Topic: GOP Tea Party Debate: Audience Cheers, Says Society Should Let Uninsured Die (Read 6988 times)
September 18, 2011, 10:14:54 AM
100% agree JBDive.
September 18, 2011, 09:52:02 AM
Even though our unemployed live more comfortably than the rich did 50 years ago, I absolutely agree that its terrible that a section of our society is being locked out of the middle class lifestyle.
But that isn't the issue here. The issue here is paying for the care of the violently mentally ill. We are all, Fred included, agreed that they do need 24/7 care and that everyone in society benefits from the protection that their being incarcerated/treated provides. I think this is a valid activity for government and its ethically OK to pay for it with taxes - Fred thinks that he should not have to pay for it at all.
There are a few things Gov't has done well over the past 100 years. One of those is the improvement of long term care for the mentally ill and to a degree those with mental handicaps. I can justify spending of tax dollars for the care of those that CAN'T take care of themselves not those that WON'T. Large scale public works as we had in the WPA helped build this country and were justified at the time, such tactics now are not and would be abused by the "system", that was proven with Obama's first round of Building America spending and Solyndra.
As long as tax dollars are spent to create giant speaking point boards for Congress for no reason other than to prove to their voters they are working hard, Air Force One (747) trips of 200 miles, $15 Billion on new aircraft carriers, billions of dollars in jet fighters that sit on the ground because the air exchange system is poisoning pilots, $400 million dollar bridges to serve 50 people and so on and so on then I retain the right to complain about taxes every day.
September 18, 2011, 01:34:18 AM
Fred, you have acknowledged that the service is needed. You are using the service - the protection that every member of society needs is provided to you. It has to be paid for and taxation is the correct way to do it. The only false statement is your strange idea that you can enjoy the protection and opt out of paying for it.
Taxation is one way to provide for services, saying it is correct is an is-ought fallacy. If you believe that unprovoked aggressive force is illegitimate, then taxation is theft. I don't enjoy the "protection" society provides me, because it is forced upon me at the point of a gun. I very much find that to be very much unenjoyable. By using force, you provide few other choices. How unfortunate.
Whether you enjoy it or not is not really the issue. You need safety; I need it; children need it. Its fortunate we are able to organise ourselves in a way that provides that safety. If you do come up with a better system, please feel free to let us know. Meanwhile, whether you enjoy it or not, this is the real world and its the best we can do. The system works well
And you have no alternative system. That is a very disturbing thought, that the system we have is the best we can do and worse still that you somehow think the system works.
Here in the UK, we live in a rich society where our only serious problems are terrorism and how to handle obesity. Things are good. I don't know where you live but can it really be that bad that you think releasing violent mental patients won't make it worse?
You are joking right? UK unemployment is nearly as high as in the US and if properly reported it's in double digits. Unemployed youth is extremely high at around 20%, Wales even higher. The inflation rate is at 4.5% or higher and it looks like your trying your best to start another war over the Falklands.
Speaking of youth unemployment this is something the media and our politicians have ignored completely. The loss of lifelong earnings by our youth is something no country can ever recover from.
Even though our unemployed live more comfortably than the rich did 50 years ago, I absolutely agree that its terrible that a section of our society is being locked out of the middle class lifestyle.
But that isn't the issue here. The issue here is paying for the care of the violently mentally ill. We are all, Fred included, agreed that they do need 24/7 care and that everyone in society benefits from the protection that their being incarcerated/treated provides. I think this is a valid activity for government and its ethically OK to pay for it with taxes - Fred thinks that he should not have to pay for it at all.
September 17, 2011, 07:51:07 PM
Fred, you have acknowledged that the service is needed. You are using the service - the protection that every member of society needs is provided to you. It has to be paid for and taxation is the correct way to do it. The only false statement is your strange idea that you can enjoy the protection and opt out of paying for it.
Taxation is one way to provide for services, saying it is correct is an is-ought fallacy. If you believe that unprovoked aggressive force is illegitimate, then taxation is theft. I don't enjoy the "protection" society provides me, because it is forced upon me at the point of a gun. I very much find that to be very much unenjoyable. By using force, you provide few other choices. How unfortunate.
Whether you enjoy it or not is not really the issue. You need safety; I need it; children need it. Its fortunate we are able to organise ourselves in a way that provides that safety. If you do come up with a better system, please feel free to let us know. Meanwhile, whether you enjoy it or not, this is the real world and its the best we can do. The system works well
And you have no alternative system. That is a very disturbing thought, that the system we have is the best we can do and worse still that you somehow think the system works.
Here in the UK, we live in a rich society where our only serious problems are terrorism and how to handle obesity. Things are good. I don't know where you live but can it really be that bad that you think releasing violent mental patients won't make it worse?
You are joking right? UK unemployment is nearly as high as in the US and if properly reported it's in double digits. Unemployed youth is extremely high at around 20%, Wales even higher. The inflation rate is at 4.5% or higher and it looks like your trying your best to start another war over the Falklands.
Speaking of youth unemployment this is something the media and our politicians have ignored completely. The loss of lifelong earnings by our youth is something no country can ever recover from.
