights), and all offensive laws must be done at the state or local level and all citizens must be guaranteed freedom of mobility so that if they find the laws too oppressive they are free to leave, and if they stay and subject themselves to the offensive laws, they are doing so voluntarily.

The US, Canada, and most of Western Europe have constitutions that mandate this system, which was the compromise reached by the classic liberals in the 17th and 18th centuries. To my knowledge, Switzerland is the only country that continued to practice the system throughout the 20th century, with only a few minor exceptions, such as this case in point, the Swiss national mandate to get health insurance.

My observation is that the classic liberal system works much better in the vast majority of cases, and therefore I oppose passing such laws at the national level. And I cannot STAND Obamacare because unlike the systems in the rest of the world, Obamacare's mandate is based on where you were born, not where you live. If you were born in the US, and now live in the UK and pay taxes in the UK and are part of the UK health system, and are covered by the UK system whenever you spend time in the US, Obamacare STILL forces you to buy US health insurance, even though you'll never use it. That level of draconianism, telling people they cannot opt out of a system by emigrating to another country, only exists in N. Korea, Cuba and the US. The rest of the world says "if you don't like it, you're free to leave, no strings attached."

Woah woah woah. Since when do police officers hold guns to people's heads to enforce laws? And why do you blame this on "the left"? Sure we have law enforcement but guns are not used to enforce laws such as the ACA. That is just silliness, love. Every civilized nation has law enforcement. From the very far left all the way through to the very far right everyone agrees that we need law enforcement. What do you propose? Should we stop enforcing laws?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-11-2013, 08:23 PM
RE: Why can't liberals get their around the concept of "insurance"?
I don't know how old you are, Frankie, so perhaps you are not aware of this.

Fuck...I'll let you read it for yourself. Saves everyone a lot of time and trouble.

http://adage.com/article/american-demogr...tes/42514/

Quote:At the behest of the Nixon administration, Congress had encouraged the expansion of HMOs in 1973 by giving them special legal rights, including immunity from malpractice lawsuits. Now Congress is considering the Patients' Bill of Rights, which would remove that legal immunity and mandate easier patient access to specialists - changes that could increase the cost of care. Americans are wrestling with these and other health care tradeoffs.

That attempt to remove the legal immunity failed. Subsequent attempts to remove it have been no more successful.

Now, let me ask you. If the idea was that HMOs were supposed to give superior care why did these corporate pricks need legal immunity for giving lousy care before they would proceed.

Mull that for a while.

Then tell me how fucking wonderful your insurance company pals are.

[Image: reality.jpg?imgmax=800]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-11-2013, 08:29 PM
RE: Why can't liberals get their around the concept of "insurance"?
(04-11-2013 08:01 PM)LostandInsecure Wrote:  Woah woah woah. Since when do police officers hold guns to people's heads to enforce laws?

Since always. What else do you think will happen if a cop sees you on the street shooting heroin and you refuse to stop? Seriously, you're not aware that they use guns (or at least the threats of guns, tasers, battons, etc.) to get you to obey??? This is a new concept?

(04-11-2013 08:01 PM)LostandInsecure Wrote:  And why do you blame this on "the left"?

I don't. I said left and right, conservative and liberal, all do this. There's just not many right-wingers on an atheist forum, and, frankly, nothing of interest to debate with them. The only ones who oppose this use of violence are classic liberals (ie libertarians).

(04-11-2013 08:01 PM)LostandInsecure Wrote:  Sure we have law enforcement but guns are not used to enforce laws such as the ACA.

Really? So, for example, I used to have a 'catastrophic health insurance' plan from Blue Cross, which just got cancelled, and is now illegal for me to buy from any other insurance provider. So what if, say, Aetna, says "This isn't right, we're going to offer it anyway". They'd get sued, eventually get a court order, if they kept refusing, warrants would be issued to arrest the directors of the company, and if they continued to resist, yes, guns, tasers, etc., would be used.

This is my gripe. How can you guys insist that violence is the right way to do it, when you're not even able to see violence when it's right in front of you? How can you be so sure that peaceful, voluntary, non-violent systems are unworkable, if you haven't even taken the time to listen to the arguments in favor of them?

(04-11-2013 08:01 PM)LostandInsecure Wrote:  That is just silliness, love. Every civilized nation has law enforcement. From the very far left all the way through to the very far right everyone agrees that we need law enforcement. What do you propose? Should we stop enforcing laws?

Are you talking positive rights (laws) or negative ones? Do you know the difference? Do you know that many of our Founders, like Thomas Jefferson, agreed that negative rights are moral, but they adamantly insisted that positive rights (laws) are very immoral? Did you notice that the US Constitution enforces this because it states the Federal government has only a carefully defined set of laws it is allowed to enforce, and every single one of them is a negative right, and states that all other laws (like positive ones) must be handled at the state level?

My observation is that most people today who think classic liberals (ie libertarians) are crazy, don't actually even know the first thing about what we believe and why.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-11-2013, 08:50 PM
RE: Why can't liberals get their around the concept of "insurance"?
(04-11-2013 04:19 PM)frankksj Wrote:  Bottom line, yes, the left always chooses this approach, and imo the rule stands until you're able to come up with one instance where it doesn't apply.

So apparently "the left" (which is synonymous with "Liberals" now, I guess?) is a), utterly monolithic, and b), responsible for everything.

And you don't see why this is a silly statement.

OK then. Let's see what else you've got.

