I'm big on social programs, myself, having benefitted from them to a large degree, and yet I cannot deny the logical points he (or yourself) make on these subjects. What I have a hard time with is when people misconstrue what he's saying and then ascribe traits to him that he does not exhibit. Like that he'd spit on the dying carcass of someone. Or that he's greedy, selfish, cold and inhuman. Within the past month, farfromglorified volunteered to help me financially and emotionally to make it to a meet up with some people on the board. That is far from a crucial life situation and yet he readily demonstrated both generosity and compassion without so much as being asked for either.
It is not easy integrating the fine lines between a left and right view. Once we get into judgments and mudslinging, we're definitely not moving in the right direction.
Excellent insight. I think the part that keeps being overlooked when people are judging FFG are the issues of force and obligation. Nowhere have I read FFG saying he'd leave a man dying, or would spit on his carcass. What I get from him is that he doesn't want others imposing or forcing the obligation to care for that dying man on to him. I believe he would freely help someone in need.
As for the mudslinging, that's where I need some work. If someone slings mud, I'm happy to jump in and start slinging back. FFG, and you (and a few others here) seem to be good about donning a teflon suit, smiling, and letting the mud slide off.
"I'll use the magic word - let's just shut the fuck up, please." EV, 04/13/08
Excellent insight. I think the part that keeps being overlooked when people are judging FFG are the issues of force and obligation. Nowhere have I read FFG saying he'd leave a man dying, or would spit on his carcass. What I get from him is that he doesn't want others imposing or forcing the obligation to care for that dying man on to him. I believe he would freely help someone in need.
People have to tune out the value of what he has publicly detailed about his business, ethical, or interpersonal practices in order to see him as inhuman and cold. I agree with what you are saying that because he disputes the force/obligation aspect, it seems people assume other things based on his arguments.
As for the mudslinging, that's where I need some work. If someone slings mud, I'm happy to jump in and start slinging back. FFG, and you (and a few others here) seem to be good about donning a teflon suit, smiling, and letting the mud slide off.
I can't recall you mudslinging, at all. Maybe I'll have to go back and check your posting trail. I've seen you call people out, or being bothered by people, but not slinging mud. I respect your reasoning.
I may let the mud slide off a lot of the time, but I'm definitely not always smiling!
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
"It was a bright cold day in April, and the clocks were striking thirteen. Winston Smith, his chin nuzzled into his breast in an effort to escape the vile wind, slipped quickly through the glass doors of Victory Mansions, though not quickly enough to prevent a swirl of gritty dust from entering along with him.
The hallway smelt of boiled cabbage and old rag mats. At one end of it a coloured poster, too large for indoor display, had been tacked to the wall. It depicted simply an enormous face, more than a metre wide: the face of a man of about forty-five, with a heavy black moustache and ruggedly handsome features. Winston made for the stairs. It was no use trying the lift. Even at the best of times it was seldom working, and at present the electric current was cut off during daylight hours. It was part of the economy drive in preparation for Hate Week. The flat was seven flights up, and Winston, who was thirty-nine and had a varicose ulcer above his right ankle, went slowly, resting several times on the way. On each landing, opposite the lift-shaft, the poster with the enormous face gazed from the wall. It was one of those pictures which are so contrived that the eyes follow you about when you move. BIG BROTHER IS WATCHING YOU, the caption beneath it ran.
Inside the flat a fruity voice was reading out a list of figures which had something to do with the production of pig-iron. The voice came from an oblong metal plaque like a dulled mirror which formed part of the surface of the right-hand wall. Winston turned a switch and the voice sank somewhat, though the words were still distinguishable. The instrument (the telescreen, it was called) could be dimmed, but there was no way of shutting it off completely. He moved over to the window: a smallish, frail figure, the meagreness of his body merely emphasized by the blue overalls which were the uniform of the party. His hair was very fair, his face naturally sanguine, his skin roughened by coarse soap and blunt razor blades and the cold of the winter that had just ended.
Outside, even through the shut window-pane, the world looked cold. Down in the street little eddies of wind were whirling dust and torn paper into spirals, and though the sun was shining and the sky a harsh blue, there seemed to be no colour in anything, except the posters that were plastered everywhere. The blackmoustachio'd face gazed down from every commanding corner. There was one on the house-front immediately opposite. BIG BROTHER IS WATCHING YOU, the caption said, while the dark eyes looked deep into Winston's own. Down at streetlevel another poster, torn at one corner, flapped fitfully in the wind, alternately covering and uncovering the single word INGSOC. In the far distance a helicopter skimmed down between the roofs, hovered for an instant like a bluebottle, and darted away again with a curving flight. It was the police patrol, snooping into people's windows. The patrols did not matter, however. Only the Thought Police mattered.
Behind Winston's back the voice from the telescreen was still babbling away about pig-iron and the overfulfilment of the Ninth Three-Year Plan. The telescreen received and transmitted simultaneously. Any sound that Winston made, above the level of a very low whisper, would be picked up by it, moreover, so long as he remained within the field of vision which the metal plaque commanded, he could be seen as well as heard. There was of course no way of knowing whether you were being watched at any given moment. How often, or on what system, the Thought Police plugged in on any individual wire was guesswork. It was even conceivable that they watched everybody all the time. But at any rate they could plug in your wire whenever they wanted to. You had to live -- did live, from habit that became instinct -- in the assumption that every sound you made was overheard, and, except in darkness, every movement scrutinized.
Winston kept his back turned to the telescreen. It was safer, though, as he well knew, even a back can be revealing. A kilometre away the Ministry of Truth, his place of work, towered vast and white above the grimy landscape. This, he thought with a sort of vague distaste -- this was London, chief city of Airstrip One, itself the third most populous of the provinces of Oceania. He tried to squeeze out some childhood memory that should tell him whether London had always been quite like this. Were there always these vistas of rotting nineteenth-century houses, their sides shored up with baulks of timber, their windows patched with cardboard and their roofs with corrugated iron, their crazy garden walls sagging in all directions? And the bombed sites where the plaster dust swirled in the air and the willow-herb straggled over the heaps of rubble; and the places where the bombs had cleared a larger patch and there had sprung up sordid colonies of wooden dwellings like chicken-houses? But it was no use, he could not remember: nothing remained of his childhood except a series of bright-lit tableaux occurring against no background and mostly unintelligible.
The Ministry of Truth -- Minitrue, in Newspeak -- was startlingly different from any other object in sight. It was an enormous pyramidal structure of glittering white concrete, soaring up, terrace after terrace, 300 metres into the air. From where Winston stood it was just possible to read, picked out on its white face in elegant lettering, the three slogans of the Party:
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH" - George Orwell
This is your world, and I'm not sure you even know that.
how disingenuous of you. so anyone who believe government is necessary is advocating big brother eh? im one of the stauncher defenders of civil liberties around here, but im also a man of common sense. i understand all the ideological points you make and all of your abstract games of logic. my point all along has been that none of this is practical in the real world and all you offer is abstract platitudes that allow you to get on your soapbox and browbeat anyone who disagrees with you with these meaningless logic games. you greet any attempt to find some sort of common ground or compromise with you as a smug victory for yourself while you wax about how oppressed you are by a government that is one of the most responsive to its people in the history of human society.
but go on, play your games. im a libertarian at heart. you know you've gone off the deep end when your ideals are mind-blowingly bad to even a libertarian.
you say you're a staunch believer in liberty. but your ideology reveals that all you truly care about is ensuring that you never have to lift a finger to help anyone but yourself.
He is one of the only truly interactive people I've known, who operates based on mutual agreement which stems from mutual respect.
Wow -- thank you. This is one of the nicest compliments I've ever received in my life. It's funny how basically the exact same set of words can lead to the insults I've received on this board as well as compliments like this. The fundamental morality I hold for interpersonal action is found in these words you used:
"mutual agreement which stems from mutual respect"
That is the effective definition of exchange, the highest ideal of human interactions, IMO. Thanks for the understanding, angelica.
This is actually a very nice compliment as well, though I doubt it was intended as one. Reality is very much a brick wall, soulsinging.
yeah, but luckily for me, i can put the racket down and walk away. you can't walk away from reality. unless you join up with those militias. but i doubt you've the guts to back any of your convictions with action... you just like to whine about them. it's easy to be an armchair man of principle.
This is one of the nicest compliments I've ever received in my life.
Good. You deserve it, because when I say "one of the only...I've known" you are maybe the top 1...or 2nd or 3rd at worst. Granted, I'm not sure how computer world translates in reality, but that you have the theory down is very impressive in my mind.
It's funny how basically the exact same set of words can lead to the insults I've received on this board as well as compliments like this.
I know, the humour is not lost on me. I still can't integrate my own thinking completely on this to harmonize the varying aspects that I see. I'll just chalk it up to a paradox.
The fundamental morality I hold for interpersonal action is found in these words you used:
"mutual agreement which stems from mutual respect"
That is the effective definition of exchange, the highest ideal of human interactions, IMO. Thanks for the understanding, angelica.
You're welcome. Thanks for seeing the fine lines in the world of mutual respect.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
how disingenuous of you. so anyone who believe government is necessary is advocating big brother eh?
No. People who rely on contradictions like this are:
"yes, becos force is needed to keep greedy, selfish, cold, and inhuman people like you from abusing the rest of humanity for your own personal wealth and treating your fellow man like a means to an end by spitting on their dying carcass rather than lending a hand in helping them up."
That is the contradictory logic of "war is peace, slavery is freedom, ignorance is strength". That is the doublespeak Orwell was so famous for highlighting in his novels -- that's why I used that passage, not just as a blanket response to anyone who believes in government.
The simple belief in government does not make one an advocate of big brother. In some instances, it doesn't even make one "bad", in my book. However, when that belief is tied to contradictory logic, it becomes exceptionally dangerous.
im one of the stauncher defenders of civil liberties around here, but im also a man of common sense.
