"Freedom" thread or something

thellama73 wrote: dtguitarfan wrote: thellama73 wrote: Finally, if you have the means to help and don't, you are responsible is not something you could possibly believe. I was thinking about this.  I remember a few years ago there was a story where a man was hit by a car, and died on the side of the road as people walked by, doing nothing to help.  The whole thing was caught on a traffic camera, and was repeatedly aired on the news stations around the country.  I remember because it was in Hartford, CT, and I lived in CT at the time.  People in CT were so upset, and would say things like: "how could they do that?  Just walk by?  Couldn't they at least call 911?  How could this happen in my state?  I'm so disappointed in us!"  Do you hear that?  Society is sharing the guilt.  We know that these people should have helped, and we know that they should feel guilty for not helping. Now, if a family is unable to get cancer treatment that the doctors say should cure their family member because they don't have a bank account with a balance in the millions, I believe society should step up and help this family.  And I believe that if they do not, they should feel guilt.  It's not such a crazy stretch to make. I remember that, and I completely agree that people should have helped. But there is a difference between "should have helped" and "are responsible for the death." Are you going to address my point of why you don't sell your computer (or your clothes, or your DT albums) to help those worse off than you?

You're right, I probably should.  I do give a portion of my income to non profits that seek to help the unfortunate.  And I still feel bad when I buy the chips and soda with my sandwich - I think to myself: "I didn't really need this - it's just going to fat cells.  I could've gotten away with just the sandwich and drank water with it."  Now, if all of society pitched in, we could eliminate poverty, and it wouldn't cost each person very much, to be honest.  It would be a small amount per person, and people like you wouldn't be pointing to people like me and saying "hey, why don't you sell your computer and all your Dream Theater CD's to help the poor?"

Ambient Hurricanes wrote: dtguitarfan wrote: Ambient Hurricanes wrote: dtguitarfan wrote: Jacob, the system you are proposing really isn't all that different than what I'm proposing, I've just taken the Bible to its ultimate logical conclusion and extended "family" to everyone - is this not the message of Jesus? Also I find it interesting that you admit your system will not work without law enforcement. Jesus' message was "love your neighbor as yourself," not "force everyone else to love their neighbors as themselves."  To think that Jesus wanted us to impose charity on an entire country is to fall into the same error as to think that Paul wanted us to make it illegal for gay people to get married.  My system is consistent with libertarianism because it only forces people to support those to whom they have a natural loyalty (their families).  It's just taking common-law principles and updating them. dtguitarfan wrote: And when you talk about the government backing off and letting the free market do its work for a while - know what's going to happen? A lot of death, that's what.   I'd like to skip over that part please. Please explain See, you libertarians always seem to go to this hyper-emotional language - the government forcing on threat of imprisonment.   But in your system I could say the government is forcing us to care for our families on threat of imprisonment, right? Ask England, Canada, France, etc. how many people have been imprisoned because they found the healthcare system unfair, ok? You want to compartmentalize Jesus' teachings.   You say "they should be followed while doing this, but not this.   While in this place, but not in this place." I say that's not what he wanted or intended. I say he wants to be... shall we say... all in all? Yes, I am saying that the government should force people to take care of their families.  Because I believe that everyone has a natural obligation to  his close relatives.  Parents to children, children to parents and grandparents, brothers and sisters to each other.  This is not a new idea.  This used to be a commonly accepted fact, until the family started to break down in western civilization (and I'm not talking about the "breakdown of the family" that conservative Christians often attribute to gay marriage). In no way do I want to compartmentalize Jesus' teachings.  I seek to follow Christ in every aspect of my life.  However, I don't seek to force everyone else to follow His teachings.   I don't think Jesus ever advocated taking from the rich to give to the poor.  He commanded His followers to help those in need.

Do me 2 favors.  First, I want you to go to a country with socialized medicine - like Canada, England, France, etc.  Use your logic on them and try to convince them that their system is bad and they should give it up.  Say things like "well, don't you think it's bad that the government is enforcing rules upon you on threat of imprisonment?"  See how they respond.

Second, I want you to think about something.  My daughter, we've discovered, uses emotional manipulation to try to get her way.  We are having a very difficult time getting her to pick up her toys - she is so stubborn.  And so we've started a practice where we give her a certain amount of time to do it, and we don't pester her about it.  We just set a timer.  When it beeps, we put all the toys on the floor into a garbage back and they go away for a week.  She says "MEAN MOMMY!  MEAN DADDY!"  This is what I think of every time a libertarian talks about "threat of imprisonment" (I've heard that argument from so many libertarians, I can't even count).  Every time you talk about the big bad ol' government and "threat of imprisonment" I think: "MEAN MOMMY!  MEAN DADDY!"

