The future of the GOP

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.

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.

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.

thellama73 wrote: 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?

You would not be refused medical insurance on the grounds that one day you might get hit by a car and once you had medical insurance you would not be refused medical care if you did get hit by a car even if the premiums you had paid did not cover the costs of repairing your smashed body.

Dean wrote: thellama73 wrote: 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? You would not be refused medical insurance on the grounds that one day you might get hit by a car and once you had medical insurance you would not be refused medical care if you did get hit by a car even if the premiums you had paid did not cover the costs of repairing your smashed body.   But as Herr Harbouring said, calling it "insurance" is a misnomer in a universal healthcare system, and this is something that I doubt the citizens of the USA will ever fully appreciate.

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.

thellama73 wrote: 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?

If I get hit by a car and die, that is not a direct consequence of the fact that cars are allowed. Somebody has to actually hit me with their car first. It's not the freedom of being allowed to drive cars that kills me in this scenario, it's the inability of a single individual to make proper use of that freedom. If nobody pays my medical bills, I will become physically incapacitated as a direct and inevitable result and it will be nobody's fault.

I also appreciate being called "Herr Harbouring"


Edited by HarbouringTheSoul - November 09 2012 at 11:46

One facet of this topic is that major population centers in the United States (the West Coast and the Northeast) seem virtually closed off to Republican presidential candidates.  Whereas Ronald Reagan won California and New York in 1984, and George Bush (the Elder) won California in 1988, I cannot forsee any current Republican or indeed any Republican for many years being able to do the same.  Now, it doesn't mean that no Republican can ever win again, but certainly they cannot win decisively:  they have to bank on winning Florida, Ohio, and Virginia to get them to a high 200/low 300 count in electoral votes.  It's possible Pennsylvania can swing red again as well.

Dean wrote: 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.

Do I really have to say it again? Yes, coercion is required. All laws are coercion, so if it is the law that he receive medical care, it is through coercion that it happens.

If I say "do as I want, or I'll cut off your ear" and you comply, that does not mean you weren't coerced. Just  because few to none break the rules in his country, does not mean that the rules are not coercive.

All laws are coercion.

All laws are coercion.

All laws are coercion.

Oh, and Dean? All laws are coercion.

"To confer power or privileges" can only mean two things. 1) to grant people the ability to coerce others or 2) to restore rights that were previously taken away through coercion.

timothy leary wrote: Contract law rules that enable parties to form contracts. Parties don't need laws to allow them to form contracts. They can do that on their own. The rules that allow testators to create a will. People could create wills just fine before laws "allowed" it. The constitutional rules that confer legislative powers on Congress. Legislative powers = the right to coerce The statute that authorizes the Supreme Court to promulgate rules of practice and procedure for the federal courts. This is a dicy one since federal courts are inherently coercive institutions to begin with