Yes, you are.
i understand all the ideological points you make and all of your abstract games of logic. my point all along has been that none of this is practical in the real world and all you offer is abstract platitudes that allow you to get on your soapbox and browbeat anyone who disagrees with you with these meaningless logic games.
If none of it is "practical", what are you so annoyed about? If all I'm doing is getting on a soapbox, so what? I've illiceted a strong emotional response from you in this thread, and that means there's more to it than the above.
you greet any attempt to find some sort of common ground or compromise with you as a smug victory for yourself
I don't greet common ground here or compromise in any way. On this issue, you and I share little common ground. Furthermore, I have no desire to "compromise" with you since your system offers me little that I want. Finally, "compromise" is completely alien to what you're proposing. You're simply going to force me to do what you want anyway, by your own definition.
while you wax about how oppressed you are by a government that is one of the most responsive to its people in the history of human society.
This government is one of the most responsive to its people in the history of human society. I completely agree. In a relative context against other states, I will typically staunchly defend the United States Government. However, that certainly does not mean that it is free of serious and often times fundamental flaws.
but go on, play your games. im a libertarian at heart. you know you've gone off the deep end when your ideals are mind-blowingly bad to even a libertarian.
Hehe....that's pretty cute actually.
you say you're a staunch believer in liberty. but your ideology reveals that all you truly care about is ensuring that you never have to lift a finger to help anyone but yourself.
No, it doesn't. That's the system you're proposing. You're forcing me to lift that finger to appease your moral responsibilities. Every single person in this world has a primary moral responsibility to themselves. Your systems allow people to abdicate that responsibility and put it on the shoulders of others. If that is what people want for themselves, so be it. That, however, is not what I want. I will fulfill my responsibilities to myself and I will choose the responsibilities I have to others.
If none of it is "practical", what are you so annoyed about? If all I'm doing is getting on a soapbox, so what? I've illiceted a strong emotional response from you in this thread, and that means there's more to it than the above.
becos you're a relatively smart guy and we could use more smart people actually trying to solve the problems we've got out there, rather than just avoiding them.
I don't greet common ground here or compromise in any way. On this issue, you and I share little common ground. Furthermore, I have no desire to "compromise" with you since your system offers me little that I want. Finally, "compromise" is completely alien to what you're proposing. You're simply going to force me to do what you want anyway, by your own definition.
no, what im proposing is that we air our views and find a practical ground that benefits as many as possible. that is what government is and does and is supposed to be. sometimes this means a little sacrifice. sometimes it means you get benefits. but on the whole, everybody wins more than they lose. you dont always get it your way. this is the united states, not burger king. suck it up. you're still better off than most of the world. so you can sit out the game and let me have my way, or you can participate and try to get the best deal possible for yourself. some form of national health care is coming... that's just the way it is. the popular support for it is growing and the outrage at the way we turn our back on the poor is mounting. so you've got two choices... cross your arms and pout in the corner becos we're not playing the game you want and let us have our way with your tax money, or throw your hat in the ring and try to make sure that it is done the best way it can be while minimizing its impact on you.
No, it doesn't. That's the system you're proposing. You're forcing me to lift that finger to appease your moral responsibilities. Every single person in this world has a primary moral responsibility to themselves. Your systems allow people to abdicate that responsibility and put it on the shoulders of others. If that is what people want for themselves, so be it. That, however, is not what I want. I will fulfill my responsibilities to myself and I will choose the responsibilities I have to others.
im not proposing any system. im saying this is the system we've got, like it or not. us representative democracy. everyone pays. nobody abdicates we just enlist our fellow to help. you must be a lot of fun to have around. do you get pissy when people offer to buy you drinks becos they will get to choose what you drink and that is a horrible infringement upon your liberty?
yeah, but luckily for me, i can put the racket down and walk away. you can't walk away from reality. unless you join up with those militias. but i doubt you've the guts to back any of your convictions with action... you just like to whine about them. it's easy to be an armchair man of principle.
Hehe...you know so little about me personally that this makes absolutely no sense.
Understand this: the principles I hold are behind nearly every decision I've made in my life in the last 10 years. They are behind my entrepreneurial efforts, my friendships, my relationships with my family, the wealth of all kinds that I have earned and the charity of all kinds I've granted. Those principles define the things I love in this world and the things I dislike in this world, and they define who I am as the primary guiding force in my life. Nearly all of the great amount of happiness I've experienced can be attributed to living by them and most of the small amount of sadness I've experienced can be attributed to forgetting them.
If those principles are not for you, so be it. I have no interest in forcing them upon you and I have no expectation that you will hold them or value them in any way. However, when you speak of armchair principles I'd encourage you to look at the men and women who propose, via the use of someone else's violence, forcing other people to give them the world they seek.
Hehe...you know so little about me personally that this makes absolutely no sense.
Understand this: the principles I hold are behind nearly every decision I've made in my life in the last 10 years. They are behind my entrepreneurial efforts, my friendships, my relationships with my family, the wealth of all kinds that I have earned and the charity of all kinds I've granted. Those principles define the things I love in this world and the things I dislike in this world, and they define who I am as the primary guiding force in my life. Nearly all of the great amount of happiness I've experienced can be attributed to living by them and most of the small amount of sadness I've experienced can be attributed to forgetting them.
If those principles are not for you, so be it. I have no interest in forcing them upon you and I have no expectation that you will hold them or value them in any way. However, when you speak of armchair principles I'd encourage you to look at the men and women who propose, via the use of someone else's violence, forcing other people to give them the world they seek.
yet you claim taxation is evil and akin to theft. so why not make a stand for your principles? civil disobedience? or do you just like it as a talking point to show off how "pure" your freedom ideals are?
becos you're a relatively smart guy and we could use more smart people actually trying to solve the problems we've got out there, rather than just avoiding them.
Sigh....please just stop trying to use me.
no, what im proposing is that we air our views and find a practical ground that benefits as many as possible. that is what government is and does and is supposed to be. sometimes this means a little sacrifice. sometimes it means you get benefits. but on the whole, everybody wins more than they lose. you dont always get it your way. this is the united states, not burger king. suck it up. you're still better off than most of the world. so you can sit out the game and let me have my way, or you can participate and try to get the best deal possible for yourself. some form of national health care is coming... that's just the way it is. the popular support for it is growing and the outrage at the way we turn our back on the poor is mounting. so you've got two choices... cross your arms and pout in the corner becos we're not playing the game you want and let us have our way with your tax money, or throw your hat in the ring and try to make sure that it is done the best way it can be while minimizing its impact on you.
Some kind of universal national health care is coming. You'll extract your pounds of flesh, and you'll have it your way, very much like burger king. So what does it matter what I'm doing? I could "pout", or I could "throw my hat in the ring" and it would make very little difference. Either way, I lose. As I said before, you can talk all you want about "compromise", but what do you have to offer me? Let's talk purely practically here.
im not proposing any system. im saying this is the system we've got, like it or not. us representative democracy. everyone pays. nobody abdicates we just enlist our fellow to help. you must be a lot of fun to have around. do you get pissy when people offer to buy you drinks becos they will get to choose what you drink and that is a horrible infringement upon your liberty?
Hehe...no. The people buying my drinks already know what I want. Plays back into that whole mutual respect thing.
Some kind of universal national health care is coming. You'll extract your pounds of flesh, and you'll have it your way, very much like burger king. So what does it matter what I'm doing? I could "pout", or I could "throw my hat in the ring" and it would make very little difference. Either way, I lose. As I said before, you can talk all you want about "compromise", but what do you have to offer me? Let's talk purely practically here.
Hehe...no. The people buying my drinks already know what I want. Plays back into that whole mutual respect thing.
semantics... use you, value intelligent input guiding the course of the country, whatever. take offense if you like. bottom line is i ahte to see intelligent people pissing their potential away.
practically, im not convinced national health care is a good idea. so you can talk about it in in practical terms and not some abstract jerkoff "you're robbing me of my freedom through taxes" nonsense. taxes are part of life and there is no changing it... sorry. death and taxes remember? so, why is it a worse expenditure than our bloated military budget? why is it doomed to failure? barring that, if the majority of americans want it, we're getting it. so what they have to offer is if you speak up, you might be able to lose less, crafting some sort of exemptions or funding it from the military instead of tax increases. whatever. bottom line is, if you DONT speak up, they will do what they damn well please without your input. do you even understand what compromise is? it's not "what do you have to offer me" it's ill grant you this, but you've got to yield here in return. you're not compromising, you're saying that it has to be your way and if it isnt, it's the other people who wont compromise.
if the people want health care, they will get it. that's majority rule dude. there isn't a place in the world or a moment in history where this rule did not hold true. so you can either deal with it and try to minimize your loss, or you can pout and maximize your loss. i think you prefer the latter becos it allows you to fuels your persecuted, misunderstood genius complex.
Ok. Then I guess medicine has no value, since it is a possession. And I guess any cancer medicine invented because of the perceived value attached with it might as well be dumped in the Hudson river.
Valuable possessions can be given and shared equally. The whole concept of 'I own this, keep away from what's mine, put up a wall to keep other from accessing what I've claimed' has caused so many of the problems our world faces. I think, ideally, no one should have more of a right to possessions than anyone else. It doesn't matter how hard you worked for it. You shouldn't- work so hard in the first place just simply live your life. If you enjoy hard work then so be it but don't make claims on our world because of your need to compete. Living a life based on working hard to gain more than the next guy is not necessary and it depletes the land of resources which leads to others having to suffer without. If we'd drop the mindless competition of out owning your neighbor we would see that there is, indeed, plenty for all. We share the world not own it.
You just answered your own question here. If you hate to see a sick or needy person go without, then you know what to do with your own money, don't you? There is no need for the "but" in your statement above.
My money doesn't cover anywhere close all those who are forced to go without. They are forced to go without because the world's been bought out from under them.
