"Freedom" thread or something

Epignosis wrote: The Doctor wrote: I will say this again.  I said it yesterday but it was twisted and turned into something else entirely.  If I don't buy from Walmart, I'm not ruining Walmart's business.  If a person is fired unjustly, their life may be ruined.  Heck, it can be even if they are fired justly, but I do think there are valid reasons to fire someone regardless. I've lost my job when I didn't deserve it.   I was unemployed three years.   I didn't kill myself. If you kill yourself because you lost a job, then something is wrong with you, not the job makers.

In 1982 Walter Harris was a happy and caring man, loving of his family and he loved his job as a printer at a tyre factory in Birmingham, where he had been employed since leaving school at 15 years of age. He worked long and hard, providing for his family, he was a proud man. I didn't known Walter very long, he was my wife's uncle and I'd only known him for two years, at our wedding he stood-in for her father (who was divorcing her mother at that time and refused to attend) - he was a quiet, soft-spoken man, easy to like and easy to get along with, nothing about him said there was anything wrong with him because there wasn't anything wrong with him. Then a year later he was made redundant from his work, unemployment at that time topped 3 million in the UK... it's just a number, it means nothing, in Birmingham the situation was far worse than those simple numbers suggest, prospects for any unemployed person in that climate were bleak, for for a middle-aged man trained in a rapidly changing profession they were desperate. Walter's sink into despair and depression was rapid and sudden, within a few weeks he took his own life. No one who knew him foresaw what would happen, the shock to all was real and heartbreaking.

HarbouringTheSoul wrote: manofmystery wrote: They are excercising free will.  I can't imagine disliking a company yet sticking with it despite there being several alternatives but if it happens, it happens.  It's within everyone's right to be stubborn, ignorant, or what-have-you when making decisions that effect them. And I'm not seeking to deprive them of that right, so I don't know why you're even mentioning it. I'm talking about people who want something to be done, but don't care enough to do it themselves. They would all happily agree to government regulation regarding the product in question, but they wouldn't stop buying the product. Government regulation doesn't deprive them of their right to buy the product. Government isn't there to change their diapers.  If they don't care enough to do it themselves that doesn't mean they get use the government to do it for them.  That limits the liberty of others.  For example, why should I be made to accept a government protected product just because they reached a minimal standard (which, as I've mentioned, they likely had a hand in creating).  Government action limits my options. manofmystery wrote: We've covered that it doesn't happen in a controlled market. Let's operate under the assumption that it doesn't. It doesn't have to in order to solve the issue with the product. Government regulation already resolves it. Without government regulation, the only way to solve the issue is if somebody creates an alternative product and makes everybody who might be interested aware that the product exists. This is very difficult to do, especially if the Nestle product is established and popular, and it might not even happen at all, so the issue with the product will remain unsolved. With government regulation, it is guaranteed to be solved. What I was saying is that government action doesn't resolve it (controlled market).  I don't know how else to word the argument to make you understand.  At this point, I'd just be repeating myself.  Government regulation limits options, allowing companies like Nestle to become established.  The answer isn't to further add to the regulatory costs of a system that potential competitors can't afford to exist in.  Government control limits my economic liberty by setting up a system in which it is economically unfeasible for many alternatives to exist. manofmystery wrote: I'm not sure what "particular problem" you are talking about because it certainly can't be the "people won't find an alternative" problem (which I don't even conceed is a problem) because ,as I continue to point out, government limits alternatives. No, the "particular problem" is the issue with the product that got people to boycott it in the first place. Again, there is no need for an alternative product if that issue is resolved, but it doesn't stop anybody from creating an alternative product either, if they so desire. Perhaps the "need" for an alternative product exists because not everyone wishes to use the same product as everyone else.  You can't regulate personal taste but you can certainly restrict it by restricting the market.  manofmystery wrote: I responded to what was written.   Everyone should be able to define what condition they'd like to live in an persue those goals, unmolested by government, so long as they do not engage in coercion (this includes seeking the government to engage in coercion on their behalf). This will never be possible. If there is a government, it will inevitably limit people's freedom to pursue those goals in at least some way. If there is no government, you cannot guarantee that other people will use force to stop them from pursuing their goals. A life with complete freedom and no form of coercion is an utopian idea that is impossible to realize.

At Dean:  Re Walter Harris.  That is so sad Dean.  Not long ago, I heard something on TV and I wish I could remember who said it.  I believe it was a network news commenter on a story about unemployment, but I can't remember exactly who.  Anyway, he said and I paraphrase "the cold truth is that average doesn't cut it anymore."  He went on to say that, once upon a time, an average bloke could get some factory job (or two) and make enough to get by, maybe even buy a small house, even if he had little education and wasn't very "sharp".   He said guys (and gals) like this are no longer acceptable in the workforce of today.  Today every person has to be a highly educated, dynamic salesman of themselves, completely extroverted, willing to jump through every gd hoop in the book just to maintain some level of salary.  I think this is tragic.  Not every person can be this kind of superman.  Some guys are slow, some guys are not very socially adept.  Are we saying that in the 21 century such people may as well off themselves?  Because you are no longer employable?  And the big question is, is every person capable of transforming themselves into Superman?  I can completely sympathize with this man (Walter).  I'm almost 50.  If I became unemployed I would certainly have trouble.  I'm not a dynamic personality, I'm introverted, I'm not willing to sell myself off as something else, to pretend to be today's workplace dynamo team player.  I'm a good autonomous worker, very productive numbers-wise, a quiet person, and I've done very well at my existing job.  But maybe I"m average.  Maybe I don't "cut it anymore" in the way they want you to act. 