September 17, 2011, 04:17:21 PM
Fred, you have acknowledged that the service is needed. You are using the service - the protection that every member of society needs is provided to you. It has to be paid for and taxation is the correct way to do it. The only false statement is your strange idea that you can enjoy the protection and opt out of paying for it.
Taxation is one way to provide for services, saying it is correct is an is-ought fallacy. If you believe that unprovoked aggressive force is illegitimate, then taxation is theft. I don't enjoy the "protection" society provides me, because it is forced upon me at the point of a gun. I very much find that to be very much unenjoyable. By using force, you provide few other choices. How unfortunate.
Whether you enjoy it or not is not really the issue. You need safety; I need it; children need it. Its fortunate we are able to organise ourselves in a way that provides that safety. If you do come up with a better system, please feel free to let us know. Meanwhile, whether you enjoy it or not, this is the real world and its the best we can do. The system works well
And you have no alternative system. That is a very disturbing thought, that the system we have is the best we can do and worse still that you somehow think the system works.
Here in the UK, we live in a rich society where our only serious problems are terrorism and how to handle obesity. Things are good. I don't know where you live but can it really be that bad that you think releasing violent mental patients won't make it worse?
September 17, 2011, 03:38:39 PM
The die hards here trying to justify a crowd cheering for death is part of the reason why much of the mainstream society thinks Bitcoiners are fucking NUTS. I refuse to fall into that category.
September 17, 2011, 02:16:09 PM
Fred, you have acknowledged that the service is needed. You are using the service - the protection that every member of society needs is provided to you. It has to be paid for and taxation is the correct way to do it. The only false statement is your strange idea that you can enjoy the protection and opt out of paying for it.
Taxation is one way to provide for services, saying it is correct is an is-ought fallacy. If you believe that unprovoked aggressive force is illegitimate, then taxation is theft. I don't enjoy the "protection" society provides me, because it is forced upon me at the point of a gun. I very much find that to be very much unenjoyable. By using force, you provide few other choices. How unfortunate.
Whether you enjoy it or not is not really the issue. You need safety; I need it; children need it. Its fortunate we are able to organise ourselves in a way that provides that safety. If you do come up with a better system, please feel free to let us know. Meanwhile, whether you enjoy it or not, this is the real world and its the best we can do. The system works well
And you have no alternative system. That is a very disturbing thought, that the system we have is the best we can do and worse still that you somehow think the system works.
September 17, 2011, 02:14:52 PM
Taxation is one way to provide for services, saying it is correct is an is-ought fallacy. If you believe that unprovoked aggressive force is illegitimate, then taxation is theft. I don't enjoy the "protection" society provides me, because it is forced upon me at the point of a gun. I very much find that to be very much unenjoyable. By using force, you provide few other choices. How unfortunate.
Weirdo. Please cite all times that you experienced unenjoyable moments where a gun was pointed at you so that you could benefit from said services.
I hope you are jesting. If you do not pay your taxes you are surely to be forced into imprisonment, that is the point of the gun. Those taxes pay for many services which I may or may not make use of nor perform any level of security service to the general public. Explain to me how the Dept. Of Education provides for "security" of the public? Explain to me how providing millions to nations around the world, many of which are already wealthy, provides me with security or benefit? Explain to me why being forced to pay a tax on my airfare so some minor airport in the middle of nowhere is able to run air service which at times files when there is no demand provides me with security or benefit?
September 17, 2011, 01:58:12 PM
Fred, you have acknowledged that the service is needed. You are using the service - the protection that every member of society needs is provided to you. It has to be paid for and taxation is the correct way to do it. The only false statement is your strange idea that you can enjoy the protection and opt out of paying for it.
Taxation is one way to provide for services, saying it is correct is an is-ought fallacy. If you believe that unprovoked aggressive force is illegitimate, then taxation is theft. I don't enjoy the "protection" society provides me, because it is forced upon me at the point of a gun. I very much find that to be very much unenjoyable. By using force, you provide few other choices. How unfortunate.
Whether you enjoy it or not is not really the issue. You need safety; I need it; children need it. Its fortunate we are able to organise ourselves in a way that provides that safety. If you do come up with a better system, please feel free to let us know. Meanwhile, whether you enjoy it or not, this is the real world and its the best we can do. The system works well
And you have no alternative system. September 17, 2011, 01:54:00 PM
Weirdo. Please cite all times that you experienced unenjoyable moments where a gun was pointed at you so that you could benefit from said services.
It was a metaphorical "point of a gun". Metaphor withdrawn. Statement stands.
The statement does not stand, since "point of a gun" was the statement.
Replace "point of a gun" with unprovoked and un-consented-to aggressive force. Statement stands.
September 17, 2011, 01:42:19 PM
Weirdo. Please cite all times that you experienced unenjoyable moments where a gun was pointed at you so that you could benefit from said services.
It was a metaphorical "point of a gun". Metaphor withdrawn. Statement stands.
The statement does not stand, since "point of a gun" was the statement.
