New, Improved Obamacare Program Released On 35 Floppy Disks

[Tiassa]

Referring to Redefinition

I believe Michael is referring to the statement by Weber that government is the entity with a monopoly on the use of physical force within a given geographic area

Well, yes. Referring to is one thing. The proposition of state as monopoly on coercive force is hardly new.

However, the transformation of that long-acknowledged argument into "the legal obligation to initiate force against innocent people" is absolutely according to the beholder.

Essentially, given the troubles that existed between humans before the advent of government, and considering the longstanding, observable trend of striving to reduce those troubles throughout the history of society, it seems a strikingly extraordinary thesis, insofar as it requires better support than one's mere say-so, that the problem is the instrument used to reduce the troubles; inherent in our neighbor's outlook is a fanciful notion that if we just get rid of the monopoly on force, human beings will spontaneously do what they have never, in the history of the species, managed to accomplish with or without government.

Get rid of government and tomorrow everyone will start being virtuous?

And what of that bizarre presumption of innocence? I mean, sure, we're all innocent. And as potheads have pointed out for decades, when you take a common behavior in society and make it illegal, you automatically have a large criminal element to deal with.

But as you and I are both aware, that argument exists in a specific, conditional context. That is to say, it's one thing to consider the concept in terms of speeding; there are ways to get the "innocent" people violating the speed limit out from under the injustice of a traffic ticket.

But, you know, so were rapists and murderers innocent before the monopoly on force instituted laws against such behavior, although I would expect we can find some manner of agreement that such a rhetorical extension of the proposition treads into the realm of hyperbole.

Government is not some mystical demon that imposes its will on humanity; it is a product of humanity. It is something people keep trying to do. And that is the reason the Anarchists had such a bad run when it came to solutions. At the beginning of the twentieth century, some Anarchists observed societal problems in such a manner as to make them seem prohetic. But not even Emma Goldman had much for solutions. And the solutions proposed? They all led back to government.

The functional problem one faces is that if the social contract established in the eighteenth century no longer applies because you and I did not have the opportunity to specifically consent to it, what would be the outcome?

The first obvious speculation is a return to a more dangerous quality of life; as much as we might admire the flintlock or even slingshot independence of the pioneers, really? Do we really want to go back to that?

Of course there are far too many interests to allow that sort of decline, which leads to the second obvious speculation, which is essentially a blissfully ignorant plutocracy or oligarchy akin to speculative, terracentric science fiction—Ghost in the Shell, Darker Than Black, The Blade Runner, Aeon Flux, WALL-E ... any of those ringing a bell?

One can make the reasonable argument that, sociologically speaking, our neighbor is presenting a specific argument against the wellbeing of the human species. Not only would we opt out of God, but also Nature. And just between us, Nature tends to remind our species of its actual, functional place in the Universe. Sure, we can engineer a Twinkie to outlast a nuclear winter, but we can't stop a hurricane, and the cockroaches—who also will survive the nuclear winter—fare much better than humans after the storm passes.

It is true that the tyranny of a shadow plutocracy in lieu of real government can, in fact, bring the species forward in a utilitarian, dispassionate way, but that is a juggling of potentials including disparate but overlapping periods, accidents of neurosis, and exactly the sort of thing people tend to accuse of my crowd. Seriously, the tinfoil-wearing, nutritious gruel-eating, dead-eyed workers living a fine, prosperous, healthy life? You know, that communist dystopia? Yeah. Welcome to the Wal-Mart world; the only upside is polyester instead of tinfoil.

Do we really believe that, in eradicating labor laws, bosses won't send children into the mines?

Do we really believe that, in eradicating speeding laws, people will suddenly start driving safely?

The requisites of innocence in his consideration of "the legal obligation to initiate force against innocent people" are completely arbitrary.

And here's the thing: Just like with the petty rabble-rousing, displays of armed force, threats of violence, and actual terrorism, it doesn't suddenly become good just because it's dressed up in right-wing robes.

I've seen down that road from the left, and the nearest to a lack of monopoly on force is constant competition among perpetually-renewing syndicates for short-term possession of a transient monopoly on force in response to changing loci for the most influential means of production. I mean, really, if you think labor unions are annoying now? Go anarchosyndicalist, and they become the monopoly on force.

Fascist oligarchy is a right-wing potential of similar degree. It's one of the reasons our neighbor's "libertarianism" is so widely mocked as tea and crumpet conservatism. The only way around this is to presume exactly the opposite of what is observable, that people unrestrained will (A) restrain themselves, and (B) violate those restraints.

It is true that if you get rid of laws against rape, then rape ends tomorrow. But that's only because we don't call it rape anymore. If we get rid of laws against rape, people are not going to magically stop forcing unwanted sexual contact onto others. Similarly, if we get rid of government, people are not going to stop competing for the monopoly on force.

To the one, our neighbor's apparent vision for humanity is simply dysfunctional according to the observable record.

To the other, that twist on innocence is, at best, a grotesquely bad joke.

 

[joepistole]

This is pretty good.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nlgCQ8NTXeg

 

[Write4U]

Tiassa,
Do we really believe that, in eradicating labor laws, bosses won't send children into the mines?

Do we really believe that, in eradicating speeding laws, people will suddenly start driving safely?

The requisites of innocence in his consideration of "the legal obligation to initiate force against innocent people" are completely arbitrary.

Witness the demise of the voting rights laws. 48 hrs after SCOTUS repealed the law, some states (re)instated several restrictive voting laws (affecting mostly minorities), which they could not have done when the voting rights laws were in effect. Good old prejudice seems to have "awakened" again.

 

[Write4U]

Employee's of Walmart are 'Associates'. Many employees of places like the pharmaceutical company I used to work at are actually employees of ManPower. It happened over a weekend. One week they worked for us, the next they worked for ManPower - where they could be fired quite easily. There's plenty of ways to define a worker and plenty of ways to devise a means to get people to do work as 'independent' contractors. There's literally next to no way to ensure a living wage is paid when everyone is trained for 12 years to be a cog. There's simply too many cogs. Most Public School teachers were scrapped off the bottom of the class-list and have next to no experience working in the free-market outside of wait-staff where they probably resented the work and 99.99999% would have zero experience creating value through an actual business. Thus, they simply don't have the skills, knowledge or experience to provide a beneficial education. But they do one thing - they train people NOT to think independently, NOT to challenge the statuesque but to be good little cogs that can sit in a seat all day long and raise their hand when they need to pee - probably useful for a life of incarceration. They also do a good job of teaching children to love the Public Sector - which is natural, they themselves work for the Public sector, they NEED children and parents to think the Public sector is good. This they also seem capable of teaching.

You made it clear that you would like to use the State to ensure a minimum wage is paid. OK, I said: Suppose a company has hired 100 people at $1 an hour. These people willingly accepted their job. What do you want to have happen to stop this from happening and to ensure the employees are paid a minimum wage?