If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
semantics... use you, value intelligent input guiding the course of the country, whatever. take offense if you like. bottom line is i ahte to see intelligent people pissing their potential away.
Hehe...my "potential" has absolutely nothing to do with you.
practically, im not convinced national health care is a good idea. so you can talk about it in in practical terms and not some abstract jerkoff "you're robbing me of my freedom through taxes" nonsense.
Of course. What would you like to talk about, practically?
so, why is it a worse expenditure than our bloated military budget?
That's a moral question, not a practical question.
why is it doomed to failure?
It isn't. If the "success" of Universal Health Care is going to be judged on the number of people who have access to something called the health care system, universal health care will be a smashing success.
barring that, if the majority of americans want it, we're getting it. so what they have to offer is if you speak up, you might be able to lose less, crafting some sort of exemptions or funding it from the military instead of tax increases.
That will never happen. The US population wants its massive military even more than it wants its universal health care.
whatever. bottom line is, if you DONT speak up, they will do what they damn well please without your input.
Yes, they will. But they'll do that with my input as well.
do you even understand what compromise is? it's not "what do you have to offer me" it's ill grant you this, but you've got to yield here in return.
Hehe...compromise is a mutual consent arrived at by multiple parties wherein each is willing to sacrifice something for a perceived overall benefit.
you're not compromising, you're saying that it has to be your way and if it isnt, it's the other people who wont compromise.
You're obviously misunderstanding. I'm not trying to prescribe anything for you. You can have whatever UHC system you want.
if the people want health care, they will get it. that's majority rule dude. there isn't a place in the world or a moment in history where this rule did not hold true. so you can either deal with it and try to minimize your loss, or you can pout and maximize your loss. i think you prefer the latter becos it allows you to fuels your persecuted, misunderstood genius complex.
"Persecuted, misunderstood genius" complex? Hehe...I'm not looking for sympathy here.
Valuable possessions can be given and shared equally.
Of course they can!
The whole concept of 'I own this, keep away from what's mine, put up a wall to keep other from accessing what I've claimed' has caused so many of the problems our world faces.
Are you sure about that? Aren't you doing the same thing with your "given and shared equally"? You're still claiming ownership of something at a specific level. Some people will still not have enough, some will still have too much.
Furthermore, since nothing is "mine" or "yours", how can you claim any right to it?
Also, you relize that the very things you're fighting to split up 'equally' were typically invented by people seeking to have what's their's, right?
Finally, how come the effort involved in producing those things in the first place wasn't shared "equally"?
I think, ideally, no one should have more of a right to possessions than anyone else.
Ok. Force rules again then. I can steal whatever I'd like from you, based on your own moral code here.
It doesn't matter how hard you worked for it.
Oh my. Do you realize that "how hard you worked for it" determines the actual composition and value of the thing you're talking about?
Check it out -- I just invented a cancer drug in my basement. Two parts gin, one part rat poison. I didn't work very hard for it, but it's still a cancer drug because I want it to be, right?
You shouldn't- work so hard in the first place just simply live your life.
Understand this: every life takes X amount of effort to live. If you put in less than X effort, someone else must bridge the gap for you to survive.
Now, the total effort of the US workforce amounts to roughly $13T in value. Does it take $13T in effort for all 400,000,000 people to just survive? Not at all. But as that number goes down, so does the tangible value of the output of that effort. And with that goes products and comforts. That means medicines. That means doctors. The mindset you're advocating here is going to make it very easy to split these things equally -- you'll simply have almost nothing to divide.
Finally, your work is up to you. If you don't want to work, don't. But don't expect all of those of us who do to buy into some guilt that we have an obligation to you because of your choice.
If you enjoy hard work then so be it but don't make claims on our world because of your need to compete.
I make no claims on your world. I make claims on the things I trade others for.
Living a life based on working hard to gain more than the next guy is not necessary and it depletes the land of resources which leads to others having to suffer without.
Sigh....why don't you think about that for a few seconds?
Hunter-gatherering human beings lived exceptionally simple lives, and in many cases expended much less work effort than we do in the "civilized" world. Now, the poorest Americans, in probably every case, have more in economic or resource value than any hunter-gatherer did. Now, we could argue that their lives were better in other senses, but you're talking economics here and there's no comparison.
The total wealth available to a society is entirely dependent on the valued labor (mental and physical) that went into it. The lower the labor, the lower the wealth.
If we'd drop the mindless competition of out owning your neighbor we would see that there is, indeed, plenty for all. We share the world not own it.
Abook, the only reason you have these medicines in the first place is because of mindful actions, including competition. Again, there is little in this world you cannot have if you work for it. And at that point, you're free to do whatever you'd like with it. In the context of medicines, if you become a chemist and produce a medicine and wish to give it all away equally to everyone, I'd never question your right to do so. But the instant you're proposing to do that with someone else's labor is when I'm going to question a lot of this do-gooder lingo here.
My money doesn't cover anywhere close all those who are forced to go without. They are forced to go without because the world's been bought out from under them.
Hehe...and you're sanctioning that action by simply doing the same thing.
Are you sure about that? Aren't you doing the same thing with your "given and shared equally"? You're still claiming ownership of something at a specific level. Some people will still not have enough, some will still have too much.
How about taking when you need. And the resources be viewed as ours.
Finally, how come the effort involved in producing those things in the first place wasn't shared "equally"?
Because different people are good at different things and have different ideas. But we are all connected. I don't care for the ideology of only doing things to see what I can get out of it for myself only.
Check it out -- I just invented a cancer drug in my basement. Two parts gin, one part rat poison. I didn't work very hard for it, but it's still a cancer drug because I want it to be, right?
Understand this: every life takes X amount of effort to live. If you put in less than X effort, someone else must bridge the gap for you to survive.
Now, the total effort of the US workforce amounts to roughly $13T in value. Does it take $13T in effort for all 400,000,000 people to just survive? Not at all. But as that number goes down, so does the tangible value of the output of that effort. And with that goes products and comforts. That means medicines. That means doctors. The mindset you're advocating here is going to make it very easy to split these things equally -- you'll simply have almost nothing to divide.
I think people will do things because of morals, it doesn't have to be because of money. Happiness, healthy societies, communities who work together as whole, peace are all more valuable then my bank account.
Finally, your work is up to you. If you don't want to work, don't. But don't expect all of those of us who do to buy into some guilt that we have an obligation to you because of your choice.
We all owe it to each other to treat one another decently, no matter how hard people choose to work. If you wouldn't eat up all the world's resources then the poor wouldn't have to ask you for it. They could simply get it themsleves. You make the system you hate. You support freedom to take all you wish. You support having all these possessions protected. By this you've created the need for the government and police to protect what you've claimed and keep all others out. In your system the poor and without wil always out number you.
Sigh....why don't you think about that for a few seconds?
Hunter-gatherering human beings lived exceptionally simple lives, and in many cases expended much less work effort than we do in the "civilized" world. Now, the poorest Americans, in probably every case, have more in economic or resource value than any hunter-gatherer did. Now, we could argue that their lives were better in other senses, but you're talking economics here and there's no comparison.
The total wealth available to a society is entirely dependent on the valued labor (mental and physical) that went into it. The lower the labor, the lower the wealth.
But look at the whole world. Look at what has been created.
Abook, the only reason you have these medicines in the first place is because of mindful actions, including competition. Again, there is little in this world you cannot have if you work for it. And at that point, you're free to do whatever you'd like with it. In the context of medicines, if you become a chemist and produce a medicine and wish to give it all away equally to everyone, I'd never question your right to do so. But the instant you're proposing to do that with someone else's labor is when I'm going to question a lot of this do-gooder lingo here.
We all have to work together. You can make medicine for whoever you wish. I'll only question your urge to hold back possible cures with your hand held out.
Hehe...compromise is a mutual consent arrived at by multiple parties wherein each is willing to sacrifice something for a perceived overall benefit.
yet you stubbornly insist that you are not willing to sacrifice anything ever for any purpose whatsoever. so you are unwilling to compromise, period. and dont play games about how if you buy services from the government you are sacrificing money for services. money is not a sacrifice. sacrifice means "this is important to me, but i will yield on it if you yield on that."
id be very interested to see you respond to a post once without breaking it up. it is easy to take an argument and make it look ridiculous by combating each individual sentence without having to confront the merit of the entire argument. why dyou think lawyers are so successful? you can make each statement look slightly unsound and thus undercut the entire argument by implication (see what shaky logic, i can poke 19 holes in this argument!). but i wonder if you are even capable of grasping a big picture in any of this... of responding to the ideas of any given post, rather than simply nitpicking over the manner of that idea's expression sentence by sentence.
How about taking when you need. And the resources be viewed as ours.
"Need" has no objective meaning, abook. Does Exxon "need" the profit they make? Sure. Do you "need" strawberries? Sure. Do I "need" 6 laptops? Sure. Or not. Who decides, and on what philosophy or morality do they decide?
Don't make any such claims. Use what you need.
How can I use something I can't even make a claim to have a right to?
'Live simply so that thers might simply live.'
What does it mean to "live simply"? 1,000 calories per day? No air conditioning? No furniture?
Doesn't have to be. Many do things selflessly out of kindness, compassion and caring.
They certainly do. My world allows for both. Yours only the latter. Whose world will produce more innovations?
Because different people are good at different things and have different ideas.
Exactly! Now why pretend they're all the same by dividing things up as if those different skills and different ideas, the means to creating those things, are the same?
But we are all connected. I don't care for the ideology of only doing things to see what I can get out of it for myself only.
Then don't.
Possessions are false comforts and don't mean a whole lot to me.
Yet you seem obsessed with getting your hands on things you don't have.
Peace and harmony mean so much more.
Ok. Are peace and harmony limited commodoties?
I'd argue that the value in things lies in it's benefit to our world and species
Of course, that's just restating what I said. And that dictates the efforts people will seek them with. No one is going to expend a lot of effort seeking something that have no benefit to the world or the species.
