Moderator: Community Team
Symmetry wrote:Night Strike wrote:Symmetry wrote:Night Strike wrote:Symmetry wrote:I've seen the same argument for communism too many times to buy into that line of thinking. Basically, you're saying it would work if nobody took advantage of the system.
No, you use the government to actually punish the people who break laws (ponzi schemes, embezzlement, dangerous workplaces, violate patents, etc.). You do NOT use the government to pick which industries succeed and which ones fail. You do NOT use the government to pass massive, arbitrary regulations that benefit the large companies while artificially pricing the small ones out of the marketplace.
And how would this fantasy scheme actually be implemented? A single Free Market party, with a delegate list of ideological purity from which citizens can cast their vote? Crony Capitalist delegates disallowed?
Sounds like communism, again.
That's why the citizenry is responsible for electing moral and upright individuals who will follow the Constitution. And even moreso, they need to quickly replace anyone who goes against the Constitution.
Sounds much like the talk of early Communist revolutionaries. The citizens will decide! Only true comrades, moral and upright will be chosen by the will of the people. Those who are not moral and upright will be... "replaced".
Be wary NS, the first victims of the free market revolution will be... ah I think you get the point.
Night Strike wrote:So now following our Constitution is a gateway to communism. Impressive leap of logic right there.![]()
And you should take some time to read actual documents from the Founding Fathers, as they mention the term "moral and upright citizen" many times. We know communists aren't moral and upright because all they want to do is take money from the rich and redistribute it to those who do little to nothing. There's nothing moral and upright about that.
natty_dread wrote:Do ponies have sex?
(proud member of the Occasionally Wrongly Banned)Army of GOD wrote:the term heterosexual is offensive. I prefer to be called "normal"
thegreekdog wrote:Phatscotty wrote:yes, birth control pills are now "medical care" and "women issues". Heck, they even had some political plant get in front of a phony congressional hearing and say "I know a girl who died because she couldn't get birth control"
This is about the left making the 2012 election about social issues, and we are already seeing just how far they are willing to bend perception in an attempt to make it reality. Except that phat f*ck keeps showing people how they cram the rabbit into the hat backstage, foiling the elitists plans!
Birth control pills are regularly prescribed for medical issues other than as contraceptives. And, incidentally, are covered by most insurance, including insurance plans provided by religious instituions.
WHICH IS WHY THIS IS A MOOT ISSUE!
Symmetry wrote:I didn't mention libertarianism, but then again, libertarianism is pretty diverse, almost to the point of not really being a political philosophy at all, just an opposition movement. So it's possible I caught some part of it. Anyway, I made a new thread.
Night Strike wrote:PLAYER57832 wrote:Night Strike wrote:And this issue has exactly NOTHING to do with medical care. As the liberals are quick to point out, approximately 98% of people use or have used some form of contraception. This means there is NOT a lack of access to contraception.
Well, right now, insurance is mandated to cover this, plus states cover it. Even so, while a high percentage of women use it at some time in their life, you neglect the part where women get estrogen for many, many reasons. I took it for several years because of essessive pain and bleeding, though I was not sexual active at the time. Later, I had to take progesterone, which has at some points also been considered "birth control", so that I would not miscarry my sons. Older women commonly have to take such supplements during pregnancies.
And while I have cited my own personal history because I am not legally allowed to cite other people's medical histories, i assure you I am very far from alone.
So, again.... GET YOUR FACTS STRAIGHT before voicing and opinion on this!
Oh look, legitimate medical issues for needing prescriptions that could otherwise be used as contraceptives. Oh look also, they're already covered under insurance. Oh yeah, this has NOTHING to do with the current debate of providing prescriptions for free for the sole use of contraception. It's a distraction to get the dumb masses on your side by lumping in things that are currently covered with things that are not. GET YOUR FACTS STRAIGHT!
PLAYER57832 wrote:Night Strike wrote: Furthermore, if the prescription is being used for actual medical issues, that IS covered by insurance. Even insurance provided by religious organizations. In light of those facts, it becomes clear that this issue is only an assault on religious freedoms in order to give the government the power to unconstitutionally prohibit the free exercise of religion.
NO, this is poppycock. You have made this claim, but it is not the truth. The truth is that it will be up to women to justify to insurance companies that they need this.. and, because there is no longer a mandate for coverage, many plain won't get it.
