Obama Care

Discussion in 'Anonymous News' started by Neonano, Oct 21, 2013.

  1. 2 words: Conscientious objection website/pages/HistoryNew.htm

    What year were you drafted?
    Conscientious objectors (CO) who believed in a Supreme Being were allowed to register for CO status from the beginning of the Vietnam war. Beginning in 1970, agnostics and atheists were also allowed to register for CO status based on strongly felt moral or ethical objections.

    I guess that if you were an agnostic or atheist before 1970, and you were drafted before that year, then you do have a valid beef with the U.S. government. At least the law was changed before the end of the conflict in 1975. Any atheist or agnostic CO drafted into service who survived until that year could have then registered for CO status and been removed to non-combat duty.

    Re: your comment on directing government spending, I am sure that the government spends more than you pay in taxes on things that you & yours utilize and desire. You should assume that's your money going where you want it to go for those things, be they roads or public education or parks or food stamps or unemployment or Medicaid/Medicare or Social Security or disability or fire protection or whatever it is that the government provides to you and yours at a greater overall expense than your individual tax contribution.

    What you propose is also unconstitutional. "The Purse" is one of the duly elected powers of Congress.

    Your vote alone may not count for much. If you direct your passions to political activism, you can leverage your efforts by orders of magnitude. In a congressional district, that could make the difference between major party candidates winning the seat. At best, U.S. voter turnout in federal elections hovers around 40-60%, depending on the election cycle. Think of all the votes that are just out there, unaccounted, and yet if every single one of them turned out, you'd very easily have a 3rd major party.
  2. Anonymous Member

    The problem with ObastardCare is NOT that it offers affordable insurance to people who need it..

    The problems are;

    - It requires Americans to buy something or be fined.. yes this fine for the FIRST year is only 90$ but it will double, triple and quadruple as years progress.

    - It has forced MANY companies to eliminate full-time positions and replace them will part time positions, in order to dodge the bullet and not be liable for providing benefits. This is causing many to lose jobs.. many to lose hours and many to lose benefits that were once provided by their employer.

    - They hired thousands of new IRS agents to make sure they get their money, but they did NOT hire any more Dr's to handle the increased volume of patients.

    - ACA requires health coverage that was once "mediocre" and cheaper to be upgraded.. You can no longer have "crappy" insurance. When insurance companies are forced to cover more.. they will ask people to PAY more for their services. This is ONE of the reasons it has driven premiums up.

    - Pre-existing conditions can no longer be cause for denial. Good, right? No... The cost of insurance for people with "re-existing" conditions is nowhere near affordable. They can no longer deny you, but they can still make the price so high you cannot afford it. Also, when insurance companies are forced to cover people who are terminally ill or have these "pre-existing conditions" is COSTS them more and also increases premiums for EVERYONE.

    - Thousands of people who were told they could "Keep their Dr and their insurance" have lost their insurance coverage and are forced to either sign up via healthcare,gov or be fined.

    - The whole idea of this law was for people who have more income to pay MORE for their insurance so that a discount could be offered to the people who have less income. This whole idea of "taking from the rich and giving to the poor" doesn't help anyone in the end.

    - 80%+ people going to to sign up are finding out they qualify for medicaid. This vast increase in tax-payer funded medical benefits is going to effect our taxes and much more. DSS can't handle this increase.

    - In this law is a provision that allows the federal government to withdraw owed money directly from your bank account without going to court.

    - In this law there is a provision that allows law enforcement to have access to your most private health information in DETAIL. It side-steps HIPAA laws and regulations.

    In my personal opinion this whole law is a turd that the American people are being forced to eat. There is nothing "affordable" or "good" about it. As far as the website... the obvious incompetence is irrelevant.
    • Like Like x 1
  3. Anonymous Member

    I take it you've never read that voting is a negative externality, like pollution.
    To that quote add the idea of rational ignorance (why spend a lot of time deciding the issues when my vote won't make any difference) and you have the potential for disaster.