I think people will do things because of morals, it doesn't have to be because of money.
What morals?
Happiness, healthy societies, communities who work together as whole, peace are all more valuable then my bank account.
Great! Then don't have a bank account. Be happy, be healthy, work together with your community.
We all owe it to each other to treat one another decently, no matter how hard people choose to work.
Agreed.
If you wouldn't eat up all the world's resources then the poor wouldn't have to ask you for it.
What resources do they need that I've eaten up?
They could simply get it themsleves. You make the system you hate. You support freedom to take all you wish. You support having all these possessions protected. By this you've created the need for the government and police to protect what you've claimed and keep all others out. In your system the poor and without wil always out number you.
I don't know what you mean. The poor and without do not outnumber me. There are a few poor people in America. There are many more wealthy people. Nearly everyone here as what they need, right?
You got those things from our world.
Hehe...no. You don't "own" those things, right? They're "ours", correct?
But look at the whole world. Look at what has been created.
What do you mean here?
We all have to work together.
Agreed! We do all have to work together. Then why are you proposing we work less, or not at all?
You can make medicine for whoever you wish. I'll only question your urge to hold back possible cures with your hand held out.
Why? Without me, that cure wouldn't exist.
Nah, I'll share.
Yes, on your terms, by your rules. That's exactly what they're doing abook.
I see no need in having more than them then selling it back to them for more than I got it for just so I can gain wealth.
Really? Everything you're proposing here would result in gains for you, with things you don't arguably need.
I know it's late to join in, but isn't this the same debate that pops up every 2 or 3 months here?
I can't believe that anyone would trust healthcare to the same government who can't get the Department of Motor Vehicles to run efficiently. You trust these characters with the lives of your family?
"All governments are murderers and liars."
-Bill Hicks
yet you stubbornly insist that you are not willing to sacrifice anything ever for any purpose whatsoever. so you are unwilling to compromise, period. and dont play games about how if you buy services from the government you are sacrificing money for services. money is not a sacrifice. sacrifice means "this is important to me, but i will yield on it if you yield on that."
id be very interested to see you respond to a post once without breaking it up. it is easy to take an argument and make it look ridiculous by combating each individual sentence without having to confront the merit of the entire argument. why dyou think lawyers are so successful? you can make each statement look slightly unsound and thus undercut the entire argument by implication (see what shaky logic, i can poke 19 holes in this argument!). but i wonder if you are even capable of grasping a big picture in any of this... of responding to the ideas of any given post, rather than simply nitpicking over the manner of that idea's expression sentence by sentence.
you're not a lawyer yourself by chance, are you?
Sigh...I break things up because people insist on making logical connections between things that don't really exist, or string 10 incorrect axioms into one final conclusion, or do not understand how thematic paragraphs work. It's often the most effective way to demonstrate the poor reasoning and doesn't require me to invest hours of my day writing missives. If the style bothers you, then simply respond with this:
"FFG, until you respond in paragraphs, I refuse to respond to your crappy post".
Now, I'll acquiesce here....
I am not "unwilling" to sacrifice or compromise. You're bastardizing my opinions. I am unwilling to have my sacrifices and compromises dictated to me, nor will I allow the person dictating them to me to pretend that I've willingly sacrificed or compromised. A murder isn't a "sacrifice" on the part of the murdered, and a rape isn't a "compromise" on the part of the raped.
I will happily and willingly sacrifice something of value to achieve a compromise that results in a benefit to me. I compromise with my friends, my coworkers, my family, my girlfriend, and many random people I meet everyday. That said, I don't owe those compromises to people any more than they owe their compromises to me. We do them on our terms in order to achieve a more harmonious and happy life.
If I encounter you on the street and demand your wallet at the point of a gun, I'm going to assume you'll protest, if only slightly. If I then demand a "compromise" wherein you only give me half your money, do you believe that is an actual "compromise"? Now, if I encounter you on the street and you're selling apples for $2 each, and I offer you $1 for an apple because that's all I have, and you willingly agree, that is a "compromise".
(BTW: I'm not a lawyer. I'd make a damn good one though.)
"Need" has no objective meaning, abook. Does Exxon "need" the profit they make? Sure. Do you "need" strawberries? Sure. Do I "need" 6 laptops? Sure. Or not. Who decides, and on what philosophy or morality do they decide?
You need certain things to live. All the rest you have to use gently to sustain them for all.
"
Exactly! Now why pretend they're all the same by dividing things up as if those different skills and different ideas, the means to creating those things, are the same?
They all deserve the same right to life. The smarter ones don't deserve more of the world because of their genetics.
"
Of course, that's just restating what I said. And that dictates the efforts people will seek them with. No one is going to expend a lot of effort seeking something that have no benefit to the world or the species.
Or they could just lie about it's value and sell it anyway.
"
I don't know what you mean. The poor and without do not outnumber me. There are a few poor people in America. There are many more wealthy people. Nearly everyone here as what they need, right?
On this January morning of two thousand and seven, more than sixty years after President Truman first issued the call for national health insurance, we find ourselves in the midst of an historic moment on health care. From Maine to California, from business to labor, from Democrats to Republicans, the emergence of new and bold proposals from across the spectrum has effectively ended the debate over whether or not we should have universal health care in this country.
Plans that tinker and halfway measures now belong to yesterday. The President’s latest proposal that does little to bring down cost or guarantee coverage falls into this category. There will be many others offered in the coming campaign, and I am working with experts to develop my own plan as we speak, but let’s make one thing clear right here, right now:
In the 2008 campaign, affordable, universal health care for every single American must not be a question of whether, it must be a question of how. We have the ideas, we have the resources, and we must find the will to pass a plan by the end of the next president’s first term.
I know there’s a cynicism out there about whether this can happen, and there’s reason for it. Every four years, health care plans are offered up in campaigns with great fanfare and promise. But once those campaigns end, the plans collapse under the weight of Washington politics, leaving the rest of America to struggle with skyrocketing costs.
For too long, this debate has been stunted by what I call the smallness of our politics – the idea that there isn’t much we can agree on or do about the major challenges facing our country. And when some try to propose something bold, the interests groups and the partisans treat it like a sporting event, with each side keeping score of who’s up and who’s down, using fear and divisiveness and other cheap tricks to win their argument, even if we lose our solution in the process.
Well we can’t afford another disappointing charade in 2008. It’s not only tiresome, it’s wrong. Wrong when businesses have to layoff one employee because they can’t afford the health care of another. Wrong when a parent cannot take a sick child to the doctor because they cannot afford the bill that comes with it. Wrong when 46 million Americans have no health care at all. In a country that spends more on health care than any other nation on Earth, it’s just wrong.
And yet, in recent years, what’s caught the attention of those who haven’t always been in favor of reform is the realization that this crisis isn’t just morally offensive, it’s economically untenable. For years, the can’t-do crowd has scared the American people into believing that universal health care would mean socialized medicine and burdensome taxes – that we should just stay out of the way and tinker at the margins.
You know the statistics. Family premiums are up by nearly 87% over the last five years, growing five times faster than workers’ wages. Deductibles are up 50%. Co-payments for care and prescriptions are through the roof.
Nearly 11 million Americans who are already insured spent more than a quarter of their salary on health care last year. And over half of all family bankruptcies today are caused by medical bills.
But they say it’s too costly to act.
Almost half of all small businesses no longer offer health care to their workers, and so many others have responded to rising costs by laying off workers or shutting their doors for good. Some of the biggest corporations in America, giants of industry like GM and Ford, are watching foreign competitors based in countries with universal health care run circles around them, with a GM car containing twice as much health care cost as a Japanese car.
But they say it’s too risky to act.
They tell us it’s too expensive to cover the uninsured, but they don’t mention that every time an American without health insurance walks into an emergency room, we pay even more. Our family’s premiums are $922 higher because of the cost of care for the uninsured.
We pay $15 billion more in taxes because of the cost of care for the uninsured. And it’s trapped us in a vicious cycle. As the uninsured cause premiums to rise, more employers drop coverage. As more employers drop coverage, more people become uninsured, and premiums rise even further.
But the skeptics tell us that reform is too costly, too risky, too impossible for America.
Well the skeptics must be living somewhere else. Because when you see what the health care crisis is doing to our families, to our economy, to our country, you realize that caution is what’s costly. Inaction is what’s risky. Doing nothing is what’s impossible when it comes to health care in America.
It’s time to act. This isn’t a problem of money, this is a problem of will. A failure of leadership. We already spend $2.2 trillion a year on health care in this country. My colleague, Senator Ron Wyden, who’s recently developed a bold new health care plan of his own, tells it this way:
For the money Americans spent on health care last year, we could have hired a group of skilled physicians, paid each one of them $200,000 to care for just seven families, and guaranteed every single American quality, affordable health care.
So where’s all that money going? We know that a quarter of it – one out of every four health care dollars – is spent on non-medical costs; mostly bills and paperwork. And we also know that this is completely unnecessary. Almost every other industry in the world has saved billions on these administrative costs by doing it all online. Every transaction you make at a bank now costs them less than a penny. Even at the Veterans Administration, where it used to cost nine dollars to pull up your medical record, new technology means you can call up the same record on the internet for next to nothing.
But because we haven't updated technology in the rest of the health care industry, a single transaction still costs up to twenty-five dollars - not one dime of which goes toward improving the quality of our health care.
This is simply inexcusable, and if we brought our entire health care system online, something everyone from Ted Kennedy to Newt Gingrich believes we should do, we’d already be saving over $600 million a year on health care costs.
The federal government should be leading the way here. If you do business with the federal employee health benefits program, you should move to an electronic claims system. If you are a provider who works with Medicare, you should have to report your patient’s health outcomes, so that we can figure out, on a national level, how to improve health care quality. These are all things experts tell us must be done but aren’t being done. And the federal government should lead.
