Welcome Guest Search | Active Topics | Members | Log In | Register

this is going beyond far and im calling out bullshit! Options · View
She
Posted: Saturday, September 08, 2012 6:14:39 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 3/24/2010
Posts: 2,160
Location: Europe
1ball wrote:


Employers are individuals. An individual is the smallest minority. An individual who is forced to buy contraceptives for someone else always loses. If he is forced to buy abortions or contraceptives or anything else that he is opposed to on moral grounds, he is far more likely to act out of spite against those who force him to buy it. Those kinds of unintended consequences weaken the economy. A weak economy disproportionately hurts women, ethnic minorities and low-skilled labor. The employer has no moral obligation to take broad economic effects into account when he decides a business issue.

Since neither men nor women have a right to employment, this is not a gender issue. A married man who has family insurance coverage for his wife and children is just as at risk of losing his job by forcing his employer to buy contraceptives as a single woman is.

Obamacare is very popular among some because it is a big federal power increase and because it attempts to transfer wealth by coercion from employers (an unpopular minority) and wealthy people (another unpopular minority with significant crossover to employers). These are two minorities that it is inadvisable to alienate. They have legal means of non-compliance that they will exercise out of concern for wealth preservation and out of offense at the notion that they must serve the purposes of others.


Health care system in USA is how it is, here, is slightly different.
I can visit a doctor, he will take my blood, wrote down prescription for my medicine, wrote down referral and I will step out his office without paying shit. Then I will go to pharmacy, take my free drugs and visit specialist. Now, if I want to secure myself, I will pay additional 25 eur per month, just in case if I will be hospitalized, or needed specialist, I can do that. My country health care system is pretty damn good. And hear this, if I want a dentist, I can get one for free to!!! not just me all of us!! I have to wait 1-2 months, but if I have toothache, I can go to urgency dentist, hear this, for fucking free. How long is going to last like this, don't know, but I am 34, and this is how it is my fucking whole life.
What is happening in your country, we call that Discrimination.
But I am soo happy for Americans and how proud most are to live in the greatest country of all countries. "God save America, In God you trust" maybe he can help organize health system.
1ball
Posted: Saturday, September 08, 2012 8:32:25 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 9/13/2011
Posts: 970
Location: United States
MrNudiePants wrote:
It becomes a question of individual morality, though, when you ask yourself "As one of the wealthiest countries on the planet, can't we afford to ensure that each of our citizens has at least some form of basic health insurance?"


Who's this we you speak of when you speak of in your question of individual morality. A moral code is something that must be voluntarily accepted. When you force your moral code onto others, you enslave them. Isn't that immoral in your moral code? You should get very used to the idea that you won't succeed at forcing your moral code on those you wish to enslave. They have non-compliance options to avoid tyranny.

Quote:
We already treat everyone, regardless of their ability to pay - just ask any ER triage nurse. But could it be handled in a more cost-efficient manner if all medical costs for the uninsured were run through some form of government-sponsored insurance plan?


Could this not happen at the state level where excessive generosity would be constrained by the ability of people to move to some other state? We currently have four states where essentially everybody is covered.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Health_uninsurance_rates_in_the_United_States_by_state,_2009.svg

Can the people of California not afford to cover the people of California? Did the EU get it wrong by not centralizing health care for the entire common market?

Quote:
Would it bring the cost for treating the uninsured down? If so, would it then also tend to bring the cost for treating insured patients down?


Unlikely in both cases, if coerced at the federal level. More likely it would result in some form of change of government, either a breakup of the US or the formation of a supernation similar to the EU or possibly a war with neighbors to distract attention away from the crushing debt.

Quote:
I'm not savvy enough about the insurance world to know if it's even possible to untangle the Gordian Knot-like Flying Spaghetti Monster that our health care system has become. I do know one thing - the employer has no business trying to make medical decisions for his employees, like whether or not they deserve access to family planning methods.


Dictating the employer's business to the employer results in unintended consequences. The pooch has already been scrood in the US by centralizing labor law, SS and Medicare. Obamacare is like stepping on the gas as we drive toward the cliff. The people that you wish to force to pay will be flying away in their helicopters and watching the crash from a safe vantage point.


My latest story is too hot to publish. My most recent story before that is Even Stranger In Lust
1ball
Posted: Saturday, September 08, 2012 9:20:43 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 9/13/2011
Posts: 970
Location: United States
She wrote:
Health care system in USA is how it is, here, is slightly different.
I can visit a doctor, he will take my blood, wrote down prescription for my medicine, wrote down referral and I will step out his office without paying shit. Then I will go to pharmacy, take my free drugs and visit specialist. Now, if I want to secure myself, I will pay additional 25 eur per month, just in case if I will be hospitalized, or needed specialist, I can do that. My country health care system is pretty damn good. And hear this, if I want a dentist, I can get one for free to!!! not just me all of us!! I have to wait 1-2 months, but if I have toothache, I can go to urgency dentist, hear this, for fucking free. How long is going to last like this, don't know, but I am 34, and this is how it is my fucking whole life.
What is happening in your country, we call that Discrimination.
But I am soo happy for Americans and how proud most are to live in the greatest country of all countries. "God save America, In God you trust" maybe he can help organize health system.