At Rob, Doc, Logan: Some great exchanges yesterday.....I do wonder what our education system could do if completely freed from the money pit of bureaucracy and unions and mandates.  Did you know that here Rob, I believe the last figure I heard was like 16K per student, a bit more than the national average you mentioned.  I also wonder what private enterprise and individuals could do and achieve without the burdens of taxation and regulation we have.  We'll never know.  We are moving in the Govt direction so we're going to find out just how well that works. 

A story this morning says that Obama-care will be charging people huge penalties for smoking.  Premiums could run close to $10K a year for these people to buy their coverage.  It sounded like smoking cessation would be all but required if one is to afford coverage under the new act.  So, in order to verify premiums and rules, are we now going to start up a new bureaucracy under the Care Act to drug test people for nicotine?  Are we essentially going to criminalize smoking?  And then fast food?  And then...whatever other behaviours the experts find unacceptable? 

^ Yeah I can't see having this new program if it is going to be as ruthless and ridiculous as private coverage.  It also appears to be expensive and prying...so what have we gained?  If we're going to have national health care, it may as well be universal and treat everyone the same.  That would create one single large pool and then they could of course try to encourage people to quit, but without being pricks about it.  Creating and enforcing a nicotine rule system will add a bunch of expense of its own to run, that is money that could be saved by not singling out smokers.  This act appears to be the worst of all worlds....expensive, meddlesome, and mandatory. 

I still think people should pay their own day to day care with the money they currently waste on premiums.  Then we should have a safety net for catastrophic costs above a certain cap, so that no one ever loses their life savings or home because they get cancer. 

How do the European/UK national health plans treat smoking?  Are you treated as pariahs?  Do you pay penalties?

40 some new posts.
All my laziness

As for the latest, there is that getting back to sides.
Ya guys dont really think Republicans are any more dedicated to limited gov (other than lip service) do you? Granted the few true ones were Republicans, but I could say they used to be the party of protectionism and central banks, while Democrats were free trade and against CBs. Limited gov should become a unifying issue!

As for Democrats today, you guys are partially right but I think many Democrats simply have a false history. They, like I and most of us, were told about how there was limited gov in the 1800s and robber barrons sprouted up and horrible things, that the 1920s and 1980s also brought limited gov and massive income inequality, corporations running berserk, and of course the famous "loose 20s"  brought the Great Depression...which alone is used as justification for more government.
The only thing that saved our country was progressivism, in the 1900s, 1930s and now after 2008.
We look at the "free markets" and see what bad has come of it.


Needless to say much of it is false or incorrect in thought, but yeah we were taught these things from HS through college

You are 100% right, but the thing is IDK how dedicated Republicans would be at the time.
There is more than econ, there's gay marriage and drugs and our foreign policy. I've seen a few conservatives think Ron Paul would've been the anti christ....letting terrorists and our "enemies" (countries not the US) running around
"What? You like Paul's ideas? He wants us to have no allies?"
"Uh not quite, he will work with anyone"
"Dude he hates Israel and wants us to have no friends. Also he says we deserved 9/11"
"No. Simply we need to realize our foreign policy has created a very bad environment, here let me go over it"
"NOPE! HE SAYS WE WANTED 9/11 BLARGH! And he loves gays and wants all drugs to be legal"
"Well, the government shouldn't interfere with love and our bodies"
"Nope gays are evil and drugs are bad k."
I believe Paul did far better in all the more liberal states than 'Santorum country"

I will grant Republicans deff are much more open to ideas of limited government.


Edited by JJLehto - January 26 2013 at 11:51

 Same.
Only had a couple of ciggs in my life, they suck, and cigars are pretty disgusting but smokers are on the verge of becoming second class citizens I feel at times And its not just being relegated to tiny corners where they get kinda looked at with shame, but the attitudes.
We've seen it on this very site, I remember some spewing hatred at smokers that was comparable to murder!

I guess it goes into the same ol notion "we need to fix all of peoples problems" which thus leads to "these people are bad because smoking is bad"
I will have to disagree with you there Doc...I am pretty sure you are correct in that statement about the lesser off comprise or more smokers, but you make it sound it its in their DNA. Like lesser off just smoke more, thus taxing ciggs is regressive and keeping the poor down! Not to be a dick but do you ever accept responsibility?
Who makes anyone smoke? I know the big bad corporations and advertising and all but hell, I never bought into it. many dont.
I respect your right and would fight to not have it limited, but also its your life choice...taxes affect all who smoke, if the lesser off smoke more who can they blame? Sounds like sometimes you really do want it all, rights and shirking responsibility.



Edited by JJLehto - January 26 2013 at 12:30

The good Doctor is right, though, that a tax on smoking does hit the lower class harder, even if it is their choice, just like a tax on yachts hits the upper class harder even though they can choose not to buy yachts.

So much for Obama's promise not to raise taxes on poor people.

Maybe it was how you worded it, but when you say "a way of taxing the poor" that kinda implies its their plan.
That's simply the result.
They aren't singling out a choice thats more lower class. They are singling out the choice. You view everything as class. It's the smoking that's been demonized, you are making it out to be a lower class thing. Sucks that it ends up hurting the poorer more (it cant be denied)
As llama said, its just part of the chain to come. NYC has the "big soda" ban, trans fats are banned in places, candy and sugar has been talked about. Sorry that smokers are currently enemy #1 but you are right, there are other poor life choices and at this rate eventually it will all be made illegal


Edited by JJLehto - January 26 2013 at 12:47

Finnforest wrote: Doc.... http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-204_162-57565787/older-smokers-priced-out-of-obamacare/ More insanity.... http://rt.com/usa/news/oregon-law-state-nicotine-697/

Good god.    Ridiculous on so many levels.