Another, more controversial area we need to look at is how much of our health care spending is going toward the record-breaking profits earned by the drug and health care industry. It’s perfectly understandable for a corporation to try and make a profit, but when those profits are soaring higher and higher each year while millions lose their coverage and premiums skyrocket, we have a responsibility to ask why.
At a time when businesses are facing increased competition and workers rarely stay with one company throughout their lives, we also have to ask if the employer-based system of health care itself is still the best for providing insurance to all Americans. We have to ask what we can do to provide more Americans with preventative care, which would mean fewer doctor’s visits and less cost down the road. We should make sure that every single child who’s eligible is signed up for the children’s health insurance program, and the federal government should make sure that our states have the money to make that happen. And we have to start looking at some of the interesting ideas on comprehensive reform that are coming out of states like Maine and Illinois and California, to see what we can replicate on a national scale and what will move us toward that goal of universal coverage for all.
But regardless of what combination of policies and proposals get us to this goal, we must reach it. We must act. And we must act boldly. As one health care advocate recently said, “The most expensive course is to do nothing.” But it wasn’t a liberal Democrat or union leader who said this.
It was the president of the very health industry association that funded the “Harry and Louise” ads designed to kill the Clinton health care plan in the early nineties.
The debate in this country over health care has shifted. The support for comprehensive reform that organizations like Families USA have worked so hard to build is now widespread, and the diverse group of business and health industry interests that are part of your Health Care Coverage Coalition is a testament to that success. And so Washington no longer has an excuse for caution. Leaders no longer have a reason to be timid. And America can no longer afford inaction. That’s not who we are – and that’s not the story of our nation’s improbable progress.
Half a century ago, America found itself in the midst of another health care crisis. For millions of elderly Americans, the single greatest cause of poverty and hardship was the crippling cost of health care and the lack of affordable insurance. Two out of every three elderly Americans had annual incomes of less than $1,000, and only one in eight had health insurance.
As health care and hospital costs continued to rise, more and more private insurers simply refused to insure our elderly, believing they were too great of a risk to care for.
The resistance to action was fierce. Proponents of health care reform were opposed by well-financed, well-connected interest groups who spared no expense in telling the American people that these efforts were “dangerous” and “un-American,” “revolutionary” and even “deadly.”
And yet the reformers marched on. They testified before Congress and they took their case to the country and they introduced dozens of different proposals but always, always they stood firm on their goal to provide health care for every American senior. And finally, after years of advocacy and negotiation and plenty of setbacks, President Lyndon Johnson signed the Medicare bill into law on July 30th of 1965.
The signing ceremony was held in Missouri, in a town called Independence, with the first man who was bold enough to issue the call for universal health care – President Harry Truman.
And as he stood with Truman by his side and signed what would become the most successful government program in history – a program that had seemed impossible for so long – President Johnson looked out at the crowd and said, “History shapes men, but it is a necessary faith of leadership that men can help shape history.”
Never forget that we have it within our power to shape history in this country. It is not in our character to sit idly by as victims of fate or circumstance, for we are a people of action and innovation, forever pushing the boundaries of what’s possible.
Now is the time to push those boundaries once more. We have come so far in the debate on health care in this country, but now we must finally answer the call first issued by Truman, advanced by Johnson, and fought for by so many leaders and Americans throughout the last century. The time has come for universal health care in America. And I look forward to working with all of you to meet this challenge in the weeks and months to come. Thank you.
You need certain things to live. All the rest you have to use gently to sustain them for all.
The former makes sense. You need roughly 1000 calories to live, a few cups of water, one outfit of clothing, and a tin roof over your head, and medical attention. Everybody gets that...gotcha.
The latter I don't understand. Why would I use them "gently to sustain them for all"? If no one owns these things, and no one can make any claim to them, what motivation do I have not to simply devour them all? What checks are there on consumption?
By getting it not hording it.
What's the difference? Use food as an example.
It mean lives without infringing on the abillity for the rest of us to live.
Ok. How am I "infringing on the ability of the rest of you to live"?
Don't try to own it to gain power for yourself.
But that's what you're doing. You're claiming everything for "us" in order to give yourself and some others more than they have now. Furthermore, you're making someone or something a final arbiter on all use.
I believe, wholeheartedly, that innovations would still exist to further advance our species
Well, human beings lived on this planet for about 200,000 years living by your prescription. How much did they innovate? More about this below...
They all deserve the same right to life.
But you're not talking about life. You're talking about everything anyone could possibly use or consume.
The smarter ones don't deserve more of the world because of their genetics.
Hehe...basic evolution tells you otherwise. But "genetics" aren't the only reason people are smart or capable. If we want to boil all human behavior down to "genetics" you can kiss all morality goodbye and it won't matter what you do to anyone.
How so? I have what I need.
Do you? I don't know. You seem to be laying claim to everything on this planet and determining how it should be distributed based on your ideals. That fulfills some need for you.
Yes, look around. Everyone's fighting for what they don't have.
Hehe...yes they are. And, as you correctly indicated earlier, they're not going to find it in possessions. Yet everything you're saying here revolves around possessing everything for your goals.
Or they could just lie about it's value and sell it anyway.
Assuming they're actually selling it and not just forcing it on people, that's a two way street. Someone has to believe those lies. Someone has to perpetuate them. No one sells snake oil anymore abook because people know it has no value. People actually learn pretty quickly when they're being lied to and duped. However, when the lies they're being told still have value to them, they'll hold onto them for as long as they can.
Caring about the welfare of others before the gain of oneself, for one.
What? Then why do these "poor" people want healthcare, or their needs fulfilled? Shouldn't they just become witless slaves for me? Wouldn't that be the height of caring about my welfare and not their own gain?
Are you argung there are no limited resources in the world that people need to live?
All resources in this world are limited. But the possible ways to fulfill your needs and desires are not as limited as people want you to believe.
Think of transportation, for example. We're taught that transportation takes oil and that oil is becoming more and more limited. That's bad logic. All it taked to get from point A to point B in this world is a finite amount of energy, and energy is nearly limitless since it cannot truly be consumed.
Now, think of a place like Venezuela. Venezuela, as a nation, is adopting much of the thinking you're proposing here, at least on the surface. In Venezuela, gas is now available to all at a price cheaper than water. Not surprisingly, car purchases are now almost doubling on an annual basis in Venezuela. Those cars are running on gas, extracted from oil. And there's no price check on that oil since there's no competition and heavy subsidies for its use.
However, when one looks at a place like the USA, we're now seeing gas prices rise and with it the sales of more efficient vehicles. As the supply of oil goes down, the prices will go up, encouraging people to seek alternate solutions. With government promises to "share" those resources equally at no cost, that isn't possible.
How about the world?
How about it? In the whole world, the starving don't outnumber the fed. The homeless don't outnumber the sheltered. On one hand, you say "live simply". On the other, you seem to want everyone to live like wealthy Americans. Which is it?
You are part of we and ours.
Right. And that's why I'm "getting" everything I can get my hands on. You've effectively sanctioned that behavior by suggesting that no one actually has a right to own anything.
A world full of poverty, hunger, greed and war.
Abook, poverty, hunger, greed and war are not new. The nations who have lived by the socialist principles you're advocating were not free from poverty, hunger, greed or war. In fact, many of them were marked by those things to a much greater extent than their counterparts.
You can't cure poverty with money. You cure poverty with value, and value can only be achieved via some kind of labor.
You can't cure hunger with food. Food spoils and gets consumed and is gone. You cure hunger by ensuring that people have the means to create food and own the food they create.
You can't cure greed by being greedy. You can't declare "ownership" of all the world's resources, including the labor of men, and distribute them as only you see fit. You cure greed by denying people the chance to benefit from their greed. You refuse to exchange with the greedy. You refuse to sanction their actions. And, most importantly, you don't give them your labor.
You can't cure war with violence. You can't point a gun at the world and tell them to behave, shooting anyone who doesn't, and pretend you've ended war. You end war by refusing to reward it. You don't give it the fear it needs to the hate that fuels it.
We all do not need to work to gain more power than our neighbor.
Agreed. But we all need to work to feed ourselves and ensure our survival, abook. To suggest that you don't need to work and that your neighbor has an obligation to feed you is to declare that you do have power over your neighbor.
So people wouldn't die.
Then why didn't you invent that drug? No offense here, but this attitude drives me nuts. The inventor of that drug is the only reason these people potentially won't die. Without him or her, there would be no hope in the first place. Yet you treat his or her work as if it's owed to you. If that's the case, you and everyone who didn't invent that drug is an even bigger violator of the moral code that dictates that each man is owned by his neighbor.
And by your rules the smart and strong have more of a right to what they wish to take, leaving the rest to suffer, farfromglorified.
Not at all. The smart and strong have only a right to the things they can earn. "Take", as in theft, has nothing to do with what I'm proposing. The socialist world is more the world of strongman ownership than the truly capitalistic one. Our own nation is proving that. As our own government becomes more and more economically interventionistic, power continues to amass into the hands of only a few.
My plan is a lot more equal than yours.
No, it's not. Tom Robbins once said something very wise:
"Equality is not in regarding different things similarly, equality is in regarding different things differently"
Your plan ignores the differences in efforts, in talents, in abilities, in resources and pretends its all equal. That isn't "equality". If there are two farmers in this world, and one plants candy corn while the other plants seeds, yet you divide the food up between them, you've shown that you have no interest in equality. What you're doing is fundamentally prejudicial.
The former makes sense. You need roughly 1000 calories to live, a few cups of water, one outfit of clothing, and a tin roof over your head, and medical attention. Everybody gets that...gotcha.
The latter I don't understand. Why would I use them "gently to sustain them for all"? If no one owns these things, and no one can make any claim to them, what motivation do I have not to simply devour them all? What checks are there on consumption?
What's the difference? Use food as an example.
