Why can't liberals get their around the concept of "insurance"?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
05-11-2013, 11:55 AM (This post was last modified: 05-11-2013 12:27 PM by Chas.)
RE: Why can't liberals get their around the concept of "insurance"?
(05-11-2013 11:43 AM)frankksj Wrote:  
(05-11-2013 10:41 AM)Chas Wrote:  I reject your libertarianism as Utopian. It is not achievable.

Thank you Chas. Now _THAT_ is a valid criticism. And, you're right, of course, that no country has ever been 100% libertarian (defined as not having positive laws at the national level). Switzerland until recently has been, imo, 99% libertarian, because there have been a handful of exceptions, like the national health insurance mandate.

BUT look at what they accomplished by being as close as possible to the libertarian ideal! They got to be #1 in terms of household wealth, #1 in terms of citizens satisfaction with government, and near the very top in terms of life expectancy, education, low crime, unemployment, etc.

So this is why I don't feel your conclusion is supported by your criticism. Your criticism is that because Switzerland never achieved 100% libertarianism utopia (perhaps because it is unachievable), therefore we should go in the opposite direction and try to be more like the places with the least libertarian systems, like North Korea, where people die young, destitute and miserable.

You fucking did it again. I did not say "we should go in the opposite direction".
Your argumentation style is annoying to the point of frustration.

Quote:
(05-11-2013 10:41 AM)Chas Wrote:  My view is that basing our political decisions on a concept of social contract is more practical.

But you've hijacked the 'social contract' and are using it to mean the opposite of its intention. The social contract IS a classic liberal (libertarian) idea, which is that the social contract, like every other contract, must be entered into voluntarily. People must be given a choice of political/legal systems to live under, and when they choose the one that suits them best, they are effectively signing the contract and agreeing to subject themselves to that political/legal system.

I have not highjacked the definition. We don't create a new social contract every time a baby is born. We are, all of us, born into an existing social contract.
Politics consists of renegotiating the contract.

Quote:But you use the 'social contract' in the opposite way. You argue that because someone merely exists he is automatically bound to some 'social contract' that you prescribe and you have the right to shoot him if he tries to escape. There's no voluntary consent. Therefore your concept of a "contract" is invalid. You're really talking about serfdom, but calling it 'social contract' because it sounds better.

Please stop with the puerile 'shoot him if he tries to escape' baloney, it's not constructive.

Quote:Case in point was our debate in the other thread about US taxes. The US, Cuba and N. Korea are the ONLY countries that don't let people born in their borders exit the tax system. You were arguing this is justified by the 'social contract'. But there is no consent. Nobody agreed to be born in a certain place. So a contract is invalid if it's subjected on people after-the-fact and they have no way to escape it. Imagine I did it to you, Chas, and said that because you at one point entered my home, therefore, you are bound to a contract that for the rest of your life means you have to turn over to me all the fruits of your labor and let me decide how much I will keep for myself, and you cannot escape the system, and if you try, I'll bring you into compliance at gunpoint. In that situation, would you still argue that my position was valid because we had some sort of "social contract"? Or would you call it what it is--slavery?

Then work to change it. Or move to Switzerland.

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
05-11-2013, 12:11 PM
RE: Why can't liberals get their around the concept of "insurance"?
He just wants fast and reliable coverage for when he runs a red light, as a libertarian freaking out about his freedom to do so... And gets tboned.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-11-2013, 12:46 PM
RE: Why can't liberals get their around the concept of "insurance"?
(05-11-2013 11:55 AM)Chas Wrote:  You fucking did it again. I did not say "we should go in the opposite direction".
Your argumentation style is annoying to the point of frustration.

The issue at hand is the number of positive (ie offensive) laws passed at the national level. I am advocating we have fewer of them. If you are agreeing with that direction, then great, we're in total agreement, and we have nothing to debate. The way you keep pushing back on this, telling me it's "utopian" and "not viable" IS effectively saying you want to go in the opposite direction.

If we're driving and the road ends, so that we have to left or right, and I am arguing that we should turn left, and you are arguing that turning left is a stupid decision, that IS the same thing as saying we should go in the opposite direction and turn right.

(05-11-2013 11:55 AM)Chas Wrote:  I have not highjacked the definition. We don't create a new social contract every time a baby is born. We are, all of us, born into an existing social contract.
Politics consists of renegotiating the contract.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_contract

Where in there does it say the social contract is entered into at birth? Read the second sentence, which says the contract assumes "individuals have consented" to enter into it. How did you consent to being born? This definition you're using, that we're bound to the contract at birth, is _NOT_ the definition that was used by the people who invented the concept. It _IS_ hijacking the term to mean something else.

(05-11-2013 11:55 AM)Chas Wrote:  Please stop with the puerile 'shoot him if he tries to escape' baloney, it's not constructive.

But, that IS the very issue we're debating. If you feel it's puerile, than why not agree right now that if an American wants to leave the US system, he should be allowed to leave, without the threat of guns, handcuffs, tasers, battons, or similar weapons being used to bring him back? It seems silly to me that you keep defending this policy and arguing that it's so important we cannot possibly consider doing without it, but then telling it's puerile that I even bring it up. You're the one who's arguing that we can't do without it. And if I'm putting words in your mouth and that's NOT your stand, then just come right out and say that you're ok with repealing those laws.

