Topic: Social security is the govs way of saying you are too stupid to save your own $$ - page 4. (Read 3724 times)

Quote from: myrkul on March 21, 2013, 03:44:05 PM

No, it doesn't. However, having that liability settled does.

No. It doesn't. You can't get blood from a stone. You're fucking stupid.

You're essentially saying that society is the group that must pay in the event of one person's lack of personal responsibility affecting another person. I disagree. I say that people should acquire insurance on their own free will that would protect them from the lack of personal responsibility of others.

A great example of this is called "Uninsured Motorist" coverage.

Granted, one could certainly argue that the cost of this insurance would go up quite readily in the absence of a requirement to have motorist insurance, but at least people would have the freedom to choose what risks they want to take in that regard.

Also, bankruptcy is a cop out. If you owe someone money, you pay it, even if it takes the rest of your life to do so.

Insurance is society paying. Best to make uninsured motorist coverage mandatory if insurance isn't.

You're arguing that people should do this and that, without understanding the true meaning and context of 'should'.

FirstAscent

hero member

Activity: 812

Merit: 1000

Quote from: FirstAscent on March 21, 2013, 03:38:35 PM

Quote from: FirstAscent on March 21, 2013, 03:38:35 PM

No, it doesn't. However, having that liability settled does.

No. It doesn't. You can't get blood from a stone. You're fucking stupid.

You don't understand the meaning of "settled liability" do you? It means "paid off."

And just because someone is poor, does not mean they can't pay their debts. They'd have to be dead busted broke, and what good would requiring someone who is that broke pay for insurance do, anyway? As you said, can't get blood from a stone.

You're finally starting to see the light. But let me make it really clear for you:

Someone with no money and little income is unlikely to ever come close to paying off hospital bills and compensation for permanent maiming, severed limbs, or 3rd degree burns, etc., even in ten, twenty or fifty years. Meanwhile, the victim needs the money now.

You are so ridiculously naive, it's pathetic.

SgtSpike

legendary

Activity: 1400

Merit: 1005

Quote from: FirstAscent on March 21, 2013, 03:38:35 PM

No, it doesn't. However, having that liability settled does.

No. It doesn't. You can't get blood from a stone. You're fucking stupid.

You're essentially saying that society is the group that must pay in the event of one person's lack of personal responsibility affecting another person. I disagree. I say that people should acquire insurance on their own free will that would protect them from the lack of personal responsibility of others.

A great example of this is called "Uninsured Motorist" coverage.

Granted, one could certainly argue that the cost of this insurance would go up quite readily in the absence of a requirement to have motorist insurance, but at least people would have the freedom to choose what risks they want to take in that regard.

Also, bankruptcy is a cop out. If you owe someone money, you pay it, even if it takes the rest of your life to do so.

myrkul

hero member

Activity: 532

Merit: 500

FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM

No, it doesn't. However, having that liability settled does.

No. It doesn't. You can't get blood from a stone. You're fucking stupid.

You don't understand the meaning of "settled liability" do you? It means "paid off."

And just because someone is poor, does not mean they can't pay their debts. They'd have to be dead busted broke, and what good would requiring someone who is that broke pay for insurance do, anyway? As you said, can't get blood from a stone.

FirstAscent

hero member

Activity: 812

Merit: 1000

Quote from: FirstAscent on March 21, 2013, 03:00:58 PM

No, it doesn't. However, having that liability settled does.

No. It doesn't. You can't get blood from a stone. You're fucking stupid.

myrkul

hero member

Activity: 532

Merit: 500

FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM

Quote from: FirstAscent on March 21, 2013, 03:00:58 PM

To paraphrase, saying "That's what everyone else is doing" does not equate to "That's what's right" or "That's what's best."

True. But we moved towards mandating it, not the other way around.

"We"? I don't remember doing anything of the sort. Unless you're trying to equate yourself with the state legislatures? Or are you a lobbyist for the insurance agencies? I don't see how you're including yourself in the group of people who "moved toward mandating [insurance]".

But regardless, especially when government is concerned, rising popularity does not equate to better fitness, either.

The result is the uninsured motorist is now liable for those bills, and probably for the disability. That's both OK, and equal. (Well, equal after the liability is settled.)

In your starry eyed view of libertarian views, you completely missed the content of my post. Being liable does not equate to compensation.

No, it doesn't. However, having that liability settled does.

wdmw

full member

Activity: 199

Merit: 100

Quote from: FirstAscent on March 21, 2013, 02:44:54 PM

So let's see...

A non wealthy motorist without insurance hits another non wealthy motorist without insurance and the guy who gets hit incurs huge hospital bills and is maimed for life.

By your logic, it's okay to not have insurance, thus it is not forced. Therefore, both motorists were equally 'okay' in their decision making process. Yet the results clearly are not okay, nor equal, are they?

The result is the uninsured motorist is now liable for those bills, and probably for the disability. That's both OK, and equal. (Well, equal after the liability is settled.)

Eventually, you could expect that people would be concerned that there is a small chance that an accident, moment of inattention or distraction, or error while operating a large, potentially dangerous machine at high speeds could cause damages that are more than one is willing to risk. Someone with financial experience could seize this opportunity and offer to cover people's risk for a premium.

I think we all agree that insurance is a good thing. We disagree that government should force us to use it.

Singling out car insurance mandates as an argument for forced-government purchases looks good on the surface and is more easily defensible since in the United States the State owns the roads and has laws which require doctors to treat people who are injured regardless of their ability to pay. In the absence of a culture of personal responsibility, its easy to see how these laws exist, and why.

What is unseen are the benefits of a society with individual responsibility which is free from coercion.

FirstAscent

hero member

Activity: 812

Merit: 1000

To paraphrase, saying "That's what everyone else is doing" does not equate to "That's what's right" or "That's what's best."

True. But we moved towards mandating it, not the other way around.

Quote from: wdmw on March 21, 2013, 02:39:26 PM

The result is the uninsured motorist is now liable for those bills, and probably for the disability. That's both OK, and equal. (Well, equal after the liability is settled.)

In your starry eyed view of libertarian views, you completely missed the content of my post. Being liable does not equate to compensation.

myrkul

hero member

Activity: 532

Merit: 500

FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM

Quote from: FirstAscent on March 21, 2013, 02:04:33 PM

Once you've done that, we can move on to force. As you know, buying automobile insurance is forced. I know you disagree with that concept, but it's reality. Can you think of other ways in which society forces things? I think you can. Please enumerate some.

Saying "That's the way it is" does not equate to "That's what's right" or "That's what's best." We have discussion to determine what is best.

Also, forced insurance is not universal. In New Hampshire, for instance, car insurance is not legally required, yet 90% of people have it. If you don't, and you crash and injure someone, you are liable for the damage caused, as you should be. So, most people buy insurance.

No seatbelt law, either... but people still wear those, don't they?

Quote from: wdmw on March 21, 2013, 02:39:26 PM

Saying "That's the way it is" does not equate to "That's what's right" or "That's what's best."

Just wanted to pull this bit of wisdom out to highlight it. I may want to quote it again.

Quote from: FirstAscent on March 21, 2013, 02:44:54 PM

So 49 states get it right, and one gets it wrong. Or let me guess, 49 states are wrong, and 1 is right? Seems like you are in the minority in your thought processes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum

To paraphrase, saying "That's what everyone else is doing" does not equate to "That's what's right" or "That's what's best."

Quote from: FirstAscent on March 21, 2013, 02:44:54 PM

So let's see...

A non wealthy motorist without insurance hits another non wealthy motorist without insurance and the guy who gets hit incurs huge hospital bills and is maimed for life.

By your logic, it's okay to not have insurance, thus it is not forced. Therefore, both motorists were equally 'okay' in their decision making process. Yet the results clearly are not okay, nor equal, are they?

The result is the uninsured motorist is now liable for those bills, and probably for the disability. That's both OK, and equal. (Well, equal after the liability is settled.)

FirstAscent

hero member

Activity: 812

Merit: 1000

Quote from: wdmw on March 21, 2013, 02:39:26 PM

Quote from: FirstAscent on March 21, 2013, 02:04:33 PM

Once you've done that, we can move on to force. As you know, buying automobile insurance is forced. I know you disagree with that concept, but it's reality. Can you think of other ways in which society forces things? I think you can. Please enumerate some.

Saying "That's the way it is" does not equate to "That's what's right" or "That's what's best." We have discussion to determine what is best.

Also, forced insurance is not universal. In New Hampshire, for instance, car insurance is not legally required, yet 90% of people have it. If you don't, and you crash and injure someone, you are liable for the damage caused, as you should be. So, most people buy insurance.

So 49 states get it right, and one gets it wrong. Or let me guess, 49 states are wrong, and 1 is right? Seems like you are in the minority in your thought processes.

So let's see...

A non wealthy motorist without insurance hits another non wealthy motorist without insurance and the guy who gets hit incurs huge hospital bills and is maimed for life.

By your logic, it's okay to not have insurance, thus it is not forced. Therefore, both motorists were equally 'okay' in their decision making process. Yet the results clearly are not okay, nor equal, are they?

wdmw

full member

Activity: 199

Merit: 100

Quote from: FirstAscent on March 21, 2013, 02:04:33 PM

Once you've done that, we can move on to force. As you know, buying automobile insurance is forced. I know you disagree with that concept, but it's reality. Can you think of other ways in which society forces things? I think you can. Please enumerate some.

Saying "That's the way it is" does not equate to "That's what's right" or "That's what's best." We have discussion to determine what is best.

Also, forced insurance is not universal. In New Hampshire, for instance, car insurance is not legally required, yet 90% of people have it. If you don't, and you crash and injure someone, you are liable for the damage caused, as you should be. So, most people buy insurance.

myrkul

hero member

Activity: 532

Merit: 500

FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM

Quote from: FirstAscent on March 21, 2013, 02:04:33 PM

Quote from: myrkul on March 21, 2013, 02:00:39 PM

Quote from: FirstAscent on March 21, 2013, 01:41:24 PM

Quote from: FirstAscent on March 21, 2013, 01:02:59 PM

Quote from: FirstAscent on March 21, 2013, 12:47:45 PM

Now, regarding the forcing, auto insurance is forced as well. A good foundation for discussion would be why insurance is forced in the first place.

A better foundation would be discussing why anything is forced. If it's important and necessary, people will do it themselves. And if they do not, the consequences should be on them, not the rest of us.

Old people on the street are consequences on society, not just the individual.

I suppose they would block up traffic. Well, that's what street cleaning services are for.

Quote from: FirstAscent on March 21, 2013, 01:02:59 PM

You say the consequences should be on them. Note your use of the word 'should'. That word pretty much sounds like a demand. A demand is pretty much the suggestion of force. Now we're back to square one. Forcing. You seem to be in agreement with me actually. In order to put the burden on them, we should force them to pay over their lifetime.

Note your use of the phrase "pretty much." That means "not exactly."

In fact, it's actually the opposite. I refuse to force others to accept the burden. That places the burden on the people who failed to plan by default. No force needed. All is actually needed is to refuse force.

You were doing so well with regard to comprehension. Now you're regressing. Go back and reread my post(s).

I understood what you were saying perfectly. You're just wrong.

Refusing to pay for someone else's retirement is not the same as using force against them.

Please remember that, as an insurance/Ponzi scheme, one's SSI is not paid for with one's own money. It's paid for with other people's money, which is taken from them by force. If it were my own money coming back to me, that would make it a savings account.

If we stop using force, that will shift the burden back to the retirees.

Force aside, let's review how insurance works: other people's misfortune is paid for by all insurance subscribers. Do you understand that? I assume you do. If you don't, go study the principles of insurance.

Yes, I understand that. As long as it's voluntary, I've no problem with it.

Quote from: FirstAscent on March 21, 2013, 02:04:33 PM

Once you've done that, we can move on to force. As you know, buying automobile insurance is forced. I know you disagree with that concept, but it's reality. Can you think of other ways in which society forces things? I think you can. Please enumerate some.

Do your own homework.

FirstAscent

hero member

Activity: 812

Merit: 1000

Quote from: myrkul on March 21, 2013, 02:00:39 PM

Quote from: FirstAscent on March 21, 2013, 01:41:24 PM

Quote from: FirstAscent on March 21, 2013, 01:02:59 PM

Quote from: FirstAscent on March 21, 2013, 12:47:45 PM

Now, regarding the forcing, auto insurance is forced as well. A good foundation for discussion would be why insurance is forced in the first place.

A better foundation would be discussing why anything is forced. If it's important and necessary, people will do it themselves. And if they do not, the consequences should be on them, not the rest of us.

Old people on the street are consequences on society, not just the individual.

I suppose they would block up traffic. Well, that's what street cleaning services are for.

Quote from: FirstAscent on March 21, 2013, 01:02:59 PM

You say the consequences should be on them. Note your use of the word 'should'. That word pretty much sounds like a demand. A demand is pretty much the suggestion of force. Now we're back to square one. Forcing. You seem to be in agreement with me actually. In order to put the burden on them, we should force them to pay over their lifetime.

Note your use of the phrase "pretty much." That means "not exactly."

In fact, it's actually the opposite. I refuse to force others to accept the burden. That places the burden on the people who failed to plan by default. No force needed. All is actually needed is to refuse force.

You were doing so well with regard to comprehension. Now you're regressing. Go back and reread my post(s).

I understood what you were saying perfectly. You're just wrong.

Refusing to pay for someone else's retirement is not the same as using force against them.

Please remember that, as an insurance/Ponzi scheme, one's SSI is not paid for with one's own money. It's paid for with other people's money, which is taken from them by force. If it were my own money coming back to me, that would make it a savings account.

