Question for libertarians & conservatives

Discussion in 'Political Opinions & Beliefs' started by Patricio Da Silva, Sep 23, 2021.

  1. LiveUninhibited

    LiveUninhibited Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2008
    Messages:
    9,419
    Likes Received:
    2,856
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Healthcare was more likely to be helpful rather than harmful starting around 1900 on average. Progress had been accelerated by the civil war or else it may have been later.

    For a war, yeah. One could say that about guns only in the sense that somebody must be ready to defend freedom, though it’s not primarily about guns now like the revolutionary war. All enjoyment hinges on basic health. Most people enjoy freedoms while never touching a gun.

    Some things naturally follow from another, and circumstances change. The government must provide military equipment to defend life and liberty from larger enemies, and so it must provide public health and healthcare to defend life and liberty from our smaller enemies.
     
  2. Patricio Da Silva

    Patricio Da Silva Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2020
    Messages:
    31,241
    Likes Received:
    16,929
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    You, and conservatives and libertarians make the classic mistake of personalizing the argument.

    the disparity I pointed to, data garnered from the Federal Reserved, Q4 tables, has nothing to do with 'work'.

    You can't 'work' for $128 billion dollars, where you wealth accrued some 400% in 6 years, the case with many billionaires.

    Bezo's wealth went from $50 billion or so in 2014, to almost for times that by 2020. He didn't 'work' for that money.

    He was in a position of concentrated power whereby he can manipulate markets to his advantage, not pay taxes, etc.

    There are other forces at play which cause it, so we need tax policies, or other policies, to try and get a handle on the gap.

    It's getting out of hand. And, as long as you think like you do, it will continue to widen .

    The difference between liberals and conservatives is that conservatives don't see the forest, don't see the problem. They don't even believe it is a problem.

    Liberals see the forest, and consequently the problem, and it most certainly is a problem.

    I don't know if taxation is the right way to solve the problem, but the problem has to be addressed, and the totally free market isn't addressing the issue, it is the reason for the issue. I'm not saying end free markets, not saying that at all, and I am not a communist and I resent those insinuations. But, many on the right have been calling us that for longer than I've been alive ( 70 years ).

    One particular 1%er --investment banker-- has addressed it, Nick Hanauer. I'm looking at his solutions. He has a number of lectures and interviews on YouTube.
     
    Last edited: Sep 25, 2021
    Lucifer likes this.
  3. Bluesguy

    Bluesguy Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2010
    Messages:
    153,325
    Likes Received:
    38,996
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    So what?
    There was no healthcare in 1787? No hospitals? No doctors? No medicines?

    Your right to keep and bear arms is not contengent on a war. So is the government obligated to supply me a gun son I can exercise my right?

    The SCOTUS has ruled unequivocally that the right to keep and bears arms is a CITIZEN right nothing to do with the military. Try again. And healthcare has nothing to do with it either.
     
  4. LiveUninhibited

    LiveUninhibited Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2008
    Messages:
    9,419
    Likes Received:
    2,856
    Trophy Points:
    113
    That's the entire point. Who cares if there's access to healthcare if it doesn't work.


    Citing current law is irrelevant to discussing what law should be.

    Guns are not at all similar to healthcare. Healthcare is different from any other sector in the economy really.
     
    Last edited: Sep 25, 2021
  5. Sappho

    Sappho Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2020
    Messages:
    193
    Likes Received:
    108
    Trophy Points:
    43
    Thanks Crank and melb muser...

    Now, I see that many on this forum are a little disgruntled with the idea of paying taxes to cover the consequences of people who make unhealthy lifestyle choices. But they should be free to do that, I mean, even the healthy sometimes make unhealthy choices... but let me guess... that's different, Yes? All of which is perfectly irrelevant.

    The goals of a society are not the same as an individuals goals. Nor are the goals of a business, or corporate the same as an individual. Now we know that society wants, amongst other things, for a functioning economy and that Laissez-faire capitalism is the preferred method, in the West, of achieving that goal.

    Now, Laissez-faire capitalism requires a healthy and educated source of labor to exploit and given that it is for the profit of private enterprise, it is reasonable to expect the user to pay and not the employee.
     
  6. crank

    crank Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2013
    Messages:
    54,812
    Likes Received:
    18,482
    Trophy Points:
    113
    1) Sure, but there's a fairly common baseline for responsibility in the context of a mutually interdependent family. Don't be an addict, a flake, toxic, unreliable, unstable, or lazy. If you're pulling your weight and proving yourself a stable and dependable person, that's ALL you need to do. How you colour that is entirely your own choice. In the meantime, sacrifice is essential for any 'collective' type of social structure. It's the price we pay for the benefits of lifelong support.

    2) A responsible elderly person (again, 'responsibility' isn't complex in this context) will respectfully hand over the reins to those better equipped, once they are no longer able to make good decisions for themselves or keep themselves safe. And a functional family doesn't leave elderly people with 'no one around to judge or disapprove'. It's not about judgement, it's about taking charge when the person is no longer able to function in full independence. If they need help with medical appointments, paperwork, legal stuff, banking, technology, transport, household chores, etc .. they are no longer in a position to demand full independence. They have reached a point where they are a danger to themselves. Our culture is disastrous in its dismissal of the elderly, which has incidentally created a habit in the elderly of behaving like stubborn toddlers who refuse to adapt to their circumstances - whereas other cultures understand that it's a cycle. We start life needing lots of help, and we end the same way. In between those two phases is when we do all our 'helping'. As many non-Westerners say .. birth to 25 you get help - 25 to 65 you give help - 65 til death you get help. It all balances out perfectly. Our middle years are the giving years, and the 'in charge' years. That's when we're responsible for the young and the old. It's their turn to lean on us while we are in the giving years - just as we had our turn to lean, and will again if we're lucky enough to make it past 65.
     
    Last edited: Sep 25, 2021
  7. crank

    crank Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2013
    Messages:
    54,812
    Likes Received:
    18,482
    Trophy Points:
    113

    With respect, being morbidly obese takes a LOT more than an occassional bad choice. As does habituated smoking.
     
  8. btthegreat

    btthegreat Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 30, 2010
    Messages:
    16,378
    Likes Received:
    7,057
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Well that is one arrogant post!
    1. Its not your call to tell anyone to 'hand over the reins' that is the job of the courts. .
    2. Where the hell are you getting this idea that these old people are not making 'good decisions' for themselves? This is how they want to enjoy their last phase, then that is a good decision for them. They are grown ass adults. They have as much of a right to smoke, drink booze. hold a stressful job and eat that bacon cheeseburger as anyone else does even if its against medical advice and even if it leads to expensive ICU bills that they can't afford to pay.. Most older Americans don't want to be coddled, or nagged or 'taken care of'. They are in charge of their lives and their medical care and that is how they want it to stay. With all those decisions, comes the responsibility of paying for them. And that is what they will do - as long as they can. Their family has one job and that is to support and love them, not take their autonomy away from them. Their lives, their medical decisions and their obligation to do their best to pay for them. Once they go... take what you can from the estate. But if I as a son, did not sign on a dotted line to be contracted to pay someone else's bills, and I did not make the decisions surrounding the care, then I won't be paying.
     
    Last edited: Sep 26, 2021
    RodB likes this.
  9. Sappho

    Sappho Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2020
    Messages:
    193
    Likes Received:
    108
    Trophy Points:
    43
    Corporates don't care, so why should you? With the right medications, the obese can and are used by capitalist to make profit and they care about that! It is only fair and just that business and corporates pay for the health and education of the of those they wish to use to make their profit! And again, given that business want to use society for their personal wealth acquisition... User pays!
     
  10. FAW

    FAW Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2008
    Messages:
    13,003
    Likes Received:
    3,845
    Trophy Points:
    113
    So let me get this straight.......You think that instead of evaluating government policy based upon how it effects me (personalizing it), I should evaluate it based upon how it effects Jeff Bezos?

    I am sorry, but to me, that sounds downright silly.

    I said the Marxism comment specifically because you said "according to their ability to pay", which is a statement straight out of the Karl Marx playbook.
     
  11. Patricio Da Silva

    Patricio Da Silva Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2020
    Messages:
    31,241
    Likes Received:
    16,929
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    That's an issue for the FDA. They approve of foods not based on nutritional value, but based on whether or not a particular food is injurious.

    What the FDA has done is require notional data to be put on labels. This leaves it up to individuals to pay attention to labels. Naturally, given what is known about human nature, most will ignore the labels.