Are you in one of the EU member countries? If you are, you're free to choose what "national" government you live under from a menu of more than 20 countries. If your country gets too generous, the people who have to pay for it can leave without having to go through immigration hurdles in any of those other countries. In the US, we only have one national government, and if we leave, we have to be accepted elsewhere. That's not a good option for a factory worker, but it's fine for a doctor or a rich person. Those of us who have to stay have 50 state governments to choose from, but the federal government messes around in the states' business and defeats the natural competition between states to provide a competitive level of benefits for their people.


My latest story is too hot to publish. My most recent story before that is Even Stranger In Lust
She
Posted: Saturday, September 08, 2012 9:37:08 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 3/24/2010
Posts: 2,160
Location: Europe
1ball wrote:
If your country gets too generous, the people who have to pay for it can leave without having to go through immigration hurdles in any of those other countries.


My country is not too generous, as I said this system is not from yesterday..for health insurance we/tax-money people are paying for it. So, part of the tax-money goes for heath care, it is well organized, everybody pays, and I haven't heard not a single man to rant why is he paying for contraception pills as well, even though is well known that he is not using one. This is for basic health care insurance, but if I want additional precaution, I can pay those 25 eur monthly so my visits to specialists and possible hospitalization are for free as well. The whole point is how tax money is organized, and on what is that money spent. I guess I can say that we settled our priorities well.
1ball
Posted: Saturday, September 08, 2012 10:01:59 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 9/13/2011
Posts: 970
Location: United States
She wrote:
My country is not too generous,


Because it has to constrain itself from becoming overly generous to the point where productive people leave?

Quote:
I guess I can say that we settled our priorities well.


You can believe that to be true, but there are certainly people there who want the government to pay for more. They are constrained by the possibility that the people who would have to pay for it would leave, or otherwise find a way not to comply. That's the effect of having a labor market size that is greater than the size of the country. If you're in an EU country, your country had to give up some sovereignity in order to constrain the tendency of democracies to demand more and more from the investors and productive workers. It had to agree to let its citizens invest elsewhere and buy goods from elsewhere and go elsewhere to work and live, and the other member countries became places that had to accept your country's citizens into their workforce. What you have can't be compared to the US in any meaningful sense.


My latest story is too hot to publish. My most recent story before that is Even Stranger In Lust
WellMadeMale
Posted: Saturday, September 08, 2012 10:05:27 AM

Rank: Constant Gardener

Joined: 9/30/2009
Posts: 10,301
Location: Cakeland, United States
RobinMaxwell760 wrote:


READ THE BILL!!! Don't get caught in the spin... READ THE BILL!!!

If you don't want to invest the time like I did to educate yourself here's a link that makes short work of it....I know it's Not CNN but it's a source that shows both sides, what a concept!

http://articles.nydailynews.com/2012-05-12/news/31682593_1_religious-freedom-religious-employers-contraception

Stop running on the hyperbole and learn. Information is out there, you don't have to duck for cover because someone yelled " the sky is falling!"

Educate yourself without fear and become someone to follow because you are worthy of leading.
Be honest with yourself and don't follow the other lemmings off the cliff because they seam to know where they are going. Dismiss emotion and embrace logic, follow fact to conclusion and don't fear the truth. You will stand taller, be prouder and be be someone to emulate.. Not dispised as a parrot for others to afraid to be enlightened.

RM


How about you post a relevant url link, Mechanic, instead of a link to another newspaper article? You find the URL which shows the actual .pdf of the bill and post it here for us to read what you've read. Otherwise, stfu - we're on to your spiel.

Arizona House Bill 2625 - Authorizes Employers to Refuse to Provide Coverage for Contraception

Yeah, there's no wording here which requires a person to divulge anything which was legally private before the language of this bill annulled the concept of privacy.

Except that little blurb requiring the employee to first pay for the prescription, then to submit a reimbursement request to the employer with what amounts to a doctor's notice what the birth control pills are to be used exactly for. So yeah, ummm...this is a clear infringement and violation of privacy rights, thanks to the GOP in Arizona, who want to control what the fuck goes on in their employee's bedrooms, lives, etc... And it's fucking embarrassing the rest of the citizenry of this country and appalling most of the rest of the world who might actually give a shit.






If ya can't beat 'em... pay someone to do it for you.
She
Posted: Saturday, September 08, 2012 10:05:36 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 3/24/2010
Posts: 2,160
Location: Europe
1ball wrote:


You can believe that to be true, but there are certainly people there who want the government to pay for more. They are constrained by the possibility that the people who would have to pay for it would leave, or otherwise find a way not to comply. That's the effect of having a labor market size that is greater than the size of the country. If you're in an EU country, your country had to give up some sovereignity in order to constrain the tendency of democracies to demand more and more from the investors and productive workers. It had to agree to let its citizens invest elsewhere and buy goods from elsewhere and go elsewhere to work and live and the other member countries became places that had to accept your country's citizens into their workforce. What you have can't be compared to the US in any meaningful sense.


hahaha, seriously man, this is your respond?