Also, my point about DO's, was that they may be a wonderful surgeon in the USA - but they are not allowed to practice surgery in AU or England. You know, because they crossed the 'magic' line someone draw a hundred years ago. IMO - this is insane.

Did you know the original United States Declaration of Independence was going to read "life, liberty and property" Thomas Jefferson substituted "pursuit of happiness" in place of "property". I only mention this as it was understood then how important the idea of 'property' - beginning with one's own body, was. During some times in history, one's body was the property of the State. I find it interesting your body is no longer your property now. You may not smoke a common weed, you must pay tax on it's actions, who it marries is determined for you by the State, etc...

Anyway, that's an aside.

I have a question.

If we compare East and West Germany as well as North and South Korea we clearly see that, even though the cultures are identical - the socialist countries within a few generations became extremely poor (and in N. Korea's example resorted to cannibalism - which still happens). Do you think socialism didn't work because of structural problems - or because good, reasonable, and practical people just didn't manage to find a place in the socialistic governments?

Because, I think you'll find good, reasonable, and practical people were to be found - but it didn't matter. I actually knew some people who worked in the communist government - they were good hard working people. Quite intelligent, great work ethic, and to be honest - in many ways better than many of their Western counterparts. I'm curious as to what your explanation is for the differences in the economists between capitalistic countries and socialistic countries? Why were the socialistic countries devastatingly poor?

Ever been down to get your drivers licence renewed and you have to take a ticket and wait in line forever? It was estimated in Russia, the average time people spent waiting in line, added up to about 5 years by the end of a working life. About 2.5 hours a day standing in a line somewhere trying to get something.

You are a dishonest debater Michael, you misquote, misrepresent, ignore established fact, dismiss scientific data, yet you persist in stubborn negativity and complaint about our current form of a Federal Government (a coordinating legal infrastructure) forming the United States of America, a Federated State consisting of 50 autonomous States, based on commonly shared values.

We agree, the Body Politic is in shambles and IMO, there is clear evidence of sedition and malfeasance by members of congress. But that does NOT point to a restrictive form of government, on the contrary, it is reflective of too much freedom and lack of clearly defined regulation for specific situations of National relevance.

 

[Michael]

Do you think people should be free to work for less than minimum wage?

No

OK then, both Germany and Singapore have no minimum wage - do you think the citizens of those countries should be free (have the civil freedom) to legally sell their labor into the market place without a minimum wage?





As an aside:

According to the OECD:
- The average household net-adjusted disposable income is 28 884 USD a year in Australia.
- The average household net-adjusted disposable income is 28 799 USD a year in Germany.
(note: the average household net-adjusted disposable income is 38 001 USD a year in the USA)

AU versus Germany:
Consumer Prices in Australia are 31.31% higher than in Germany
Consumer Prices Including Rent in Australia are 47.16% higher than in Germany
Rent Prices in Australia are 94.79% higher than in Germany
Restaurant Prices in Australia are 27.11% higher than in Germany
Groceries Prices in Australia are 44.67% higher than in Germany
Local Purchasing Power in Australia is 4.20% lower than in Germany

The poor often have to rent and are 'forced' to cook at home - thus the rent and grocery bills are often their two largest bills. It looks to me like Australian are suffering. Worse still, in AU it's very common to have BOTH the mother and father work - putting all children in State-subsidized day supervision centers as young as 6 WEEKS old. Do you know how many Australian children are now self-harming (cutting)? HERE The number of women aged between 15 and 24 who have injured themselves so badly they need hospital treatment has increased by more than 50 per cent since 2000. People are stressed in Australia. AND the government must continue a massive immigration to meet the economic obligations (such as 'free' healthcare - but this only delays the inevitable, you can only import so many people before the strain on the infrastructure is too great and society begins to buckle - which I think is the increase in self-harm which may arise out of loss of parental love and support during formative years 0-4. Having day supervisors for parents isn't the same - and these people routinely quit, which means the child is bonding with "parents" who routinely abandon them. But hey, at least you get a highly regulated market where no one wants to open up a small business any longer. Oh, a competitively restrictive minimum wage - whatever that's good for.


AU versus USA:
Not only is the disposable income 31% higher in the USA relative to AU but:

Consumer Prices in United States are 33.09% lower than in Australia
Consumer Prices Including Rent in United States are 35.51% lower than in Australia
Rent Prices in United States are 40.40% lower than in Australia
Restaurant Prices in United States are 31.80% lower than in Australia
Groceries Prices in United States are 27.37% lower than in Australia
Local Purchasing Power in United States is 30.65% higher than in Australia

 

[Michael]

Michael



They didn't. In fact the Socialist countries are doing better, financially, than we are(at least on an average citizen basis). It was Communism that collapsed, not Socialism. Switzerland, a Socialist country, has the highest GDP/citizen ratio on the planet. You ought to visit sometime(the planet, not Switzerland, Anarchists don't do well there).

Do you ever get tired of being wrong? Evidently not.

Grumpy

You're going to compare Switzerland with the USA? They don't even use the Euro, they use the Swiss Franc. They're a small mono-cultural nation with a population less than New York city. They are ranked 4th in gun ownership in the world - perhaps you'd like to use this to make a comparison somehow with the USA?

According to the OECD:
In Switzerland, the average household net-adjusted disposable income is 30 060 USD a year

According to Numbo:
Consumer Prices in United States are 47.69% lower than in Switzerland
Consumer Prices Including Rent in United States are 46.35% lower than in Switzerland
Rent Prices in United States are 43.05% lower than in Switzerland
Restaurant Prices in United States are 51.88% lower than in Switzerland
Groceries Prices in United States are 47.31% lower than in Switzerland
Local Purchasing Power in United States is 0.26% lower than in Switzerland

 

[Michael]

LOL, oh please Michael. “Greed is good” is word salad…really? I don’t think you are that dumb. But maybe I am wrong in that regard. If you don’t know what the word greed means, look it up in the dictionary. Since you entered this forum you have had trouble with words as they are defined in our dictionaries.



LOL, what you don’t like the truth Michael? No this is an example of your obfuscation.



No, unfortunately for you there is no straw man there. Libertarians are laissez faire advocates; laissez faire is based on the notion that collective individual greed produces efficient self-regulating markets. You have consistently advocated that notion over the years in your anti-government, anti-regulation tirades. Of course you don’t want to use the word greed. But the reality is greed is at the core of your ideology. Adam Smith often cited by Libertarians, in his famous tome, “The Wealth of Nations” Book 1, chapter 7, spent some time writing about collective greed and the invisible hand of the market.

Over the course of many years you have repeatedly turned a blind eye to corruption in our political system and of those who support your libertarian ideology. Here is an article that kind of sums it up.