All you need to ask is: is the cause just?   If the answer is yes, then it is not wrong for those who oppose the cause to face consequences.
To me, universal healthcare is THE most just cause.   Everyone should have healthcare available to them at affordable prices.   The fact that the prices in America are not affordable shows how corrupt we have become.   I'm ashamed of our country.

dtguitarfan wrote: All you need to ask is: is the cause just?   If the answer is yes, then it is not wrong for those who oppose the cause to face consequences. To me, universal healthcare is THE most just cause.   Everyone should have healthcare available to them at affordable prices.   The fact that the prices in America are not affordable shows how corrupt we have become.   I'm ashamed of our country.

Wait, are you seriously arguing that the end justifies the means? If you think the end is good, any level of oppression is acceptable as a means of achieving it?

I believe thta thievery is immoral regardless to what noble purpose the money is put. That, to me, is not justice.

thellama73 wrote: Wait, are you seriously arguing that the end justifies the means? If you think the end is good, any level of oppression is acceptable as a means of achieving it? I believe thta thievery is immoral regardless to what noble purpose the money is put. That, to me, is not justice.

I never said the end justifies the means.  I said that if a cause is just, those who oppose it should face consequences.  Do you disagree?  So we should've said to the Nazi leaders: "naughty naughty!"  And let it go at that?

dtguitarfan wrote: thellama73 wrote: I don't think stating that the government will imprison you if you don't do as they say is hyperbolic or emotional manipulation. It is factually true, it contains no emotionally charged or subjective language. Why do you object to this truth being pointed out? We could say "if you don't pay your taxes, the government will just let it go and hope you do better next time" but that would be a lie. When it is pointed out by a libertarian, it is always with the emotionally manipulative strategy of trying to convince someone that making a new law would be unjust.  "You really want the government to make a law against stealing...ON THREAT OF IMPRISONMENT?!!!  MEAN MOMMY!  MEAN DADDY!"

It's an important point to make because most people don't think about the consequences of laws. They think "oh, if we make X illegal, people won't do X anymore. Won't that be nice?" When you remind them that if people break the law, they will have to be punished, this can change people's minds. When I was a young lad, it was mandatory for children to be taught in schools. "We need an educated populace, mandatory schools. Bingo!" the do-gooders thought. Then people started homeschooling their children and it became apparent that in order to enforce the law innocent mothers guilty only of caring about their children's well-being would have to be imprisoned. The law was soon changed, and my parents didn't have to go to jail.

I once had a philosophy professor who advised that, before endorsing a law, you should think of how far you would be willing to go to enforce it. I have no problem throwing people in jail for stealing, but I do have a problem with throwing them in jail for selling food without "Nutrition Facts" printed on the label.

dtguitarfan wrote: thellama73 wrote: Wait, are you seriously arguing that the end justifies the means? If you think the end is good, any level of oppression is acceptable as a means of achieving it? I believe thta thievery is immoral regardless to what noble purpose the money is put. That, to me, is not justice. I never said the end justifies the means.  I said that if a cause is just, those who oppose it should face consequences.  Do you disagree?  So we should've said to the Nazi leaders: "naughty naughty!"  And let it go at that?

I guess I don't understand what you mean by "the cause" being just. I certainly do not think taking other people's money to pay my medical bills is in any way just. I agree that it would be a nice, noble thing if people could have free medical care, but I'm not willing to impose that system by coercing others.

I know analogies are not your strong suit, but I don't think intervening to stop genocide is comparable to taking money from people who have committed no crime in order to fund a project you personally think is noble.

It's been a while.

My sister lives in Europe and I have gone two years in a row to visit her (I consider myself fortunate). Now, in Switzerland, a country with a superb standard of living, the healthcare system is not savage like here but it's a mix, with some of the elements of the US one but done in a much different way, heavily regulated. She used to live in Germany, where the system is closer to universal healthcare. The ones who have pay for the ones who have not, who one day might find themselves doing the same.

And that happened with my sister, as I have said before. She got cancer 10 years ago when she was still a student on a low paying job. She was in Germany. Yet she had the best care in the world, all the medication, paid leave from her work, and even time ordained by law for her recovery in a sort of health-spa or something. 10 years later, she is happily cancer-free and working at a very well-paying job paying probably more than other people and thus in a way giving back and maybe helping someone like her. Besides all of that, of course, she does her own private help to those who need.