Night Strike wrote: By the way, since this is a fact so I know you will dismiss or distort it, but if the government did not mandate contraceptive coverage, how did 95-98% of the population have access to contraceptives?
Night Strike wrote: How will that change if this new mandate is NOT put in place? Under your logic, women will suddenly lose all contraceptive coverage, whether it's used for birth control or medical issues. If this is not the case before the mandate was written, why would it be the case after the mandate is rescinded? My guess would be because this has absolutely nothing to do with women's health and everything to do with more governmental power and infringement on our rights.
Night Strike wrote:PLAYER57832 wrote:Also, hormones are one of those drugs that cannot always be substituted in generic version because even very, very tiny differences can matter a lot. Now insurance covers it all, but they won't any longer.
See above. But if they're covering it before the mandate, why would it suddenly disappear? Of course, that's liberal logic for you.
thegreekdog wrote:Symmetry wrote:I didn't mention libertarianism, but then again, libertarianism is pretty diverse, almost to the point of not really being a political philosophy at all, just an opposition movement. So it's possible I caught some part of it. Anyway, I made a new thread.
Would you agree that conservativism or liberalism are also very diverse? Are they opposition movements?
I feel like I've had this discussion before. Some people (or a person) were saying that Libertarianism is a non-starter because of the "radical" views espoused by Libertarians. I suggested that Libertarianism in the US is a non-starter because of the entrenched political parties. I'm pretty sure I was arguing with Player. I'll have to find that thread, provide the link here, and then you can read it Symm.
BigBallinStalin wrote:Phatscotty wrote:
It really is no wonder how society keeps discovering all kinds of new problems when we remove our need to be responsible for our actions and live more and more carefree lives and don't have to worry about making the wrong decisions anymore, therefore not knowing why the decision was wrong nor learning a lesson on why not to make the incorrect choice again, and that has an impact on the next generation as well. Just a general rant
That's a rant I strongly agree with.
Many well-intended public policies prevent the trial-and-error process which enables individuals to learn from their mistakes or from the mistakes of others. Those policies also subsidize the costs of making poor decisions. (If you want more of something, then subsidize it...).
Besides, these policies tend to create more problems which enable politicians and rent-seekers more opportunities to intervene, thus enriching themselves under the guise of acting for the "common" good. Many people lose sight of the ultimate cause which contributes to this ongoing chain of problems. That original cause was state intervention, to which many people unfortunately appeal.
Night Strike wrote:Crony capitalism only exists because of how big the government is. If the government weren't picking winners and losers in the marketplace and constantly changing the rules of how to do business, you could see the free market work as it was intended. Crony capitalism is one of the exact problems that is rooted in big government yet people want the government to come in and "fix".
PLAYER57832 wrote:BigBallinStalin wrote:Phatscotty wrote:
It really is no wonder how society keeps discovering all kinds of new problems when we remove our need to be responsible for our actions and live more and more carefree lives and don't have to worry about making the wrong decisions anymore, therefore not knowing why the decision was wrong nor learning a lesson on why not to make the incorrect choice again, and that has an impact on the next generation as well. Just a general rant
That's a rant I strongly agree with.
Many well-intended public policies prevent the trial-and-error process which enables individuals to learn from their mistakes or from the mistakes of others. Those policies also subsidize the costs of making poor decisions. (If you want more of something, then subsidize it...).
Besides, these policies tend to create more problems which enable politicians and rent-seekers more opportunities to intervene, thus enriching themselves under the guise of acting for the "common" good. Many people lose sight of the ultimate cause which contributes to this ongoing chain of problems. That original cause was state intervention, to which many people unfortunately appeal.
I agree with this, but the Roman Catholic Church claiming that they have the right to decide this for people who are not church members, who just work in a hospital that happens to be affiliated with the Roman Catholic Church is in opposition to that.
BigBallinStalin wrote:PLAYER57832 wrote:BigBallinStalin wrote:Phatscotty wrote:
It really is no wonder how society keeps discovering all kinds of new problems when we remove our need to be responsible for our actions and live more and more carefree lives and don't have to worry about making the wrong decisions anymore, therefore not knowing why the decision was wrong nor learning a lesson on why not to make the incorrect choice again, and that has an impact on the next generation as well. Just a general rant
That's a rant I strongly agree with.
Many well-intended public policies prevent the trial-and-error process which enables individuals to learn from their mistakes or from the mistakes of others. Those policies also subsidize the costs of making poor decisions. (If you want more of something, then subsidize it...).
