Off Topic ForumThis is the place for mature discussions not necessarily related to cars. This is however also moderated and only registered members are allowed to post. No religion and no vicious attacks.
I did not mention support of any war or wall street bonus and am unsure why you're assuming you know my position on such things
Quote:
Originally Posted by Diny
Promoting and demanding are 2 different things.
You're promoting something that makes demands of individuals.I'm asking why.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Diny
Besides free speech and having an opinion about where I'd like my tax dollars to go?
I don't understand the free speech comment. I'm not asking why you can voice your opinion, rather, I'm asking how can you support such a system. Regarding tax dollars, you say that almost as if this new program wouldn't require new funding to support it...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Diny
It doesn't rest on the shoulders of others, it rests on the shoulders of everyone.
Everyone except those who can afford it, correct? I'm not sure I understand your point here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Diny
There is no sense of community anymore. It's everyone for themelves.
Are you suggesting that, without laws stating we do so, individuals would not voluntarily help each other?
I'm not sure I understand your police example, however, I support law enforcement as a public good since I believe it is the burden of government to protect individual property rights.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Diny
Also, you're not forced to participate. You do get a fine if you don't have health insurance but guess what? The penalty will not be more than the very basic program from the insurance exchanges that's being set up.
I see this as a contradiction. You're saying one is not forced to participate, but will be penalized if they don't. How is that different from my saying you're free to drive above the speed limit, but you'll be ticketed if you're caught. In this case, are you really free to drive above the speed limit?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Diny
What do you think will change for you?
I don't see how this remark has any substance. What's your point with this comment? That if an idea will not directly affect me, I shouldn't disagree with it regardless of the implications behind it?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Diny
How has the word been stolen? Do you prefer progressive?
In addition, don't use my response as a representation of liberals. I can only speak for myself. Imagine if I were to categorize all conservatives based on a few posts by Ranger...
No, progressive would be even worse as I don't see these ideas as a way to advance society. Regressive, perhaps.
In my opinion, liberal should be a reference to the libertarian in a classical sense; an ideology where the rights of the individual are placed over the state. I don't see modern day 'liberals' supporting such an ideology.
Lastly, I don’t believe any of my questions were answered.
Before this devolves into an abstract back and forth of endless line quoting, let's try again.
Quote:
When you promote ideas such as universal health care, or any statist idea that requires involuntary participation from part of a population, under what grounds do you feel you have the right to make such demands?
To my answer, you replied "You're promoting something that makes demands of individuals.I'm asking why."
Looking back at your post, I'm more puzzled by your choice of words. What right do I have to make demands? You're talking to me like I'm a member of Congress. In the specific section of health care, because it's a good idea to take care of the population's health. But again, Obamacare is not universal health care (I'm just writing that again in case you missed it). The same can be asked for many ideas that require involuntary participation from a part of the population (like police, for instance). Where do you draw the line?
Quote:
It is in your opinion that every member is due the right to some good or goods, however, you suggest the responsibility of obtaining these goods rests on the shoulders of others. Why? Why are you allowed to dictate who deserves what good and who is to provide this good? Please show me what document gives you such entitlement.
Your split answers to my response were more confusing than my own answer. And again with the choice of words. Entitlement? Think of the US as a club. We get to live here and enjoy certain benefits. In return, we must pay the fees and follow the rules. Without simplifying it too much, it seems that you only want to pay for perks that you get to use and any other perks from which other members might benefit is a waste of money.
You also wrote "Are you suggesting that, without laws stating we do so, individuals would not voluntarily help each other?" Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. The fact that we all own BMWs should be a testament to that. We're all terrible people and very comfortable with it. That's actually a very interesting topic on its own. If you're up to it, we can exchange ideas and discuss it in deeper detail in a separate thread.
Quote:
If you're so concerned with these "deprived" individuals, why don't you start your own foundation? Why don't you go out and purchase this good for these individuals with your own money instead of trying to promote a law the requires others to do so against their own will? Also, if your ideas or suggestions are so great then why do they come with laws that FORCE people to participate?