(05-11-2013 11:55 AM)Chas Wrote:  Then work to change it. Or move to Switzerland.

I _DID_ move to Switzerland. Remember? We had this discussion already. The problem is that because I was born in the US, the US wouldn't let me leave. US agents came to me and said that even though I lived in Switzerland and for many years hadn't set foot on US soil, I _HAD_ to comply with these US laws or ELSE I would suffer the same fate as others who tried to escape, such as Bobby Fischer.

I find it so insane when you liberals constantly say "If you don't like it, then just leave". And then I say "Ok, I'm leaving", but then when I head to the 'exit sign' you pull a gun on me and tell me I'm not allowed to leave. And when I complain about it, you just repeat again "Well if you don't like it, then just leave". That's such an absurd position.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-11-2013, 01:19 PM
RE: Why can't liberals get their around the concept of "insurance"?
Quote:If you feel it's puerile, than why not agree right now that if an American wants to leave the US system, he should be allowed to leave, without the threat of guns, handcuffs, tasers, battons, or similar weapons being used to bring him back? It seems silly to me that you keep defending this policy and arguing that it's so important we cannot possibly consider doing without it, but then telling it's puerile that I even bring it up. You're the one who's arguing that we can't do without it. And if I'm putting words in your mouth and that's NOT your stand, then just come right out and say that you're ok with repealing those laws.

Name one case where someone, who isn't already a criminal or suspect in a criminal investigation, is being held in the US against their will? If you don't like the life you have here, or like paying US taxes or other laws and regulations, you can leave.

Board a plane to whatever foreign destination you like, or take a bus, etc.
Go to a US embassy in a major city within that country
Tell them you are an American citizen and you would like to renounce you citizenship.
Sign an Oath of Renunciation and have it filed in the consulate.

Presto. You're done. Don't let the door bang you in the ass on the way out.

"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
05-11-2013, 01:21 PM
RE: Why can't liberals get their around the concept of "insurance"?
(05-11-2013 12:46 PM)frankksj Wrote:  I find it so insane when you liberals constantly say "If you don't like it, then just leave". And then I say "Ok, I'm leaving", but then when I head to the 'exit sign' you pull a gun on me and tell me I'm not allowed to leave. And when I complain about it, you just repeat again "Well if you don't like it, then just leave". That's such an absurd position.

Who is pulling a gun on you?
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-11-2013, 01:37 PM
RE: Why can't liberals get their around the concept of "insurance"?
(05-11-2013 11:27 AM)frankksj Wrote:  
(05-11-2013 10:59 AM)black_squirrel Wrote:  I still don't get your logic. If Switzerland were to adopt the minimum wage
of the USA. How would that negatively affect Switzerland, given that all their
wages are already above this minimum wage?

Of course if you set the minimum wage BELOW a level where everyone is willing to work, then it has no effect, neither positive nor negative. Setting a $1/hour minimum wage in the US would have no effect one way or nothing since body is willing to work for it anyway. Similarly, if Switzerland set a minimum wage like the US's, at $8/hour it would also have no effect.

But, presumably, you're looking for a positive effect, right? Why pass a law if it has no effect one way or another? The ONLY way that minimum has any effect at all is if you set it HIGHER than what people are willing to work for. For example, in the US, right now there ARE people who are willing to work for $10/hour, and who have labor skills that can justify a salary of $10/hour. So if you raise the minimum wage to $15/hour, you will see a positive effect--the lowest paid worker will now get $15/hour. But you will ALSO see a negative effect because there other workers who WOULD like to work for $10/hour (say a baby sitter looking for work), and there are employers (say a mom needing a baby sitter) who WOULD be willing to hire someone for $10/hour, and, therefore, were it not for the minimum wage, the baby sitter would have a job. But, because you rose the minimum wage, the baby sitter and mom are legally prohibited from engaging in that transaction. Thus the mom has to take the baby with her if she's not willing to pay $15/hour, and the baby sitter is unemployed.
If the minimum wage is $15/hr instead of $7.25 say, then people earning
minimum wage only have to have one job instead of 2 or more. So there
wouldn't be any more unemployment, and people earning minimum wage
would be less poor.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-11-2013, 01:51 PM
RE: Why can't liberals get their around the concept of "insurance"?
(05-11-2013 07:50 AM)BryanS Wrote:  I'm no longer anywhere near minimum wage. But I paid for school working minimum wage, and not much more than that when I became a shift supervisor. I was glad I had the job so I could pay for school--which I paid for 100% by myself, largely with jobs that might not have been there if the minimum wage were so high that employers wouldn't want to hire inexperienced employees/late teenage workers. I'm not opposed to minimum wage laws, but just caution on using it to solve all problems associated with low income. It is not a panacea.