Edit.: and who is leaving where? And are you teaching me what my country did, have to or didn't do to join EU? Are you serious?


Do you need a hug?
1ball
Posted: Saturday, September 08, 2012 10:27:08 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 9/13/2011
Posts: 970
Location: United States
She wrote:
hahaha, seriously man, this is your respond?


Yes. We are currently faced with a feeding frenzy of excessive democracy and the damage it is doing to our economy. If we don't find a way to constrain it, our debt will grow and the country will either explode or implode. The naivete of people who want a national universal health care program is plainly visible in this discussion. They, like you, have the option to move to one of the places where universal coverage exists, but it is still going to be meddled with at the national level and that means that the wealthy and the productive workers will have abandonment and non-compliance options that the rest of the society won't have.

Quote:
and who is leaving where?


At the moment, a lot of capital is leaving here and a lot of foreign capital is not being attracted here. A lot of jobs have already left and a lot of people are unemployed and using their votes to try to enslave people who are still employed and people who have capital.

Quote:
And are you teaching me what my country did, had to or didn't do to join EU?


No, I'm only pointing out how our situations differ in terms of political checks and balances.

Quote:
Are you serious?


Yes. The reason for this Arizona law is to file some of the teeth of Obamacare in order to cut down on the negative economic impact of it.

Quote:
Do you need a hug?


Well, I could always use a good hug from the right person. drunken

My latest story is too hot to publish. My most recent story before that is Even Stranger In Lust
jollylolly
Posted: Saturday, September 08, 2012 10:32:27 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 6/24/2012
Posts: 367
Location: Texas, United States
My insurance policy is being married to a European. If anyone in my family gets a chronic disease, we just pack up and move to Europe, simple as! The rest of you enslaved Americans can enjoy bankruptcy court and wondering whether or not you can pay for desperately needed medicine, lol.
1ball
Posted: Saturday, September 08, 2012 10:40:50 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 9/13/2011
Posts: 970
Location: United States
jollylolly wrote:
My insurance policy is being married to a European. If anyone in my family gets a chronic disease, we just pack up and move to Europe, simple as! The rest of you enslaved Americans can enjoy bankruptcy court and wondering whether or not you can pay for desperately needed medicine, lol.


Ironically, an American can marry a Canadian, move to Canada, and get sent back to the US for medical care under the Canadian plan.


My latest story is too hot to publish. My most recent story before that is Even Stranger In Lust
She
Posted: Saturday, September 08, 2012 10:51:07 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 3/24/2010
Posts: 2,160
Location: Europe
1ball wrote:
We are currently faced with a feeding frenzy of excessive democracy and the damage it is doing to our economy. If we don't find a way to constrain it, our debt will grow and the country will either explode or implode. The naivete of people who want a national universal health care program is plainly visible in this discussion. They, like you, have the option to move to one of the places where universal coverage exists, but it is still going to be meddled with at the national level and that means that the wealthy and the productive workers will have abandonment and non-compliance options that the rest of the society won't have.


Maybe for USA, but it does work overseas, we will see what's going to happen in 3years time, but for now tax-money is paying my health care, and your head will explode when you hear this, our educational system is for free too! And we are in yellow numbers! Figure out, right!We have different political system, and we do not have army that needs taxpayers money..
LadyX
Posted: Saturday, September 08, 2012 11:58:25 AM

Rank: Artistic Tart

Joined: 9/25/2009
Posts: 4,827
Quote:

Hyperbolize much?


I hyperbolize some, yes. It's way more fun than understating things LOL. But I also don't think I'm far off the mark.

You're right, all my responses are propaganda horseshit. You got me. LOL. I'm a liberal collectivist who won't see the light until we're all wearing beige jumpsuits and soluting a supreme communist officer. Yours, on the other hand, are objectivist through and through, with ready-made back-looped answers to any divergent opinion. It's only propaganda if you think it's horseshit. Otherwise it's all truth and wisdom, right?

If I was an objectivist mouthpiece, I'd probably enjoy a similar level of zen on these subjects, I can see that it works pretty well for you. Under the philosophy that you espouse, you don't have to worry about anyone except for yourself and any concept of fairness toward anyone except yourself is categorically thrown out. Throw in some hyperbole about people's bank accounts getting drained, people demanding that people pay for a bunch of stuff, refer everything back to might-makes-right, BAMN, and non-compliance, and ask people who owns their life, and you're ready to roll.

I'm not sure what I believe to be the best specific path on health insurance, honestly. I can see some of the problems with insurance being chiefly provided by employers, but other than a comprehensive nationalized health care system, I don't yet see a reasonable way to transition out of that. So, as long as employers are left to hold the rope, then they have some responsibilities in the way of equality and respect to privacy. Feudalistic control of employees should not be in play.

Quote:

LadyX:
So, some employer wants to make my lifestyle his business based on his ostensible "religious objections"? Fuck that.

1ball:
If he's paying for it, why shouldn't that be his right?