You picked small fragments of my answer to which to respond, so I'm simply gonna ask for clarification on this one. Hypothetically, let's say that I do create a foundation. Would you join me? Before you answer that, refer to my previous answer.
Quote:
I'm not being sarcastic. There are no innuendos here.
Given how you structured your questions and how you reacted to my answers, I'm beginning to doubt that. Your passive aggressive tone speaks volumes. You either didn't like my answers and alluded to something irrelevant or flat out missed the point entirely. Still, I'll play along. I'm interested in others' ideas.
And finally, we reach the meaning of the word liberal. Look, it doesn't take a genius to figure out what your ideas are. All one has to do is look at your chosen forum handle and now the fact that you tried to assign liberals the "regressive" label. There isn't a single policy that liberals uphold that would be called regressive. What's regressive about wanting incrased quality of life, truly equal opportunities, and civil equality for everyone?
Looking back at your post, I'm more puzzled by your choice of words. What right do I have to make demands? You're talking to me like I'm a member of Congress. In the specific section of health care, because it's a good idea to take care of the population's health. But again, Obamacare is not universal health care (I'm just writing that again in case you missed it). The same can be asked for many ideas that require involuntary participation from a part of the population (like police, for instance). Where do you draw the line?
Ok, when you say it’s a good idea to take care of the population’s health, while I agree with that statement, I believe I would disagree with you on how that is achieved. Correct me if I’m wrong, but you would suggest it should be the responsibility of any member of society to take responsibility for the population’s health and this is where I begin to get confused. Why is it one (or n) individual’s responsibility to take care of the well-being of another (others)? I have no problem with voluntary help, however that’s not what’s occurring here. What is occurring is an idea backed by a policy that makes demands of individuals and that’s why I’m choosing specific language. You support a policy that says one person MUST take responsibility for the well-being of another and so I assume you support this way of thinking. I assume, to support this idea, you would use some notion of ‘freedom’, ‘equality’ etc to argue your point and I’m interested to hear what that argument is.
I’m not sure I follow how police participation is involuntary. I suppose you’re saying they must help society whether they want to or not, however, they voluntarily became a policeman and it is there job to help protect property rights. If they choose not do so, then they should quit their job or be fired. I fail to see how this is different from any other line of work.
Your split answers to my response were more confusing than my own answer. And again with the choice of words. Entitlement? Think of the US as a club. We get to live here and enjoy certain benefits. In return, we must pay the fees and follow the rules. Without simplifying it too much, it seems that you only want to pay for perks that you get to use and any other perks from which other members might benefit is a waste of money.
Can you please elaborate on which perks I prefer and which ones I do not? I think this argument distracts from the original discussion a bit, but I would like to understand what you mean.
You also wrote 'Are you suggesting that, without laws stating we do so, individuals would not voluntarily help each other?' Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying.
If individuals do not voluntarily help each other, then how do you explain the huge efforts made after the Hurricane Katrina Disaster? If you can explain, then I will provide further examples of individuals voluntarily helping others.
The fact that we all own BMWs should be a testament to that. We're all terrible people and very comfortable with it. That's actually a very interesting topic on its own. If you're up to it, we can exchange ideas and discuss it in deeper detail in a separate thread.
You’re suggesting my choice of vehicle makes me a bad person? Hopefully that’s not true, but I agree that this is a topic for a later discussion.
You picked small fragments of my answer to which to respond, so I'm simply gonna ask for clarification on this one. Hypothetically, let's say that I do create a foundation. Would you join me? Before you answer that, refer to my previous answer.
It would depend on if I agreed with the objectives of your foundation and who you were trying to help. It would also depend on a list of other factors which would play an influence on my decision just like any other choices I have made.
Given how you structured your questions and how you reacted to my answers, I'm beginning to doubt that. Your passive aggressive tone speaks volumes. You either didn't like my answers and alluded to something irrelevant or flat out missed the point entirely. Still, I'll play along. I'm interested in others' ideas. My apologies if I came off as abrasive. I’ll try harder to use more appropriate language (text can easily be misinterpreted). However, I do not like your answers. They seem to pick apart and distract from my questions. I don’t believe any of my questions have been answered yet.