“1. Libertarian values are repellent--Libertarianism celebrates greed and selfishness. Of course not all libertarians follow Ayn Rand in saying that openly, but that’s really what it’s all about. Am I being unfair? After all, libertarians sincerely believe in the wonders of free markets, and it just happens that greed and selfishness work well with free markets. So, you might argue, libertarians don’t necessarily have different values from you and me, just different beliefs about what works and what doesn’t. I don’t buy that. The plain fact is, libertarians by and large are simply not much bothered by social and economic inequality: their hearts bleed for the rich and successful, not for the underprivileged. I’m not saying that libertarians are actively hostile toward or contemptuous of the poor, only that they don’t much care about them. (There are some notable exceptions, proving the rule.) Of course, libertarians will and do argue that their ideas will benefit all strata of society, including the poor, but let’s be real: concern for the underdog is just not a libertarian priority. People are most often attracted to the left, rightly or wrongly, because of a sense of social justice--an appreciation of the unfairness of existing inequalities and an interest in helping the less fortunate. Do you really think that anybody ever became a libertarian motivated primarily by the conviction that that was the best way to help the underdog? Asked and answered.

2. Libertarianism is intellectually myopic--Libertarians cherish freedom above all, but their concept of freedom is constricted and myopic. They understand freedom almost exclusively in terms of freedom from government, not recognizing that unfettered capitalism--the libertarians’ beloved free market economy--can be as great a threat to freedom as government action. In a country like the United States, quite possibly more so. How many people do you know who have ever been forced to move from their home town by government? Surely, none (other than convicted criminals). Now, how many people do you know have been forced to move long distances in search of decent jobs? Chances are, you do know such people--living demonstrations of the power of markets to constrain individual behavior. Libertarians also refuse to recognize that poverty and hardship make people unfree, and that often, government action is necessary to mitigate the oppression inflicted by markets. Is a gravely ill person free if she lacks access to decent health care? According to libertarian Ron Paul she is free--to look for a charity to help her. Most other people wouldn’t find it hard to understand that the prospect of death imposes severe limits on freedom.

3. Libertarianism is utopian--An active state is a universal feature of advanced societies. The minimal government society that libertarians envision doesn’t exist anywhere in the industrial or post-industrial world, and never has, for good reason. Advanced capitalism simply doesn’t function without a fairly active, interventionist public sector. Now, that doesn’t mean that libertarians can never have any valid public policy ideas at all: libertarians are constantly proposing “market based solutions” to everything, so it’s inevitable that once in a while they get something right. Even more than once in a while, they will be right on their own narrow terms--they will come up with proposals that technically work more or less well while neglecting larger issues of equity and public good. But as a broad philosophy of governance, libertarianism cannot work. Almost no one these days believes in traditional orthodox socialism--public ownership of most means of production. Libertarianism is as distant from real world possibilities as traditional socialism, and should be taken no more seriously.

4. Libertarianism is politically hopeless--You might well agree with me on the three preceding points but still feel that libertarianism has to be reckoned with politically--hasn’t Ron Paul shown that his creed has real popular appeal? My short answer would be that Paul’s ability to garner the vote of 20% of Iowa and New Hampshire Republican Party enthusiasts says very close to nothing about libertarianism’s mass appeal. My longer answer is that libertarians can never achieve mass appeal because libertarians, unlike conservatives, are hobbled by their principled consistency. Libertarian and conservative economic programs basically serve the interests of a relatively small portion of the population. Conservatives understand that--they understand it in their bones even if not in their brains. That’s why conservatives have come to realize that they can only win elections by using wedge issues--anti-communism, racism, family values, anti-terrorism, etc. And they have been quite successful with wedge issues. Most of the wedges, though, are unattractive to libertarians, who really do believe in freedom. So, attacks on civil liberties or abortion or gay rights or calls for a garrison state to fight foreign enemies aren’t part of the libertarians’ political arsenal. (Paul, who opposes abortion rights, is a partial exception to this generalization.) Unwilling to resort to wedge issues, libertarians are left basically with an elitist economic program plus some sensible proposals, like ending the war on drugs, that just don’t do the job that wedge issues do for conservative Republicans. They don’t have a faux populist social agenda to distract people from their elitist economic agenda. Politically, that puts them close to nowhere.” - Tony Greco--Talking About Politics, Daily Kos, Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 11:25 AM PST

1) Libertarians captured less than 1% of the popular vote - so I fail to see why you care one way or the other. Libertarians are a minority nothing on the body politic.
2) Libertarians are only interested in promotion of the non-aggression principle.
3) Your entire post is a straw man - as usual.


Lastly, you didn't define what 'greed' is and why it's good or bad. Libertarianism celebrates greed and selfishness. Oh, and as for Ayn Rand, you'll find she was booed on stage when objecting to the Vietnam War. She was one of the only few principled intellectuals to take a public stand against violence perpetrated against innocent people. Progressives OTOH think violence is the key to peace. They think we need to be 'active' on the world stage and use our military to 'help' the poor and weak - in reality we've wasted $8.5 trillion losing two wars, one against a nation that had abslutely nothing at all to do with 9/11. So much depleted uranium has been used against the innocent children of Iraq, it's thought the genetic integrity of the Iraqi people itself has been destroyed.

So, while you can crap on about 'Libertarians this' and 'Libertarians that' over here in the REAL world, REAL Progressive Democrats and REAL Fascist Republicans of the Authoritarian Party are REALLY building $39 billion dollar spy centers and REALLY spying on the American public and genocidal in it's blood lust to destroy an innocent people's genetic integrity - which, again, had absolutely nothing AT ALL TO DO WITH 9/11. See, that's the difference - you crap on about some puny political group that captured less than the Green Party, less than 1% of the popular vote - while our CONmander in chief continues with a REAL WAR in the killing fields of the ME (we're now going to remain in Afghanistan until 2023 as a MINIMUM) and continues with the Patriot Act's excuse to spy on REAL citizens. The guy is a f*cking pyschopath. He'll say ANYTHING to get elected. He argued AGAINST Hitlery Clinton when she proposed exactly what he's now doing!

The Iraq War is Peace - isn't it Joe?
Freedom from ObamaCare is a form of slavery - isn't it Joe?
A 47% illiteracy rate is strength - isn't it Joe?

Don't worry, you Progressive sociopaths are going to run the country into the ground - so, be happy, most people in the country think exactly like you do. Good for you. More war. More bailing out the richest 1%. More government.

 

[Michael]

You are a dishonest debater Michael, you misquote, misrepresent, ignore established fact, dismiss scientific data, yet you persist in stubborn negativity and complaint about our current form of a Federal Government (a coordinating legal infrastructure) forming the United States of America, a Federated State consisting of 50 autonomous States, based on commonly shared values.

We agree, the Body Politic is in shambles and IMO, there is clear evidence of sedition and malfeasance by members of congress. But that does NOT point to a restrictive form of government, on the contrary, it is reflective of too much freedom and lack of clearly defined regulation for specific situations of National relevance.

I asked two questions:
1) What is your definition of the word "State"
2) Why do you think the economy of Socialist East Germany was so much less prosperous (less free time and less civil liberties) when compared to the Capitalistic West Germany given they share language, culture, religion, etc....