Because employers shouldn't have domain over everything their employees do, yes, including health care policies. We're not talking about employers footing the bill for breast enhancements and facelifts. We're talking about birth control pills. Butthurt employers don't have a viable excuse- whether it be baby jesus or angst over health care reform- to infringe on privacy or to dictate levels of care for employees, let alone only certain employees in this case (females). Your point about the whole thing being an attempted counterpunch to Obamacare? I can see that, but that doesn't make it right, as two wrongs (by your perspective, anyway), never do. I know that per your own worldview, any concept of fairness or right/wrong is thrown out, because whatever benefits ones self is all that matters, but I'll let you remain in your own world there, it doesn't practically apply to a society that demands (yes, rightfully demands) cooperation, shared sacrifice, and responsibility to others.

Birth control pills and right to privacy do not constitute hooking up a hose to people's bank accounts. I reduce it to the small picture because I don't believe an issue such as this is really applicable to the "would comprehensive democratic socialism bankrupt our society poste haste?" narrative/discussion. Also, because I believe much of the 'vortex of collectivism' to be Randian, Plutocratic claptrap.

A corporation, an entrepreneur, a partnership of investors, should not be prevented from making a living, from growing, from accumulating profits with which they do whatever the hell they wish. What they can't do is shirk some level of responsibility to this country, to their state (if state income taxes apply), and generally to the society in which they have an opportunity to ply their trade and prosper. Many, if not most, entrepreneurs don't want high taxes, for obvious reasons, and that's clear logic. But it doesn't absolve them of responsibility, though objectivism and other ways of thinking give them an outlet to believe they do. As a result, an attempt to provide equal care to women under the existing system gets met with hyperbole about masses of lazy parasites demanding payment, and suction hoses on bank accounts.

Nothing is absolute here, we all have to sacrifice something, and there's tons room in the cracks that requires negotiation, tempered idealism, and compromise, but employers have a responsibility here, whether we want to quibble about whether the word 'moral' applies or not. If they choose non-compliance with a whole 'BAMN retaliation' story as their cover, then they'll be doing their part to collapse our society as we know it. Hopefully, they'll be satisfied and will sleep soundly from their beach home in Costa Rica, orthodox objectivism intact. I'm sure they will.

Needless to say, I don't agree with any of that way of thinking, and I reject it. I know you reject most of what I believe as well, and that's cool. Variety is the spice of life.

Generally, It's not about 'my' wants, its about reasonable responsible to society. Define reasonable? Fair enough, but much like a supreme court justices interpretation of pornography, Americans have a basic sense of reason, and we know it when we see it. Objectivists don't agree? That's because it seems an awfully lot like finely crafted philosophic cover for selfishness. Conservatives reject it because it cuts into their bottom line? They're looking after their livelihood, fair enough, but it's a balance we, as a society, have to find.


1ball
Posted: Saturday, September 08, 2012 1:02:29 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 9/13/2011
Posts: 970
Location: United States
She wrote:
Maybe for USA, but it does work overseas,


I'm not sure what you mean by that. If you mean Europe, I've explained that the EU is a check on the growth of entitlements. If we allow centralization of health care, we won't have a similar check.

Quote:
we will see what's going to happen in 3years time, but for now tax-money is paying my health care, and your head will explode when you hear this, our educational system is for free too!


Our is too, up to age 18. After that, the states can do what they want.

Quote:
And we are in yellow numbers!


I don't know what that means. We generally use red ink for debt and black ink for surplus.

Quote:
Figure out, right!We have different political system, and we do not have army that needs taxpayers money.


Defense, one of the functions of a national government, is based on threat assessments. Our spies tell us what they learn and we make decisions based on that. I'm not privy to the intel that drives our defense budget, but I sure wouldn't mind if we charged for the security we provide to other countries.


My latest story is too hot to publish. My most recent story before that is Even Stranger In Lust
She
Posted: Saturday, September 08, 2012 2:11:16 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 3/24/2010
Posts: 2,160
Location: Europe
1ball wrote:

I'm not sure what you mean by that. If you mean Europe, I've explained that the EU is a check on the growth of entitlements. If we allow centralization of health care, we won't have a similar check.

Our is too, up to age 18. After that, the states can do what they want

I don't know what that means. We generally use red ink for debt and black ink for surplus.

Defense, one of the functions of a national government, is based on threat assessments. Our spies tell us what they learn and we make decisions based on that. I'm not privy to the intel that drives our defense budget, but I sure wouldn't mind if we charged for the security we provide to other countries.


Of course you don't know what I meant. I didn't give you not one reasonable fact that you could react on, but that didn't stop you to assume a whole bunch of it. What I did do, is play with you and your cynical and quite arrogant attitude. I only said a couple of facts (health and educational system) about my country, not EU, not Europe as continent, but my country.
So, whatever you have explained, is based on assumptions, and proved me that you will think, no matter what, that you are right. And that is just plain boring.
1ball
Posted: Saturday, September 08, 2012 2:33:33 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 9/13/2011
Posts: 970
Location: United States
LadyX wrote:
I hyperbolize some, yes. It's way more fun than understating things LOL. But I also don't think I'm far off the mark.


I really doubt that you have a greater concern for what happens to lower income people than I do. We just have different ideas, based on different principles, of how best to provide opportunity for them. Almost everything that is done by collectivists serves to damage the economy. Lower income people need a strong economy more than higher income people. The problem with collectivists is their naivete about how government, whose job it is to enable productivity, can put the brakes on productivity by alienating capital and work.

Quote:
You're right, all my responses are propaganda horseshit. You got me. LOL. I'm a liberal collectivist who won't see the light until we're all wearing beige jumpsuits and soluting a supreme communist officer. Yours, on the other hand, are objectivist through and through, with ready-made back-looped answers to any divergent opinion. It's only propaganda if you think it's horseshit. Otherwise it's all truth and wisdom, right?


If I've said anything that hasn't been proven by the history of collectivism, feel free to point it out.

Quote:
If I was an objectivist mouthpiece, I'd probably enjoy a similar level of zen on these subjects, I can see that it works pretty well for you. Under the philosophy that you espouse, you don't have to worry about anyone except for yourself and any concept of fairness toward anyone except yourself is categorically thrown out. Throw in some hyperbole about people's bank accounts getting drained, people demanding that people pay for a bunch of stuff, refer everything back to might-makes-right, BAMN, and non-compliance, and ask people who owns their life, and you're ready to roll.


Regardless of the philosophy you think I'm espousing, I'm giving you (for free even) the logic that defeats your approach to getting what you say you want. I understand what motivates rich people. They have a different moral code than you and they act on that moral code. Your actions have consequences and the rich deliver those consequences when you attempt to impose your moral code on them. Even if I agreed with your moral code, that would not change the results of employing it against the owners of capital and those with high value skills and talents.

Quote:
I'm not sure what I believe to be the best specific path on health insurance, honestly. I can see some of the problems with insurance being chiefly provided by employers, but other than a comprehensive nationalized health care system, I don't yet see a reasonable way to transition out of that.


Me neither. The only viable way is to send it back to the states, but that won't happen because we've already scrood the pooch. The comprehensive national healthcare system is the equivalent of stomping on the gas as we drive toward a cliff. We won't know until we go ever whether we can sew a parachute fast enough to save anything worth saving.

Quote:
So, as long as employers are left to hold the rope, then they have some responsibilities in the way of equality and respect to privacy. Feudalistic control of employees should not be in play.


What should or should not be in play is not something you will be allowed to decide. They have their moral code and you can't force yours on them. That's a reality that, if you fail to adapt to it, will only cause you angst and serve no valuable purpose. It may not seem like it, but everything that I'm telling you is actually helpful to you if you recognize the truth of it.

Quote:
employers shouldn't have domain over everything their employees do, yes, including health care policies.


By virtue of being able to not comply, they do have dominion over much of what employees do, and you can't prevent that. Employers can go on strike, just as employees can. They can choose not to expand. They can lay workers off. They can move jobs offshore. They can go out of business. They can deliberately run their companies into the ground just to spite employees. And you can't stop them. That's just reality. Any tyranny applied against that reality might work for a while on particular employers, but it will alienate others who might otherwise have found opportunity worth risking their capital for.

Quote:
Butthurt employers don't have a viable excuse- whether it be baby jesus or angst over health care reform- to infringe on privacy or to dictate levels of care for employees, let alone only certain employees in this case (females).


They don't need a viable excuse. They have their moral code to fall back on. The Arizona Republicans could argue that they are doing right by the people of Arizona by protecting the state economy from some of the consequences of Obamacare.

Quote:
Your point about the whole thing being an attempted counterpunch to Obamacare? I can see that, but that doesn't make it right, as two wrongs (by your perspective, anyway), never do.


Once again, you don't get to define what is right for an employer. His moral code does that for him, and you can't prevent that. You can make a conscious choice to stop trying to make choices for others, to have the sense to stop trying to do what you can't do, to live within the bounds of the possible, and to recognize when you are beating dead horses and banging against brick walls. I'm presenting the morality you are up against. It is not susceptible to imposed rights.

Quote:
I know that per your own worldview, any concept of fairness or right/wrong is thrown out, because whatever benefits ones self is all that matters, but I'll let you remain in your own world there, it doesn't practically apply to a society that demands (yes, rightfully demands) cooperation, shared sacrifice, and responsibility to others.


Attacking what you perceive my worldview to be is a meaningless pursuit. It won't cause rich people to adopt your worldview. It won't cause employers, religious or otherwise, to stop trying to minimize employee cost. It won't cause productivity enablers (other than governments) to see more potential for reward or less risk of investment.

Quote:
Birth control pills and right to privacy do not constitute hooking up a hose to people's bank accounts. I reduce it to the small picture because I don't believe an issue such as this is really applicable to the "would comprehensive democratic socialism bankrupt our society poste haste?" narrative/discussion. Also, because I believe much of the 'vortex of collectivism' to be Randian, Plutocratic claptrap.


Those who do not learn from history...

Quote:
A corporation, an entrepreneur, a partnership of investors, should not be prevented from making a living, from growing, from accumulating profits with which they do whatever the hell they wish. What they can't do is shirk some level of responsibility to this country, to their state (if state income taxes apply), and generally to the society in which they have an opportunity to ply their trade and prosper.