And finally, we reach the meaning of the word liberal. Look, it doesn't take a genius to figure out what your ideas are. All one has to do is look at your chosen forum handle and now the fact that you tried to assign liberals the "regressive" label. There isn't a single policy that liberals uphold that would be called regressive. What's regressive about wanting incrased quality of life, truly equal opportunities, and civil equality for everyone? I see ‘liberals’ as promoting ideas that require society hoist up the weakest members at the cost of the strongest. This, in my opinion, is regressive. When I went to high school there was a ‘special ed’ program. Was this program set aside for the brightest individuals such that they can be provided with a superior education that may help them make full use of their talents and abilities? No, it was a program for the student with less than average intelligence who simply doesn’t have the ability to create something of real value for society. How is that progressive?
Capitalist, are you suggesting that "special needs" children be thrown out with the trash? I am completely offended by your comment that "lesser intelligence" does nothing to enhance society. I am hopeful that you do not have a family member who is "special needs" or of "lesser intelligence". I can only imagine how they would be treated by you.
I see ‘liberals’ as promoting ideas that require society hoist up the weakest members at the cost of the strongest. This, in my opinion, is regressive. When I went to high school there was a ‘special ed’ program. Was this program set aside for the brightest individuals such that they can be provided with a superior education that may help them make full use of their talents and abilities? No, it was a program for the student with less than average intelligence who simply doesn’t have the ability to create something of real value for society. How is that progressive?
Ok, when you say it’s a good idea to take care of the population’s health, while I agree with that statement, I believe I would disagree with you on how that is achieved. Correct me if I’m wrong, but you would suggest it should be the responsibility of any member of society to take responsibility for the population’s health and this is where I begin to get confused. Why is it one (or n) individual’s responsibility to take care of the well-being of another (others)? I have no problem with voluntary help, however that’s not what’s occurring here. What is occurring is an idea backed by a policy that makes demands of individuals and that’s why I’m choosing specific language. You support a policy that says one person MUST take responsibility for the well-being of another and so I assume you support this way of thinking. I assume, to support this idea, you would use some notion of ‘freedom’, ‘equality’ etc to argue your point and I’m interested to hear what that argument is.
Because the well being of the population should be just as important as protection (military and law enforcement) and education. And I'm not talking about top-notch health care, basic one that isn't gonna bankrupt. However, for the 3rd time, a universal system of healthcare and we do not have that in this country. Back home, actually, we have hospitals for the serious stuff and smaller clinics for the less serious stuff. The clinics are funded by the city along with donations from the various neighborhoods and the big hospitals are funded by the government. If you want better stuff, you go to a private hospital with memberships and all larger fees. We're far from that system here, so your argument doesn't apply. Instead of paying for everyone, the system is requiring you to cover yourself so that others don't have to.
Quote:
Can you please elaborate on which perks I prefer and which ones I do not? I think this argument distracts from the original discussion a bit, but I would like to understand what you mean.
If you advocate voluntary help in the real of healthcare, then what about other systems that are funded by everyone (such as police and education). Where do you draw the line? And stop dodging the point. I'm not talking about you specifically. Police services aren't surveillance 24/7 in front of your house. They come when there's a need. A good universal healthcare system would be the same. You don't get airlifted because of a broken pinky, but you don't pay $500 to have it looked at (it happened to me a few years ago, actually).
Quote:
If individuals do not voluntarily help each other, then how do you explain the huge efforts made after the Hurricane Katrina Disaster? If you can explain, then I will provide further examples of individuals voluntarily helping others.
It's far from uniform and driven by propaganda. It's better than nothing, absolutely. The US is huge as far as donations go. But we help big disasters (Katrina, Haitii earthquake, Tsunami) and ignore local stuff. How many of the people who donated to those would help a homeless man? Without looking further, look at what happened at the Republican debate when they asked what should happen to the sick man who went to the hospital? The crowd cheered when some heckler said that they should let him die. I know that not everyone wants to pay for the care of others, but if we paid for some nice cruise missiles, I'll be damned if I'm gonna complain about paying for taking care of my fellow citizens.