Calling me 'dishonest' is not a logical argument. Simply define the terms and then make an argument. It's pretty simple really. I didn't define the State. The US Government uses the Princeton University definition to define itself. It was written 100 years ago - I certainly had nothing to do with it. It's the most common definition of the 21st century and makes perfectly good sense describing what a State actually is. You continue to use descriptors that seem romanticized. You also seem to refer to things in a US-centrist and US-historical POV. Many States are not federations as an example.



Here's the framework within which I think is suitable means of discussing a concept:

Socrates: Places importance (or wisdom) on the definition of terms.

Aristotle's Logic works somewhat like this:
Major premise (truth statement)
Minor premise (truth statement)
Conclusion (truth statement)

The non-aggression axiom asserts that aggression is inherently illegitimate.

Immanuel Kant named four kinds of government:
A. Law and freedom without force (anarchy).
B. Law and force without freedom (despotism).
C. Force without freedom and law (barbarism).
D. Force with freedom and law (republic).



Again, these aren't 'my' ideas. They're all hundreds of years (even thousands of years) old. As you can see, to begin any discussion, you have to understand what the terms mean. If you can articulate it as formal logic, you can remove the terms and derive the conclusion.


Oh, and lastly, anarcho-capitalists are a tiny small nondescript slice of the public. The majority of people WANT a lot of State. They're either of the Left or Right wing of the Authoritarian party. What they do not want is more freedom. I OTOH want what the USA preaches overseas - to give the citizens more personal freedom - not less, more. Freedom is the path to prosperity - not slavery.

George Orwell saw it quite clearly:
War is peace
Freedom is slavery
Ignorance is strength

We've literally wasted $8.5 TRILLION dollars that is UNACCOUNTED for.
You're arguing we need to have LESS civil liberties to be freer. This is insane.
The "Patriot Act" allows the State to violate the 4th amendment with nearly zero oversight - we're told we mustn't know, for our own good. Our ignorance is Our strength.

You couldn't make this shit up. It's literally insanity.

We do NOT need to lose our Civil Liberties. This is the path to violence and ruin.
We NEED to regain our Civil Liberties. This is the path to peace and prosperity.
I'm almost shocked I have to say this - well, not really. Public schools do get one thing right.

 

[joepistole]

1) Libertarians captured less than 1% of the popular vote - so I fail to see why you care one way or the other. Libertarians are a minority nothing on the body politic.

How is this relevant to the discussion? It isn’t. It’s chaff, a distraction, a way of avoiding truths you find unpleasant.

2) Libertarians are only interested in promotion of the non-aggression principle.

Right, I think the cartoon summed that up rather nicely.

3) Your entire post is a straw man - as usual.

LOL, yeah you keep saying that, and I am sure you will. But no matter how many times you say it, it will not make it true. Do you know what a straw man argument is Michael? You have a bad habit of playing fast and loose with the English dictionary. And you consistently ignore facts, science and reason.

Lastly, you didn't define what 'greed' is and why it's good or bad. Libertarianism celebrates greed and selfishness. Oh, and as for Ayn Rand, you'll find she was booed on stage when objecting to the Vietnam War. She was one of the only few principled intellectuals to take a public stand against violence perpetrated against innocent people. Progressives OTOH think violence is the key to peace. They think we need to be 'active' on the world stage and use our military to 'help' the poor and weak - in reality we've wasted $8.5 trillion losing two wars, one against a nation that had abslutely nothing at all to do with 9/11. So much depleted uranium has been used against the innocent children of Iraq, it's thought the genetic integrity of the Iraqi people itself has been destroyed.

That is a bunch of hogwash. Let me remind you it was a conservative, a Republican who created both Iraq wars. And depleted uranium was not used against the children of any nation, much less Iraq. That is more of your nonsensical machinations. If you think progressives think violence is “key” to peace and to help the poor, then perhaps you have some evidence of same? But I think we both know you have no such proof or evidence.

And two, I told you before if you want my definition of the word greed, look it up in the dictionary. Unlike you, I used words as they have been defined. And this is not about me, it is about the libertarian belief that individual and collective greed is good and through some yet undefined and unrevealed magic produces a self-regulating society.

So, while you can crap on about 'Libertarians this' and 'Libertarians that' over here in the REAL world, REAL Progressive Democrats and REAL Fascist Republicans of the Authoritarian Party are REALLY building $39 billion dollar spy centers and REALLY spying on the American public and genocidal in it's blood lust to destroy an innocent people's genetic integrity - which, again, had absolutely nothing AT ALL TO DO WITH 9/11. See, that's the difference - you crap on about some puny political group that captured less than the Green Party, less than 1% of the popular vote - while our CONmander in chief continues with a REAL WAR in the killing fields of the ME (we're now going to remain in Afghanistan until 2023 as a MINIMUM) and continues with the Patriot Act's excuse to spy on REAL citizens. The guy is a f*cking pyschopath. He'll say ANYTHING to get elected. He argued AGAINST Hitlery Clinton when she proposed exactly what he's now doing!

Well that puny part has integrated itself into the Republican Party in recent years. Ron Paul, a former Libertarian presidential candidate was elected to congress as a Republican and he was a Republican candidate for president. On economic issues there really isn’t much difference between Libertarian planks and Republican Party planks. Both believe greed is good and more greed is better.

The Iraq War is Peace - isn't it Joe?

Again, I fail to see how the Iraq War is relevant other than as a distraction for you.

Freedom from ObamaCare is a form of slavery - isn't it Joe?

I have no idea what that means. It just doesn’t make sense. Freedom from affordable healthcare, the inability to obtain affordable healthcare is slavery…really?

A 47% illiteracy rate is strength - isn't it Joe?

The US literacy rate is 99%...yet another case of you getting your numbers wrong.

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/us.html

Don't worry, you Progressive sociopaths are going to run the country into the ground - so, be happy, most people in the country think exactly like you do. Good for you. More war. More bailing out the richest 1%. More government.

Name calling might make you feel better, ignoring the facts might make you feel better, but it won’t change the truth. More greed isn’t going to solve our problems.

 

[Write4U]

Michael, (insert here: ...........),
therefore ACA will kill us all or place us in permanent slavery!!!

note: not verbatim quote.

Yes, I can see the State Death Panel (the SDP) now, deciding who SHALL receive healthcare and live or who SHALL NOT receive healthcare (maybe pre-existing conditions?) and die!!!.

I must admit, I stand in wonder (and some fear) of such logic.

 

[Michael]

That is a bunch of hogwash. Let me remind you it was a conservative, a Republican who created both Iraq wars. And depleted uranium was not used against the children of any nation, much less Iraq. That is more of your nonsensical machinations.

Are you F-ing me??? Jesus F-ing Christ Joe. It's CONgress that Declares War, not the POTUS.
You ARE an American are you not?

Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002

Here are some Progressive ChickHawk Sociopaths who voted for War against a country that had NOTHING AT ALL TO DO WITH 9/11:

Bayh (D-IN)
Biden (D-DE)
Breaux (D-LA)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Carnahan (D-MO)
Carper (D-DE)
Cleland (D-GA)
Clinton (D-NY)
Daschle (D-SD)
Dodd (D-CT)
Dorgan (D-ND)
Edwards (D-NC)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Harkin (D-IA) Hollings (D-SC)
Johnson (D-SD)
Kerry (D-MA)
Kohl (D-WI)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Lieberman (D-CT)
Lincoln (D-AR)
Miller (D-GA)
Nelson (D-FL)
Nelson (D-NE)
Reid (D-NV)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Schumer (D-NY)
Torricelli (D-NJ)


WHO: Congenital birth defect study in Iraq

CRG (independent research and media organization based in Montreal): WHO Refuses to Publish Report on Cancers and Birth Defects in Iraq Caused by Depleted Uranium Ammunition

The study by three leading radiation scientists cautioned that children and adults could contract cancer after breathing in dust containing DU, which is radioactive and chemically toxic. But it was blocked from publication by the World Health Organization (WHO), which employed the main author, Dr Keith Baverstock, as a senior radiation advisor. He alleges that it was deliberately suppressed, though this is denied by WHO. (See Rob Edwards, WHO ‘Suppressed’ Scientific Study Into Depleted Uranium Cancer Fears in Iraq, The Sunday Herald, February 24, 2004)​

Hans von Sponeck, former Assistant Secretary General of the United Nations:

“The US government sought to prevent the WHO from surveying areas in southern Iraq where depleted uranium had been used and caused serious health and environmental dangers.” (quoted in Mozhgan Savabieasfahani Rise of Cancers and Birth Defects in Iraq: World Health Organization Refuses to Release Data, Global Research, July 31, 2013


I find it repulsive you would dare defend the use of depleted uranium against so-called 'insurgents' in cities where the US military knew full well small innocent, even unborn, children would be forced (and I mean literally FORCED) to breath in the radioactive DU particles that they used. That is sickening. This is boarder-line religious fundamentalist when the facts are staring you right in the face and yet you pretend not to see them. The US Government couldn't give two shits who it happens to murder - they used Agent Orange and Napalm on children in Vietnam. But, hey, Joe get's to stick his children and grandchildren and great grandchildren with his generations obesity driven cardiovascular healthcare bills. Yeah, we'll see how this plays out. You'll know you're a hypocrite when, in 15-25 years, you refuse to be seen in a public hospital and instead go out of your way to organize treatment in a private hospital.

 

[Michael]

note: not verbatim quote.

Yes, I can see the State Death Panel (the SDP) now, deciding who SHALL receive healthcare and live or who SHALL NOT receive healthcare (maybe pre-existing conditions?) and die!!!.

I must admit, I stand in wonder (and some fear) of such logic.

WTF are you on about?

I just laid out the details of a formalized debate asking for you to simply reply to two very simple straight forward questions.
I listed Socrates insistence that a word's definition be known prior to debate, the basic rules of Aristotelian logic, Kant's definition of the four forms of government from Anthropology from a Pragmatic Point of View the NAP. AND your response it some claptrap about death panels and slavery? You're going to put words in my mouth? A blatant straw man?!

I mean, what the hell?



I do not want the ACA because (a) it's immoral (b) it reduces our prosperity BY DEFINITION and (c) worse still, it will ruin healthcare making it LESS affordable for the poor and of LOWER quality. This mess of a website is just the beginning. In 15-25 years ObamaCare will be worse then Public Housing and as useless as a Public "High" School Education where 47% of the Graduating Class can not read or write. I actually WANT the poor to have access to affordable high quality healthcare - therefor I support a free-market (a true free market) in healthcare.

I'm fairly certain you have no idea how societies become prosperous. It's not that difficult, but it's certainly not something you're going to understand listening to some demagogue tell you what you want to hear and not what you need to hear.

If you should get confused, stop and think about things like this: If you're using force and coercion - then you're doing something incorrectly. If she's saying 'No, I don't want this, please leave me along' - that's a pretty good hint she is not being 'helped' by you. I'm sure you think you're 'helping' society (whatever that is) - but, get this, you're using force, that's a good sign that what you're doing is not helping but hurting society.

And it is.



How the World Was Made Safe for Crony Capitalism

For most of US history, crony capitalism has been in a struggle with free-market capitalism for the heart and soul of the American economy. For the past half century, crony capitalism has been gaining the upper hand. There are many reasons why, all of which can be traced to the insatiable desire of the state to gain and hold power.

 

[Michael]

Well, yes. Referring to is one thing. The proposition of state as monopoly on coercive force is hardly new.

However, the transformation of that long-acknowledged argument into "the legal obligation to initiate force against innocent people" is absolutely according to the beholder.

Those 15 school girls forced back into their burning school building were 'guilty' of the crime of not wearing a head covering while trying to escape a burning building. They were innocent children in the sense all humans not harming other's are innocent. The State may make it 'illegal' to inform us that we're being spied on by the State. The State may make it 'illegal' to smoke a weed. The State may make it illegal to work for less than minimum wage. But these people are innocent as in free from moral wrong.

Essentially, given the troubles that existed between humans before the advent of government, and considering the longstanding, observable trend of striving to reduce those troubles throughout the history of society, it seems a strikingly extraordinary thesis, insofar as it requires better support than one's mere say-so, that the problem is the instrument used to reduce the troubles; inherent in our neighbor's outlook is a fanciful notion that if we just get rid of the monopoly on force, human beings will spontaneously do what they have never, in the history of the species, managed to accomplish with or without government.

Get rid of government and tomorrow everyone will start being virtuous?

What do you mean 'troubles' most people for most of history lived in small villages and worked out their 'troubles' by non-violently speaking with their neighbour. They lived in the same village for Christ's sake.

And what of that bizarre presumption of innocence?

As in free from moral wrong. I fail to see what's so hard to understand here? Innocence is a universal term. Those children were innocent. Runaway slavers were innocent. Even in a court of law people are presumed innocent. You're inherently innocent, not guilty. Innocence is the default.

But as you and I are both aware, that argument exists in a specific, conditional context. That is to say, it's one thing to consider the concept in terms of speeding; there are ways to get the "innocent" people violating the speed limit out from under the injustice of a traffic ticket.

No, you're presumed innocent.

As for legal innocence - this is somewhat different. Those girls who burned to death violated the law, they were legally guilty for leaving a building without a head covering. As humans, they were innocent as in free from moral wrong. I've been quite specific about the moral versus the legal distinctions as far back as the island analogy.

As for violating the speed limit. We'll use an example of a toll road as this is private property. You've paid your toll, you then agree to abide by the Speed Limit, you didn't - you've broken your contract, you pay the agreed penalty. If not you're not allowed back onto the road. Pretty straight forward.

But, you know, so were rapists and murderers innocent before the monopoly on force instituted laws against such behavior, although I would expect we can find some manner of agreement that such a rhetorical extension of the proposition treads into the realm of hyperbole.

