Real World Event Discussions

Anti-Government, but don't touch my Medicare

POSTED BY: Niki2
UPDATED: Friday, May 7, 2010 16:50
VIEWED: 8545
PAGE 3 of 16

CANTTAKESKY

Friday, April 23, 2010 3:28 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
Funding for healthcare, with the view to providing an efficient healthcare service available to all citizens - OUTRAGE.

If that were what health insurance reform provided, I wouldn't be outraged. Unsatisfied perhaps, but not outraged. I'm outraged because that is NOT what got voted into law. And this outrage is not just on the conservative end, but on the liberal end as well. Just read what firedoglake and Michael Moore have to say about it.

Quote:
A pointless war entered into on false premises, and which has cost the lives of hundreds of thousands - NO OUTRAGE.

This outrages me deeply, more than any other current issue.

Quote:
Steps to combat pollution, over population, environmental destruction, mass extinction of species, increased use of diminishing resources - OUTRAGE

I haven't heard any of my conservative friends express outrage over any of these points. What outrage I hear is about perceived misrepresentation of facts and conclusions on global warming, such as classifying CO2 as a pollutant.

Personally, I am for everything you listed. Fighting against global warming? Not so much. Forcing me to fight against a GW spectre that I don't see empirical evidence for? Outrage.

Quote:
90% of earths resources owned by 10% of population - NO OUTRAGE

The ownership alone isn't nearly as outrageous as the fact that the 10% use their resources to forcibly oppress the other 90% economically and politically. I would call the first disturbing, and the oppression outrageous.

-----
"I was aiming for his head." -- Richard Castle, Season 2, Episode 18, "Boom"

KWICKO

Friday, April 23, 2010 3:32 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
52% of them have a favorable view of Dubya Bush.
52% of Americans need more powerful meds, it seems.
Or LESS powerful.

The laughing Chrisisall

Chris: Fortunately, it's not 52% of AMERICANS, it's just 52% of tea party attendees. That makes them roughly... let's see... nothin' from nothin'... carry the nothin'... yeah, they're about 0.02% of the American population. And I'm being pretty generous with that number.

Gosh, how could anybody ignore such a large and vital block of voters?

Mike

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero, Real World Event Discussions

CANTTAKESKY

Friday, April 23, 2010 3:42 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
CTS, I think you may have hit upon something: You say you're anarcho-libertarian, whereas it would certainly seem - from all the coverage I've seen and the folks I've dealt with - that at least a large part (if not an overwhelming majority) of the Tea Party folks are the right-wing brand of "libertarian". In other words, today's tea partier tends to be yesterday's Republican/neocon.

I think yesterday's Republican/Neocon is in the Tea Party because they ARE disenchanted and disillusioned with their old party and want to move in a more libertarian direction.

Maybe they are not as ahem... "enlightened" as I am, if you will, but they are moving in the right direction. Why discourage them, I say. It's better than their remaining Republican and Neocon, right?

But you make a good point. I suspect that is why I haven't jumped into bed with them.

KWICKO

Friday, April 23, 2010 3:47 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
Quote:
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
Funding for healthcare, with the view to providing an efficient healthcare service available to all citizens - OUTRAGE.

If that were what health insurance reform provided, I wouldn't be outraged. Unsatisfied perhaps, but not outraged. I'm outraged because that is NOT what got voted into law. And this outrage is not just on the conservative end, but on the liberal end as well. Just read what firedoglake and Michael Moore have to say about it.

The problem is, you read what they say as outrage, without reading into WHY there's outrage on the left. The right says ANY healthcare reform bill goes too far. (Well, in truth, they say that tort reform alone would fix the entire system, and the CBO says tort reform alone would ameliorate less than 0.1% of the costs)

The left says the bill is a sham because it didn't go nearly far enough. The reason you got this bill is because one side thought anything was unreasonable, and would fight against it no matter what, and the other side wanted everything, but wouldn't fight for it hard enough. So we end up with a bill that pissed everyone off, and didn't do nearly enough. It was the best that we were ever going to get as long as one party was dedicated to being nothing but obstructionist about it. Take it out on them.