Quote:
My apologies if I came off as abrasive. I’ll try harder to use more appropriate language (text can easily be misinterpreted). However, I do not like your answers. They seem to pick apart and distract from my questions. I don’t believe any of my questions have been answered yet.
No harm, no foul. It may be because your questions aren't in sync with what I'm discussing. It may be akin of me discussing farming techniques and you asking what authority do I have to require that we pasteurize milk. Same realm but not the same thing. Maybe I did a better job answering your questions this time.
Quote:
I see ‘liberals’ as promoting ideas that require society hoist up the weakest members at the cost of the strongest. This, in my opinion, is regressive. When I went to high school there was a ‘special ed’ program. Was this program set aside for the brightest individuals such that they can be provided with a superior education that may help them make full use of their talents and abilities? No, it was a program for the student with less than average intelligence who simply doesn’t have the ability to create something of real value for society. How is that progressive?
I hope that it wasn't your intention or message (and you've responded to MrsBowen), but I'm not sure how to take that other than saying that it's a bad idea to slow down the stronger to help the weaker. Think of it all as an elastic. The top goes and it can carry the weak with it, but the weaker can carry inertia as well. Often times, the strong is strong because of the weaker. It's not a independent system everyone depends upon everyone. Corporations become successful because of their workforce and consumers. Nobody wants the successful to fail. Just to not step over everyone in the process. I know that this idea isn't of your liking and that's just fine. It just seems to lack altruism.
Because the well being of the population should be just as important as protection (military and law enforcement) and education. And I'm not talking about top-notch health care, basic one that isn't gonna bankrupt. However, for the 3rd time, a universal system of healthcare and we do not have that in this country. Back home, actually, we have hospitals for the serious stuff and smaller clinics for the less serious stuff. The clinics are funded by the city along with donations from the various neighborhoods and the big hospitals are funded by the government. If you want better stuff, you go to a private hospital with memberships and all larger fees. We're far from that system here, so your argument doesn't apply. Instead of paying for everyone, the system is requiring you to cover yourself so that others don't have to.
Can you please elaborate on the well-being of the population, how it would be addressed and by whom? We do not need to talk about health care specifically and assume there is a system in place to protect individual property rights.
However, for the 3rd time, a universal system of healthcare and we do not have that in this country. Back home, actually, we have hospitals for the serious stuff and smaller clinics for the less serious stuff. The clinics are funded by the city along with donations from the various neighborhoods and the big hospitals are funded by the government.
I’m ignoring your universal health care comment because I don’t see the point. Government funded is no different than individual funded as the government only obtains funds through taxation. Under the new health care system, there will be individuals who receive services for free. If not every member of a population can afford a good, then how can the population afford the good?
If you advocate voluntary help in the real of healthcare, then what about other systems that are funded by everyone (such as police and education). Where do you draw the line? And stop dodging the point. I'm not talking about you specifically. Police services aren't surveillance 24/7 in front of your house. They come when there's a need. A good universal healthcare system would be the same. You don't get airlifted because of a broken pinky, but you don't pay $500 to have it looked at (it happened to me a few years ago, actually).
I think we’re still not seeing eye to eye on this so I’ll try stating this. The responsibility and only responsibility of government should be protection of property rights. That is all. I do not think that individuals have an obligation to each other’s well-being; however, if someone decides to help another voluntarily, I have no problem with that.
It's far from uniform and driven by propaganda. It's better than nothing, absolutely. The US is huge as far as donations go. But we help big disasters (Katrina, Haitii earthquake, Tsunami) and ignore local stuff. How many of the people who donated to those would help a homeless man? Without looking further, look at what happened at the Republican debate when they asked what should happen to the sick man who went to the hospital? The crowd cheered when some heckler said that they should let him die. I know that not everyone wants to pay for the care of others, but if we paid for some nice cruise missiles, I'll be damned if I'm gonna complain about paying for taking care of my fellow citizens.
I think your question of how many individuals would help a homeless man is unfair and, as you realize, cannot be answered. You suggested people will not help each other unless forced and I came up with a counter example to that argument. Clearly, there are instances where individuals will voluntarily help each other. I don’t see it beneficial to go around in circles providing examples for every scenario that comes up where it is suggested one person may not help another. I’d prefer we don’t discuss the republican party nor their antics. If possible, I’d like this to be a philosophical debate rather than a political one.
