Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

Why isn't Sharron Angle in jail? [DOMESTIC TERRORISM]

12346

Posts

  • Styrofoam SammichStyrofoam Sammich WANT. Registered User regular
    edited November 2010
    Arturick wrote: »

    I cut out the part about the functionality of insurance companies because it's a separate issue from the need for government to be the primary funding party of health care. I'm interested in guiding philosophies of the issue.
    No it fucking isn't. That our private health care system has failed so badly is seriously fucking relevant.


    Is there a standard that a citizen must meet to enjoy these benefits, or is citizenship (presumably determined by birth) sufficient to qualify?

    I'd personally provide health care to anyone who's here. Arguments could be made to limit it to people here legally or people here as citizens and to what degree noncitizens would be access etc....

    Are you going to present an argument besides "government health care is bad because its bad"?

    sig.jpg
  • ronzoronzo Registered User regular
    edited November 2010
    We live in the 21st fucking century. We should be making sure people aren't dying in the goddamn street.

  • QuidQuid The Fifth Horseman Registered User regular
    edited November 2010
    Arturick wrote: »
    Is there a standard that a citizen must meet to enjoy these benefits, or is citizenship (presumably determined by birth) sufficient to qualify?

    The Hell does that have to do with anything? Are you against some group of citizens being provided something that's been considered an inalienable right since the founding of the country? Regular access to medical services is necessary for survival. Right to life is considered universal.

    Even ignoring the principle of the matter, the pragmatic view makes it clear that regular access to healthcare saves everyone money in the long term.

    PSN: allenquid
  • ArturickArturick Registered User
    edited November 2010
    I'd personally provide health care to anyone who's here. Arguments could be made to limit it to people here legally or people here as citizens and to what degree noncitizens would be access etc....

    Are you going to present an argument besides "government health care is bad because its bad"?

    Currently, I'm asking questions, not condemning anything.

    So, if I am in a country, the government of that country should, without any qualifiers, provide me with all basic necessities. Have I caught the gist of it?

  • Styrofoam SammichStyrofoam Sammich WANT. Registered User regular
    edited November 2010
    Arturick wrote: »
    I'd personally provide health care to anyone who's here. Arguments could be made to limit it to people here legally or people here as citizens and to what degree noncitizens would be access etc....

    Are you going to present an argument besides "government health care is bad because its bad"?

    Currently, I'm asking questions, not condemning anything.

    So, if I am in a country, the government of that country should, without any qualifiers, provide me with all basic necessities. Have I caught the gist of it?

    The government should provide you with health care yes. The government should make sure you don't starve to death. The government should make sure you won't die of exposure.

    The government should not buy you a house or a t-bone steak, nor should it buy you a new pair of tits (barring reconstructive surgery after cancer/accidents whatever).

    Get to a point would you?

    sig.jpg
  • FeralFeral Who needs a medical license when you've got style? Registered User regular
    edited November 2010
    Arturick wrote: »
    But why are the services and goods provided by doctors and hospitals uniquely the province of government, and not the numerous other things that contribute to duration and quality of life?

    I fully support programs like TANF, SNAP, and WIC that pay for food for the needy. I also support programs like Section 8 that help the needy with housing. I also support government intervention in the housing market to prevent predatory mortgages. I would have supported more government intervention in the housing bubble bust than we saw.

    In other words, I'm all for giving the free market a chance to provide basic needs for as much of the population as possible, but when and where it fails, it's the government's responsibility to close the gaps. In the case of food, the market has been able to provide cheap and plentiful food for the vast majority of the population, with the exception of the very poor. Therefore, I only see a need for government intervention on behalf of the very poor. In the case of medical care, the market has failed for the middle class as well. Therefore I support more wide-reaching government intervention.
    Arturick wrote: »
    I cut out the part about the functionality of insurance companies because it's a separate issue from the need for government to be the primary funding party of health care. I'm interested in guiding philosophies of the issue.