They can when they believe it makes good business sense. It's not their job to keep the society viable. That's what we have governments for. Governments that disable productivity, even if they do it as an unintended consequence of democracy, are shirking their responsibility. Investors that pull out of an investment are doing what investors do when they sense excessive risk, even if the risk they sense is to something as intangible as "their immortal soul" and even if they sense it mistakenly.

Quote:
Many, if not most, entrepreneurs don't want high taxes, for obvious reasons, and that's clear logic. But it doesn't absolve them of responsibility, though objectivism and other ways of thinking give them an outlet to believe they do. As a result, an attempt to provide equal care to women under the existing system gets met with hyperbole about masses of lazy parasites demanding payment, and suction hoses on bank accounts.


Oh, well <shrug>. You can try to blame Rand if it somehow makes you feel better, but you can add pissing into the wind to beating dead horses and banging against brick walls. There's nothing you can do about her now.

Quote:
Nothing is absolute here, we all have to sacrifice something, and there's tons room in the cracks that requires negotiation, tempered idealism, and compromise, but employers have a responsibility here, whether we want to quibble about whether the word 'moral' applies or not.


They do not agree that they have to sacrifice to suit your purposes just because you're in a bigger gang. You're free to try closing borders, seizing bank accounts, throwing them in gulags or whatever else you think might convince them to see the error of their ways, but you would only be living down to their expectations.

Quote:
If they choose non-compliance with a whole 'BAMN retaliation' story as their cover, then they'll be doing their part to collapse our society as we know it. Hopefully, they'll be satisfied and will sleep soundly from their beach home in Costa Rica, orthodox objectivism intact. I'm sure they will.


That's what a live-and-let-live morality affords them. Recognizing that you can't do anything but live or die within that reality is the path to Inner Peace.

Quote:
Needless to say, I don't agree with any of that way of thinking, and I reject it. I know you reject most of what I believe as well, and that's cool. Variety is the spice of life.


Your rejection changes nothing. They offer you the freedom to reject whatever you want, but they withhold the right to employ your morality against you in self defense.

Quote:
Generally, It's not about 'my' wants, its about reasonable responsible to society. Define reasonable? Fair enough, but much like a supreme court justices interpretation of pornography, Americans have a basic sense of reason, and we know it when we see it. Objectivists don't agree? That's because it seems an awfully lot like finely crafted philosophic cover for selfishness.


And yet it does not seem selfish to you when you try to impose your morality on them? When you take from them and give as charity to yourself and others, you are employing the same morality that the Mafia uses when they run a protection racket. Wealthy people are generally far more charitable than the average person. They have their own standards on who receives that charity, but that is part of their moral code.

Quote:
Conservatives reject it because it cuts into their bottom line? They're looking after their livelihood, fair enough, but it's a balance we, as a society, have to find.


We know the system we need. A weak central government with strong protections for individual rights and state governments that compete meaningfully for capital, workers, and taxpayers. We just can't get there from here, because we can't provide the incentive to the central government unless and until the voters become a whole helluva lot smarter. We are driving toward the cliff with the steering wheel locked. Our choice is to step on the gas or the brake.


My latest story is too hot to publish. My most recent story before that is Even Stranger In Lust
1ball
Posted: Saturday, September 08, 2012 2:38:21 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 9/13/2011
Posts: 970
Location: United States
She wrote:
I only said a couple of facts (health and educational system) about my country, not EU, not Europe as continent, but my country.


Well, I've pointed out the fallacy of any assumption that your country is reasonably analogous to the US. My guess is that it is more analogous to a US state. We have states that provide more benefits than other states, but they have to avoid being so generous that they attract freeriders and alienate taxpayers.

My latest story is too hot to publish. My most recent story before that is Even Stranger In Lust
LadyX
Posted: Saturday, September 08, 2012 3:00:31 PM

Rank: Artistic Tart

Joined: 9/25/2009
Posts: 4,827
Quote:


We know the system we need. A weak central government with strong protections for individual rights and state governments that compete meaningfully for capital, workers, and taxpayers. We just can't get there from here, because we can't provide the incentive to the central government unless and until the voters become a whole helluva lot smarter. We are driving toward the cliff with the steering wheel locked. Our choice is to step on the gas or the brake.


No, you think you know the system we need, same as I think that I do. All of us have our opinions, yet that's all they are. You think it does me no good to believe what I believe because you believe you've seen the light and I'm lost in the darkness LOL. My light looks differently than yours is all. Like almost everything in life, the solutions will have to include parts of both political extremes, peppered with lots more from the great in-between. Debt matters, but how and when we emerge from it is the 60 trillion dollar question. I think that an unregulated free market and a locked-down communistic police state are wildly different yet equally hellish outcomes.

You seem to think you know a lot about wealthy people and their apparently uniform set of morals. Much like many of your espoused theories, I don't give a lot of truth credit to that. I know they want to make and keep as much money as possible, and it's up to the government to, among many other things, place proper regulation so that prosperity benefits, rather than harms, society. The hows and whys of that are what political disagreement is all about, I suppose.

Re: Ayn Rand, I don't blame her for anything. She was a writer, and from what I gather has a lot of sycophants that credit writings her for their personal philosophies. I suspect you might be one? But I really don't know that, it just looks that way based on your comments.

The bottom line for me is that there's no good, insurmountable reason why a balance can't be struck and maintained between regulation, taxation, and worker's rights. There's lots of hyperbole, mine and yours included LOL, but cooperation and reason should prevail. The fact that they no longer seem to I suppose is a product of the difficult times we're in. You'd say those difficult times are a result of the "vortex of collectivism", I'm sure. :) Around and around we go. LOL

Who owns your life?

With regard to this subject, through 150+ posts, I haven't yet found any argument worth buying that changes my mind about meddling privacy invasion re: birth control as covered by private insurance.
oldrascal
Posted: Saturday, September 08, 2012 3:08:28 PM

Rank: Advanced Wordsmith

Joined: 7/6/2012
Posts: 44
Location: Right here, United States
I don't know if someone else posted this yet, but the Arizona senate killed this bill.
LadyX
Posted: Saturday, September 08, 2012 3:25:10 PM

Rank: Artistic Tart

Joined: 9/25/2009
Posts: 4,827
oldrascal wrote:
I don't know if someone else posted this yet, but the Arizona senate killed this bill.


LOL. Then there's that.

Thanks, oldrascal!
1ball
Posted: Saturday, September 08, 2012 3:53:24 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 9/13/2011
Posts: 970
Location: United States
LadyX wrote:
You seem to think you know a lot about wealthy people and their apparently uniform set of morals. Much like many of your espoused theories, I don't give a lot of truth credit to that. I know they want to make and keep as much money as possible,


If that were true, they wouldn't give so much away to charities.

Quote:
and it's up to the government to, among many other things, place proper regulation so that prosperity benefits, rather than harms, society.


If a government doesn't enable productivity, there is no point in making the sacrifices required to have it. People need to be productive to survive, unless they steal from others. If you don't understand the benefits of the rule of law, limits on government, and the protection of minorities and individuals from enslavement by majorities, you'll support governments where those recognized necessities of successful societies fall to excessive democracy. Like now.

Quote:
Re: Ayn Rand, I don't blame her for anything. She was a writer, and from what I gather has a lot of sycophants that credit writings her for their personal philosophies. I suspect you might be one? But I really don't know that, it just looks that way based on your comments.


I think you were just looking for a way to convince yourself that you could safely dismiss what I tell you. I recognize how much of her philosophy and the philosophy of other individualists points out the weaknesses of the might-makes-right morality.

Quote:
The bottom line for me is that there's no good, insurmountable reason why a balance can't be struck and maintained between regulation, taxation, and worker's rights.


The requirement of both short and long term viability in a society requires the balance you speak of. Debt is the enemy of the of long term survivability. Failing to recognize the debt increasing consequences of alienating the people you need to combat debt is naive.

Quote:
There's lots of hyperbole, mine and yours included LOL, but cooperation and reason should prevail.


Coerced cooperation is not cooperation. The thing that prevents coercion is competition from other societies, which gives individuals options. That's why the EU and the US rank so high on the index of economic liberties.

Quote:
Who owns your life?


I do. Compelling me to do something is liable to result in morally justifiable consequences.

Quote:
With regard to this subject, through 150+ posts, I haven't yet found any argument worth buying that changes my mind about meddling privacy invasion re: birth control as covered by private insurance.


If you were paying for the private insurance you would have a point. If you had a right to employment, you might have a point, but you don't.


My latest story is too hot to publish. My most recent story before that is Even Stranger In Lust
LadyX
Posted: Saturday, September 08, 2012 4:10:32 PM

Rank: Artistic Tart

Joined: 9/25/2009
Posts: 4,827
1ball wrote:


I think you were just looking for a way to convince yourself that you could safely dismiss what I tell you. I recognize how much of her philosophy and the philosophy of other individualists points out the weaknesses of the might-makes-right morality.


Nah. I'll just as safely dismiss the portions of your opinion that I don't believe as you will with mine. Though I have enjoyed the back-and-forth.
1ball
Posted: Saturday, September 08, 2012 4:24:39 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 9/13/2011
Posts: 970
Location: United States
oldrascal wrote:
I don't know if someone else posted this yet, but the Arizona senate killed this bill.


So, it was red meat for the base. Positioning for reelection.

My latest story is too hot to publish. My most recent story before that is Even Stranger In Lust
1ball
Posted: Saturday, September 08, 2012 4:26:25 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 9/13/2011
Posts: 970
Location: United States
LadyX wrote:


Nah. I'll just as safely dismiss the portions of your opinion that I don't believe as you will with mine. Though I have enjoyed the back-and-forth.


Me too. Until next time then. Hugs

My latest story is too hot to publish. My most recent story before that is Even Stranger In Lust
MrNudiePants
Posted: Saturday, September 08, 2012 7:26:04 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 8/10/2009
Posts: 2,141
Location: United States
1ball wrote:

Who's this we you speak of when you speak of in your question of individual morality. A moral code is something that must be voluntarily accepted. When you force your moral code onto others, you enslave them. Isn't that immoral in your moral code? You should get very used to the idea that you won't succeed at forcing your moral code on those you wish to enslave. They have non-compliance options to avoid tyranny.