Maybe I did a better job answering your questions this time.
I have yet to see an explanation for your way of thinking at a fundamental level.
I hope that it wasn't your intention or message (and you've responded to MrsBowen), but I'm not sure how to take that other than saying that it's a bad idea to slow down the stronger to help the weaker. Think of it all as an elastic. The top goes and it can carry the weak with it, but the weaker can carry inertia as well. Often times, the strong is strong because of the weaker. It's not a independent system everyone depends upon everyone. Corporations become successful because of their workforce and consumers. Nobody wants the successful to fail. Just to not step over everyone in the process. I know that this idea isn't of your liking and that's just fine. It just seems to lack altruism.
Can you please explain how the weak have made the strong stronger? Can you be more specific when you say everyone depends on everyone? What do you mean by step over everyone? The top can provide goods and services that will help everyone, not just the weak. Also, on the topic of weak and strong, these are relative measures. If the population of individuals living in poverty were suddenly given enough funding to put them just above the poverty line, would prices not adjust and reset the poverty line accordingly? All that would have been accomplished is rescaling. I would like to leave altruism out of this debate, as it is an overused and often misunderstood term. For example, I have given the money in my pocket to someone living on the street, knowing I needed that money, but did not consider the act altruistic. Altruism is a sacrifice and if a person makes a conscious decision to do something, then it is in that person’s best interest and not at all altruistic.
I think we’re still not seeing eye to eye on this so I’ll try stating this. The responsibility and only responsibility of government should be protection of property rights. That is all. I do not think that individuals have an obligation to each other’s well-being; however, if someone decides to help another voluntarily, I have no problem with that.
Quote:
I have yet to see an explanation for your way of thinking at a fundamental level.
Those 2 quotes show exactly why we're not seeing eye to eye and why you can't see my explanation. You want absolutely the minimum government involvement and hope for the best. We do not have that. We've never had that. We will never have that in our lifetimes. In fact, that doesn't exist anywhere in the world. By that rationale, we should've have government imposing speed limits. We should just trust everyone to be a good driver and hope for the best. Hell no! It's doable but not with the current infrastructure and, most importantly, the education level of the average US driver.
As such, any and all of my explanations will seem moot to you and you'll try to pick and choose what to deconstruct. For me to do that, I'd have to switch to a "hypothetical" conversation to figure out what would be best in this utopia of yours and think of all the possible contingencies (plenty). That would be a crapload of typing, which I'm not doing. We can do that over a beer (which I'd altruistically provide), not a keyboard. There are some topics that are best discussed in depth and text isn't the best for me. Astronomy and theoretics are 2 other subjects that I can't discuss at length over text (we're in an online forum, not a publishing house).
As for the weak and strong, the strong don't get strong by themselves. Did we not learn in school that it's best to work together? In many times, the "weak" can become strong with a bit of help and opportunity. Looking at the big picture, everyone has much more to gain by lifting up the weak instead of leaving them behind. I'm sure that Ranger here can even agree with that, as it's a motto of the military to leave no man behind.
I just had to lighten the mood a little. As a F.A. I spend a lot of time with retirees so this made me laugh. Hope someone else out there gets a kick out of it.
Working people frequently ask
retired people what they do to make their days interesting. Well, for
example, the other day, Liz, my wife and I went into town and visited a
shop.
When we came out, there was a cop writing out a
parking ticket. We went up to him and I said, 'Come on, man, how
about giving a senior citizen a break?'
He ignored us and continued writing the ticket.
I called him an "*******".
He glared at me and started writing another ticket for having worn-out tires.
So Liz called him a "**** head". He finished the
second ticket and put it on the windshield with the first.
Then he started writing more tickets.
This went on for about 20 minutes. The more we
abused him, the more tickets he wrote.
Just then our bus arrived, and we got on it and went home.
We always look for cars with
"OBAMA 2012" stickers.
We try to have a little fun each day now that we're retired.
8Likes
Linear Mode