    I want to make sure you heard my story. Before I had the right to vote, my government wanted to kidnap me, force me into a Soviet style indoctrination camp, force me into battle where a likely result would be my death or mutilation, and because someone wants to kidnap me my only options are to obey, go to jail, or leave the country of my birth.

    You honestly don't see a problem with that?

    What you are saying is there are two sets of rules in society. One for people, another for government. Please explain how that makes sense. Why does the government get to kidnap, but not you or me, Aren't government powers derived from the rights of the governed? If I can't kidnap you, I don't have the right to ask someone else to do it for me.
  4. At the risk of sounding redundant:

    2 words: Conscientious objection website/pages/HistoryNew.htm

    What year were you drafted?
    Conscientious objectors (CO) who believed in a Supreme Being were allowed to register for CO status from the beginning of the Vietnam war. Beginning in 1970, agnostics and atheists were also allowed to register for CO status based on strongly felt moral or ethical objections.

    I guess that if you were an agnostic or atheist before 1970, and you were drafted before that year, then you do have a valid beef with the U.S. government. At least the law was changed before the end of the conflict in 1975. Any atheist or agnostic CO drafted into service who survived until that year could have then registered for CO status and been removed to non-combat duty.
  5. Random guy Member

    And I appreciate you told me.

    Going up against the system will come at a cost. It always will, no matter what system or the reason one goes against it. Even in benign Scandinavia civil disobedience will land you in jail. I am appalled by the way the US treated people they drafted during the Vietnam war. I am equally appalled the US were in Vietnam in the first place. Did you know Ho Chi Min actually sought US assistance in getting rid of the French colonials with a draft constitution very much like the American one in the first place?

    At the risk of sounding repetitive, the democratic system did eventually work, As Paulrevere wrote above, the rights of the conscientious objectors were expanded, and draft eventually dropped altogether. While the recruitment practices of the US armed forces are questionable, no-one were drafted to go to Afghanistan or Iraque.

    While the cost on you personally was greater than on the common man (and certainly greater then anything I have experienced), I am sure you prefer to live in a place where thieves and robbers are kept in check by the police, rather than you and your neighbours having to patrol the streets yourself. I know I am.
  6. Anonymous Member

    The reason the US went to Vietnam and even Korea for that matter was because of one word: Communism.

    Fast forward to 2001: Why is the US in Iraq and Afghanistan? One word: Terrorism.

    The only difference between these three is because of a name of some arbitrary belief.

    This is why I have a beef against the Republican party. They know that US cits have a button they can press in order for them to follow along. That being fear of some force, whether real or imaginary, coming along and destroying the status quo. They then come along and say shit that boils down to "If you are true US Citizen and believe in the status quo (called "patriotism" in a TL;DR fromat) then you will [Insert goal or bullshit here]". It is a One-Two Punch that most US people get KOed over and have no idea what hit them till we end up in shit like Iraq and Afgan.

    That is because from the get go: Pres. GWB said there would not be one. That was a common fear and rumor floating around a lot of places here in the US.

    However, the draft isn't all together dropped. It still is around, however most of the teeth in it have been pulled. Basically: The draft would get reactivated in the event the US desperately needs such a thing again. Dox:

    The reason there was no draft in the Iraq/Afgan war is because the military had an influx of recruits after 9/11/2001. So having a draft was unnecessary as the military had a fair amount of soldiers on the ready.

    If the NRA has their way, the latter will happen. Keep in mind I use to be a member till Wayne LaPierre got into power and began telling it's members to take the law into it's own hands. Also that people should run towards not away from a shooter and try to take an armed individual out with lethal force despite having no actual training on said tactics.

    TL;DR Dead heroes are still first and foremost dead.

    That aside: Democracy has worked thus far until all of this Republican/Democratic bullshit hit the fan. People are so entrenched with this that they ignore the puppeteers.
    That is why Teabaggers exist: People believe that a conservative ideology is the only way to run this country and ignore the Koch brothers and other rich people that would rather enslave those who are not well off.
  7. The dox you linked also notes the exemption for conscientious objectors. Let's ignore the political hurdles that exist to reinstating the draft. If it were reactivated for Iraq or Afghanistan or some future war, you could still object to combat duty, and get assigned to either conservation, care for the very young/old, health care, or educational duties within the military.

    There was a reason I asked what year you were drafted, and whether you were an agnostic or atheist before that year. It matters because your "catch 22" story ceases to be a "catch 22" unless you can definitively say you were drafted before 1970 and you are/were an agnostic or atheist.

    The fact that you omit addressing conscientious objection sticks out like a sore thumb, and makes me seriously question the rock-and-a-hard-place, catch 22 description of your situation that you initially promulgated.
  8. Anonymous Member

    Umm... I'm not the samefag that said:

    Hint: I was born after the end of the Vietnam war.

    In no way was my post trying to disprove what you stated, because those are valid examples. However, I was trying to point out that the draft is still an option but it'd have to be used in an extreme case.
  9. Anonymous Member

    Again, basic epistemology, never use a concept when you are talking about actual people. Let me translate your above statement:
    Going up against other people who have the artificial authority to shoot you dead is dangerous,

    IOW, the 'System' consists solely of people acting. 'The System' has no independent existence outside the people who comprise that groups.

    58,000 Americans died. 1,100,000 (esitimated) Vietnamese died.
    That is not what I call 'working.' In fact, I'd call that a major system failure,
    I wonder what the dead would have to say to know that 'eventually' the system worked.
    First, that is post 1970. Before that, people, including my uncle, were jailed. Max was in prison for 3 years for being a religious CO.
    I am NOT a CO. I acknowledge that sometimes, killing someone would be the appropriate response.

    The draft starts with being kidnapped. You are all ignoring that, meaning that you believe the State had the right to my body in the first place.

    Plus, the draft laws are still in place, because SCOTUS says the State owns you, or at least your body. Which of course, is the essence of the issue. They have my body. They want my conscience.
    Except it was those people who you assert were keeping the thieves and robbers at bay who were kidnapping me. So, yes, i would rather the people who are protecting my property were not kidnapping my body.

    So, again, you are giving two sets of rules, One in which we follow the rules laid down by the State, and then you have a second set of rules for the State, in which kidnapping young people and sending them off to be mutilated is OK, because 'the State', 'Society' or some group, has decided it is OK.

    I reject that double standard
  10. Anonymous Member

  11. Anonymous Member

    Scaremongering and misinformation work, sadly.

    Check out this smackdown on Joe Barton, who had falsely claimed that HIPAA was being violated:
  12. Random guy Member

    Again you seem to think I'm not thinking. The people would not have acted as they did if they did not have position within the power structure we call a state (in this case "the system"). Had it just been that they threw you in jail or bootcamp out of malice, you would have fought the people. In your case you were challenging the authority of the very power structure they were filling, hence the "system".

    Also, there was nothing artificial about the authority they had. If it was, you could just have walked out of there. As I'm sure you know executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, i.e. voting. The people who authorized the cops to arrest you had a popular mandate, they had been elected into power. Soon thereafter, the "popular mandate" shifted, and the law was changed.

    This brings us to a point we haven't addressed so far: History. What you experienced was the result of a system made to deal with the fight against the Third Reich and Imperial Japan. The Second World War is sometimes called "the last good war", a situation where conscription was a morally, socially and politically acceptable solution. It survived the Koran War, I guess due to its limited scale, but the duration and attrition of the Vietnam War really called it into question as a general political tool, and it was eventually dropped (but kept in the political tool-shed should a world-war like scenario emerge again as you pointed out).