(04-11-2013 04:19 PM)frankksj Wrote:  I challenged you many, many times to point to even one issue that we may disagree on which does NOT boil down to you threatening people with violence to coerce them into doing something against their will. Since you couldn't think of one single exception to this rule, you just ran from the challenge and complained in my 'reputation' that I dared even make the challenge.

No, I declined to answer because the question is incoherent and idiotic. After the trollercoaster of mischaracterisation and misrepresentation you threw at me, I decided it wasn't worth my time trying to get an answer through.

The reason I commented on it was because the sentiment was, and still is, one of the most profoundly self-absorbed, self-obsessed, self-important, and self-righteous mindsets I have ever encountered.

"Anyone who disagrees with me is a mindless primitive".

Good luck with that.

(04-11-2013 04:19 PM)frankksj Wrote:  I've made this challenge to hundreds of self-proclaimed liberals, and I've yet to find who was ever able to respond to it. I've observed that 100% of the time they react as you did.

They realize you're not willing or capable of honest discussion and move on with their lives?

Good for them!

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes cjlr's post
04-11-2013, 09:03 PM
RE: Why can't liberals get their around the concept of "insurance"?
(04-11-2013 08:50 PM)cjlr Wrote:  
(04-11-2013 04:19 PM)frankksj Wrote:  I challenged you many, many times to point to even one issue that we may disagree on which does NOT boil down to you threatening people with violence to coerce them into doing something against their will.

I declined to answer because the question is incoherent and idiotic.

Really??? That simple, plain English sentence is “incoherent” to you? You can't understand it? So how do you know it's idiotic if you can't understand it?

See that's how we think differently. If I have trouble understanding something, like say string theory, I try harder and if I still can't grasp it, I just assume I'm not smart enough to get it. Your approach is the opposite: “It's incoherent to me, THEREFORE it must be idiotic.” Trulyx's quote from Bertrand Russell sums it up: “The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser men so full of doubts.”

I could try to reword it differently and use shorter words, but I don't think it will make a difference. I really don't think that sentence is complicated. This ain't string theory. Your average 10 year old could probably understand it. So, my suspicion is that what I wrote IS coherent to you, your mind is just playing a self-defense trick to avoid confronting the issue.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-11-2013, 09:09 PM
RE: Why can't liberals get their around the concept of "insurance"?
(04-11-2013 08:29 PM)frankksj Wrote:  
(04-11-2013 08:01 PM)LostandInsecure Wrote:  Woah woah woah. Since when do police officers hold guns to people's heads to enforce laws?

Since always. What else do you think will happen if a cop sees you on the street shooting heroin and you refuse to stop? Seriously, you're not aware that they use guns (or at least the threats of guns, tasers, battons, etc.) to get you to obey??? This is a new concept?

(04-11-2013 08:01 PM)LostandInsecure Wrote:  And why do you blame this on "the left"?

I don't. I said left and right, conservative and liberal, all do this. There's just not many right-wingers on an atheist forum, and, frankly, nothing of interest to debate with them. The only ones who oppose this use of violence are classic liberals (ie libertarians).

(04-11-2013 08:01 PM)LostandInsecure Wrote:  Sure we have law enforcement but guns are not used to enforce laws such as the ACA.

Really? So, for example, I used to have a 'catastrophic health insurance' plan from Blue Cross, which just got cancelled, and is now illegal for me to buy from any other insurance provider. So what if, say, Aetna, says "This isn't right, we're going to offer it anyway". They'd get sued, eventually get a court order, if they kept refusing, warrants would be issued to arrest the directors of the company, and if they continued to resist, yes, guns, tasers, etc., would be used.

This is my gripe. How can you guys insist that violence is the right way to do it, when you're not even able to see violence when it's right in front of you? How can you be so sure that peaceful, voluntary, non-violent systems are unworkable, if you haven't even taken the time to listen to the arguments in favor of them?

(04-11-2013 08:01 PM)LostandInsecure Wrote:  That is just silliness, love. Every civilized nation has law enforcement. From the very far left all the way through to the very far right everyone agrees that we need law enforcement. What do you propose? Should we stop enforcing laws?

Are you talking positive rights (laws) or negative ones? Do you know the difference? Do you know that many of our Founders, like Thomas Jefferson, agreed that negative rights are moral, but they adamantly insisted that positive rights (laws) are very immoral? Did you notice that the US Constitution enforces this because it states the Federal government has only a carefully defined set of laws it is allowed to enforce, and every single one of them is a negative right, and states that all other laws (like positive ones) must be handled at the state level?

My observation is that most people today who think classic liberals (ie libertarians) are crazy, don't actually even know the first thing about what we believe and why.

Idk I thought for laws positive was something you must do vs negative something you must not do?

Anyways, you need to say what you mean. I love how you talk to me all condescending. You didn't know law enforcement uses guns? This is new to you?
No, love, it is not new, but law enforcement does not just walk in and hold a gun to you head and make you follow laws. You like to be deliberately misleading to prove a point and it's ridiculous. If you are unarmed an officer is far more likely to just pull you up and slap some cuffs on you. If an officer holds a gun to your head (except maybe in very extreme circumstances) that is police brutality and it is illegal. Again I ask, do you propose we just stop enforcing laws?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Losty's post
04-11-2013, 09:14 PM
RE: Why can't liberals get their around the concept of "insurance"?
(04-11-2013 08:29 PM)frankksj Wrote:  I don't. I said left and right, conservative and liberal, all do this.

I must have missed it. All I read was this



(04-11-2013 04:19 PM)frankksj Wrote:  the left always chooses this approach
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Losty's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: