Topic: Bitcoiner Political Ideaology (Read 2432 times)

No.  The advantage of taxation is that there is no way that the normal emergencies of life can eat into the fund needed for health care.  The vast majority of people cannot save up a sum of £10,000 yet that is the bare minimum they will need for end of life care.

http://www.newyorker.com/talk/financial/2012/01/02/120102ta_talk_surowiecki?currentPage=all

Here is an example of the same thing...people are using the most expensive possible way to finance consumer purchases because they cannot save the money themselves.

Isn't this a bit of a contradiction?

Free at the point of delivery Fred.  Of course it isn't free.  Everyone gets sick.  Everyone pays taxes.  The NHS means that when you get sick, you get your tax money back.

I would vote for libertarian, but it has no chance of winning.

I would call myself a modern democratic futurist.

There is no such thing as free health care anywhere if you're taking resources from one person and give them to another. There's nothing remotely perfect about that. It's just hidden slavery, coercion and theft thru legal fiat. You're just okay with the status quo because you aren't threatening anybody -since you're not law enforcement or the taxing "authority"- to get what you want (free health care in this case). You effectively wash your hands of the dirty deed and look the other way. Sounds like collusion and accessory to a criminal act.

I can steal my neighbors car and gift it to my friends completely free (no effort nor compensation), but it wasn't free for the person I stole it from. Sheesh.

I live in a country where the health system is near perfect so I agree with you.  The reason its near perfect is that its free at the point of delivery and its supported by a democratic mandate.  Talk of systems where having a sick relative costs you money and depending on charity doesn't begin to appeal.

Me stealing from my neighbor takes the pressure off me from having to work for a living too. Considering how unsecure and accessible most property is, it's almost always easier to steal for a living than work for it.

Of course it's not a good idea to "leave" somebody to die. That's why most people tend to act charitably when we see our fellow man in need. For the most part, we tend to be sympathetic to the plight of other people's lives. If that is not the case, then we're all lost and there's no point in forcing people to be slaves by pretending to be otherwise. So why force it ever?

I think everybody should have the opportunity to pursue the acqusition of health care. Just do it with negotiation and mutual agreement, not at the proverbial "point of a gun" vote. The world is not a perfect place, let's take care not to worsen the situation unnecesarily.

I won't argue with you about history - your country seems to have had a better deal than mine

I will disagree about the wisdom of welfare and of medical care being free at the point of delivery.

Almost everyone goes through periods of unemployment.  Having everyone pay tax and thus get a buffer against the times they will be out of work makes perfect sense.  Poor people can't save - its why they are poor.  Taxation, supported by democratic vote, takes the pressure off them.

No-one believes that leaving someone to die is a good idea either.  Particularly when the person would have no problem paying for the health care if it was charged in the form of taxation over time instead of all being charged in 1 lump when they get sick.  

I guess what I am saying is that the taxpayer is both the creator and consumer of welfare and health care.  Provided he has had a chance to vote on it, its perfectly reasonable.

While I agree with Bind for the most part, from what I've read there are a few distinctions that have to be made.

1.) If you are at the workplace and many are smoking (and in close proximity), and you feel this smoke may be harmful to your health, and there was no specific contractual arrangement permitting and warning employees that the second hand smoke on the employer's premises may be harmful to their health, then they may be working under peril of inury without the proper disclosures. Given the above, the employee may have cause (lawsuit, criminal charges, etc).

1a.) Why is this so? Firstly, the same could be said if an employee worked on the job, and the employer came up to him and put a bullet in his head. The employer could just say, "You run the risk of dying of lead poisoning when you work for me, and if you didn't like that risk, you could have left. Did you not read your employee liability risk waiver?" This is obviously ridiculous. The employer is still liable for causing harm. Just because you are on somebody else's property doesn't automatically excuse you of your actions.

2.) I don't think an employer could summarily excuse and absolve himself of any and all accountability to the employee even in contract form and walk away scot free via a carte blanche liability waiver. Nevertheless, I suppose it still boils down to the contract you signed. But despite even that fact, the employer is still responsible for the welfare of his employees until they are considered terminated. And even at the time of termination, having given notice, the employer must still give the employee sufficient time and ability to vacate the premises sans harm before being considered trespassing. I don't know how long a time that would be, but seemingly you couldn't just label your former employee a trespasser or intruder and then in a blink of an eye, assume you are now defending yourself against imminent danger, and shoot to kill.

3) Polluting, whether gas, liquid or solid is still trespassing and vandalizing. Which is to say, if you were smoking near your neigbors fence line, and the smoke was sufficiently dense enough to be detectable, and that smoke was determined to be sufficiently harmful or a nuisance, the neighbor may have cause, and could, of logic and reason, expect some restitution or injunctive relief. All emissions can be considered unwarranted trespassing, littering or polluting. Take care not to be a noxious emitter.

All of this begs the question. If it isn't in the contract, then it must be assumed that the formerly welcomed visitor/employee/adjacent neighbor must have the benefit of the doubt of egress and peace given the pre-existing known circumstances; not threatened with life and limb or other injurious and hostile working/visiting environs. And last but not least, you, just like everybody else, should be held to the theory of marginal deterrence. To wit, don't be excessive in your response when addressing unwarranted aggressions.

No, son. Workplace safety was a product of employees banding together to place pressure on employers to contract with them for workplace safety, better working hours, better working conditions, increased wages, and extra benefits. Not through statute laws and not through the government. It was called collective bargaining. The striking workers and union leader pressured those the company sold to, caused public outcry, causing more pressure on the companies. This did not occur through any legislation. Then MUCH MUCH LATER union leaders started lobbying our elected officials for laws long after it was proven and successful. What you are referring to is after the fact. Which was fine and dandy because the companies agreed so they would not continue to lose profits as it was affecting their bottom line.

I dont believe there should be welfare and free medical care that the taxpayer must burden. No species on earth survives without working to survive, but humans are different because its an agenda to beat us down, make us unhappy, poor, disenfranchised, and fearful. Thats how they control us becasue we rely on them for our survival, instead of relying on ourselves.

Its not a perfect world and never has been.  Workplace safety has to be imposed or the bad employers will drive out the good and the very bad will drive out the bad. 

And guess what happens after people get sick?  The "free market" employer has spent his profits and the taxpayer is left picking up the tab for the health damage.  That's the real world and people have a right to protect themselves from that kind of abuse of the taxpayer.

I am not disputing the stated dangers of smoking.

What I am saying is that you have no right to work for someone and tell them how to run their business.

In a perfect world you are 100% responsible for yourself.

If you dont want to be around smokers, dont work at a job where smokers work, or for employers who allows it. This can easily be established at the time an application is requested, which makes the rest of your reply moot.

Just like you dont ride with that nutty friend who drives like a maniac, intentionally endangering you health, if you perceive it as a threat to your health. Many do not.

It's called personal responsibility, which has pretty much been educated out of the population.

So the employer who protects his workers will be driven of business as he picks up the cost of enforcing a ban.

The bad employer keeps the profit of both companies.  If a valid lawsuit is filed, he winds up the company and that's that.  He has been paid and there is nothing anyone can do.

The sick worker shows up in hospital needing care he can't afford and the taxpayer has to pick up the cost.

Not good enough.  

It would be up to the business owner or the property owner depending on their lease agreement with the business owner. If it was a good boss, the boss would attempt to limit your exposure to second hand smoke to make you a happier, thus more productive employee if you are concerned.

Again, you are talking about potential for harm, which in reality is absolutely no harm at all.

You have every right to work elsewhere if the conditions you are working in are objectionable and your boss does not share or act on your concerns.

If you have a verifiable proof of claim of harm being done to you, there is remedy available.