    Some times aspects of a political system turn out bad, and very often that is the result of it being applied to situations it was not designed to deal with or historical change making what was OK yesterday unacceptable today. I am fairly confident we will never see the horrors of the Great War repeated. Not only has the military hardware changed too much, but I am certain a troop of well organized soldiers will simply refuse to go over the top en mass and into the hail of bullets just because the CO says so. Human sacrifice at that scale is simply not acceptable any more.

    In the Great War, Britain lost almost twice the number of soldiers compared to the US losses of the Vietnam War, more than 2% of it's population. It is scant consolation to those who died, but the speed at which the system was changed and the war effort abandoned during the Vietnam period is an indication of the system working. You need to put what happened in it's proper historical perspective.

    If it was 1942, and there had been legitimate fears of a Japanese invasion, would the draft then had been legitimate? It is Hobbs' social contract again. That contract can be abused (I would say it was in your case), but that does not mean the contract cannot be valid per se.

    That is obviously bullocks. The state can legitimately jail a criminal. You cannot legitimately jail anyone. Is that double standards? I'm not saying there is no double standard in connection to this, but you just did what you just accused me off, confusing people and system. The number of sons of politicians who avoided the draft due to dads connections, that is double standards.
  13. Post 1970, you could be an atheist or agnostic CO. Pre-1970, you had to believe in a Supreme Being to be a CO. If your uncle Max was sent to prison for 3 years, and he was religious, it's because he refused any kind of service whatsoever when he was drafted. This is according to the regulations governing COs as I understand them from the links I've provided.

    You are a CO, because you do have a well-thought out, strongly felt objection based on your ethics/morals to the government forcing you to become a trained killer and murder people. You articulated that stance very well earlier in this thread, please don't make me quote you.

    This is more semantics. COs don't have to believe that all killing is wrong, they simply have to have a strong ethical or moral objection to combat service. That doesn't mean you reject the necessity of killing, it just means you ethically/morally object to some aspect of the armed, organized combat between the armies of nations.

    As for the state having the right to "kidnap" you and force you into compulsory, non-combat service - well, at least there was a draft and it was random, and you had a chance of actually avoiding it. Many nations require every male citizen to have 1 or 2 years of compulsory military service - and there is no hope of avoiding it by luck of the draft.

    Having been drafted, there was nothing stopping you from becoming a CO, despite what you have to say about your stance on killing, unless you were an agnostic or atheist before 1970. I will ask again. What year were you drafted? When, if ever, did you become an agnostic or atheist?

    RG makes a good point re: imprisonment for crimes being a "double standard" of state powers that you probably accept. If you don't accept it, then I would like to know how you propose your stateless society deals with criminals in a manner that is just, fair, and consistent while protecting society at large.
  14. Anonymous Member

    What I hear you saying: if enough people agree, then you can violate my god or nature given rights.
    In fact, you seem to be saying that the VOTE is all that is needed to violate my rights.

    Ever heard the saying "voting is to politics as praying is to religion." Voting is a negative externality. In English, that means that I have to pay the price for another person's ignorance.

    That is of course the exact opposite of what our FF said, In the Declaration of Independence they laid out a natural rights position that was the philosophical foundation of the USA. That position was that we have the right to 'life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness'

    I cannot pursue my bliss if I am dead. I cannot have liberty if I'm kidnapped, and I cannot have life if the State deliberately places me in a position of kill or be killed.

    The USA was founded as a constitutional republic. I notice that Sweden is a Constitutional Monarchy. What that means as I understand it is that the executive and legislative power is limited to defined areas. In the USA, that no longer applies, and that is what I object so strenuously to.

    I'd love to discuss WWII, but not here. I disagree with each statement you made concerning it.
  15. This is grounds for you to apply for your choice of CO duties - whether it be in conservation, education, health care, or some other non-combat service. It's a well articulated, ethical/moral objection to being drafted into combat service, based on your understanding of the founding values of your country.