    People in general have a moral responsibility to work towards the greatest good of the greatest number using whatever arrangements we have at our disposal. If private organizations are capable of doing it, then businesses should do it. If private organizations fail to do it, then we must weigh the costs of having the government do it. If it's a particularly pressing need - if it's life or death, or dramatically affects the personal or economic well-being of the country - then the impetus for government intervention is great.

    every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
    the "no true scotch, man" fallacy.
  • ArturickArturick Registered User
    edited November 2010
    Arturick wrote: »
    I'd personally provide health care to anyone who's here. Arguments could be made to limit it to people here legally or people here as citizens and to what degree noncitizens would be access etc....

    Are you going to present an argument besides "government health care is bad because its bad"?

    Currently, I'm asking questions, not condemning anything.

    So, if I am in a country, the government of that country should, without any qualifiers, provide me with all basic necessities. Have I caught the gist of it?

    The government should provide you with health care yes. The government should make sure you don't starve to death. The government should make sure you won't die of exposure.

    The government should not buy you a house or a t-bone steak, nor should it buy you a new pair of tits (barring reconstructive surgery after cancer/accidents whatever).

    Get to a point would you?

    So, in the country you would run, I would be able to leave my job tomorrow, and check into a sort of government hostel, where I would have a somewhat spartan existence, but presumably still enjoy various "free" activities, like the library and parks and public events?

  • Styrofoam SammichStyrofoam Sammich WANT. Registered User regular
    edited November 2010
    Arturick wrote: »
    Arturick wrote: »
    I'd personally provide health care to anyone who's here. Arguments could be made to limit it to people here legally or people here as citizens and to what degree noncitizens would be access etc....

    Are you going to present an argument besides "government health care is bad because its bad"?

    Currently, I'm asking questions, not condemning anything.

    So, if I am in a country, the government of that country should, without any qualifiers, provide me with all basic necessities. Have I caught the gist of it?

    The government should provide you with health care yes. The government should make sure you don't starve to death. The government should make sure you won't die of exposure.

    The government should not buy you a house or a t-bone steak, nor should it buy you a new pair of tits (barring reconstructive surgery after cancer/accidents whatever).

    Get to a point would you?

    So, in the country you would run, I would be able to leave my job tomorrow, and check into a sort of government hostel, where I would have a somewhat spartan existence, but presumably still enjoy various "free" activities, like the library and parks and public events?

    If by hostel you mean homeless shelter than yes, I wouldn't want you dieing on the streets either. And if you ever had to live on charity you would know its a very spartan existence, nothing somewhat about it.

    I know where you're going with this and Ill tell you right now.

    Stop it.

    You'll only look like an over privileged goose.

    sig.jpg
  • ArturickArturick Registered User
    edited November 2010
    Where would the resources come from to supply me with this meager existence?

    EDIT: And I'm not talking about charity, which is provided by private individuals. I'm talking about government.

  • QuidQuid The Fifth Horseman Registered User regular
    edited November 2010
    The government currently does provide all those things, though it's severely underfunded in many parts. You could currently do what you suggested. Do you have a point?

    PSN: allenquid
  • ZombiemamboZombiemambo Registered User regular
    edited November 2010
    Henroid wrote: »
    Phant wrote: »
    I do have to say that it is depressing that the absolute, complete bullshit level that politics have come to in this country where you have a candidate suggesting armed revolution might be needed WHILE SHE IS RUNNING FOR ELECTED OFFICE. Seriously, usually people have the self consciousness to not do that. Even corrupt, nasty fuckers who run for office in completely broken elections in messed up countries who are planning a coup don't do this. The cognitive dissonance here is goddamn astounding.

    Every time I make it a point to say that our current level of politics is vitriolic and poisonous, someone makes the note that it's pretty much always been this way. I guess we're just old enough to see it now.

    Indeed it has.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y_zTN4BXvYI&feature=player_embedded

    man, Prefident Jefferfon was a son of a bitch

    JKKaAGp.png
  • TheOtherHorsemanTheOtherHorseman Registered User regular
    edited November 2010
    Arturick wrote: »
    So, in the country you would run, I would be able to leave my job tomorrow, and check into a sort of government hostel, where I would have a somewhat spartan existence, but presumably still enjoy various "free" activities, like the library and parks and public events?