I always say and she says and it's a hypothetical fact (a useful oxymoron): if she had been in the same situation in the US, either she would have ended bankrupt and ruined, or, maybe, dead.

That for me is quite a sorry state of things in the "shiny house on the hill" or whatever nonsense Santorum and other republicans used in the debates to refer to the supposedly most prosperous country on earth (I guess by armed-forces standards, for sure).

I'm libertarian in many ways but I accept some taxation, accept notions like protection to employees and, most importantly, health care. Is not incompatible. After all, if freedom is defended, nothing affects freedom like the slavery people have to fall down to to be able to survive when sick.

The T wrote: It's been a while. My sister lives in Europe and I have gone two years in a row to visit her (I consider myself fortunate). Now, in Switzerland, a country with a superb standard of living, the healthcare system is not savage like here but it's a mix, with some of the elements of the US one but done in a much different way, heavily regulated. She used to live in Germany, where the system is closer to universal healthcare. The ones who have pay for the ones who have not, who one day might find themselves doing the same. And that happened with my sister, as I have said before. She got cancer 10 years ago when she was still a student on a low paying job. She was in Germany. Yet she had the best care in the world, all the medication, paid leave from her work, and even time ordained by law for her recovery in a sort of health-spa or something. 10 years later, she is happily cancer-free and working at a very well-paying job paying probably more than other people and thus in a way giving back and maybe helping someone like her. Besides all of that, of course, she does her own private help to those who need. I always say and she says and it's a hypothetical fact (a useful oxymoron): if she had been in the same situation in the US, either she would have ended bankrupt and ruined, or, maybe, dead. That for me is quite a sorry state of things in the "shiny house on the hill" or whatever nonsense Santorum and other republicans used in the debates to refer to the supposedly most prosperous country on earth (I guess by armed-forces standards, for sure). I'm libertarian in many ways but I accept some taxation, accept notions like protection to employees and, most importantly, health care. Is not incompatible. After all, if freedom is defended, nothing affects freedom like the slavery people have to fall down to to be able to survive when sick.

Thank you.

dtguitarfan wrote: Sure, I won't deny our government is seriously messed up.  I'd argue that it's gotten that way after people like Reagan started to tear apart our safety nets and give special tax breaks to the rich.  But the illogical conclusion you make is that it's impossible that we could make the government any better.  That's a pretty depressing viewpoint, and doesn't match up to the hopeful attitude I think a Christian should have.

I'm not a Christian, but of course it is possible to make the government better. We can make it better by making it smaller, less invasive, less oppressive. The smaller we make it, the better it will be.

dtguitarfan wrote: Ah, see, there's where your logic falls apart.  You think that using the "ON THREAT OF IMPRISONMENT" line works for everything.  But with nutrition labels, your logic falls apart.  If you don't print the nutrition facts on your label, you won't be able to sell your goods.  Oh? And how are they going to stop you? YES, there SHOULD be consequences for disobeying laws.  I say there should be universal healthcare.  I say we're obligated by morality, as human beings, to offer it.  You bring out "ON THREAT OF IMPRISONMENT!"  Basically, if you take your silly logic to its ultimate conclusion, you're saying all taxes are immoral.  Period. That is correct. Fine, go find an island - get out of here.  I won't miss you.  If you want to live in a society, you have to pay taxes.  That's how it goes.  We share this land together, and we all benefit from living together within it, and thus we share the burdens of caring for it as well.  It's like living in a house together with roommates - if someone thinks paying rent is unjust, fine.  They can leave and go live somewhere else. It's not like that, because to live in a house with roommates, I have to agree to a lease. I didn't agree to the 16th amendment.

thellama73 wrote: dtguitarfan wrote: Sure, I won't deny our government is seriously messed up.  I'd argue that it's gotten that way after people like Reagan started to tear apart our safety nets and give special tax breaks to the rich.  But the illogical conclusion you make is that it's impossible that we could make the government any better.  That's a pretty depressing viewpoint, and doesn't match up to the hopeful attitude I think a Christian should have. I'm not a Christian, but of course it is possible to make the government better. We can make it better by making it smaller, less invasive, less oppressive. The smaller we make it, the better it will be.

"I believe that the government that governs best is a government that governs least, and by these standards we have set up a fabulous government in Iraq."
- Stephen Colbert