    That you were drafted, by luck, to lose your liberty, is a better option than the compulsory military service that all males experience as citizens of their nations - there was a chance that you had not been drafted, by luck. That you had the option of being a CO is a better option than serving in combat.

    Finally, I can agree that you lost your liberty, but that loss is/was far from permanent. Even the compulsory military service nations limit the extent of the term to a few years - and the draft was no different.
  16. Anonymous Member

    Why do you ignore the kidnapping?

    First, you have to justify the kidnapping. Since there is no way to do so, the CO status should never be an issue.

    Actually, if you believe in the rule of law, then the US draft is far worse than a universal draft. At least with a universal draft, all are equal under the law. It's still slavery, of course, but it's a 'fair' slavery that applies to all, not a lottery that applies to some. Ever read studies about fairness? The system you suggest leads to psychological problems. A lottery system is a truly horrific thing, when it is your life at stake.

    Have you read "The Lottery"? It's short and to the point, and a truly horrific tale.

    I agree that being a slave for two years is better than being a slave for life.
    Why do you think that slavery is acceptable?

    You seem to be justifying kidnapping and slavery, yet I doubt that is your intention. Can you square this circle for me?
  17. You have a habit of using negatively charged terms that are similar but not identical to the circumstances at hand. Let me outline some differences in the circumstances of draftees vs. typical kidnapping victims. Those drafted to serve do so for national defense or some other national interest. Those drafted to serve have the option of CO status. Those drafted to serve have some option as to the type of service they'd like to perform. Those drafted to serve are given room, board, compensation, training, and benefits. In a phrase, it is enforced national service at a reasonable exchange. It is not kidnapping. These extra circumstances, which you fail to note, and which serve national defense or some other national interest, do justify this enforced national service at reasonable exchange.

    A universal draft requires a much larger & more powerful government/military to administrate, organize, enforce, etc. - and I gather that you find a larger government to be less desirable. If you acknowledge the need of governments to enforce recruitment of labor/soldiers for service, but the government's needs/administrative capabilities aren't as large as the entire national population, then a lottery is a fair way to randomly distribute the service.

    Your life is not at stake if you have the option of being a CO. Requiring universal service would be more horrific if the burden can be reduced and fairly distributed among the population by a lottery - then, complete liberty can be preserved for as much of the population as possible. Requiring universal service would also give the military and/or government powers that many would find unreasonable.

    Yes, I have read The Lottery. I have also outlined many ways in which the circumstances of draftees are different than you describe, and I'd add that they are wholly different from those in The Lottery.

    Back to these negatively charged terms - this time it's "slave," and "slavery," when the circumstances are wholly unlike those of a slave. See the first response above for some ways in which the circumstances of draftees are unlike those of slaves. I am justifying enforced national service for the purposes of national defense (or some other national interest), at reasonable exchange. I would further apply the caveat that I don't think the draft should be reinstated unless there is a credible existential national threat - I am happy we have gotten rid of the draft for the time being, and also happy to say I don't think we'll be reinstating the draft any time in the foreseeable future.
  18. Anonymous Member

    I call it slavery because it is. You are so used to accepting the government redefinitions of concepts (theft becomes taxes; slavery becomes national obligation) that you neglect to note th trick that's been played on you.

    It's all the more sad since you'd see through our favorite cult in a minute if they did that. But since your cult does it, you are blind to it.

    Paul, please explain the moral principle that allows you, or your elected representatives, to decide where my body should be.
    Please explain the moral principle that says it is your right to put me in indentured slavery for a period of time.
    Please explain the moral principle that gives you the right of life or death over me.

    Daniel Webster, in 1814
    That was Daniel talking about the draft.
  19. Tautology is invalid logic.
    You are so used to broadening concepts to encompass ideas that don't belong that you think taxes are theft and that national obligation is slavery. No trick has been played on me. I accept the vocabulary because I see a distinction in the meanings of the words. I'm not going to outline the differences between "taxes" and "theft," because you didn't bother to address the significant differences between draftees and kidnap victims that I have noted.