Quote:

Quote:
A pointless war entered into on false premises, and which has cost the lives of hundreds of thousands - NO OUTRAGE.

This outrages me deeply, more than any other current issue.

Yup. I'm with ya there.

Quote:

Quote:
Steps to combat pollution, over population, environmental destruction, mass extinction of species, increased use of diminishing resources - OUTRAGE

I haven't heard any of my conservative friends express outrage over any of these points. What outrage I hear is about perceived misrepresentation of facts and conclusions on global warming, such as classifying CO2 as a pollutant.

Personally, I am for everything you listed. Fighting against global warming? Not so much. Forcing me to fight against a GW spectre that I don't see empirical evidence for? Outrage.

Sounds like you're not outraged, except when you are. :)

I liken the whole dismissal of the possibility that humankind could ever in any way possibly influence the climate on Earth to the same kinds of brilliant minds who told people to go ahead and shoot buffalo from trains, because there were so many buffalo that there was no way we could ever kill them all or hunt them to near extinction. 'Course, they're also the same people who said we'd never run out of whales, so take all you can and the ocean will make more!

Sometimes waiting around to see what happens will get you into a hell of a lot of trouble.

Quote:

Quote:
90% of earths resources owned by 10% of population - NO OUTRAGE

The ownership alone isn't nearly as outrageous as the fact that the 10% use their resources to forcibly oppress the other 90% economically and politically. I would call the first disturbing, and the oppression outrageous.

Capitalists will tell you that a thing that is owned or controlled and not used, is a thing that is under-utilized. If 10% of the people control 90% of the resources AND DON'T USE IT to subjugate and oppress the other 90% of people, they're not being good little capitalists, are they?

Mike

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero, Real World Event Discussions

KWICKO

Friday, April 23, 2010 3:56 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
CTS, I think you may have hit upon something: You say you're anarcho-libertarian, whereas it would certainly seem - from all the coverage I've seen and the folks I've dealt with - that at least a large part (if not an overwhelming majority) of the Tea Party folks are the right-wing brand of "libertarian". In other words, today's tea partier tends to be yesterday's Republican/neocon.

I think yesterday's Republican/Neocon is in the Tea Party because they ARE disenchanted and disillusioned with their old party and want to move in a more libertarian direction.

I'm more jaded and cynical than you, I suppose. I think they jumped into the Tea Party because they got their asses handed to them in the last two election cycles, and are trying to make people forget who they were, and who they still are.

Quote:

Maybe they are not as ahem... "enlightened" as I am, if you will, but they are moving in the right direction. Why discourage them, I say. It's better than their remaining Republican and Neocon, right?

While I, on the other hand, say why encourage them? They actually think they're fooling people, and I don't agree with letting them get away with it, because then they come right back and do the same old shit. A large number of Dubya's administration and upper-echelon people were old cronies of Nixon's, and later Reagan's, and they were up to their same old dirty tricks the second they got into power. Why give 'em the chance again?

Quote:

But you make a good point. I suspect that is why I haven't jumped into bed with them.

You ever been at a party, and you're talking to that one guy you don't really know, and he seems okay, and then all of a sudden he's one beer past his three-beer-buzz, and he starts going off about black folks and Hispanics and illegals and the whole deal? That's the way the tea party people come across to me. They have some decent ideas, but once you start saying "Yeah" and nodding in agreement, they start letting it all hang out, and then it's just, "Whoa - wrong room! Time to go!"

That's why I'm not gonna be jumping into bed with them.

Mike

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero, Real World Event Discussions

MAGONSDAUGHTER

Friday, April 23, 2010 4:07 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:

If that were what health insurance reform provided, I wouldn't be outraged. Unsatisfied perhaps, but not outraged. I'm outraged because that is NOT what got voted into law. And this outrage is not just on the conservative end, but on the liberal end as well. Just read what firedoglake and Michael Moore have to say about it.

what I'm seeing is a lot of outrage from Americans who consider that any government funding of healthcare is akin to Marxism, and that what you have is something that panders to the powerful lobbyists who wish to protect their own interests.

