The future of the GOP

thellama73 wrote: I wholeheartedly agree with all of those. The difference is that when one of your family is sick he doesn't point a gun at you and demand you take care of him or else. You seem to think there is no difference between rallying and coercing.

When the community does not rally then what options are there? I ignored your use of coercing because it should never be an option, I do not seem to think they are the same thing at all, I do not seem to think that someone needing medical help within a universal healthcare system is coercing anyone if the system is operating as it should.

thellama73 wrote: Dean wrote: thellama73 wrote: I wholeheartedly agree with all of those. The difference is that when one of your family is sick he doesn't point a gun at you and demand you take care of him or else. You seem to think there is no difference between rallying and coercing. When the community does not rally then what options are there? I ignored your use of coercing because it should never be an option, I do not seem to think they are the same thing at all, I do not seem to think that someone needing medical help within a universal healthcare system is coercing anyone if the system is operating as it should. How is it not coercing? If the law requires insurance companies to do one thing, and they do the other, they will face a fine. If they do not pay the fine, they will go to jail. If they resist going to jail, they will be shot and killed. Every law works on the principle of coercion, and when considering any law you should ask "am I willing to kill someone to enforce this law, because it may one day come down to that?"

thellama73 wrote: HarbouringTheSoul wrote: No one is denied medical care because of a preexisting condition if they can pay for it. They are only denied medical insurance, much the same way people are denied fire insurance when their house is already on fire. No, that is incorrect. Insurance is a hedge against a potential future event that what have very bad consequences. Insurance companies make money because most of the time, this future disaster never happens. Insurance is not a means of paying for something you expect. You don't get insurance to help you buy groceries, car insurance doesn't cover gasoline or basic maintenance costs.

That is not how health insurance has ever worked (which is why I think the term "insurance" is inappropriate to begin with). Unlike, say, fire insurance, the 'future disaster' isn't just not unlikely, it is in fact extremely likely. Everyone gets sick multiple times over the course of their lives, and in fact the majority of people will at one point in their life contract an illness or sustain an injury that will be very costly to treat. Health "insurance" that actually gives its clients complete financial safety is unsustainable in a free market system. Most people will not be able to pay rates that are high enough to ensure that the insurance company makes profit.

thellama73 wrote: You are arguing that because you have been unfortunate, it is the duty of insurance companies to pay for your medicine, even though they know that by taking you on they will lose money. I don't see how you can possibly justify that.

Well, to be fair, I live in a country with a public health care system, so I don't think it is the duty of any specific company but society at large. But in the absence of such a public option, I very well think that society (not just myself) has a right to force companies to do just that. The alternative is, to be plain, my demise, which is an option I am unable to accept.

thellama73 wrote: As I said, in a free market costs would fall and there is a good chance that you would be able to afford your medication. Intellectual property laws are also too restrictive and keep costs high, so repealing those would help as well. If you still couldn't afford it, there is always philanthropy. Doctors who practice out of the desire to save lives and private charities who want to help those who can't afford their medicines.

Most of the costs of the medication stem from the fact that the production process is costly and the produced quantities are very low. But regardless of that, philanthropy doesn't give me a guarantee. And since the country I live in has the ability to give me that guarantee (and actually does it), it is very difficult to me to understand why other countries wouldn't want to do the same. As I said, I'm still comparatively fortunate. Many other people would flat-out die without guaranteed health insurance.

thellama73 wrote: The fact that you think misfortune gives you the right to use force and to coerce others is, to me, shockingly uncivilized.

The fact that you would rather let a person die than be forced to help them is, to me, shockingly uncivilized. You value your own personal freedom more than the well-being of everyone else. The whole idea of any civilization is based on force and coercion. To be cynical, we let the government exert force so we don't have to do it. If you believe force and coercion have no place in civilization, then what is civilization?


Edited by HarbouringTheSoul - November 09 2012 at 10:42

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.

Also, it's not about my personal freedom. It's about everyone's personal freedom. Believe it or not, I would gladly spend the rest of my life in prison if it meant that others could be free.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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: 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?

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