Besides, these policies tend to create more problems which enable politicians and rent-seekers more opportunities to intervene, thus enriching themselves under the guise of acting for the "common" good. Many people lose sight of the ultimate cause which contributes to this ongoing chain of problems. That original cause was state intervention, to which many people unfortunately appeal.
I agree with this, but the Roman Catholic Church claiming that they have the right to decide this for people who are not church members, who just work in a hospital that happens to be affiliated with the Roman Catholic Church is in opposition to that.
Well, my position is only leveled at the state, and the scenario which you're describing originated from the state. With public policy, it's a different beast. Failure to comply can lead to imprisonment and/or a fine.
If the state wasn't involved, and if the Catholic hospitals reserved the right to decide on healthcare insurance coverage for their employees, well that's a different story. There's a voluntary exchange being offered, and it can be rejected, negotiated, or accepted. With state policy, it's a choice between acceptance or corporal/fiscal punishment by the state.
PLAYER57832 wrote:thegreekdog wrote:Symmetry wrote:I didn't mention libertarianism, but then again, libertarianism is pretty diverse, almost to the point of not really being a political philosophy at all, just an opposition movement. So it's possible I caught some part of it. Anyway, I made a new thread.
Would you agree that conservativism or liberalism are also very diverse? Are they opposition movements?
I feel like I've had this discussion before. Some people (or a person) were saying that Libertarianism is a non-starter because of the "radical" views espoused by Libertarians. I suggested that Libertarianism in the US is a non-starter because of the entrenched political parties. I'm pretty sure I was arguing with Player. I'll have to find that thread, provide the link here, and then you can read it Symm.
Are you sure those are really 2 seperate views? Many consider not allowing corporations to have full and complete control over everything that happens to their companies, employees, etc.. with only minor exceptions for the really big stuff.. (and occasionally not even that) to be some kind of radical idea. But, yeah, it was in the other thread.
However, the thing about liberaterianism is that right now, a lot of ideas about reducing the size of the government get lumped into that view. Everyone seems to have their own idea of the "exceptions"... a lot of Tea Partiers, for example are quite happy to have the government control private matters. Most big power brokers are happy to have the government restrain individuals from suing corporations with "frivolous" lawsuits ( things like complaining when their wells are contaminated, etc.) I am opposed because I believe that education MUST be universal and provided free, plus because a lot of the "unweildly regulations" that "get in the way of commerce" are about protecting our environment.
thegreekdog wrote:I think that's generally right. Libertarianism crosses both parties (social for Democrats, fiscal for Republicans), although I'm not sure that Democrats are socially liberal (given the president's recent actions) and I'm not convinced that Republicans are fiscally conservative.
That being said, statism is certainly crossing both party lines as well.
PLAYER57832 wrote:thegreekdog wrote:I think that's generally right. Libertarianism crosses both parties (social for Democrats, fiscal for Republicans), although I'm not sure that Democrats are socially liberal (given the president's recent actions) and I'm not convinced that Republicans are fiscally conservative.
That being said, statism is certainly crossing both party lines as well.
I have never really refered to Republicans or Democrats when it comes to philosophy, only political policies which change with every election.
The only thing I really say on that is that its pretty amazing how many conservatives want to site Ronald Reagan, without even really knowing what he reprented. Its sort of like that bit "don't talk about Kennedy.. he was my friend" from I think the 1996 debate?
jay_a2j wrote:hey if any1 would like me to make them a signature or like an avator just let me no, my sig below i did, and i also did "panther 88" so i can do something like that for u if ud like...
pimpdave wrote:Reagan thought that trees caused pollution.
PLAYER57832 wrote:BigBallinStalin wrote:PLAYER57832 wrote:BigBallinStalin wrote:Phatscotty wrote:
It really is no wonder how society keeps discovering all kinds of new problems when we remove our need to be responsible for our actions and live more and more carefree lives and don't have to worry about making the wrong decisions anymore, therefore not knowing why the decision was wrong nor learning a lesson on why not to make the incorrect choice again, and that has an impact on the next generation as well. Just a general rant
That's a rant I strongly agree with.
Many well-intended public policies prevent the trial-and-error process which enables individuals to learn from their mistakes or from the mistakes of others. Those policies also subsidize the costs of making poor decisions. (If you want more of something, then subsidize it...).