    It's moral outrage over the possibility of vanishingly few shiftless freeloaders like this that gets the government of NYC to spend far, far more on the prevention of food stamp fraud than actually is lost by the fraud itself, while inconveniencing non-criminals in the process. Are you concerned that such individuals would represent a statistically significant percent of the population and would have a noticeable financial impact on anything, or are you bothered by the concept that someone could conceivably have a relatively pretty terrible life for free?

    AFAIK, the pervasive shame of accessing public assistance in America actually results in significant under-utilization of the resources we already have available.

  • Operator-COperator-C Registered User
    edited November 2010
    A lot of this debate is very interesting, but I believe it has gone way off topic.

    camo_sig2.png
  • ZedarZedar Registered User regular
    edited November 2010
    Does anyone really think that a substantial number of people, given the option, would choose to live in a homeless shelter eating only a bare minimum of soup required to keep them alive?

    steam_sig.png
  • QuidQuid The Fifth Horseman Registered User regular
    edited November 2010
    Obviously not without the library and 4th of July parades.

    PSN: allenquid
  • ArturickArturick Registered User
    edited November 2010
    Quid wrote: »
    The government currently does provide all those things, though it's severely underfunded in many parts. You could currently do what you suggested. Do you have a point?

    I initially stated that Sharron angle was not a criminal under the law. While perusing the rest of the post, I noticed a tendency to view conservative activists as not just disagreeing with liberals on matters of policy, but also inherently inferior. I attempted to clarify that the conservative position on some issues is not based on greed, ignorance, or pure malice. This gave rise to condemnations of conservative positions on healthcare. Having taken neither side of the issue, I am asking the pro-government intervention debaters to clarify the limits of government charity and pondering the potential implications thereof.

    Under a free market system, some people will be able to survive, and some people won't, based on the price of what they need, what resources they've accumulated, and how they've chosen to spend the resources they've acquired. Eventually, everyone dies, but they presumably work their butts off to survive before they do.

    I understand how that works. So, now I'm exploring option B.

    So far, I'm being told that, under the system Styrofoam, Quid, and a few others would run, I would have the option to become something of a secular monk, living in humble surroundings and eating basic meals, but having access to terrific healthcare in addition to various free entertainments. I think I would work on my writing.

    That aside, I want to explore the world as you would run it, to be a rat in the maze of your thoughts. I haven't been able to find a good Dungeon Master in a while, and I have to do something with my excess energy. So, more questions...

    Who provides the resources for my monastic lifestyle?

  • ArturickArturick Registered User
    edited November 2010
    AFAIK, the pervasive shame of accessing public assistance in America actually results in significant under-utilization of the resources we already have available.

    The shame comes from people not believing that such assistance is a "right." If it's a "right," then there is nothing to be ashamed of.

  • QuidQuid The Fifth Horseman Registered User regular
    edited November 2010
    They're called taxes.

    And it would not be "terrific healthcare" it would be basic healthcare. There is indeed a difference.

    And again, currently, you could go live in a homeless shelter, be fed, and have access to a library. Why don't you?

    PSN: allenquid
  • QuidQuid The Fifth Horseman Registered User regular
    edited November 2010
    Arturick wrote: »
    AFAIK, the pervasive shame of accessing public assistance in America actually results in significant under-utilization of the resources we already have available.

    The shame comes from people not believing that such assistance is a "right." If it's a "right," then there is nothing to be ashamed of.

    Bahahaha.

    There are lots of rights people are ashamed to exercise.

    PSN: allenquid
  • ZedarZedar Registered User regular
    edited November 2010
    Arturick wrote: »
    So far, I'm being told that, under the system Styrofoam, Quid, and a few others would run, I would have the option to become something of a secular monk, living in humble surroundings and eating basic meals, but having access to terrific healthcare in addition to various free entertainments. I think I would work on my writing.

    That aside, I want to explore the world as you would run it, to be a rat in the maze of your thoughts. I haven't been able to find a good Dungeon Master in a while, and I have to do something with my excess energy. So, more questions...

    Who provides the resources for my monastic lifestyle?

    Taxpayers would fund minimal welfare for those unable to support themselves. Presumably means testing would prevent those with sufficient income to support themselves from benefiting from the state run shelters or soup kitchens. I suspect very few would choose to live this "monastic" life, as it would not be particularly pleasant. Given the choice between living 20 to a room in a crowded shelter and subsisting on watery soup, or actually working and having some small level of privacy and food variety, I'm pretty sure most people would choose option B.

    steam_sig.png
  • ArturickArturick Registered User
    edited November 2010
    Quid wrote: »
    They're called taxes.