Quote:

I haven't heard any of my conservative friends express outrage over any of these points. What outrage I hear is about perceived misrepresentation of facts and conclusions on global warming, such as classifying CO2 as a pollutant.

most of the conservatives (and libertarians) I've heard from express outrage about anything which restricts their capacity to make money and do what they damn well please, everything else and everyone else be damned.

As for global warming, the ones who disagree have vested interests in keeping the status quo because anything else will lose them money

See any themes developing?

Quote:

The ownership alone isn't nearly as outrageous as the fact that the 10% use their resources to forcibly oppress the other 90% economically and politically. I would call the first disturbing, and the oppression outrageous.

I'd say that both are equally outrageous.

NIKI2

Friday, April 23, 2010 5:10 PM

Magons, I'm with you.

The concept that people with 15 cars shouldn't have to pay for roads puzzles me, among other things. The government provides so many things you can't count them all, and to break it down to what people should and shouldn't pay for, and thereby get the use of, would be insane.

The only one I really wish we could decide about for ourselves is war; I'd love to see that as something we could decide to be taxed on or not. So I'm a dreamer, sue me.

Quote:
I don't think anyone should be forced to fund anything they don't want to fund. It is not just restricted to pacifists, people who don't own cars, and people who don't have children. Warmongers, people with 15 cars, and people with 15 children should share the same right.

Canttake, how do you rationalize that? Are you saying that the rest of us should be taxed for the things those people use, or that none of us should pay taxes if we don’t want to? If that were the case, who would build the roads, schools, public transportation, etc., etc.? In your scenario, nobody would be forced to pay taxes, ergo there would be no money to provide those things...how do you work that out?

Oh, by the way, a recent study showed that the Tea Partiers represent 18% of the population, for what it's worth. Still a tiny minority...

"I'm just right. Kinda like the sun rising in the east and the world being round...its not a need its just the way it is." The Delusional "Hero", 3/1/10

CANTTAKESKY

Saturday, April 24, 2010 12:59 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2:
Are you saying that the rest of us should be taxed for the things those people use, or that none of us should pay taxes if we don’t want to?

Nobody should be forced to buy things they don't want to buy. You can call the forced purchase "taxes," but it is still someone with a gun to your head saying, "Buy this, or we'll kidnap and imprison you as long as we please. Resist, and you'll die."

Quote:
If that were the case, who would build the roads, schools, public transportation, etc., etc.? In your scenario, nobody would be forced to pay taxes, ergo there would be no money to provide those things...how do you work that out?

People who want a service or commodity will pay for it. Who pays for power lines? People who want electricity. Who pays for phone lines? People who want phone service. Who pays for water service? People who want water. You get the idea. Are utilities any less necessary than roads, schools, public transportation, etc.?

Arguing logistics is neither here nor there. First you have to decide where you stand on force. Should a state have the power to force people to buy things they don't want to buy? Once you are committed to the principle of "Yes, it should" or "No, it shouldn't," you work out the logistics to fit.

Schools are easy. Charge tuition. Next.

Public transportation. Charge tickets. Next.

Roads. This is trickier, but again, once you are committed to the "No Force" principle, it can be worked out in a manner of different ways. You could charge a road fee every time you register a car, which the car owner automatically pays, but if they want to, they can sign papers and decline or "opt out." Or every local community could collect from every family, much like a home owners association collects for maintaining its driveways and streets.

Imagine this. Charlie gives $100 to General Contractor A, who takes $20 off the top and gives $80 to the road crew who actually fixes the road. There are several alternatives to this. Charlie could serve as his own General Contractor, give $80 to the road crew, and save $20. Or he could use General Contractor B, who only takes $10 off the top, saving Charlie $10.