Besides, these policies tend to create more problems which enable politicians and rent-seekers more opportunities to intervene, thus enriching themselves under the guise of acting for the "common" good. Many people lose sight of the ultimate cause which contributes to this ongoing chain of problems. That original cause was state intervention, to which many people unfortunately appeal.
I agree with this, but the Roman Catholic Church claiming that they have the right to decide this for people who are not church members, who just work in a hospital that happens to be affiliated with the Roman Catholic Church is in opposition to that.
Well, my position is only leveled at the state, and the scenario which you're describing originated from the state. With public policy, it's a different beast. Failure to comply can lead to imprisonment and/or a fine.
If the state wasn't involved, and if the Catholic hospitals reserved the right to decide on healthcare insurance coverage for their employees, well that's a different story. There's a voluntary exchange being offered, and it can be rejected, negotiated, or accepted. With state policy, it's a choice between acceptance or corporal/fiscal punishment by the state.
When you are talking about healthcare, there is no free market. Employees don't get to decide insurance, so if the employer decides not to provide xyz coverage, then most people cannot get it. That may change with the new insurance exchanges, but not now.
In general, I do see a huge difference between safety rules and rules strictly for economics, even if the actual implementation is "the same". That is, a tarriff to protect an industry should be used only with extreme caution or not at all. However, a tarrif or restriction because another country is not complying with basic safety standards might be appropriate in some cases, to prevent US companies operating reasonably from being out-competed by basically "cheaters". Unfortunately, too often those things get bogged down with companies and individuals who really don't care about the safety, they just want whatever benefit they can get.
thegreekdog wrote:PLAYER57832 wrote:thegreekdog wrote:I think that's generally right. Libertarianism crosses both parties (social for Democrats, fiscal for Republicans), although I'm not sure that Democrats are socially liberal (given the president's recent actions) and I'm not convinced that Republicans are fiscally conservative.
That being said, statism is certainly crossing both party lines as well.
I have never really refered to Republicans or Democrats when it comes to philosophy, only political policies which change with every election.
The only thing I really say on that is that its pretty amazing how many conservatives want to site Ronald Reagan, without even really knowing what he reprented. Its sort of like that bit "don't talk about Kennedy.. he was my friend" from I think the 1996 debate?
I think Reagan was certainly a hero to most of today's statist conservatives. He may have been a little bit Libertarian, but he did a lot of statist-type things.
Night Strike wrote:Lootifer wrote:BigBallinStalin wrote:Phatscotty wrote:
It really is no wonder how society keeps discovering all kinds of new problems when we remove our need to be responsible for our actions and live more and more carefree lives and don't have to worry about making the wrong decisions anymore, therefore not knowing why the decision was wrong nor learning a lesson on why not to make the incorrect choice again, and that has an impact on the next generation as well. Just a general rant
That's a rant I strongly agree with.
Many well-intended public policies prevent the trial-and-error process which enables individuals to learn from their mistakes or from the mistakes of others. Those policies also subsidize the costs of making poor decisions. (If you want more of something, then subsidize it...).
Besides, these policies tend to create more problems which enable politicians and rent-seekers more opportunities to intervene, thus enriching themselves under the guise of acting for the "common" good. Many people lose sight of the ultimate cause which contributes to this ongoing chain of problems. That original cause was state intervention, to which many people unfortunately appeal.
I just deleted a massive rant. Why? Because you're probably right. Let them suffer in the short term; let them make stupid decisions and pay for it; let your crony capitalism that has a foothold, power and desire to remain carry on unfetted as you push for more free markets against those who compound social returns at a much higher rate than mere finacial returns, thus perpetuating status quo; Good day sir.
Crony capitalism only exists because of how big the government is. If the government weren't picking winners and losers in the marketplace and constantly changing the rules of how to do business, you could see the free market work as it was intended. Crony capitalism is one of the exact problems that is rooted in big government yet people want the government to come in and "fix".
natty_dread wrote:Do ponies have sex?
(proud member of the Occasionally Wrongly Banned)Army of GOD wrote:the term heterosexual is offensive. I prefer to be called "normal"
BigBallinStalin wrote:Lootifer wrote:Oh that's right, the Free Market removes barriers to entry as well, how silly of me (directed at both NS and BBS).