    Then politics comes in. The snack food industry has a HUGE lobby, who donate to campaigns, and how do we expect congresspersons and senators to go against their donors? Hell, we have a spineless senate who refused to convict a clearly impeachable president, who did not convict because they were afraid of Trump directing his base to vote them out of office, how can we expect same to act honorably towards their donors?

    So, the problem isn't with food or the FDA, the problem is the lobby / donor system

    That is the first point of attack for any reform to begin on food, and anything else.
     
    Last edited: Sep 26, 2021
  12. Patricio Da Silva

    Patricio Da Silva Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2020
    Messages:
    31,241
    Likes Received:
    16,929
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Your view is arrogant and elitist and is headed for the dustbin of history.

    You are not the arbiter of who is, and who is not, competent in terms of the vote.

    All the more reason for getting rid of the electoral college and going with the popular vote.

    When the EC was created, all states were predominantly rural. The EC was created solely for giving the smaller states a stronger voice.

    What has evolved is a country with two basic factions, rural (leaning right) versus urban (leaning left). That (and the idea of left vs right) did not exist when the framers designed the constitution and the electoral college. It is reasonable to assert that if it did exist back then, the design would be different.

    What the EC does now is give the minority more individual voting power than the majority.

    Therefore, the governing principle of democracy, which is, and always has been, 'one person, one vote', is no longer true.

    Given the evolution of a much larger country, and how now the disparity of individual voting strength has arisen thus, the only way to
    go back to 'one person, one vote' is to get rid of the EC. Or, at the minimum, tie the win to the popular vote.

    As to who is 'competent' and who is not competent, there is no way to arbitrate that. Who would be the arbiter? You? Someone on the right? Someone on the left? Hell, I could make same argument about the vast majority who voted for Trump, that, since he is incompetent, anyone who voted for him, therefore, must also be incompetent, and then you would make the same argument against me as I am making against you. No, the only course we can take is to grant everyone who is eligible to vote the same treatment. There is no other way.

    Given that the country is moving, ever so gradually, more and more to the left, it is inevitable that that day will come that the popular vote will be the deciding factor as to who becomes president.
     
    Last edited: Sep 26, 2021
  13. HB Surfer

    HB Surfer Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2009
    Messages:
    34,707
    Likes Received:
    21,899
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Should we put the fat people that come down with CV-19 in the back of the line?

    They are more of a danger than the unvaccinated and far greater in numbers.
     
  14. Patricio Da Silva

    Patricio Da Silva Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2020
    Messages:
    31,241
    Likes Received:
    16,929
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Hold it right there. Now, let's get something straight, it has to do with a little thing called the 'US Constitution".

    Per the US constitution, the government has a legitimate claim on a portion of income.

    A 'claim' means it's NOT 'your money', nor is it 'confiscated' which implies theft, which it is not, given that that money belongs to the government.

    Your being a US Citizen, and your not refusing your citizenship implies consent of the terms of the constitution.

    Every foreigner , in order to become a US Citizen, swears and oath to become a US Citizen. They give verbal consent to the terms of the constitution.

    That oath is given implied consent by every naturalized citizen by virtue of their not refusing or giving up their citizenship.

    If foreigners seeking US citizenship must give verbal consent to the terms of the US Constitution, so does everyone else. And since everyone else were naturalized, not having to give a verbal swearing to the constitution, the fact that you or anyone refuses to give up your citizenship implies consent to the terms of the constitution.

    Therefore,

    You can say I"m against taxpayer funds being spent on........ or "I'm against government spending on.....blah blah." Or, I'd even accept 'our money' (because it is collectively owned by everyone, 'we the people', etc.)

    But, per the US Constitution, you cannot say 'my money' or assert that your money was 'confiscated' since that implies theft, which it is not.

    Or, you can say it, it's just that you are wrong.

    It's not your money. It's everyone's money, it's the taxpayers money, as a collective body, which IS the government.

    Your money is that portion of income not claimed by the government. You can spend YOUR MONEY anyway you choose.

    As for government taxation funds, how it's spent, that is determined by elected officials. It all goes back to democracy ( however imperfect ours is ).

    Now, you can complain it's too much, or it's not being spent the way you want, but, note that, well, welcome to the club.

    Everyone has that complaint. Spending policy, by it's very nature, cannot please everyone. What you like, someone else doesn't, and vice versa.