Government is only a General Contractor for all these "necessary" services. I think most of us can do without it, or find a cheaper and more efficient one.

Oh no, you say. You will never collect enough.

A) If people didn't have to give 30% of their income to forced purchases ("taxes"), they would have more money to spend on things that actually matter to them: like schools and roads and public transportation.

B) If the road can't be built or fixed by voluntary contributions, then it doesn't get built or fixed. Then everyone has to decide what is more important to them--that big screen TV or the road. If they choose big screen TV, that is their choice. Here is the crux of the debate. It SHOULD be their choice, I say. It's democracy, where you vote with your money. In our current system, you end up with politicians who spend the community's money on war instead of roads. In the voluntary system, you may end up with bad roads just the same, but at least for that, you get to keep your money instead of involuntarily funding some war you abhor.

-----
I heartily accept the motto, "That government is best which governs least"; and I should like to see it acted up to more rapidly and systematically. Carried out, it finally amounts to this, which also I believe — "That government is best which governs not at all"; and when men are prepared for it, that will be the kind of government which they will have.

--HDT

CANTTAKESKY

Saturday, April 24, 2010 1:14 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Sounds like you're not outraged, except when you are. :)

I'm NOT outraged by "Steps to combat pollution, over population, environmental destruction, mass extinction of species, increased use of diminishing resources." I am all for fighting any destruction of our planet.

The debate, of course, lies in what constitutes destruction. Some emissions are not very controversial, like pumping mercury or nitrogen or sulfur oxides into the atmosphere. Some, like CO2, is very controversial. Debating about which compounds are pollutants is not the same thing as not caring about pollutants.

Quote:
I liken the whole dismissal of the possibility that humankind could ever in any way possibly influence the climate on Earth....

Speaking for myself and other GW skeptics I've spoken with, we don't dismiss the possibility at all. We would just like to see some compelling evidence based on real measurements (you know, like with a thermometer) and not just data constructed (and possibly invented?) by computer models.

It's kind of a science thing, to require empirical evidence before coming to a conclusion.

-----
I heartily accept the motto, "That government is best which governs least"; and I should like to see it acted up to more rapidly and systematically. Carried out, it finally amounts to this, which also I believe — "That government is best which governs not at all"; and when men are prepared for it, that will be the kind of government which they will have.

-- HDT

CANTTAKESKY

Saturday, April 24, 2010 1:52 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
As for global warming, the ones who disagree have vested interests in keeping the status quo because anything else will lose them money

I disagree with GW. Yet I have no vested interests in keeping the status quo. In fact, I once invested several years of my life on an alternative fuel project that went bust and bankrupted me. I have already put my money where my mouth is. And I did it without "believing" in Global Warming.

My husband has an interesting hypothesis from the year in which he worked on an oil refinery project. He noticed that everyone on the oil refinery project, including the oil companies, had zero tolerance from dissent from the GW position. Odd, cause everyone always say the oil companies are the ones who oppose GW. And here he finds the exact opposite.

So why would they support it so aggressively?

Now my husband is a scientist for the Dept of Energy. So knowing about these issues is sort of his job. Anyway, he figures that if CO2 has to be sequestered, you need to consume about 20% more fuel. Meaning, let's say now you need to buy 10 barrels of oil for a project. If all this GW is legislated, you'll need to buy 12 barrels of oil for the same project. The extra two will go towards sequestering the CO2 from the whole project.

As they say, if something doesn't make a lot of sense, follow the money.

If you were to find out that the oil companies are the ones behind the GW agenda, rather than the ones fighting it, would that make you more skeptical of the whole concept?

See, I am skeptical either way. Data has to speak for itself, independently of the authors.

-----
I heartily accept the motto, "That government is best which governs least"; and I should like to see it acted up to more rapidly and systematically. Carried out, it finally amounts to this, which also I believe — "That government is best which governs not at all"; and when men are prepared for it, that will be the kind of government which they will have.

-- HDT