You do know rape is legal in some counties? And so is murder: America's deadly double tap drone attacks are 'killing 49 people for every known terrorist in Pakistan'

Government is not some mystical demon that imposes its will on humanity; it is a product of humanity. It is something people keep trying to do. And that is the reason the Anarchists had such a bad run when it came to solutions. At the beginning of the twentieth century, some Anarchists observed societal problems in such a manner as to make them seem prohetic. But not even Emma Goldman had much for solutions. And the solutions proposed? They all led back to government.

And? And all civilizations collapse. All fiat currencies go to zero. What's your point?
Edison tried 14,000 light bulbs before one worked well enough to mass produce.

We don't live in the 17th century. We live in the 21st century.

And, aside from economic reasons, there's good evidence that as society becomes more complex, as our is - society requires less State to maintain a level of prosperity to maintain a level of complexity. The fact is: YOU and ONLY YOU know if and by how much you want a coffee cup. You are the most efficient at making this decision. The State can spy on you, gather data on you - but only YOU know. The State can only guess. For most of human history the State has retarded growth and kept it at a feudal level - at best. So, aside from the moral reason - there's a very simple and real economic reason why free-markets work. The problem isn't we're too free. The problem is we are not free enough. We've been haemorrhaging civil liberties for 100 years now.

All we need are free-markets/voluntarism, law, sound money and private property rights (starting with one's own body). It's not nearly as complex as you make it out to seem. Morality are those simple rules your mother taught your: Don't hit, Don't steal, Use your words. Those are LIFE lessons - just because you're older and now an 'adult' doesn't mean these moral dissapear.

The functional problem one faces is that if the social contract established in the eighteenth century no longer applies because you and I did not have the opportunity to specifically consent to it, what would be the outcome?

The first obvious speculation is a return to a more dangerous quality of life; as much as we might admire the flintlock or even slingshot independence of the pioneers, really? Do we really want to go back to that?

No one is returning to a flint lock. Ever been to a shopping mall? They're relatively civil modern affairs. These are privately owned and they work just fine. Actually, they work hard to make you happy - unlike the DMV.

Of course there are far too many interests to allow that sort of decline, which leads to the second obvious speculation, which is essentially a blissfully ignorant plutocracy or oligarchy akin to speculative, terracentric science fiction�Ghost in the Shell, Darker Than Black, The Blade Runner, Aeon Flux, WALL-E ... any of those ringing a bell?

Ummmm.... did you miss 2008??? We LIVE IN AN OLIGARCHY. Did the $8.5 Trillion in unaccountable money wasted on two immoral liar-wars slip past you?

Jesus - the Left and Right wings of the Authoritarian Party pretend to argue and sure they pick a few nonsensical issues like gay marriage for the masses to bitch about - but boy they sure did get in a line to dump $ trillions onto the Americans public bailing out their banker buddies.

Do we really believe that, in eradicating labor laws, bosses won't send children into the mines?

Children can not morally be put into mines. This is akin to asking someone drugged to sign a legal contract - it won't hold up in law because the person wasn't mentally able to agree to the contract they signed. Children can not agree to contractually work in a mine they lack the cognitive ability to make that decision.

Do we really believe that, in eradicating speeding laws, people will suddenly start driving safely?

See above.

The requisites of innocence in his consideration of "the legal obligation to initiate force against innocent people" are completely arbitrary.

Please clarify and give a couple examples.

It is true that if you get rid of laws against rape, then rape ends tomorrow. But that's only because we don't call it rape anymore. If we get rid of laws against rape, people are not going to magically stop forcing unwanted sexual contact onto others. Similarly, if we get rid of government, people are not going to stop competing for the monopoly on force.

What are you going on about. How many times do I have to type this out? Law, private property, sound money and a free-market. A free market is not a free-for-all. If it were then I'd have written free-for-all. That's called barbarism. Why do you people keep making Anarchy (Law) out to be Barbarism (Lawless)?

Your body is your property - therefore no one can legally or morally 'rape' you. But get this, in the USA, you can't morally rape a citizen - but you sure can legally rape one (Innocent man given forcible 14-hour anal cavity search, X-rays, colonoscopy
after rolling through a stop sign).

Your body is your property - therefore no one can legally or morally 'murder' you. But get this, in the USA, you can't morally murder a citizen - but you sure can legally take away their life (Missouri man serving life without parole for �three strike� marijuana offenses seeks clemency from governor)


Everything you worry MAY happen - IS happening. Here. Now. The Right and Left wings of the Authoritarian Party may squabble over how best to divvy up the spoils, but one thing they agree on is you and your place as their Tax Cattle. Their 'Prey" so to say.

 

[joepistole]

Are you F-ing me??? Jesus F-ing Christ Joe. It's CONgress that Declares War, not the POTUS.
You ARE an American are you not?

Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002

Here are some Progressive ChickHawk Sociopaths who voted for War against a country that had NOTHING AT ALL TO DO WITH 9/11:

Bayh (D-IN)
Biden (D-DE)
Breaux (D-LA)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Carnahan (D-MO)
Carper (D-DE)
Cleland (D-GA)
Clinton (D-NY)
Daschle (D-SD)
Dodd (D-CT)
Dorgan (D-ND)
Edwards (D-NC)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Harkin (D-IA) Hollings (D-SC)
Johnson (D-SD)
Kerry (D-MA)
Kohl (D-WI)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Lieberman (D-CT)
Lincoln (D-AR)
Miller (D-GA)
Nelson (D-FL)
Nelson (D-NE)
Reid (D-NV)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Schumer (D-NY)
Torricelli (D-NJ)
WHO: Congenital birth defect study in Iraq
CRG (independent research and media organization based in Montreal): WHO Refuses to Publish Report on Cancers and Birth Defects in Iraq Caused by Depleted Uranium Ammunition

The study by three leading radiation scientists cautioned that children and adults could contract cancer after breathing in dust containing DU, which is radioactive and chemically toxic. But it was blocked from publication by the World Health Organization (WHO), which employed the main author, Dr Keith Baverstock, as a senior radiation advisor. He alleges that it was deliberately suppressed, though this is denied by WHO. (See Rob Edwards, WHO ‘Suppressed’ Scientific Study Into Depleted Uranium Cancer Fears in Iraq, The Sunday Herald, February 24, 2004)​

Hans von Sponeck, former Assistant Secretary General of the United Nations:
“The US government sought to prevent the WHO from surveying areas in southern Iraq where depleted uranium had been used and caused serious health and environmental dangers.” (quoted in Mozhgan Savabieasfahani Rise of Cancers and Birth Defects in Iraq: World Health Organization Refuses to Release Data, Global Research, July 31, 2013[/I
I find it repulsive you would dare defend the use of depleted uranium against so-called 'insurgents' in cities where the US military knew full well small innocent, even unborn, children would be forced (and I mean literally FORCED) to breath in the radioactive DU particles that they used. That is sickening. This is boarder-line religious fundamentalist when the facts are staring you right in the face and yet you pretend not to see them. The US Government couldn't give two shits who it happens to murder - they used Agent Orange and Napalm on children in Vietnam. But, hey, Joe get's to stick his children and grandchildren and great grandchildren with his generations obesity driven cardiovascular healthcare bills. Yeah, we'll see how this plays out. You'll know you're a hypocrite when, in 15-25 years, you refuse to be seen in a public hospital and instead go out of your way to organize treatment in a private hospital.