What do you mean?
john9blue wrote:Night Strike wrote:Lootifer wrote:BigBallinStalin wrote:Phatscotty wrote:
It really is no wonder how society keeps discovering all kinds of new problems when we remove our need to be responsible for our actions and live more and more carefree lives and don't have to worry about making the wrong decisions anymore, therefore not knowing why the decision was wrong nor learning a lesson on why not to make the incorrect choice again, and that has an impact on the next generation as well. Just a general rant
That's a rant I strongly agree with.
Many well-intended public policies prevent the trial-and-error process which enables individuals to learn from their mistakes or from the mistakes of others. Those policies also subsidize the costs of making poor decisions. (If you want more of something, then subsidize it...).
Besides, these policies tend to create more problems which enable politicians and rent-seekers more opportunities to intervene, thus enriching themselves under the guise of acting for the "common" good. Many people lose sight of the ultimate cause which contributes to this ongoing chain of problems. That original cause was state intervention, to which many people unfortunately appeal.
I just deleted a massive rant. Why? Because you're probably right. Let them suffer in the short term; let them make stupid decisions and pay for it; let your crony capitalism that has a foothold, power and desire to remain carry on unfetted as you push for more free markets against those who compound social returns at a much higher rate than mere finacial returns, thus perpetuating status quo; Good day sir.
Crony capitalism only exists because of how big the government is. If the government weren't picking winners and losers in the marketplace and constantly changing the rules of how to do business, you could see the free market work as it was intended. Crony capitalism is one of the exact problems that is rooted in big government yet people want the government to come in and "fix".
everything quoted here (that isn't crossed out) is very insightful
PLAYER57832 wrote:thegreekdog wrote:Phatscotty wrote:yes, birth control pills are now "medical care" and "women issues". Heck, they even had some political plant get in front of a phony congressional hearing and say "I know a girl who died because she couldn't get birth control"
This is about the left making the 2012 election about social issues, and we are already seeing just how far they are willing to bend perception in an attempt to make it reality. Except that phat f*ck keeps showing people how they cram the rabbit into the hat backstage, foiling the elitists plans!
Birth control pills are regularly prescribed for medical issues other than as contraceptives. And, incidentally, are covered by most insurance, including insurance plans provided by religious instituions.
WHICH IS WHY THIS IS A MOOT ISSUE!
EXCEPT, this is the requirement that the Roman Catholic Church wants to change!!!!
So, it is exactly the issue.
Night Strike wrote:PLAYER57832 wrote:thegreekdog wrote:Phatscotty wrote:yes, birth control pills are now "medical care" and "women issues". Heck, they even had some political plant get in front of a phony congressional hearing and say "I know a girl who died because she couldn't get birth control"
This is about the left making the 2012 election about social issues, and we are already seeing just how far they are willing to bend perception in an attempt to make it reality. Except that phat f*ck keeps showing people how they cram the rabbit into the hat backstage, foiling the elitists plans!
Birth control pills are regularly prescribed for medical issues other than as contraceptives. And, incidentally, are covered by most insurance, including insurance plans provided by religious instituions.
WHICH IS WHY THIS IS A MOOT ISSUE!
EXCEPT, this is the requirement that the Roman Catholic Church wants to change!!!!
So, it is exactly the issue.
Prove it.
Everything I've read indicates that the Catholic Church had to change their position banning all contraceptive use precisely because of those medical issues that it is used for. They currently allow contraceptives for medicinal purposes because it's taken for a reason that is not designed to block natural conception. You need to provide proof that they want to change this policy back to a complete ban. Otherwise, it's just more empty rhetoric from you (which is what I expect).
Lootifer wrote:BigBallinStalin wrote:Lootifer wrote:Oh that's right, the Free Market removes barriers to entry as well, how silly of me (directed at both NS and BBS).
What do you mean?
Free market increases likelyhood of crony capitalism, or at the least less-than-state-efficient allocation fo resources in markets that have high barriers to entry.
Lootifer wrote:Arguably in this case the (condoms, not contraception in general, contraception supply likely has significant barriers to entry due to it being a medication) barriers to entry are rather low so free market allocation would work fine.
Lootifer wrote:Thats not to say I have the slightest beef with the state giving out condoms; nothing about it is unsustainable and the unintended consequences that BBS always craps on about are small (oh no i got a condom handed to me rather than deciding to use condoms all by my little ole self, f*ck MY RATIONAL DECISION MAKING SECTION HAS BROKEN IRREPAIRABLY!?!?!?!?!). I think the social consequences cause the state model to come out on top /shrug.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users