    And it would not be "terrific healthcare" it would be basic healthcare. There is indeed a difference.

    And again, currently, you could go live in a homeless shelter, be fed, and have access to a library. Why don't you?

    Well, we were talking about the sort of health care that a typical person can't afford on their own, and that degree of care in a modern society is near miraculous in comparison to what humans could expect to receive over most of our existence.

    And, in fact, I couldn't go live in a homeless shelter right now. None of the ones in my area are 24 hour/365 day affairs, except for the battered women's shelters and some of the church run institutions that require you to look for a job. What shelters exist are "first come/first serve" and fill up quickly. The real world would not, I'm afraid, assure my survival as you are stating that the government should do.

    Anyhow, what happens if tax revenue ever drops below the amount needed to cover the needs of those who draw more from the system than they put into it?

  • FencingsaxFencingsax Registered User regular
    edited November 2010
    Zedar wrote: »
    Does anyone really think that a substantial number of people, given the option, would choose to live in a homeless shelter eating only a bare minimum of soup required to keep them alive?

    Isn't what he's doing textbook concern trolling anyways, so we should stop paying attention?

    It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it
  • Eat it You Nasty Pig.Eat it You Nasty Pig. tell homeland security 'we are the bomb'Registered User regular
    edited November 2010
    The problem, Arturick, is that you are trying to rhetorically divorce the philosophy from the outcomes it produces, then argue for the philosophy in a vacuum. Which is an interesting intellectual exercise I suppose, but it basically represents a dodge around the question of "what should our public policy be on this issue?"
    The real world would not, I'm afraid, assure my survival as you are stating that the government should do.

    The entire reason we have the concept of government is because state of nature fucking sucked.

    gkcmatch_zps97480250.jpg
    if the rapture don't come cousin, then pass the guns
    I'll burn'em for the return of my investment funds
  • ArturickArturick Registered User
    edited November 2010
    The problem, Arturick, is that you are trying to rhetorically divorce the philosophy from the outcomes it produces, then argue for the philosophy in a vacuum. Which is an interesting intellectual exercise I suppose, but it basically represents a dodge around the question of "what should our public policy be on this issue?"
    The real world would not, I'm afraid, assure my survival as you are stating that the government should do.

    The entire reason we have the concept of government is because state of nature fucking sucked.

    I am aware of my own limitations. "Penn & Teller's: Bullshit" did a show about how statistics can basically be raped until they say whatever you want. Now, I've been presented with statistics that the American system of healthcare is superior to, say, the Canadian system. I've been presented with statistics showing that the Canadian system is superior to the American. I have heard VERY convincing arguments from both sides that the other side is full of horse manure.

    Now, I CAN rhetorically argue philosophy in a vacuum. I've done it with myself, a lot, and I always veer down two paths...

    Laissez-faire capitalism with some sensible restraints always, in my head, results in an imperfect world, but nothing horrid. Eventually, someone invents the holodeck, the food replicator, and unlimited clean energy, then the last human on Earth chokes to death on synthesized filet mignon while sodomizing an electromagnetically generated Megan Fox.

    The leftward side of philosophy always results in some guy with a smoking rifle standing over terrified peasants and yelling, "Do we have to go over this equality thing, AGAIN?" I try to pull open leftists down that rabbit hole with me to see if they see the same thing I do, or if they can point out some logical error that would've taken us to a different result. We always get halfway there when they start yelling at me that I'm trying to trick them.

    It's not that I think universal health care is the straw that will break the camel's back and we'll tumble into a dictatorship overnight. I just find myself thinking that any incremental step towards the guy with the cool moustache running every aspect of society should be explained in such a way that it seems entirely reasonable why this would be the LAST thing the government takes over.

    That's why I hate the term "progressive." Why is the government running things the path of progress? Doesn't that mean we fucked up when we abandoned the Feudal system?

  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    edited November 2010
    Laissez-faire capitalism with some sensible restraints always, in my head, results in an imperfect world, but nothing horrid.

    Buy this book. Read it.

    upton-sinclair-the-jungle.jpg

    Lose: to suffer defeat, to misplace (Ex: "I hope I don't lose the match." "Did you lose your phone again?")
    Loose: about to slip, to release (Ex: "That knot is loose." "Loose arrows.")
  • emnmnmeemnmnme Heard about this on conservative radio:Registered User regular
    edited November 2010
    Laissez-faire capitalism with some sensible restraints always, in my head, results in an imperfect world, but nothing horrid.

    Buy this book. Read it.

    upton-sinclair-the-jungle.jpg

    Necessary government regulation. Americans have developed a taste for it, then it became expected, now we demand it.

    easybossfight_zps4752c132.gif
  • FencingsaxFencingsax Registered User regular
    edited November 2010
    emnmnme wrote: »
    Laissez-faire capitalism with some sensible restraints always, in my head, results in an imperfect world, but nothing horrid.

    Buy this book. Read it.

    upton-sinclair-the-jungle.jpg

    Necessary government regulation. Americans have developed a taste for it, then it became expected, now we demand it.

    Well, except for when the Republicans bitch about government overreach when we try to stop salmonella contaminations, or regulating the financial market so it doesn't act like it just did.

    It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it
  • FeralFeral Who needs a medical license when you've got style? Registered User regular
    edited November 2010
    Is there a Godwin's Law corollary for invoking Penn & Teller?

    There should be.

    every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
    the "no true scotch, man" fallacy.
  • FeralFeral Who needs a medical license when you've got style? Registered User regular
    edited November 2010
    Arturick wrote: »
    I try to pull open leftists down that rabbit hole with me to see if they see the same thing I do, or if they can point out some logical error that would've taken us to a different result.

    Well, you've already engaged in more non-sequiturs, strawmen, false equivocations, and slippery slopes than I care to count. All without actually proposing a coherent argument. So while I'd like to say "Yes, Arturick, you have committed logical errors," that would be getting ahead of myself, as for you to truly commit a logical error would first require that you actually attempt to engage in some logic.

    every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
    the "no true scotch, man" fallacy.
  • GoumindongGoumindong Registered User regular
    edited November 2010
    Arturick wrote: »
    Laissez-faire capitalism with some sensible restraints always, in my head, results in an imperfect world, but nothing horrid. Eventually, someone invents the holodeck, the food replicator, and unlimited clean energy, then the last human on Earth chokes to death on synthesized filet mignon while sodomizing an electromagnetically generated Megan Fox.

    The leftward side of philosophy always results in some guy with a smoking rifle standing over terrified peasants and yelling, "Do we have to go over this equality thing, AGAIN?" I try to pull open leftists down that rabbit hole with me to see if they see the same thing I do, or if they can point out some logical error that would've taken us to a different result. We always get halfway there when they start yelling at me that I'm trying to trick them.

    Laissez-faire capitalism with some sensible restraints is "left wing philosophy".

    Once you start to examine what "sensible restraints are" it turns out that you end up justifying a whole shit tonne of the things that you're rallying against. Market failure is the norm, not the exception.

    This does not mean that left wingers shun markets, no, it means that they support the infrastructure required to make them work.


    That's why I hate the term "progressive." Why is the government running things the path of progress? Doesn't that mean we fucked up when we abandoned the Feudal system?

    1. The govt running things is not the path of progress. No one claims it is. Rather, they claim that "the free market running things without regards to what is best is not the path of progress" and then attempts to figure out what exactly best means

    2. Feudal systems are much more capitalistic than current. Property rights were absolute... its just that only one person owned anything (or anyone).

    When progressives get antsy about corporate power they are getting antsy about it precisely because they understand that money is power is law.

    wbBv3fj.png
  • ZedarZedar Registered User regular
    edited November 2010
    So apparently Nevada has been called for Reid. Will Angle's militia assault DC tomorrow, or will they take more time to mobilize?

    steam_sig.png
  • CygnusZCygnusZ Registered User regular
    edited November 2010
    Arturick wrote: »
    The entire reason we have the concept of government is because state of nature fucking sucked.