Ok. How am I "infringing on the ability of the rest of you to live"?
But that's what you're doing. You're claiming everything for "us" in order to give yourself and some others more than they have now. Furthermore, you're making someone or something a final arbiter on all use.
Well, human beings lived on this planet for about 200,000 years living by your prescription. How much did they innovate? More about this below...
But you're not talking about life. You're talking about everything anyone could possibly use or consume.
Hehe...basic evolution tells you otherwise. But "genetics" aren't the only reason people are smart or capable. If we want to boil all human behavior down to "genetics" you can kiss all morality goodbye and it won't matter what you do to anyone.
Do you? I don't know. You seem to be laying claim to everything on this planet and determining how it should be distributed based on your ideals. That fulfills some need for you.
Hehe...yes they are. And, as you correctly indicated earlier, they're not going to find it in possessions. Yet everything you're saying here revolves around possessing everything for your goals.
Assuming they're actually selling it and not just forcing it on people, that's a two way street. Someone has to believe those lies. Someone has to perpetuate them. No one sells snake oil anymore abook because people know it has no value. People actually learn pretty quickly when they're being lied to and duped. However, when the lies they're being told still have value to them, they'll hold onto them for as long as they can.
What? Then why do these "poor" people want healthcare, or their needs fulfilled? Shouldn't they just become witless slaves for me? Wouldn't that be the height of caring about my welfare and not their own gain?
All resources in this world are limited. But the possible ways to fulfill your needs and desires are not as limited as people want you to believe.
Think of transportation, for example. We're taught that transportation takes oil and that oil is becoming more and more limited. That's bad logic. All it taked to get from point A to point B in this world is a finite amount of energy, and energy is nearly limitless since it cannot truly be consumed.
Now, think of a place like Venezuela. Venezuela, as a nation, is adopting much of the thinking you're proposing here, at least on the surface. In Venezuela, gas is now available to all at a price cheaper than water. Not surprisingly, car purchases are now almost doubling on an annual basis in Venezuela. Those cars are running on gas, extracted from oil. And there's no price check on that oil since there's no competition and heavy subsidies for its use.
However, when one looks at a place like the USA, we're now seeing gas prices rise and with it the sales of more efficient vehicles. As the supply of oil goes down, the prices will go up, encouraging people to seek alternate solutions. With government promises to "share" those resources equally at no cost, that isn't possible.
How about it? In the whole world, the starving don't outnumber the fed. The homeless don't outnumber the sheltered. On one hand, you say "live simply". On the other, you seem to want everyone to live like wealthy Americans. Which is it?
Right. And that's why I'm "getting" everything I can get my hands on. You've effectively sanctioned that behavior by suggesting that no one actually has a right to own anything.
Abook, poverty, hunger, greed and war are not new. The nations who have lived by the socialist principles you're advocating were not free from poverty, hunger, greed or war. In fact, many of them were marked by those things to a much greater extent than their counterparts.
You can't cure poverty with money. You cure poverty with value, and value can only be achieved via some kind of labor.
You can't cure hunger with food. Food spoils and gets consumed and is gone. You cure hunger by ensuring that people have the means to create food and own the food they create.
You can't cure greed by being greedy. You can't declare "ownership" of all the world's resources, including the labor of men, and distribute them as only you see fit. You cure greed by denying people the chance to benefit from their greed. You refuse to exchange with the greedy. You refuse to sanction their actions. And, most importantly, you don't give them your labor.
You can't cure war with violence. You can't point a gun at the world and tell them to behave, shooting anyone who doesn't, and pretend you've ended war. You end war by refusing to reward it. You don't give it the fear it needs to the hate that fuels it.
Agreed. But we all need to work to feed ourselves and ensure our survival, abook. To suggest that you don't need to work and that your neighbor has an obligation to feed you is to declare that you do have power over your neighbor.
Then why didn't you invent that drug? No offense here, but this attitude drives me nuts. The inventor of that drug is the only reason these people potentially won't die. Without him or her, there would be no hope in the first place. Yet you treat his or her work as if it's owed to you. If that's the case, you and everyone who didn't invent that drug is an even bigger violator of the moral code that dictates that each man is owned by his neighbor.
Not at all. The smart and strong have only a right to the things they can earn. "Take", as in theft, has nothing to do with what I'm proposing. The socialist world is more the world of strongman ownership than the truly capitalistic one. Our own nation is proving that. As our own government becomes more and more economically interventionistic, power continues to amass into the hands of only a few.
No, it's not. Tom Robbins once said something very wise:
"Equality is not in regarding different things similarly, equality is in regarding different things differently"
Your plan ignores the differences in efforts, in talents, in abilities, in resources and pretends its all equal. That isn't "equality". If there are two farmers in this world, and one plants candy corn while the other plants seeds, yet you divide the food up between them, you've shown that you have no interest in equality. What you're doing is fundamentally prejudicial.
if you've ever met Tom Robbins you'd know that he's pretty much insane.
The former makes sense. You need roughly 1000 calories to live, a few cups of water, one outfit of clothing, and a tin roof over your head, and medical attention. Everybody gets that...gotcha.
The latter I don't understand. Why would I use them "gently to sustain them for all"? If no one owns these things, and no one can make any claim to them, what motivation do I have not to simply devour them all? What checks are there on consumption?
What's the difference? Use food as an example.
Ok. How am I "infringing on the ability of the rest of you to live"?
But that's what you're doing. You're claiming everything for "us" in order to give yourself and some others more than they have now. Furthermore, you're making someone or something a final arbiter on all use.
Well, human beings lived on this planet for about 200,000 years living by your prescription. How much did they innovate? More about this below...
But you're not talking about life. You're talking about everything anyone could possibly use or consume.
Hehe...basic evolution tells you otherwise. But "genetics" aren't the only reason people are smart or capable. If we want to boil all human behavior down to "genetics" you can kiss all morality goodbye and it won't matter what you do to anyone.
Do you? I don't know. You seem to be laying claim to everything on this planet and determining how it should be distributed based on your ideals. That fulfills some need for you.
Hehe...yes they are. And, as you correctly indicated earlier, they're not going to find it in possessions. Yet everything you're saying here revolves around possessing everything for your goals.
Assuming they're actually selling it and not just forcing it on people, that's a two way street. Someone has to believe those lies. Someone has to perpetuate them. No one sells snake oil anymore abook because people know it has no value. People actually learn pretty quickly when they're being lied to and duped. However, when the lies they're being told still have value to them, they'll hold onto them for as long as they can.
What? Then why do these "poor" people want healthcare, or their needs fulfilled? Shouldn't they just become witless slaves for me? Wouldn't that be the height of caring about my welfare and not their own gain?
All resources in this world are limited. But the possible ways to fulfill your needs and desires are not as limited as people want you to believe.
Think of transportation, for example. We're taught that transportation takes oil and that oil is becoming more and more limited. That's bad logic. All it taked to get from point A to point B in this world is a finite amount of energy, and energy is nearly limitless since it cannot truly be consumed.
Now, think of a place like Venezuela. Venezuela, as a nation, is adopting much of the thinking you're proposing here, at least on the surface. In Venezuela, gas is now available to all at a price cheaper than water. Not surprisingly, car purchases are now almost doubling on an annual basis in Venezuela. Those cars are running on gas, extracted from oil. And there's no price check on that oil since there's no competition and heavy subsidies for its use.
However, when one looks at a place like the USA, we're now seeing gas prices rise and with it the sales of more efficient vehicles. As the supply of oil goes down, the prices will go up, encouraging people to seek alternate solutions. With government promises to "share" those resources equally at no cost, that isn't possible.
How about it? In the whole world, the starving don't outnumber the fed. The homeless don't outnumber the sheltered. On one hand, you say "live simply". On the other, you seem to want everyone to live like wealthy Americans. Which is it?
Right. And that's why I'm "getting" everything I can get my hands on. You've effectively sanctioned that behavior by suggesting that no one actually has a right to own anything.
Abook, poverty, hunger, greed and war are not new. The nations who have lived by the socialist principles you're advocating were not free from poverty, hunger, greed or war. In fact, many of them were marked by those things to a much greater extent than their counterparts.
You can't cure poverty with money. You cure poverty with value, and value can only be achieved via some kind of labor.
You can't cure hunger with food. Food spoils and gets consumed and is gone. You cure hunger by ensuring that people have the means to create food and own the food they create.
You can't cure greed by being greedy. You can't declare "ownership" of all the world's resources, including the labor of men, and distribute them as only you see fit. You cure greed by denying people the chance to benefit from their greed. You refuse to exchange with the greedy. You refuse to sanction their actions. And, most importantly, you don't give them your labor.
You can't cure war with violence. You can't point a gun at the world and tell them to behave, shooting anyone who doesn't, and pretend you've ended war. You end war by refusing to reward it. You don't give it the fear it needs to the hate that fuels it.
Agreed. But we all need to work to feed ourselves and ensure our survival, abook. To suggest that you don't need to work and that your neighbor has an obligation to feed you is to declare that you do have power over your neighbor.
Then why didn't you invent that drug? No offense here, but this attitude drives me nuts. The inventor of that drug is the only reason these people potentially won't die. Without him or her, there would be no hope in the first place. Yet you treat his or her work as if it's owed to you. If that's the case, you and everyone who didn't invent that drug is an even bigger violator of the moral code that dictates that each man is owned by his neighbor.
Not at all. The smart and strong have only a right to the things they can earn. "Take", as in theft, has nothing to do with what I'm proposing. The socialist world is more the world of strongman ownership than the truly capitalistic one. Our own nation is proving that. As our own government becomes more and more economically interventionistic, power continues to amass into the hands of only a few.
No, it's not. Tom Robbins once said something very wise:
"Equality is not in regarding different things similarly, equality is in regarding different things differently"
Your plan ignores the differences in efforts, in talents, in abilities, in resources and pretends its all equal. That isn't "equality". If there are two farmers in this world, and one plants candy corn while the other plants seeds, yet you divide the food up between them, you've shown that you have no interest in equality. What you're doing is fundamentally prejudicial.