    I got to vote for the representatives in the government. I can call or email the offices of my elected federal representatives whenever I want, and there is a chance that if I convince enough other people to contact said representatives with the same message, I can expect a change in policy even before an election. I can do that without fear of retribution. In fact, enough people managed to do that in the 60's and 70's that an end was brought to the draft.

    Social contract. RG has written eloquently about this principle.

    Not my right, but the right of the government's, and again, social contract.

    I never espoused this principle, nor do I espouse it for the government. That's why I keep bringing up conscientious objection. It's disingenuous of you to continuously use negatively charged terms & phrases ("right of life or death over me,") and then to imply that I advocate for them.

    I notice he didn't use the words "slavery" or "kidnapping."
  20. Random guy Member

    The problem with a social system, any social system, is that it is a cooperative undertaking. Unless one want a social system (="state") to limit itself to extremely basic forms, someone in that society will at some point disagree with the majority view on some undertaking. Further up, you asked if your godgiven rights can be violated if enough people agree. The answer again must be how to deal with a criminal. Throwing him in jail, while not a threat to his life, is still taking away his liberty and ability to pursue happiness. Are we right to jail people? What are the alternatives?

    Any social group who aspire to more than a tribal existence, will by necessity have to pool their resources to build and maintain infrastructure and social functions. The example of the colonization of American by European where people were able to live fairly free life with arguable better life quality than a caveman is moot, it was only possible given rapid expansion of the settlements. Notice too that the "free existence" came at the cost of infrastructure. Settlers had to do with paraffin lamps and burning wood for heating, it you wanted gas heating and electric lights, the city was the only options.

    When a society starts investing in infrastructure and social structures people will have to pay to some sort of fund. Not all will want to pay their part, even if the parts each pay is calculated fairly. Here's where social sanctions come into play. You call taxes theft, but what are the alternatives? No set taxes means anyone who want to can skip on paying for the common good. I don't think you are particularly miserly, greedy or amoral (quite the opposite), yet you would by your own statements refuse to pay for a lot of the social programs of the state if you could. What if all were like you? The funds to do anything would dry up quickly, leaving you to pay the garbage man, sewer services, road repairs, police etc directly. Do you want to live in a world where you will have to pay the police to come when you have burglars at your door? I certainly don't.

    Military service is a necessity when the social structure are threatened by more that the police can deal with. When a social unit need more people under arms than those few who would willingly risk their life in the battlefield, you need to force someone to go. The alternative is to hire contract soldiers. It has been tried, and the result is usually not pretty. What is to stop mercenaries from swaping side if the other part offers more? What is to stop mercenaries extending conflicts to get paid? What is to stop mercenaries becoming very well armed and well trained bandits when the war is over? The answer to all those question is to have a regular army, and sometimes that army have to be drafted. The question then becomes what do you do with those that refuses, not as COs, but because they don't want loose a year of education or work or whatnot.

    It is pity you refused to discuss the influence of the 2nd World War on the draft question, because I believe therein lies the key to understand why you were drafted in the first place. I come from a society that had general military service based on the experiences of the war. COs were sent to do civilian service (also learning first aid, putting out fires and other wartime-relevant skills), but those who argued the hardest against military service were well off kids who stood to loose a year of their lawyer or business education or loosing financially by not taking a job in dad's company. It was really hard to sympathize, they were the ones to gain most by the protection of the society, yet the ones least willing to sacrifice a year to serve it. Now, of paying taxes were voluntary...
    • Like Like x 1
  21. Anonymous Member

    I will concede that 'indentured servitude would be a better definition
    except of course, I never signed a contract. You'd say "the social contract" and yet I already explained that didn't apply to me since the government had forbidden me to vote, negating this social contract you say binds me.

    In 1953 the US overthrew a democratically elected government, so even your government doesn't believe your assertion that the social contract is valid. Don't even bother telling me there is an implicit contract--a contract where I can be killed has to be explicit. Neither society nor government has the right to my life.

    This fits what you are asserting, namely that because of an accident of birth I owe a particular set of people an unknown debt, that I must make a sacrifice, ranging from a temporary loss of freedom to loss of life.
    What imposes this debt on me? Society? Government? Who imposes this obligation on me?

    You seem to be saying the government imposes this obligation, but that is not true. As I've said, government is a concept (which you haven't quite grasped, you think it has an existence outside the people who comprise said government). You also implicitly exempt certain classes (females, lucky lottery winners) from having to present themselves for this sacrifice.

    In law, we don't say that "the crip gang is responsible for this murder" we say "Al, Bob and Carl, members of the cripp gang" since we recognize that only individuals act.
    I extend that to all acts. Only people act. When you say 'government' did it 'or 'society', I say, "people acting in the name of government" which is the same as "people acting in the name of the godfather" or "people acting in the name of God"

    Your concept of government is 'the Divine Rights of Kings" changed to "The Divine Rights of Government"

    all you do is assert that government can do acts that are forbidden to the people who they derive their powers from. Any rational person will reject that formulation. If I can't kidnap, my government can't kidnap in my name.

    Vietnam is pretty universally looked at a stupid, disastrous war. Your policy would punish me for understanding this sooner, and better, than the so called leaders did.

    We were led down the garden path by the 'best and the brightest' who turned out to be bloodthirsty monsters who sacrificed 1.2 million people to their egos. So, that is what the draft is, this supposed debt we owe, is used to empower big egos who get to play the Great Game, moving chess pieces around teh world in a bizarre display of power masquerading as patriotism.

    I don't know what else to say at this point. If you think you owe some debt to people because you are alive, I'd say you have been thoroughly indoctrinated into the government mindset of "if some person in a blue costume tells me to do something, I must obey. If my dear leader tells me i have to buy health insurance, well, Father Knows Best. If the leader tells me to kill, I will kill."
    thanks for the conversation
  22. Anonymous Member

    what I said was that was a topic for another conversation. I'd be happy to talk about it anytime.
  23. Anonymous Member

    I feel I should explain a certain concept. Maybe that will help explain where i am coming from
    The term is methodological individualism:
    This is why I insist that there is no such thing as 'government', but only people acting in the name of government.
    When you learn to look at society and human action this way, it changes how you view the world.
    Only humans act, therefore to understand the results, you must look at the individual actors.

    Let me give you an example. WWII. For us in the US, FDR dominates the war, hence I would study him to learn what his prejudices where, what his aims and goals were, I'd learn that he liked the Chinese and hated the Japanese, and know that that is important, his prejudices might have altered the course of the war, or even helped to bring it about. I would not think that WWII would have happened as it did if FDR had not been president.
  24. Random guy Member

    Methodological individualism is a term from economy, it has limited application outside that field. It alo has limited potential within economy. Quote Wikipedia:

    Economist Mark Blaug has criticized over-reliance on methodological individualism, "it is helpful to note what methodological individualism strictly interpreted...would imply for economics. In effect, it would rule out all macroeconomic propositions that cannot be reduced to microeconomic ones...this amounts to saying goodbye to almost the whole of received macroeconomics. There must be something wrong with a methodological principle that has such devastating implications

    Coming from a state run quite well through macroeconomic considerations, I can fairly say methodological individualism cannot be universally useful. True, there are limits to the view of "the state as an individual", but there's also limits to the view as "the state as a number of single individuals".

    The view that single persons are the driving force in history has been abandoned by historians since the war (I used to date a historian). It would be more useful to look at US' economical interests to understand the US-Japanese war in the Pacific. That, and Pearl Harbour is a kind of a giveaway.
    • Like Like x 1
  25. Anonymous Member

    To be honest RG, I think you're giving this person way too much leeway. They only brought this shit up as a response to getting nailed over their ignorance of international health care systems, their gross distortions of history, their blatant semantic sleight-of-hands, etc. etc.