    I am aware of my own limitations. "Penn & Teller's: Bullshit" did a show about how statistics can basically be raped until they say whatever you want. Now, I've been presented with statistics that the American system of healthcare is superior to, say, the Canadian system. I've been presented with statistics showing that the Canadian system is superior to the American. I have heard VERY convincing arguments from both sides that the other side is full of horse manure.

    Now, I CAN rhetorically argue philosophy in a vacuum. I've done it with myself, a lot, and I always veer down two paths...

    Laissez-faire capitalism with some sensible restraints always, in my head, results in an imperfect world, but nothing horrid. Eventually, someone invents the holodeck, the food replicator, and unlimited clean energy, then the last human on Earth chokes to death on synthesized filet mignon while sodomizing an electromagnetically generated Megan Fox.

    The leftward side of philosophy always results in some guy with a smoking rifle standing over terrified peasants and yelling, "Do we have to go over this equality thing, AGAIN?" I try to pull open leftists down that rabbit hole with me to see if they see the same thing I do, or if they can point out some logical error that would've taken us to a different result. We always get halfway there when they start yelling at me that I'm trying to trick them.

    It's not that I think universal health care is the straw that will break the camel's back and we'll tumble into a dictatorship overnight. I just find myself thinking that any incremental step towards the guy with the cool moustache running every aspect of society should be explained in such a way that it seems entirely reasonable why this would be the LAST thing the government takes over.

    That's why I hate the term "progressive." Why is the government running things the path of progress? Doesn't that mean we fucked up when we abandoned the Feudal system?

    I'm just going to assume that you're being intellectually honest with us.

    1) Just because statistics can be manipulated doesn't mean they're meaningless.

    2) Political Science is a social science for a damn good reason. There's no way to accurately predict outcomes to policy decisions. Statistics are used to create models which are better than making random guesses, but ultimately predicting human behavior is impossible.

    3) I'm also going to point out here, you're only kidding yourself if you think everything goes into a dichotomy of "socialist" and "capitalist". Every health system in the world is a complex tapestry which contains elements of both, and nearly every major area of business and public policy is as well.

    I will submit one other thing. Government exists to serve the people, and a government which fails to provide for the basic needs of the people is a failure. Food, water and shelter are the very basics, although depending on the society people generally expect a lot more. There's flexibility with how the government provides for the people.

  • programjunkieprogramjunkie Registered User regular
    edited November 2010
    Arturick wrote: »
    The problem, Arturick, is that you are trying to rhetorically divorce the philosophy from the outcomes it produces, then argue for the philosophy in a vacuum. Which is an interesting intellectual exercise I suppose, but it basically represents a dodge around the question of "what should our public policy be on this issue?"
    The real world would not, I'm afraid, assure my survival as you are stating that the government should do.

    The entire reason we have the concept of government is because state of nature fucking sucked.

    I am aware of my own limitations. "Penn & Teller's: Bullshit" did a show about how statistics can basically be raped until they say whatever you want. Now, I've been presented with statistics that the American system of healthcare is superior to, say, the Canadian system. I've been presented with statistics showing that the Canadian system is superior to the American. I have heard VERY convincing arguments from both sides that the other side is full of horse manure.

    Now, I CAN rhetorically argue philosophy in a vacuum. I've done it with myself, a lot, and I always veer down two paths...

    Laissez-faire capitalism with some sensible restraints always, in my head, results in an imperfect world, but nothing horrid. Eventually, someone invents the holodeck, the food replicator, and unlimited clean energy, then the last human on Earth chokes to death on synthesized filet mignon while sodomizing an electromagnetically generated Megan Fox.

    The leftward side of philosophy always results in some guy with a smoking rifle standing over terrified peasants and yelling, "Do we have to go over this equality thing, AGAIN?" I try to pull open leftists down that rabbit hole with me to see if they see the same thing I do, or if they can point out some logical error that would've taken us to a different result. We always get halfway there when they start yelling at me that I'm trying to trick them.

    It's not that I think universal health care is the straw that will break the camel's back and we'll tumble into a dictatorship overnight. I just find myself thinking that any incremental step towards the guy with the cool moustache running every aspect of society should be explained in such a way that it seems entirely reasonable why this would be the LAST thing the government takes over.

    That's why I hate the term "progressive." Why is the government running things the path of progress? Doesn't that mean we fucked up when we abandoned the Feudal system?

    http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/17306

    TLDR: Early laissez faire industrialism results in conditions that are not only deadly for many, but arguably so grossly violate human dignity as to be a fate worse than death for those who survive. Now, in (sarcastic) defense of laissez faire economics, the plagues generated by this abominable evil were so virulent that the rich voluntarily provided sanitation due to the existential threat that such inequality fostered.

    Still, it is possible for laissez faire economics to violate human rights as grossly as a government run genocide, so it behooves those who desire anything but evil and ruin to appropriately balance individual economic and political freedom with a just society that enforces human rights with reasonable regulations.

  • _J__J_ Pedant Registered User regular
    edited November 2010
    Zedar wrote: »
    So apparently Nevada has been called for Reid. Will Angle's militia assault DC tomorrow, or will they take more time to mobilize?

    Her speech was not entirely asinine.

    I expected her to trot out the "2nd amendment solution" line.

    Seriously J not only are you a monumentally umpleasant person when you start uttering the nonsense that passes for philosophy in your mind (shame on whatever institution you graduated in, and shame on your tutors for creating such a monster), but your sense of humor, such as it is, is awful.
  • Eat it You Nasty Pig.Eat it You Nasty Pig. tell homeland security 'we are the bomb'Registered User regular
    edited November 2010
    The leftward side of philosophy always results in some guy with a smoking rifle standing over terrified peasants and yelling, "Do we have to go over this equality thing, AGAIN?" I try to pull open leftists down that rabbit hole with me to see if they see the same thing I do, or if they can point out some logical error that would've taken us to a different result. We always get halfway there when they start yelling at me that I'm trying to trick them.

    What does this even mean?

    gkcmatch_zps97480250.jpg
    if the rapture don't come cousin, then pass the guns
    I'll burn'em for the return of my investment funds
  • Eat it You Nasty Pig.Eat it You Nasty Pig. tell homeland security 'we are the bomb'Registered User regular
    edited November 2010
    Also, I like how "statistics can be manipulated" becomes "let's ignore measurable outcomes and focus our debate on philosophical abstraction that ignores observed circumstances and a host of externalities."

    gkcmatch_zps97480250.jpg
    if the rapture don't come cousin, then pass the guns
    I'll burn'em for the return of my investment funds
  • programjunkieprogramjunkie Registered User regular
    edited November 2010
    The leftward side of philosophy always results in some guy with a smoking rifle standing over terrified peasants and yelling, "Do we have to go over this equality thing, AGAIN?" I try to pull open leftists down that rabbit hole with me to see if they see the same thing I do, or if they can point out some logical error that would've taken us to a different result. We always get halfway there when they start yelling at me that I'm trying to trick them.

    What does this even mean?

    Mao's Great Leap Forward is often cited by rightists as an example of socialism gone bad. And it reasonably matches, as Mao et al killed millions of people through both ignorant policy and physical violence. I don't think it has much relevance to the vast majority of leftist philosophy today, particularly in the US where radical leftism is "I don't think insurance carriers should be able to drop people for actually get sick as opposed to just unilaterally paying into their policy as pure profit."

  • TheOrangeTheOrange Registered User regular
    edited November 2010
    Insurance companies profit from non-complaince, I don't care if the new system involve goverment or not, the current system rewards denial of service and needs to change.

  • Edith_Bagot-DixEdith_Bagot-Dix Registered User regular
    edited November 2010
    Zedar wrote: »
    So apparently Nevada has been called for Reid. Will Angle's militia assault DC tomorrow, or will they take more time to mobilize?

    She's lucky to live in a country with such a toothless news media. Not that the Canadian media is significantly better, but there are at least handful of reporters who are still employed who would go and ask her something similar.

    steam_sig.png

    Also on PSN: twobadcats
  • mythagomythago Registered User regular
    edited November 2010
    Arturick, the problem is that the rest of us don't live in the imaginary world inside your head where laissez-faire capitalism magically works; we live in the real world, where one person's "sensible restraint" is another person's "keep your goverment off my Medicare".

    Three lines of plaintext:
    obsolete signature form
    replaced by JPEGs.
Sign In or Register to comment.