When I got divorced I got a job that paid a dollar over minimum wage. I worked for 5 months and I made about $5800. Want to know how much I paid in day care? $6000

"largely with jobs that might not have been there if the minimum wage were so high that employers wouldn't want to hire inexperienced employees/late teenage workers"

This is nothing but a scare tactic. These companies are getting rich by not paying their employees, and guess who has to pick up the tab? You!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-11-2013, 02:01 PM
RE: Why can't liberals get their around the concept of "insurance"?
(05-11-2013 09:54 AM)frankksj Wrote:  
(05-11-2013 06:56 AM)LostandInsecure Wrote:  I won't argue the minimum wage thing further. I find people who are against raising the minimum wage to be just silly and/or uninformed (or rich lol).

1: What about people who didn't already have coverage before they got ill? We just let then suffer or even die?

2: That is a good start. How do you feel about universal healthcare?

The problem is you're only looking at the desired effect, and completely ignoring the side effects. It's like we have a daughter who is so distraught and stressed over her dog's death (the problem). I propose that we take her on a family outing to get her mind off it, maybe have a party with friends, maybe get her a new puppy. You say 'just inject her heroin and she won't be stressed about the puppy anymore'. And I'm saying 'but what about all the side effects!' And you're saying I'm cold and heartless and don't care about our daughter because I refuse to give her the most effective remedy.

Simply from asking those questions? What about the people who are going to die if we don't do something? I didn't even suggest a path! I asked what about them, what path do you suggest for them?
You don't even know me, love. What right do you have to call me cold and heartless? I am far from heartless. I love people and I can't stand to see them suffer. I want to help them. Ugh why do people always have to resort to being mean when talking about politics.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Losty's post
05-11-2013, 02:08 PM
RE: Why can't liberals get their around the concept of "insurance"?
(05-11-2013 01:19 PM)Carlo_The_Bugsmasher_Driver Wrote:  Name one case where someone, who isn't already a criminal or suspect in a criminal investigation, is being held in the US against their will?

Bobby Fischer, the chess champion. He was fed up with the US and left, never to return. In every country in the world he would have have no further obligations to his homeland. But, because he was born in the US, he was still subject to US law, and was charged with a crime for going to Yugoslavia. Also, the US insisted he had to surrender the proceeds from his championship. He went to Japan, married a Japanese woman, and was working towards Japanese citizenship, which would have allowed him to renounce his US citizenship. But, before he got it, the US indicted him and pressured the Japanese to arrest him and extradite him. It created a global firestorm since the rest of the world was shocked that Americans weren't allowed to leave, since in all other countries, governments provide their citizens services, and the citizens pay for those services in the form of taxes and obeying laws, and if you don't like it you leave. The idea that after you've left and no longer use any government services, you STILL have to pay for them is absurd to all but American liberals. So, several countries intervened, and Iceland held an emergency parliamentary session and voted to grant him Icelandic citizenship, so that they too could request him from Japan. And because Japan was just as disgusted with the US's behavior, they extradited him to Iceland, and not the US. But, the fact is he was not a criminal, his only crime was “leaving the US system”, and he was held in prison at the order of US authorities.

(05-11-2013 01:19 PM)Carlo_The_Bugsmasher_Driver Wrote:  Board a plane to whatever foreign destination you like, or take a bus, etc.
Go to a US embassy in a major city within that country
Tell them you are an American citizen and you would like to renounce you citizenship.
Sign an Oath of Renunciation and have it filed in the consulate.

Presto. You're done. Don't let the door bang you in the ass on the way out.

Same nonsense. In order to renounce your citizenship you have to first obtain second citizenship. Countries like Panama used to have an open door policy, welcoming Americans and giving them citizenship so they could renounce their US citizenship. But the US threatened them and forced Panama to stop. Then remember Eduardo Saverin. He was born and raised in Brazil with Brazilian citizenship. Fortunately for him, Brazil, unlike the US, imposes no barriers to emigration, so his family came to the US with no further obligations to Brazil. After a while in the US, he decided he wanted to leave. Since he already had Brazilian citizenship, he was allowed to renounce his US citizenship once he paid taxes on everything he had earned so far, including unrealized gains (ie liquidating his Facebook stock and paying taxes on the value at the time he left). First, no other country would have required this. You don't need to give up your citizenship, nor pay an exit tax. But with this system, Eduardo in no way used or took advantage of the US. He paid US taxes on all his activity up until his renunciation. BUT, American liberals figured that's not enough, and they called it a 'loophole' that he was able to leave, and they've been pushing for the ex-patriot act to block people who have another citizenship from being able to renounce their US citizenship. So, one the one hand you American liberals say 'if you don't like it renounce your citizenship', but on the other hand you're fighting to make it impossible to do so! Also, the “Presto, you're done” statements shows you know nothing about the process. You have to file IRS Form 8854, which lists all your assets and income, and then you have to wait for them to decide if they will allow you to expatriate, and if so, if you're doing so for tax reasons. In 1996, they passed a law that if you are doing it for tax reasons, then you have a 10 YEAR waiting period where you have to keep paying US taxes before you're free.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-11-2013, 02:14 PM
RE: Why can't liberals get their around the concept of "insurance"?
(05-11-2013 12:46 PM)frankksj Wrote:  I find it so insane when you liberals ...

That's strike three. We're done.

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
Post Reply
Forum Jump: