 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Chambers wrote:
> SOMEone controls the insurance industry (ok, a group of someones). Right
> now, those someones have screwed over the American public. Just for the
> sake of argument, would replacing those private someones with public
> someones who are checked by transparency and accountability really be
> that bad of an idea? After all, it would really be placing a limit on
> their power (and their ability to screw us all).
>
> Since you seem to have an inherent distrust of power, I'm surprised
> you're not arguing for more regulation like that.
I'm not, because a corporation can't raise my insurance rate to whatever
the Hell they want and then throw me in prison for refusing to patronize
their business. Nor can a corporation obligate me and my ancestors to
pay off their debts.
-Shay
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Shay wrote:
> Chambers wrote:
>
>> So if you sit in a concrete room, never go anywhere or do anything
>> (and forget listening to music, reading books, or buying clothes
>> even), then you STILL can't afford even a basic health plan.
>
> The poor effectively do not pay income taxes due to the earned income
> tax credit. And $400 for rent? Get a room mate or 10. I did.
I have 5, and I'm paying $360 for my room. Get in the 21st century.
>> Oh, and that's without factoring in retirement accounts. Because, you
>> know, people have to save for retirement rather than expect the
>> government to take care of them.
>
> Horrid, isn't it?
Yes, actually. From a practical standpoint, people either need to save
for their own retirement, or public funds must be dedicated to their
support, or they must die in poverty and anguish.
We've already seen that public funds don't work (the idea relies upon an
expanding workforce, after all, and today's demographics have tossed
that notion out the window).
If people are unable to save (and many of them cannot afford to), then
they will die in squalor or work until the day they die.
> Yes it is, one in which a person is allowed to shape his life. And
> somehow, most of us come out very nicely. I'm a manual laborer for
> Christ's sake, and am still able to afford many luxuries.
In what market? Many manual jobs actually pay quite well.
> Get a second job. If we'd stop taxing minorities (like business owners)
> into the ground, there would be more opportunity.
Have you looked at the market in the last two years? People are
thankful for a single job at the moment.
>> As it is, though, our current system causes a great deal of
>> unnecessary expense. It works like this:
>
> So why don't we buy the poor safe automobiles, healthful food,
> anti-bacterial soap, surgical masks, latex gloves ... ?
If doing so cost less than the alternative, then it would make fiscal sense.
>> Insurance companies (and the government) are forced to pay for the
>> treatments.
>
> Get out of each other's pockets. Problem solved.
So, ERs should turn people away without proof of an estate large enough
to pay the bill?
...Chambers
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Sat, 29 Aug 2009 00:56:38 -0500, Shay wrote:
>
>> Jim Henderson wrote:
>>> Employees are a majority, and for once, the majority actually is
>>> getting something that's good for them rather than a minority getting
>>> to say how things are going to be.
>>>
>>> It's a shame that you find that idea repulsive.
>>>
>>> Jim
>> define: ownership
>>
>> GIYF
>>
>> -Shay
>
> define: majority
>
> GI*Y*F
>
> Jim
Yes, you believe the majority is more entitled to what I produce than I
am. That's a familiar way of thinking and the precise reason I fear
centralized power.
Forget all the spaghetti test arguments you've presented as
justification for some specific piece of legislation, you've just summed
up exactly how you feel about government power. So, keep trying to put
your boot on my neck, and I'll keep trying to break your foot. Your side
almost always wins, but I'll keep what liberty I can as long as I can.
-Shay
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Shay wrote:
>
> me and my ancestors to pay off their debts.
^^^^^^^^^
er, progeny
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Shay wrote:
> Chambers wrote:
>> So, you believe that Government is inherently evil and that, given the
>> opportunity, those in power will take every chance they get to screw
>> you in every conceivable fashion just to piss you off?
>
> People are inherently "evil."
I disagree.
> The majority believe that any exercise of
> power which results in the majority's benefiting is good.
If all men are equal, then I don't see how you can escape that conclusion.
It's a numbers game. Where you have two groups of people with identical
needs per capita, and one group is larger than the other, the needs of
the larger group have precedence over the needs of the smaller group.
