"Freedom" thread or something

Oh, when I worked at Aflac for a few months we all were required to be licensed, thus read up about all that kind of stuff. A lot of cost does go into overhead in the insurance industry, deciding who should and should not be allowed, so it makes sense to me to remove that (have everyone allowed). I also support removing the HMO system because that is a horrid clusterf**k.

It was actually a well run and responsible company and is able to provide excellent packages (sometimes with little or no screening) at crazy affordable prices. Even in a universal healthcare system I'd want secondary insurance like Aflac to exist, unregulated of course.


Edited by JJLehto - March 19 2012 at 15:06

Either that or just get rid of the Congress. 

What I meant by that is, if you want executive orders, then just go with a monarchy or dictatorship. The current system has too much friction built into it. I would prefer a Republic in the intent of the framers, but monarchs have their advantages too.

I think it's been a year now? I don't know. It feels like forever at this point. I've made so many changes throughout my life. Honestly, right now most of my political reading has been neo-marxist literature. I'm hesitant to say I'm anything since it's really more fluid than people have you believe. Every new thing you pick up every day factors into your assessment causing an amalgamation. Let's say a little over a year. I think my position as a minimal government libertarian came more from an inner denial and reluctance to abandoned once sacrosanct institutions rather than any strong intellectual reasoning.

I'm not for minimal government Brian but for minimal restriction of liberty. If somehow government was the best guarantee for liberty, I wouldn't complain. Alas, history and reason show us is not the case but the opposite.

As I have repeatedly said, one offhe few areas when I'm not sure what's the best course of action, as with abortion, is with healthcare. I tend to end up siding with liberty and personal choice. But healthcare is a real complex issue.

I've realized that if one thing was constant throughout my life was total opposition to lose of personal liberty. I just never realized economic freedom was a good guarantee of personal one. I actually think it is one of the most, maybe the most, important values and goals. Society doesn't really have a goal. There are no macro goals or anything.

Regarding marxism, old-school marxism (is there any other?) is not too big a friend of private property. It's based on dictatorship (the proletariat one, which is really changing a sole dictator for a group). I don't see many connections here.

^Exactly. The disappearence of the state in marxism is not really such. Their opposition to the burgueois state and the classic feudal state if we can call it that way is based on class, not really in the idea of making a governing body disappear. Their proposed dictatorship of the proletariat can't be understood in any other way but in the imposition of a ruling body, a governing group of people, hence, in a way, a state. I see tour point though.

horsewithteeth11 wrote: Got 10 out of 10. Pretty easy honestly.

8/10. And I'm sure I know my Hitler, but my Santorum got me confused . 

^ Certainly a 70s prog connection with the look

LOL!

I was actually wondering how long it would take for you to poke your troll face in here!

Dude I have to ask...what do you believe?
I can't imagine you believing in anything so color me impressed, but I honestly am curious now.
I'd like to know why we should stay with a Fed. "Austrian economics is gay" won't cut it either.
For an entity whose job is to 'control inflation without recession' seems to have failed pretty badly there!
Edit: Of course as some here know the Fed was long supported by big bankers, which is suspicious by itself. Isn't it supposed to smooth out those business cycles? We still have had many booms and busts, just as before. From everything I gather the Federal Reserve is at best, useless. At worst, a terrible thing for the economy.


And yeah, the whole thing confuses me. I always thought "true" Marxism had anarchist implications, and what is the best example of an anarchist society was aligned with leftism and was collectivist.
All I can say is the "circle spectrum" seems to fit. The more extreme you get it just bends around, almost to complete the circle.

Collectivist and anarchist seem to almost touch each other.
Whatever, I need to read more about this stuff and my brain is on overload at the moment.



Edited by JJLehto - March 19 2012 at 23:57

KoS wrote: Do I have a deadline?

Start simple if you want.
I'd honestly like a debate about this. Especially since the talk of late has been about cheese steaks.




Edited by JJLehto - March 20 2012 at 00:10