I never said people wouldn't have to work to survive.
People can do things out of compassion for others and to prevent unrest.
People infringe on others abillity to live when people are starving and dying because of illnesses that could be treated while the other group drives around 5 different cars, has 3 homes, and more food than they know what to do with. Reality.
I'm not boiling it ALL down to genetics but it does come into play. Mentally or physically handicapped people don't deserve less than you, neither do dumb people, or weak ones.
And how exactly is holding these greedy people in check working out for us? Reality.
We're supposed to love one another and understand each other. If I had a cure for my friends illness, the last thing I'd be thinking was holding out my hand for compensation. I'd be more than thrilled to have saved her. This isolationist stance of yours is poison...like nothing is worthwhile unless you get paid. We are all connnected to one another and we should start acting like it instead of guarding our piles of crap while looking at the rest as potential threats to it. Uggh!
I guess we can go back and forth like this for days but to be honest I don't find it that enjoyable. In the end both of our plans wouldn't work without compromise from the other. It would involve you having to give when you don't want to and me having to pay for things that I don't think should be for sale.
If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
I never said people wouldn't have to work to survive.
People can do things out of compassion for others and to prevent unrest.
People infringe on others abillity to live when people are starving and dying because of illnesses that could be treated while the other group drives around 5 different cars, has 3 homes, and more food than they know what to do with. Reality.
I'm not boiling it ALL down to genetics but it does come into play. Mentally or physically handicapped people don't deserve less than you, neither do dumb people, or weak ones.
And how exactly is holding these greedy people in check working out for us? Reality.
We're supposed to love one another and understand each other. If I had a cure for my friends illness, the last thing I'd be thinking was holding out my hand for compensation. I'd be more than thrilled to have saved her. This isolationist stance of yours is poison...like nothing is worthwhile unless you get paid. We are all connnected to one another and we should start acting like it instead of guarding our piles of crap while looking at the rest as potential threats to it. Uggh!
I guess we can go back and forth like this for days but to be honest I don't find it that enjoyable. In the end both of our plans wouldn't work without compromise from the other. It would involve you having to give when you don't want to and me having to pay for things that I don't think should be for sale.
Comments
Excellent insight. I think the part that keeps being overlooked when people are judging FFG are the issues of force and obligation. Nowhere have I read FFG saying he'd leave a man dying, or would spit on his carcass. What I get from him is that he doesn't want others imposing or forcing the obligation to care for that dying man on to him. I believe he would freely help someone in need.
As for the mudslinging, that's where I need some work. If someone slings mud, I'm happy to jump in and start slinging back. FFG, and you (and a few others here) seem to be good about donning a teflon suit, smiling, and letting the mud slide off.
I can't recall you mudslinging, at all. Maybe I'll have to go back and check your posting trail.
I may let the mud slide off a lot of the time, but I'm definitely not always smiling!
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
im just annoyed becos trying to talk to him about reality is like trying to play tennis with a brick wall.
how disingenuous of you. so anyone who believe government is necessary is advocating big brother eh? im one of the stauncher defenders of civil liberties around here, but im also a man of common sense. i understand all the ideological points you make and all of your abstract games of logic. my point all along has been that none of this is practical in the real world and all you offer is abstract platitudes that allow you to get on your soapbox and browbeat anyone who disagrees with you with these meaningless logic games. you greet any attempt to find some sort of common ground or compromise with you as a smug victory for yourself while you wax about how oppressed you are by a government that is one of the most responsive to its people in the history of human society.
but go on, play your games. im a libertarian at heart. you know you've gone off the deep end when your ideals are mind-blowingly bad to even a libertarian.
you say you're a staunch believer in liberty. but your ideology reveals that all you truly care about is ensuring that you never have to lift a finger to help anyone but yourself.
Wow -- thank you. This is one of the nicest compliments I've ever received in my life. It's funny how basically the exact same set of words can lead to the insults I've received on this board as well as compliments like this. The fundamental morality I hold for interpersonal action is found in these words you used:
"mutual agreement which stems from mutual respect"
That is the effective definition of exchange, the highest ideal of human interactions, IMO. Thanks for the understanding, angelica.
This is actually a very nice compliment as well, though I doubt it was intended as one. Reality is very much a brick wall, soulsinging.
yeah, but luckily for me, i can put the racket down and walk away. you can't walk away from reality. unless you join up with those militias. but i doubt you've the guts to back any of your convictions with action... you just like to whine about them. it's easy to be an armchair man of principle.
Good. You deserve it, because when I say "one of the only...I've known" you are maybe the top 1...or 2nd or 3rd at worst. Granted, I'm not sure how computer world translates in reality, but that you have the theory down is very impressive in my mind.
I know, the humour is not lost on me. I still can't integrate my own thinking completely on this to harmonize the varying aspects that I see. I'll just chalk it up to a paradox.
You're welcome. Thanks for seeing the fine lines in the world of mutual respect.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
No. People who rely on contradictions like this are:
"yes, becos force is needed to keep greedy, selfish, cold, and inhuman people like you from abusing the rest of humanity for your own personal wealth and treating your fellow man like a means to an end by spitting on their dying carcass rather than lending a hand in helping them up."
That is the contradictory logic of "war is peace, slavery is freedom, ignorance is strength". That is the doublespeak Orwell was so famous for highlighting in his novels -- that's why I used that passage, not just as a blanket response to anyone who believes in government.
The simple belief in government does not make one an advocate of big brother. In some instances, it doesn't even make one "bad", in my book. However, when that belief is tied to contradictory logic, it becomes exceptionally dangerous.
Yes, you are.
If none of it is "practical", what are you so annoyed about? If all I'm doing is getting on a soapbox, so what? I've illiceted a strong emotional response from you in this thread, and that means there's more to it than the above.
I don't greet common ground here or compromise in any way. On this issue, you and I share little common ground. Furthermore, I have no desire to "compromise" with you since your system offers me little that I want. Finally, "compromise" is completely alien to what you're proposing. You're simply going to force me to do what you want anyway, by your own definition.
This government is one of the most responsive to its people in the history of human society. I completely agree. In a relative context against other states, I will typically staunchly defend the United States Government. However, that certainly does not mean that it is free of serious and often times fundamental flaws.
Hehe....that's pretty cute actually.
No, it doesn't. That's the system you're proposing. You're forcing me to lift that finger to appease your moral responsibilities. Every single person in this world has a primary moral responsibility to themselves. Your systems allow people to abdicate that responsibility and put it on the shoulders of others. If that is what people want for themselves, so be it. That, however, is not what I want. I will fulfill my responsibilities to myself and I will choose the responsibilities I have to others.
becos you're a relatively smart guy and we could use more smart people actually trying to solve the problems we've got out there, rather than just avoiding them.
no, what im proposing is that we air our views and find a practical ground that benefits as many as possible. that is what government is and does and is supposed to be. sometimes this means a little sacrifice. sometimes it means you get benefits. but on the whole, everybody wins more than they lose. you dont always get it your way. this is the united states, not burger king. suck it up. you're still better off than most of the world. so you can sit out the game and let me have my way, or you can participate and try to get the best deal possible for yourself. some form of national health care is coming... that's just the way it is. the popular support for it is growing and the outrage at the way we turn our back on the poor is mounting. so you've got two choices... cross your arms and pout in the corner becos we're not playing the game you want and let us have our way with your tax money, or throw your hat in the ring and try to make sure that it is done the best way it can be while minimizing its impact on you.
im not proposing any system. im saying this is the system we've got, like it or not. us representative democracy. everyone pays. nobody abdicates we just enlist our fellow to help. you must be a lot of fun to have around. do you get pissy when people offer to buy you drinks becos they will get to choose what you drink and that is a horrible infringement upon your liberty?
Hehe...you know so little about me personally that this makes absolutely no sense.
Understand this: the principles I hold are behind nearly every decision I've made in my life in the last 10 years. They are behind my entrepreneurial efforts, my friendships, my relationships with my family, the wealth of all kinds that I have earned and the charity of all kinds I've granted. Those principles define the things I love in this world and the things I dislike in this world, and they define who I am as the primary guiding force in my life. Nearly all of the great amount of happiness I've experienced can be attributed to living by them and most of the small amount of sadness I've experienced can be attributed to forgetting them.
If those principles are not for you, so be it. I have no interest in forcing them upon you and I have no expectation that you will hold them or value them in any way. However, when you speak of armchair principles I'd encourage you to look at the men and women who propose, via the use of someone else's violence, forcing other people to give them the world they seek.
yet you claim taxation is evil and akin to theft. so why not make a stand for your principles? civil disobedience? or do you just like it as a talking point to show off how "pure" your freedom ideals are?
Sigh....please just stop trying to use me.
Some kind of universal national health care is coming. You'll extract your pounds of flesh, and you'll have it your way, very much like burger king. So what does it matter what I'm doing? I could "pout", or I could "throw my hat in the ring" and it would make very little difference. Either way, I lose. As I said before, you can talk all you want about "compromise", but what do you have to offer me? Let's talk purely practically here.
Hehe...no. The people buying my drinks already know what I want. Plays back into that whole mutual respect thing.
semantics... use you, value intelligent input guiding the course of the country, whatever. take offense if you like. bottom line is i ahte to see intelligent people pissing their potential away.
practically, im not convinced national health care is a good idea. so you can talk about it in in practical terms and not some abstract jerkoff "you're robbing me of my freedom through taxes" nonsense. taxes are part of life and there is no changing it... sorry. death and taxes remember? so, why is it a worse expenditure than our bloated military budget? why is it doomed to failure? barring that, if the majority of americans want it, we're getting it. so what they have to offer is if you speak up, you might be able to lose less, crafting some sort of exemptions or funding it from the military instead of tax increases. whatever. bottom line is, if you DONT speak up, they will do what they damn well please without your input. do you even understand what compromise is? it's not "what do you have to offer me" it's ill grant you this, but you've got to yield here in return. you're not compromising, you're saying that it has to be your way and if it isnt, it's the other people who wont compromise.
if the people want health care, they will get it. that's majority rule dude. there isn't a place in the world or a moment in history where this rule did not hold true. so you can either deal with it and try to minimize your loss, or you can pout and maximize your loss. i think you prefer the latter becos it allows you to fuels your persecuted, misunderstood genius complex.