If we stop using force, that will shift the burden back to the retirees.

Force aside, let's review how insurance works: other people's misfortune is paid for by all insurance subscribers. Do you understand that? I assume you do. If you don't, go study the principles of insurance.

Once you've done that, we can move on to force. As you know, buying automobile insurance is forced. I know you disagree with that concept, but it's reality. Can you think of other ways in which society forces things? I think you can. Please enumerate some.

myrkul

hero member

Activity: 532

Merit: 500

FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM

Quote from: FirstAscent on March 21, 2013, 01:41:24 PM

Quote from: FirstAscent on March 21, 2013, 01:02:59 PM

Quote from: FirstAscent on March 21, 2013, 12:47:45 PM

Now, regarding the forcing, auto insurance is forced as well. A good foundation for discussion would be why insurance is forced in the first place.

A better foundation would be discussing why anything is forced. If it's important and necessary, people will do it themselves. And if they do not, the consequences should be on them, not the rest of us.

Old people on the street are consequences on society, not just the individual.

I suppose they would block up traffic. Well, that's what street cleaning services are for.

Quote from: FirstAscent on March 21, 2013, 01:02:59 PM

You say the consequences should be on them. Note your use of the word 'should'. That word pretty much sounds like a demand. A demand is pretty much the suggestion of force. Now we're back to square one. Forcing. You seem to be in agreement with me actually. In order to put the burden on them, we should force them to pay over their lifetime.

Note your use of the phrase "pretty much." That means "not exactly."

In fact, it's actually the opposite. I refuse to force others to accept the burden. That places the burden on the people who failed to plan by default. No force needed. All is actually needed is to refuse force.

You were doing so well with regard to comprehension. Now you're regressing. Go back and reread my post(s).

I understood what you were saying perfectly. You're just wrong.

Refusing to pay for someone else's retirement is not the same as using force against them.

Please remember that, as an insurance/Ponzi scheme, one's SSI is not paid for with one's own money. It's paid for with other people's money, which is taken from them by force. If it were my own money coming back to me, that would make it a savings account.

If we stop using force, that will shift the burden back to the retirees.

FirstAscent

hero member

Activity: 812

Merit: 1000

Quote from: FirstAscent on March 21, 2013, 01:02:59 PM

Quote from: FirstAscent on March 21, 2013, 12:47:45 PM

Now, regarding the forcing, auto insurance is forced as well. A good foundation for discussion would be why insurance is forced in the first place.

A better foundation would be discussing why anything is forced. If it's important and necessary, people will do it themselves. And if they do not, the consequences should be on them, not the rest of us.

Old people on the street are consequences on society, not just the individual.

I suppose they would block up traffic. Well, that's what street cleaning services are for.

Quote from: FirstAscent on March 21, 2013, 01:02:59 PM

You say the consequences should be on them. Note your use of the word 'should'. That word pretty much sounds like a demand. A demand is pretty much the suggestion of force. Now we're back to square one. Forcing. You seem to be in agreement with me actually. In order to put the burden on them, we should force them to pay over their lifetime.

Note your use of the phrase "pretty much." That means "not exactly."

In fact, it's actually the opposite. I refuse to force others to accept the burden. That places the burden on the people who failed to plan by default. No force needed. All is actually needed is to refuse force.

You were doing so well with regard to comprehension. Now you're regressing. Go back and reread my post(s).

myrkul

hero member

Activity: 532

Merit: 500

FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM

Quote from: FirstAscent on March 21, 2013, 01:02:59 PM

Quote from: FirstAscent on March 21, 2013, 12:47:45 PM

Now, regarding the forcing, auto insurance is forced as well. A good foundation for discussion would be why insurance is forced in the first place.

A better foundation would be discussing why anything is forced. If it's important and necessary, people will do it themselves. And if they do not, the consequences should be on them, not the rest of us.

Old people on the street are consequences on society, not just the individual.

I suppose they would block up traffic. Well, that's what street cleaning services are for.

Quote from: FirstAscent on March 21, 2013, 01:02:59 PM

You say the consequences should be on them. Note your use of the word 'should'. That word pretty much sounds like a demand. A demand is pretty much the suggestion of force. Now we're back to square one. Forcing. You seem to be in agreement with me actually. In order to put the burden on them, we should force them to pay over their lifetime.

Note your use of the phrase "pretty much." That means "not exactly."

In fact, it's actually the opposite. I refuse to force others to accept the burden. That places the burden on the people who failed to plan by default. No force needed. All is actually needed is to refuse force.

FirstAscent

hero member

Activity: 812

Merit: 1000