    Welcome to the club, you know, that particular club called.......

    Democracy!
     
  15. Patricio Da Silva

    Patricio Da Silva Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2020
    Messages:
    31,241
    Likes Received:
    16,929
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male

    Yeah, I just don't know. I hope those who make these decisions are making the right decisions.
     
  16. Patricio Da Silva

    Patricio Da Silva Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2020
    Messages:
    31,241
    Likes Received:
    16,929
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    You'll need to provide evidence for 'isn't some', it's many'.
     
  17. Patricio Da Silva

    Patricio Da Silva Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2020
    Messages:
    31,241
    Likes Received:
    16,929
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male

    On your last two sentences, do you have evidence of these?

    The problem with comparing other countries, you have vastly different demographics where, say, in africa, malnutrition is vastly out of proportion to the US.

    Therefore, comparing US to other countries, you should confine your comparisons to western developed nations.
     
  18. Patricio Da Silva

    Patricio Da Silva Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2020
    Messages:
    31,241
    Likes Received:
    16,929
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Well, the problem becomes, 'how do you deny care to those whom you believe are getting sick due to lifestyle choices? how is this determined?

    Do they fill out a form declaring what their diet is? Wouldn't they, once the get wise, start lying on the application?

    There is this thing called the hippocratic oath. Do we create policy that violates it? wouldn't, for example, denying care to smokers violate this oath?

    I don't know. You tell me.
     
    Last edited: Sep 26, 2021
  19. Patricio Da Silva

    Patricio Da Silva Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2020
    Messages:
    31,241
    Likes Received:
    16,929
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I would support the campaign, because we were successful with cigarettes.

    It could be done in a way that is tactful. Not shame fat people, but advocate a healthy life style ( which would reduce weight without even coming right and and saying it ).
     
  20. Bluesguy

    Bluesguy Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2010
    Messages:
    153,325
    Likes Received:
    38,996
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    It worked as well as it did then and now. My healthcare works for me why not you?




    Of course it's relevant and you are talking RIGHTS. Your claim is that if we have a right to something then government must supply it even if it is NOT a right stated in the Constitution but one you declared. I pointed out a specific enumerated right. So if the government has an obligation to supply you with one you made up why not an enumerated specifically protect one?
     
    RodB likes this.
  21. Bluesguy

    Bluesguy Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2010
    Messages:
    153,325
    Likes Received:
    38,996
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Good grief MOST people get their healthcare through those corporations and companies which include health life style benefits what are you talking about? And you sound like you believe "corporations" and "business" are some kind of monsters which come up out of the swamp and rule us and the world. Corporations and businesses are just PEOPLE. They have the same interest as you.
     
  22. Patricio Da Silva

    Patricio Da Silva Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2020
    Messages:
    31,241
    Likes Received:
    16,929
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    You have to be careful when analysing statistics.

    Covid killed people before there were vaccinations.

    So, at that stage, the ICU count is going to be high.

    Once a large swath of the population is vaccinated, fewer vaccinated are going to die, and the ICU and death stats are going to be higher for the non vaccinated.

    No, I didn't say that. I merely used Bezos to illustrate that a vast majority of the 98% of wealth owned by the upper 50% has nothing to do with 'work', not the bulk of it, anyway. Now, I'm all for affluence and fruits of labor, but here we have a gap being widened by forces having nothing to do with work, and so it must be addressed, as a social policy not based on you any individual, but based on the aggregate fact.
     
  23. cabse5

    cabse5 Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2013
    Messages:
    7,217
    Likes Received:
    2,271
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    You mean the decisions like shutting down economies, shutting down social groups and shutting down people psychologically? Over approx. 25% at risk??:roflol:
     
  24. RodB

    RodB Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2015
    Messages:
    22,360
    Likes Received:
    11,141
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Such an impressive dog and pony show. Maybe if you add another 3 or 4 pages of parsing and dissecting, and add some tap dancing and farting somebody (else) might be convinced. Why you think that just because a constitutional amendment allows the federal government to tax income that makes them the owner with primary claim of your money is beyond the pale. You think legal taking is not confiscating???
     
  25. kriman

    kriman Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2018
    Messages:
    26,993
    Likes Received:
    11,048
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    The bottom line of your first statistic is that it pays a more favorable of those who got the shots than the later link. Something changed or the statistics were wrong.
     

Share This Page