September 17, 2011, 01:41:27 PM
Weirdo. Please cite all times that you experienced unenjoyable moments where a gun was pointed at you so that you could benefit from said services.
It was a metaphorical "point of a gun". Metaphor withdrawn. Statement stands.
September 17, 2011, 01:36:24 PM
Taxation is one way to provide for services, saying it is correct is an is-ought fallacy. If you believe that unprovoked aggressive force is illegitimate, then taxation is theft. I don't enjoy the "protection" society provides me, because it is forced upon me at the point of a gun. I very much find that to be very much unenjoyable. By using force, you provide few other choices. How unfortunate.
Weirdo. Please cite all times that you experienced unenjoyable moments where a gun was pointed at you so that you could benefit from said services.
September 17, 2011, 01:31:35 PM
Fred, you have acknowledged that the service is needed. You are using the service - the protection that every member of society needs is provided to you. It has to be paid for and taxation is the correct way to do it. The only false statement is your strange idea that you can enjoy the protection and opt out of paying for it.
Taxation is one way to provide for services, saying it is correct is an is-ought fallacy. If you believe that unprovoked aggressive force is illegitimate, then taxation is theft. I don't enjoy the "protection" society provides me, because it is forced upon me at the point of a gun. I very much find that to be very much unenjoyable. By using force, you provide few other choices. How unfortunate.
September 17, 2011, 01:14:08 PM
See my rebuttal. You confused things that you can do yourself with things that you need society to do for you. You need society to provide 24/7 care for the violently mentally ill. Since you are using the service society provides, you must pay for it through taxation.
Non sequitur and Straw Man. What actions can be done collectively can also be individually. Forceful organizing can also be done by freely organizing.
Please withdraw and rescind your false statements.
Fred, you have acknowledged that the service is needed. You are using the service - the protection that every member of society needs is provided to you. It has to be paid for and taxation is the correct way to do it. The only false statement is your strange idea that you can enjoy the protection and opt out of paying for it.
September 17, 2011, 01:08:41 PM
See my rebuttal. You confused things that you can do yourself with things that you need society to do for you. You need society to provide 24/7 care for the violently mentally ill. Since you are using the service society provides, you must pay for it through taxation.
Non sequitur and Straw Man. What actions can be done collectively can also be individually. Forceful organizing can also be done by freely organizing.
Please withdraw and rescind your false statements.
September 17, 2011, 12:15:49 PM
Sorry you can't get away with that sophistry. You say that the protection is needed but that you should not have to pay because you don't "want" it. If its needed, "want" doesn't arise.
See my example of "needs" earlier in this thread. If you like, I can substitute 'need' with 'want' if you like. No prob.
See my rebuttal. You confused things that you can do yourself with things that you need society to do for you. You need society to provide 24/7 care for the violently mentally ill. Since you are using the service society provides, you must pay for it through taxation.
September 17, 2011, 12:09:05 PM
Sorry you can't get away with that sophistry. You say that the protection is needed but that you should not have to pay because you don't "want" it. If its needed, "want" doesn't arise.
See my example of "needs" earlier in this thread. If you like, I can substitute 'need' with 'want' if you like. No prob.
September 17, 2011, 12:05:06 PM
http://bastiat.org/en/the_law.html#SECTION_G001
I've linked and see that you reproduce his logic errors.
Still waiting to see why you think you are entitled to the protection of the state but that you feel that you should not have to pay for it.
I've linked and see that you reproduce his logic errors.
Still waiting to see why you think you are entitled to the protection of the state but that you feel that you should not have to pay for it.
While I'm sure there are very few documents in recorded history that reproduce logic in perfection, I'm sure your philosophies are much worse, have more holes and less logic than his. I prefer to take a less dangerous, less logical and less government route.
In answer to your entitlement question regarding the protection of the state. I never asked for the protection of the state. I don't want the protection of the state. If I were to accept their assistance, I would probably be "on the hook" for it. I'm not. I don't have a problem with finding my own security. The state doesn't want to give me a choice, so they tax me. It's forced "entitlement" - not nice.
Sorry you can't get away with that sophistry. You say that the protection is needed but that you should not have to pay because you don't "want" it. If its needed, "want" doesn't arise.
September 17, 2011, 11:57:20 AM
http://bastiat.org/en/the_law.html#SECTION_G001
I've linked and see that you reproduce his logic errors.
Still waiting to see why you think you are entitled to the protection of the state but that you feel that you should not have to pay for it.
I've linked and see that you reproduce his logic errors.
Still waiting to see why you think you are entitled to the protection of the state but that you feel that you should not have to pay for it.
While I'm sure there are very few documents in recorded history that reproduce logic in perfection, I'm sure your philosophies are much worse, have more holes and less logic than his. I prefer to take a less dangerous, more logical and less government route.
In answer to your entitlement question regarding the protection of the state. I never asked for the protection of the state. I don't want the protection of the state. If I were to accept their assistance, I would probably be "on the hook" for it. I'm not. I don't have a problem with finding my own security. The state doesn't want to give me a choice, so they tax me. It's forced "entitlement" - not nice.
Jump to: