The future of the GOP

thellama73 wrote: My point was that there is a situation that you can find yourself in through no fault of your own that will reduce your ability to pursue happiness (getting hit by a car.) The government could do something to prevent this (outlaw cars.) Since they don't do this, by Herr Harbouring's definition, this would seem to be a restriction on one's ability to pursue happiness. Just as he finds himself in an unfortunate situation and demands the government takes action to fix it.

He finds himself living in a country where he does not need to demand the government takes action to fix it at all. He is in the fortunate situation of having a government-created a system where no coercion or demands are required to receive the appropriate medical attention for an unfortunate medical condition. I also live in a country with a similar system where I would gladly pay medical "insurance" for the rest of my life if it means that others could receive the medical treatment they require.

How does this relate to the GOP? I think the thread is just a step away from Hitler.......

thellama73 wrote: That's just not true. People are killed resisting arrest every year. It's generally crazy people who have committed violent crimes, so I don't really care, but it could happen to anyone who refused to recognize the authority of the police.

I couldn't really care either.

Dean wrote: thellama73 wrote: Dean wrote: thellama73 wrote: Dean, I am not saying that people are routinely killed for violating the law. I am saying that behind every law is the threat of violence, because violence is ultimately the only way you can impose a law on someone who is resisting. The threat is incarceration or removal of liberty, not killing, even in the gun-happy not-so-wild west that is modern day America. The threat is ultimately violence, because you can't incarcerate someone if they choose to resist with every means at their disposal. Yes you can. Hyperthetically you build the prison around them and walk away. There is always an alternative to violence.

That's just not true. People are killed resisting arrest every year. It's generally crazy people who have committed violent crimes, so I don't really care, but it could happen to anyone who refused to recognize the authority of the police.

Dean wrote: thellama73 wrote: Dean, I am not saying that people are routinely killed for violating the law. I am saying that behind every law is the threat of violence, because violence is ultimately the only way you can impose a law on someone who is resisting. The threat is incarceration or removal of liberty, not killing, even in the gun-happy not-so-wild west that is modern day America.

The threat is ultimately violence, because you can't incarcerate someone if they choose to resist with every means at their disposal.

HarbouringTheSoul wrote: thellama73 wrote: HarbouringTheSoul wrote: We have just, at length, discussed a scenario in which it does not. Nonsense. You can only pursue happiness if someone else is paying your bills? Absolute rubbish. If nobody were paying my medical bills, I would be unable to afford my medication, which in turn would make me unable to do many, many things and limit my ability to pursue happiness to an almost non-existent minimum. So no, not rubbish.

You also might get hit by a car and die. Does that mean that a society that allows cars is limiting its citizens' ability to pursue happiness?

Dean wrote: thellama73 wrote: Dean wrote: thellama73 wrote: Further responding to Dean's point: when I was of schooling age, it was illegal not to enroll in school. My parents chose to break that law and I was homeschooled right up until college. A lot of other people were breaking that law too. Eventually the government found itself in the position of having to throw mothers in prison simply because they wanted to teach their children at home. They caved, and the law was changed, because people realized that it was one thing to say "you have to do this" but another to actually enforce the consequences when people disobeyed. And they shot your parents? No, my point is that they realized that the only way to enforce the law was draconian, so they gave up and changed the law. They realized that passing a law means that you may one day have to enforce it, and you should be prepared for that consequence. I don't know the details but I suspect that the law wasn't changed because of disobedience, I also suspect that this is not the same across the entire country, but varies from local education authority to another or is this a change in statute fedreal law?

It was a change in federal law, although I think states do have different requirements. You still have to send in proof that the child is learning, you just don't have to send them to a school. It was primarily changed because people were disobeying it and it looked bad to throw mothers in prison (and many did go to prison.)

Dean, I am not saying that people are routinely killed for violating the law. I am saying that behind every law is the threat of violence, because violence is ultimately the only way you can impose a law on someone who is resisting.


Edited by thellama73 - November 09 2012 at 11:08

thellama73 wrote: Dean wrote: thellama73 wrote: Further responding to Dean's point: when I was of schooling age, it was illegal not to enroll in school. My parents chose to break that law and I was homeschooled right up until college. A lot of other people were breaking that law too. Eventually the government found itself in the position of having to throw mothers in prison simply because they wanted to teach their children at home. They caved, and the law was changed, because people realized that it was one thing to say "you have to do this" but another to actually enforce the consequences when people disobeyed. And they shot your parents? No, my point is that they realized that the only way to enforce the law was draconian, so they gave up and changed the law. They realized that passing a law means that you may one day have to enforce it, and you should be prepared for that consequence.

I don't know the details but I suspect that the law wasn't changed because of disobedience, I also suspect that this is not the same across the entire country, but varies from local education authority to another or is this a change in statute fedreal law?

HarbouringTheSoul wrote: thellama73 wrote: Force and coercion have a place in civilization only so far as they are used to reduce or eliminate force and coercion by others. I believe in police to protect property rights and lives, I believe in courts to enforce contracts, and I believe in military to protect us from the foreign hordes. When the government becomes as coercive as those from whom they are meant to protect us, though, it becomes as bad as the alternative. Well, then it's safe to say that we have fundamentally conceptions of society. You value freedom above everything else. I say freedom is useless if it doesn't ensure what your constitution calls the "pursuit of happiness" for everybody. (Note, before somebody misunderstands and spawns a lengthy discussion: I'm not saying government should make everyone happy. I'm saying that government should make sure that everybody is able to make themselves happy.)

Freedom does ensure the pursuit of happiness.

thellama73 wrote: Dean wrote: thellama73 wrote: No one has ever died in the UK as a consequence of resisting arrest? I find that hard to believe. The argument "it's not coercion because most people don't resist, and if they did resist... well, let's not think about that. It will probably be fine." is not very convincing to me. No insurance company has. That's because no head of an insurance company has found it worthwhile to resist. That doesn't mean it couldn't happen and it doesn't make it less coercive.

No, because no head of an insurance company has been arrested or prosecuted for failing to pay-out a claim. Just because it can happen in your head does not mean that it can ever happen.