I don’t know who is f---ing you and I don’t care. What you are doing here is throwing up a distraction, a red herring. The Iraq War is not the issue. And the facts are it was a Republican president who initiated that war. He called for that war. He and his administration misrepresented intelligence information to Congress and The United Nations which resulted in the Iraq War II.

I don’t find it surprising that you would find exposing your lies as offensive. Here is some more truth. I didn’t defend the use of depleted uranium tank rounds. And the truth is those depleted uranium tank rounds were not used in cities. They were used in the desert against tanks. They are antitank weapons, fired by tanks at tanks. It’s a little difficult to conduct tank warfare in the middle of cities where children live with all the buildings in the way. And you have no credible evidence which supports your contention that depleted uranium rounds have caused any cancers. And again this has nothing to do with the original discussion about libertarianism. It is a red herring.

The bottom line here is that libertarian theology rests on the principal that both individual and collective greed is good. And that greed is self-regulating. And you have NO EVIDENCE which supports that core belief.

 

[Write4U]

In conclusion of our "formal" debate, if you want to actually change things, go forth and VOTE next time they ask you what type of government you want.?
That will solve all your problems, trust me. You see, I have lived at gunpoint in Europe (from occupiers) and I can assure you our State is considerably more benign than dictatorships or anarchy. You see, in those systems you DO NOT GET TO VOTE and select who shall wield the powers of enforcement.

If you are in such a tiny minority, what are you complaining about? Apparently most people disagree with you and in a democracy the majority rules. What is your problem with that and what are you going to do about it? Stomp your foot some more? Maybe buy a gun?

 

[joepistole]

This is pretty good. If you are a libertarian what kind of libertarian are you?

http://leftycartoons.com/the-24-types-of-libertarian/

 

[Write4U]

I don’t know who is f---ing you and I don’t care. What you are doing here is throwing up a distraction, a red herring. The Iraq War is not the issue. And the facts are it was a Republican president who initiated that war. He called for that war. He and his administration misrepresented intelligence information to Congress and The United Nations which resulted in the Iraq War II.

I don’t find it surprising that you would find exposing your lies as offensive. Here is some more truth. I didn’t defend the use of depleted uranium tank rounds. And the truth is those depleted uranium tank rounds were no used in cities. They were used in the desert against tanks. They are antitank weapons, fired by tanks at tanks. It’s a little difficult to conduct tank warfare in the middle of cities with all the buildings in the way. And you have no credible evidence that supports your contention that depleted uranium rounds have caused any cancers. And again this has nothing to do with the original discussion about libertarianism. It is a red herring.

The bottom line here is that libertarian theology rests on the principal that both individual and collective greed is good. And that greed is self-regulating. And you have NO EVIDENCE which supports that core belief.

Moreover, it has nothing to do with ACA. Michael is now throwing the kitchen sink into the debate.

 

[Grumpy]

Michael

You're going to compare Switzerland with the USA?

No, I'm comparing the governing philosophy of Switzerland with the governing philosophy of the US and contrasting the actual outcomes.

They don't even use the Euro, they use the Swiss Franc.

Irrelevant, both are means of exchange.

They're a small mono-cultural nation with a population less than New York city.

So? They're still Homosapiens aren't they? And the difference in size of population is irrelevant, the government is sized accordingly.

They are ranked 4th in gun ownership in the world - perhaps you'd like to use this to make a comparison somehow with the USA?

Switzerland actually has a "well organized militia", every Swiss 18 yr. old spends two years of training in the Guard and must keep an assault rifle and sealed can of ammo in their home for the rest of their adult life. In case of war, all citizens must fight. This kind of skews this statistic.

According to Numbo

Dumbo the elephant when he snorts Cocaine? Yes, they pay more, but they also get more and everyone is better off. Switzerland is the best place on Earth in quality of living. If I could speak their language I might go there, greed has destroyed the US quality of life for everyone but the Anarchist Rich. For example, the Swiss pay nearly 4 times as much as we do for a gallon of gas. They don't drive much, and they use buses and trains more. And the number one car registered in Switzerland last year was an electric one. So the average Swiss citizen spends less on gasoline than the average American. See how that works? Restaurant goers pay nearly twice what we do, but their waitress actually makes a living wage and does not rely on tax supported subsidies, only has the one job(freeing up an American's second needed job for another tax paying citizen, who also makes a living wage), and her quality of life is enhanced by the family time she now enjoys or personal pursuits she has time for. And her boss does not make thousands of times what she does, lowering income inequality and lessening the undue influence of undue wealth we are suffering so much of here. Switzerland is a country with it's primary goal being the quality of the lives of ALL of it's citizens, not just those with money. Our Supreme Court transformed our country into "Of the money, by the money and for the money" in Citizens United.

Switzerland
Life expectancy at birth: 82.8(17th highest in the world, US is 51st at 78.6)
GDP per capita: $51,227 (2nd highest)(The Gross Domestic Product per capita in the United States was last recorded at 43063.36 US dollars in 2012, 20% less than Switzerland)
Health spending per capita: $5,643 (3rd highest)(but only half what US spends without achieving universal coverage. We're number one, we're number one!)
Pct. of adults reporting good health: 81.3 (7th highest)

Switzerland had the world’s longest life expectancy at birth at nearly 83 years as of 2011 — 10 years longer than it was in 1970. Switzerland’s health care expenditure totalled $5,643 per person, the third highest out of countries measured by the OECD. Resident’s out of pocket expenditures accounted for 3.8% of household income, more than in all but 6 OECD nations. Although the Alpine country is hardly alone in providing residents with universal coverage, Switzerland’s system has frequently been compared to the Affordable Care Act because it requires residents to purchase private health insurance. Swiss residents are quite healthy, with lower cerebrovascular and cancer mortality rates than nearly all other nations measured by the OECD.

Ten Countries Where People Live Longest - 24/7 Wall St. http://247wallst.com/special-report...ries-where-people-live-longest/#ixzz2mQYk3twI

According to the OECD:
In Switzerland, the average household net-adjusted disposable income is 30 060 USD a year.

In the US the average is $38,001, but that number is influenced by the US currently having the highest income inequality in it's history(yes, even worse than during the Robber Baron era or the Depression), while Switzerland has the lowest income inequality in the world(it's Gini index is 21, with 0 representing perfect income equality. The highest paid CEO in Switzerland currently makes 127 times what the lowest paid employee in their company makes. Care to guess what the ratios in the US are?*). Drop the top 10% of both countries and the average in Sweden is 28,000(and rising every year), in the US 21,000(25% less)and dropping fast. Switzerland also has no homeless, no uninsured and no four person household who makes less than 27,000 gross per year(they are real Socialists with a guaranteed income welfare system). They will even provide medical care for visitors from other EU countries. They are currently considering a law limiting CEO pay to a 40/1 ratio(Same as Ben and Jerry's, by the way).