    The phrase describing their behaviour is 'Gish Galloping'.
  26. Anonymous Member

    It's also used in history. See Niall Ferguson, and it us also used as the basis for law, so I don't see that it has limited utility. To understand an action you must consider the actor. That is what it is saying. Also, Max Weber was a sociologist, not an economist; he felt it had utility in his field, sociologoy.

    It still comes down to conscience. What I take from what you and Paul are saying is that the government, that is to say, other people, can trump my conscience, and force me to make decisions where the only choice to is violate my conscience or the law. I do not see how that can be a just act.In fact, I consider it to be a crime. "Kill or be jailed" is not exactly the most moral of statements.

    You have stated explicitly that the government has the right to use my body for its purposes because I owe a debt to the government, hence indentured servitude is an acceptable way to pay off that debt.

    Do you really believe that? Does the act of being born and reaching a certain age impose a debt on us that we must pay through servitude to others? And this debt has no set terms, meaning it could cost me just time, or a limb, or a life. IOW, it's a contract with no consideration on one side, hence invalid on the face of it. If I don't know what my obligation is upfront, I can't be contracted to an open ended obligation. And i especially can't be held to an implicit contract, since that violates the very meaning of contract.

    To call on the 'social contract' as justification is to invalidate the very meaning of 'contract,' which is an explicit meeting of the minds. You use the word 'contract' in a different meaning, a meaning unique to this phrase.
    (There is such a thing as an omplicit contract, for instance, ordering a meal at a restaurant or going into a doctor's office to be seen. But those take positive actions on my part to be valid--I ask for a service.)

    To reiterate, what I hear you saying is that society is more important than the people who comprise said society. SInce society is nothing but those people, you are saying an idea is more important than people. I call bullshit.
  27. Hi that is a funny AND. good term other than the fact. I am german, canadian,french,irish,english and. considering term nazi is to nice a wor for him. How about the one egyptian king who used to feed th babies to alligators. Yum yum
  28. LivingFeral Member

    Obamacare is a symptom of the sickness with is the healthcare system (no pun intended) If obamacare actually made heathcare AFFORDABLE then there would be no need for it. It can cost an average of 150$ just to walk into a doctors office and upwards of 400$ to walk into an emergency room. I have a medication that I have to take monthly that without some kind of insurance would cost me 782 dollars for a months supply. What part about those costs is affordable in any reality? The healthcare and pharmaceutical companies are making millions off people because people rely oh comprehensive and safe healthcare. If you really want to talk about reform, a better place to start would be where the problem begins and that is within big business,
  29. Anonymous Member

    Diseases including of course Bacteria or Viruses know no Socioeconomic boundaries. So in our present age of jet travel for one. Where disease can easily move and infect a populace why try to stop anything.

    However for those with insurance remember when your child or loved one is dying from a preventable disease you elected not to engage. To hell with the poor, unemployed or those lacking in benefits to get health insurance.Darwinwill step in and remove human beings without any remorse. Yet your husband, wife, child etc may be a casualty.

    Many infectious and deadly diseases are reappearing with deadly consequences so have at it screw the disenfranchised. InAmericathere are an estimated 45 million uninsured with the latest information. Still they can go to our emergency rooms spreading disease that will easily kill any human being. They can use public transportation Taxi, Bus or planes for example. Their income level will not have any effect on the ultimate death of the infected party.

    So there are many arguments to be made I have insurance yet I prefer my loved ones not die from a preventable disease.

    I am insured I will be treated and cared for yet in my opinion the greatest threat to this planet is the Homo-Sapiens that inhabit the Earth. The more rapid their extinction the better so to the hell with everyone else let's just let disease kill everyone.

Share This Page

Customize Theme Colors


Choose a color via Color picker or click the predefined style names!

Primary Color :

Secondary Color :
Predefined Skins