When I wrote "we", I was of course using a term commonly known as the "Royal We". I could have written "we Americans", or I could also have written "we patriots who realize that this country is only as strong as the weakest among us", but instead of all that horse puckey, I just wrote "we", trusting the reader to understand what I was writing about. Insinuating the "we" has any other meaning to it would be not only un-American, but un-patriotic and pedantic. And since this is your first rejoinder to my post, and it because it bears as much relevance to the thread as whale oil does to the Edison lamp, I now understand that you're just being a jackass for the sake of being a jackass. That's all well and good - I wish you the best of luck with it. The world needs jackasses, if for no other reason than to make entertaining television shows. Knowing that the only purpose of your post is to be a burr under the saddle, I'm going to just answer it with the dignity it deserves - nay the dignity it begs for.

flytoomuch
Posted: Saturday, September 08, 2012 8:14:30 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 2/24/2011
Posts: 242
Location: Fremont, United States
Lady X please treasure your time and don't waste it hear debating with fools with entrenched mind-sets. I have worked in cardiology in the USA, Europe and Asia and I can assure you the USA system of healthcare is shit and very expensive for a very poor end product for everyone, except, of course.....like most places....the very rich. However, the above debate ignores the one salient point: the reason the USA cannot afford a strong and decent healthcare program for its people is because it maintains a bloated military budget that exceeds the combined military budgets of the next 10 countries combined. If you don't address this issue, then you cannot address healthcare in any sensible manner. As for Ayn Rand? Read her when you are sixteen and stupid and then go out and experience life, have a few people die of cancer, have a few knocks in life, and then re-read her pieces of shit. Hong Kong had an Ayn Rand disciple for Education Minister in the 50's and as a result 50% of the people from that era cannot read or write. He didn't believe in government sponsored education? WTF? Any basic economic study can prove the overwhelming evidence of the immense value of general education to an economy, one of the best investments a society can make is into education--- not military hardware.
flytoomuch
Posted: Saturday, September 08, 2012 8:15:20 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 2/24/2011
Posts: 242
Location: Fremont, United States
Oh Lady X.....I got distracted....what I had meant to say was: spend your time writing your amazing STORIES!!
1ball
Posted: Saturday, September 08, 2012 8:42:38 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 9/13/2011
Posts: 970
Location: United States
MrNudiePants wrote:
When I wrote "we", I was of course using a term commonly known as the "Royal We".


So you didn't mean to imply that we all need to think like you about what we should expect from our federal government? Because some of us believe that our country's strength comes from the fact that we have diversity in belief, rather than a hive mind, and that we don't all have to accept the common goal you mentioned as a federal responsibility.

My latest story is too hot to publish. My most recent story before that is Even Stranger In Lust
1ball
Posted: Saturday, September 08, 2012 11:01:46 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 9/13/2011
Posts: 970
Location: United States
flytoomuch wrote:
Lady X please treasure your time and don't waste it hear debating with fools with entrenched mind-sets. I have worked in cardiology in the USA, Europe and Asia and I can assure you the USA system of healthcare is shit and very expensive for a very poor end product for everyone, except, of course.....like most places....the very rich. However, the above debate ignores the one salient point: the reason the USA cannot afford a strong and decent healthcare program for its people is because it maintains a bloated military budget that exceeds the combined military budgets of the next 10 countries combined. If you don't address this issue, then you cannot address healthcare in any sensible manner. As for Ayn Rand? Read her when you are sixteen and stupid and then go out and experience life, have a few people die of cancer, have a few knocks in life, and then re-read her pieces of shit. Hong Kong had an Ayn Rand disciple for Education Minister in the 50's and as a result 50% of the people from that era cannot read or write. He didn't believe in government sponsored education? WTF? Any basic economic study can prove the overwhelming evidence of the immense value of general education to an economy, one of the best investments a society can make is into education--- not military hardware.


I love the sanctimony of collectivists. It reminds me of the nuns who were so FOS in catechism.

My latest story is too hot to publish. My most recent story before that is Even Stranger In Lust
WellMadeMale
Posted: Sunday, September 09, 2012 2:38:09 PM

Rank: Constant Gardener

Joined: 9/30/2009
Posts: 10,301
Location: Cakeland, United States


If ya can't beat 'em... pay someone to do it for you.
Hautie
Posted: Sunday, September 09, 2012 3:18:49 PM

Rank: Active Ink Slinger

Joined: 3/4/2012
Posts: 27
Location: Pacific Coast, United States
I just read this and it is beyond a piss off to see such things taking place. I agree with many of the above in thinking WTF!!! How does our women being on birth control make us like the Soviet Union??? I missed something there could someone please explain that to me. I would think that making this a law would make us more like the Soviet Union not less like them.

Angel
Users browsing this topic
Guest 


Forum Jump
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.

Main Forum RSS : RSS

Powered by Yet Another Forum.net version 1.9.1.6 (NET v4.0) - 11/14/2007
Copyright © 2003-2006 Yet Another Forum.net. All rights reserved.