*Ratio of CEO to lowest paid employee of the ten worst US companies ~7500/1(based on CEO compensation of slightly more than 150 million(an average of 15 mil)and minimum wage of just less than 20,000). It is still 1500/1 if the number of employees is factored in. Olive Garden(the "best" of the worst) has a ratio of just over 200 to one. Altogether they employ ~5 million people. But the real reason these companies are the worst(such ratios are endemic in the US)is because their AVERAGE wages are not noticeably different from the lowest wages for the vast majority of those workers(less true of many companies, like it used to be). We actually subsidize such low wages with food stamps, SNAP, Medicare, Farm subsidies and other tax backed measures so we don't have their children starving to death in the street(so unsightly on the evening news), those taxes are a direct subsidy to the profits of those Anarchist Libertarian Rich. Each and every Walmart store costs taxpayers almost a million dollars in such subsidies, and the Waltons don't need more money nearly as much as their employees need a living wage and US taxpayers need to not subsidize wage slavery(as well as actual slavery overseas). The pursuit of low prices is costing us more, not less. I know Anarchists have no feeling of empathy, no sense of responsibility for your fellow man, but normal humans do. Health care is another part of that need as well. Switzerland(and all the rest of the Scandinavian countries)has a much better mix of Socialism and Capitalism. We are teetering toward Fascism(Anarchic Capitalism), or back to slavery(they call them unpaid Interns now, I think)where money rules and most just suffer in crushing poverty. That is what unrestrained Anarchist Capitalists have produced over the last 30 years, if left unchecked they'll be ruling in just a few more years.

Grumpy

 

[Michael]

Nurse Practitioners Can Make Health Care Cheaper

The California Medical Association made sure this couldn't even come up for a 'vote' in the 'Land of the Free'.

Which is exactly the way you people want it. Those with power, who know how the game is played - ensure government is used to PREVENT adult 'free' Citizens in the Land of the "Free" from seeing who they want to about their property - their body. In this case, a practitioner nurse. Oh, but if you cross the magic line and *poof* you're in a different State then suddenly you gain Civil Liberties and can freely see a practitioner nurse. This only makes sense in your insane asylum world we are forced to inhabit. And, we all know how to solve that problem - just make it illegal to leave the State of California. It worked for the other Nation States - it'll work fine for the smaller ones as well. Can't let your Tax Cattle be wandering off the ranch too far. Best to keep them penned in a tad bit tighter.

My argument is that as FREE adults are allowed to make FREE choices about what goods and services we WANT to VOLUNTARILY buy using sound money so long as there is no FRAUD. You people have spent 20+ pages arguing we instead need to use force against the people - for the good of the people. In short - a lifetime of normalization and propaganda have made you insane. You can't even accept the legal definition of the word "State" as the US Government defines itself! It's called cognitive dissonance - deal with it.

[video=youtube;2MMXmXK1lTg]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2MMXmXK1lTg[/video]

 

[Write4U]

Michael;3140115,
The California Medical Association made sure this couldn't even come up for a 'vote' in the 'Land of the Free'.

Is the CMA not a private non profit entity, freely representing the Medical community? Are they your enemy? Make up your mind Michael, it is one or the other, and if it is both ways then that argues for a system of rights and protections of these rights (by regulations) which apply to all equally.

No one is exempt from age and diminished health, Michael. But we have made up our minds that people are entitled to a certain comfort of life as opposed to a Darwinian system of Natural Selection.
We can control human quality of life.
btw, free choice is still a force, albeit of your own making. Sometimes that same force in others may come to bite you in the ass. Unless you have organized professional protections you're on your own. And that costs money. And that membership fee you pay is a Tax, that evil thing enforceable by a gun in the face? Who was robbed by somebody's free choice?

It is a free choice by the people how much tax (pay for type service) they pay. The budgetary process is a function of Congress, made up by freely chosen Representatives of the people and the national administration of public revenues and expenditures, some which are actually required by the Constitution, such as Common Defense. We MUST pay tax for maintaining a "Common Defense".
Financial expenditures are an unavoidable costs of Organizing a system of government."Death and Taxes" are unavoidable.

The people have declared that "Common Healthcare" has the same weight as "Common Defense" and is a perfectly legitimate concern of the National government and may become a taxable expense in common agreement about the dignity we place as a people on the value of human life.

Health insurance is a good thing in all respects at any time of life from birth to death. The preponderance of opinion is that human quality of life has obligated us to contribute in a form of hive behavior, a tax for a universal social service of providing
universal health insurance.

A small price to pay for security of high standard in quality of life. And no one is gonna die as a result of having access to better health care. Where is this imaginary gun? jeeez, Michael.
I had a young Libertarian friend who refused to carry health insurance. He died from cancer and left a 500,000 uninsured hospital bill, which will be paid for by other patients. Talking about a gun to the head......???

Get real and vote on every issue that concerns you from tax on local merchants to OPEC . That is how people of good will come to voluntary agreement , a fair balance between maximum benefits, with minimum sacrifice of freedom, in a manner that is available and affordable by all. Pretty damn good deal, if you keep the individuals to whom you have delegated authority to act on your behalf under strict supervision to make sure they do not become corrupted from their due diligence.

Which is exactly the way you people want it. Those with power, who know how the game is played - ensure government is used to PREVENT adult 'free' Citizens in the Land of the "Free" from seeing a practitioner nurse. Oh, but if cross the magic line and *poof* you're in a different State and can freely see a practitioner nurse.

Who is "you people", Michael? What country do you live in that everyone is your enemy? Who are you, Michael? If you are not in the top 10% you are one of us.

My only argument is that FREE adults are allowed to make FREE choices about what goods and services they WANT to buy using sound money so long as there is no FRAUD and the choice is voluntary. You people have spent 20+ pages arguing we instead need to use force against the people - for the good of the people.

I have not heard anyone argue for using force against the people, cite just one instance in all 20+ pages.

In short - a life time of normalization and propaganda have made you insane. You can't even accept the legal definition of the word "State" as the US Government defines itself! It's called cognitive dissonance - deal with it.
[video=youtube;2MMXmXK1lTg]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2MMXmXK1lTg[/video]

In short, you are a victim of the propaganda by the very top 10% of the food chain who fear force being used against them because of their unbridled greed and fraud against you. I have cited examples.

And I am still waiting for a link to your definition of State as you supposedly verbatim quoted it. I think you might find it in a speech from somebody trying to illustrate a point ( in one of the links I provided), but not as an official definition which can be found in any encyclopedia.
If you want an open and free market and society without fraud you might begin by setting an example of open and honest argument based on fact.

But you are just an obstructionist wanting to shut down the evil State, so that RICH people can enjoy their 4 freedoms, while the rest of the nation have to make do with "trickled down" economics and social services.