I'm a firm believer in the George Carlin view on rights/privileges.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gaa9iw85tW8

Do what you want, and if I dislike it enough, I'll kill you or otherwise aggress (this is, currently, usually the job of government -- I disagree with its necessity, and in many current cases of its existence, its benefit). Works both ways, so in general, don't piss people off unless you're capable of defending against them.

What if I work for you and need the job?  If smoke at work is harmful, is it OK to regulate it then ?

No, but you have the right to regulate the use of your business, land, and your home. You do NOT have the right to regulate the use of someone elses business, land, or home. If I smoke on my land, you can put up with it or leave. If I smoke on your land, you can ask me to leave or put up with it. If you are in someone elses business, its up to them, not a statute law or ordinance.

It goes back to the basics of injury and/or financial loss. Did you injure or cause someone loss?

The statute law and ordinance systems, or law system of POTENTIAL, has made us all guilty before we actually do anything to cause harm or financial loss, because of the POTENTIAL to do harm or cause someone financial loss. Its really a brilliant scam to create a never-ending turnstyle of money and bodies into the law enforcement, corrections, and summary and criminal justice system to control us slaves.

Its simply another form of taxation and the stripping of our wealth, to keep us poor, disenfranchised, unhappy, and mostly controlled, but not enough to openly revolt. They want us fighting and blaming each other, not them. The latter is key to their control. This is where the indoctrination, propaganda, and manipulation are most effective.

On one hand you have injury and loss. On the other hand you have the potential for harm and loss. They SOUND so dangerously similar, dont they? But in reality they are polar opposites. Injury and loss compared to absolutely no injury and loss, and the statute law system makes you guilty of injuing someone or causing them financial loss before you even do it becasue of the POTENTIAL involved.

They create and overblow tragedies to control us. From cutting your grass for fear of blight that they threaten causes lower property values, to the fear of accidental but catastophic loss of life for driving to fast or making a left turn at a red light, and everything else you could ever imagine.

The insidious influences know human psychology very well. Its another a way to control us and strip us of our wealth, while making us think we are free, becasue they know everyone is guilty of something when their control grid laws and ordinances are applied.

...and Massa has convinced the slaves to enforce these ordinances and statutes on themselves in many ways. Some slaves get special privilages. A few are actually given the honor of active participation in creation, regulation, and administration which make them fee like they are actually participating in a process of slavery masquerading as freedom and liberty, with lots of admiration and appreciation lauded upon them appealing to their vanity, flashy titles, lots of money, and well-controlled power. Others can order around and beat their fellow slaves with relative impunity. They have pretty cars with flashing lights. Special titles and well-controlled power. He gave them shiney badges and spiffy uniforms so he can tell them apart. And weapons for the worst hard case hard headed slaves who can never seem to learn how to do as they are told no matter what.

Massa also likes to divide and conquer us... turning us slaves against each other with propaganda, indoctrination, and manipulation through education, government, talking head opinion media sources, and the thesis, antithesis, and synthesis psychology of creating and overblowing problems, reactions, and solutions to real and contrived problems and tragedies, so we are always fighting each other ... mostly over ideologies, instead of coming together as a people and concentrating our concerns on the Slave Masters... with "them" always quickly and conveniently having an instantanious solution to any problem or tragedy we are reacting with outrage to... all to serve their agenda of maintaining absolute control and the preservation of their elite wealth and class.



There were assholes before ordinance and statute law. There are assholes during this period ordinance and statute law. There will be assholes after ordinance and statute laws are obolished. Welcome to life.

Well, if someone lights up a cigarette nearby you are they infringing on your "right to fresh air". If you claim this is so, how will it be decided whether they did or not? I still don't really understand the an-cap concept of a judicial system.

I mean that example would be easily taken care of if both parties involved were just polite. But the world is full of assholes and normal people who are just in a shitty mood.

I guess you could call me an independent.

I believe in 2 basic concepts.

1. Do whatever you want, whenever you want, so long as you do not infringe on anyone elses property/rights while exercising your own.

2. Honor your agreements.