> Cynicism? Look at how popular smoking bans in restaurants are. If I own
> a house, I can allow my guests to smoke in it, but if I sell hot dogs
> at my house, I cannot, because YOU might want a hot dog. That's all the
> justification it takes to impinge upon my property rights. A hot dog.
A hot dog isn't impinging on your rights. Your desire to offer services
to the public carries with it certain responsibilities, including
offering access to everyone.
That same hot dog, to use your imagery, would require you to install a
wheel-chair ramp to your door, and a braille sign out front. I don't
see you complaining about those requirements, though.
>> If you honestly believe Government is so evil, you should put your
>> money where your mouth is and live on a boat in international waters.
>
> Or, support the idea upon which this country was founded: limited
> government.
To clarify: limited government set up for the benefit of the ordinary
citizens. You're arguing against that last part.
...Chambers
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 28 Aug 2009 22:30:33 -0500, Shay <n@n.n> wrote:
>Stephen wrote:
>
>>
>> Good to hear from you again. The oil industry is not one for ever especially if
>> you don't like the responsibility of telling people what to do. I used to carry
>> my own tools ;)
>
>Thanks.
>
>"No, when I go to sea, ...
When I go to sea I go as a passenger :)
>Wife's got 16 years experience. She would run the coffee shop; I'd hold
>the purse. :) And though it should indeed make money, it wouldn't *have*
>to. I'm not counting on it for my livelihood.
>
That's good.
>> Anyway report back in November and start posting some of your images when you
>> can.
>>
>
>No more images from me, though I have been piddling around with some
>re-renders. I'll post any if they're fresh enough to be interesting to
>those who have seen the originals.
I think so :)
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Chambers wrote:
>
>> The majority believe that any exercise of power which results in the
>> majority's benefiting is good.
>
> If all men are equal, then I don't see how you can escape that conclusion.
What if the young decide to unburden themselves of the elderly? or the
mentally handicapped?
What if a family of ten needs your house more than you do?
> A hot dog isn't impinging on your rights. Your desire to offer services
> to the public carries with it certain responsibilities, including
> offering access to everyone.
Good thing you don't believe in private property, it's a mighty
inconvenient concept.
>
> That same hot dog, to use your imagery, would require you to install a
> wheel-chair ramp to your door, and a braille sign out front. I don't
> see you complaining about those requirements, though.
I'm more surprised to not see you complaining. The disabled are a mights
small minority.
>
> To clarify: limited government set up for the benefit of the ordinary
> citizens. You're arguing against that last part.
A government needs power to be "set up" for anyone. The more we move
towards totalitarianism, the more power the government has to benefit
their cronies.
-Shay
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 08/29/09 00:23, Darren New wrote:
> Chambers wrote:
>> If you honestly believe Government is so evil, you should put your
>> money where your mouth is and live on a boat in international waters.
>
> Somalia is currently the ultimate libertarian playground. :-)
No longer...
--
Race track: The place where windows clean people.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
I'm done with this discussion. You know you're right and my position is
stupid, I know I'm right and your position is stupid. We're getting
nowhere and not going to get anywhere.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Shay wrote:
> I'm not, because a corporation can't raise my insurance rate to whatever
> the Hell they want and then throw me in prison for refusing to patronize
> their business.
Why would doing this at a state level be any different?
The way I see this whole insurance thing is that the insurance companies
aren't actually producing anything. If there was the perfect knowledge and
competition that makes capitalism work best, nobody would need insurance,
and the entire insurance industry would be zero-sum. Plus, with perfect
knowledge, healthy people wouldn't buy insurance to start with, eliminating
the entire concept.
This, like military, police, and fire, seems like a good thing to have
centralized. Or are you also against having the fire department a
public/government service? (I'll leave police and fire out because that's
somewhat different.)
How about safety standards and other such regulation? Are you of the opinion
that paying inspectors and regulators to make sure your cars and buildings
are safe is inappropriate?
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Understanding the structure of the universe
via religion is like understanding the
structure of computers via Tron.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