Valuable possessions can be given and shared equally. The whole concept of 'I own this, keep away from what's mine, put up a wall to keep other from accessing what I've claimed' has caused so many of the problems our world faces. I think, ideally, no one should have more of a right to possessions than anyone else. It doesn't matter how hard you worked for it. You shouldn't- work so hard in the first place just simply live your life. If you enjoy hard work then so be it but don't make claims on our world because of your need to compete. Living a life based on working hard to gain more than the next guy is not necessary and it depletes the land of resources which leads to others having to suffer without. If we'd drop the mindless competition of out owning your neighbor we would see that there is, indeed, plenty for all. We share the world not own it.
My money doesn't cover anywhere close all those who are forced to go without. They are forced to go without because the world's been bought out from under them.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
Hehe...my "potential" has absolutely nothing to do with you.
Of course. What would you like to talk about, practically?
That's a moral question, not a practical question.
It isn't. If the "success" of Universal Health Care is going to be judged on the number of people who have access to something called the health care system, universal health care will be a smashing success.
That will never happen. The US population wants its massive military even more than it wants its universal health care.
Yes, they will. But they'll do that with my input as well.
Hehe...compromise is a mutual consent arrived at by multiple parties wherein each is willing to sacrifice something for a perceived overall benefit.
You're obviously misunderstanding. I'm not trying to prescribe anything for you. You can have whatever UHC system you want.
"Persecuted, misunderstood genius" complex? Hehe...I'm not looking for sympathy here.
Of course they can!
Are you sure about that? Aren't you doing the same thing with your "given and shared equally"? You're still claiming ownership of something at a specific level. Some people will still not have enough, some will still have too much.
Furthermore, since nothing is "mine" or "yours", how can you claim any right to it?
Also, you relize that the very things you're fighting to split up 'equally' were typically invented by people seeking to have what's their's, right?
Finally, how come the effort involved in producing those things in the first place wasn't shared "equally"?
Ok. Force rules again then. I can steal whatever I'd like from you, based on your own moral code here.
Oh my. Do you realize that "how hard you worked for it" determines the actual composition and value of the thing you're talking about?
Check it out -- I just invented a cancer drug in my basement. Two parts gin, one part rat poison. I didn't work very hard for it, but it's still a cancer drug because I want it to be, right?
Understand this: every life takes X amount of effort to live. If you put in less than X effort, someone else must bridge the gap for you to survive.
Now, the total effort of the US workforce amounts to roughly $13T in value. Does it take $13T in effort for all 400,000,000 people to just survive? Not at all. But as that number goes down, so does the tangible value of the output of that effort. And with that goes products and comforts. That means medicines. That means doctors. The mindset you're advocating here is going to make it very easy to split these things equally -- you'll simply have almost nothing to divide.
Finally, your work is up to you. If you don't want to work, don't. But don't expect all of those of us who do to buy into some guilt that we have an obligation to you because of your choice.
I make no claims on your world. I make claims on the things I trade others for.
Sigh....why don't you think about that for a few seconds?
Hunter-gatherering human beings lived exceptionally simple lives, and in many cases expended much less work effort than we do in the "civilized" world. Now, the poorest Americans, in probably every case, have more in economic or resource value than any hunter-gatherer did. Now, we could argue that their lives were better in other senses, but you're talking economics here and there's no comparison.
The total wealth available to a society is entirely dependent on the valued labor (mental and physical) that went into it. The lower the labor, the lower the wealth.
Abook, the only reason you have these medicines in the first place is because of mindful actions, including competition. Again, there is little in this world you cannot have if you work for it. And at that point, you're free to do whatever you'd like with it. In the context of medicines, if you become a chemist and produce a medicine and wish to give it all away equally to everyone, I'd never question your right to do so. But the instant you're proposing to do that with someone else's labor is when I'm going to question a lot of this do-gooder lingo here.
Hehe...and you're sanctioning that action by simply doing the same thing.
How about taking when you need. And the resources be viewed as ours.
Don't make any such claims. Use what you need. 'Live simply so that thers might simply live.'
Doesn't have to be. Many do things selflessly out of kindness, compassion and caring.
Because different people are good at different things and have different ideas. But we are all connected. I don't care for the ideology of only doing things to see what I can get out of it for myself only.
Possessions are false comforts and don't mean a whole lot to me. Peace and harmony mean so much more.
I'd argue that the value in things lies in it's benefit to our world and species.
See above
I think people will do things because of morals, it doesn't have to be because of money. Happiness, healthy societies, communities who work together as whole, peace are all more valuable then my bank account.
We all owe it to each other to treat one another decently, no matter how hard people choose to work. If you wouldn't eat up all the world's resources then the poor wouldn't have to ask you for it. They could simply get it themsleves. You make the system you hate. You support freedom to take all you wish. You support having all these possessions protected. By this you've created the need for the government and police to protect what you've claimed and keep all others out. In your system the poor and without wil always out number you.
You got those things from our world.
But look at the whole world. Look at what has been created.
We all have to work together. You can make medicine for whoever you wish. I'll only question your urge to hold back possible cures with your hand held out.
Nah, I'll share. I see no need in having more than them then selling it back to them for more than I got it for just so I can gain wealth.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
yet you stubbornly insist that you are not willing to sacrifice anything ever for any purpose whatsoever. so you are unwilling to compromise, period. and dont play games about how if you buy services from the government you are sacrificing money for services. money is not a sacrifice. sacrifice means "this is important to me, but i will yield on it if you yield on that."
id be very interested to see you respond to a post once without breaking it up. it is easy to take an argument and make it look ridiculous by combating each individual sentence without having to confront the merit of the entire argument. why dyou think lawyers are so successful? you can make each statement look slightly unsound and thus undercut the entire argument by implication (see what shaky logic, i can poke 19 holes in this argument!). but i wonder if you are even capable of grasping a big picture in any of this... of responding to the ideas of any given post, rather than simply nitpicking over the manner of that idea's expression sentence by sentence.
you're not a lawyer yourself by chance, are you?
"Need" has no objective meaning, abook. Does Exxon "need" the profit they make? Sure. Do you "need" strawberries? Sure. Do I "need" 6 laptops? Sure. Or not. Who decides, and on what philosophy or morality do they decide?
How can I use something I can't even make a claim to have a right to?
What does it mean to "live simply"? 1,000 calories per day? No air conditioning? No furniture?
They certainly do. My world allows for both. Yours only the latter. Whose world will produce more innovations?
Exactly! Now why pretend they're all the same by dividing things up as if those different skills and different ideas, the means to creating those things, are the same?
Then don't.
Yet you seem obsessed with getting your hands on things you don't have.
Ok. Are peace and harmony limited commodoties?
Of course, that's just restating what I said. And that dictates the efforts people will seek them with. No one is going to expend a lot of effort seeking something that have no benefit to the world or the species.
What morals?
Great! Then don't have a bank account. Be happy, be healthy, work together with your community.
Agreed.
What resources do they need that I've eaten up?
I don't know what you mean. The poor and without do not outnumber me. There are a few poor people in America. There are many more wealthy people. Nearly everyone here as what they need, right?
Hehe...no. You don't "own" those things, right? They're "ours", correct?
What do you mean here?
Agreed! We do all have to work together. Then why are you proposing we work less, or not at all?
Why? Without me, that cure wouldn't exist.
Yes, on your terms, by your rules. That's exactly what they're doing abook.
Really? Everything you're proposing here would result in gains for you, with things you don't arguably need.
I can't believe that anyone would trust healthcare to the same government who can't get the Department of Motor Vehicles to run efficiently. You trust these characters with the lives of your family?
-Bill Hicks
Sigh...I break things up because people insist on making logical connections between things that don't really exist, or string 10 incorrect axioms into one final conclusion, or do not understand how thematic paragraphs work. It's often the most effective way to demonstrate the poor reasoning and doesn't require me to invest hours of my day writing missives. If the style bothers you, then simply respond with this:
"FFG, until you respond in paragraphs, I refuse to respond to your crappy post".
Now, I'll acquiesce here....
I am not "unwilling" to sacrifice or compromise. You're bastardizing my opinions. I am unwilling to have my sacrifices and compromises dictated to me, nor will I allow the person dictating them to me to pretend that I've willingly sacrificed or compromised. A murder isn't a "sacrifice" on the part of the murdered, and a rape isn't a "compromise" on the part of the raped.
I will happily and willingly sacrifice something of value to achieve a compromise that results in a benefit to me. I compromise with my friends, my coworkers, my family, my girlfriend, and many random people I meet everyday. That said, I don't owe those compromises to people any more than they owe their compromises to me. We do them on our terms in order to achieve a more harmonious and happy life.
If I encounter you on the street and demand your wallet at the point of a gun, I'm going to assume you'll protest, if only slightly. If I then demand a "compromise" wherein you only give me half your money, do you believe that is an actual "compromise"? Now, if I encounter you on the street and you're selling apples for $2 each, and I offer you $1 for an apple because that's all I have, and you willingly agree, that is a "compromise".
(BTW: I'm not a lawyer. I'd make a damn good one though.)
You need certain things to live. All the rest you have to use gently to sustain them for all.
By getting it not hording it.
It mean lives without infringing on the abillity for the rest of us to live.
Don't try to own it to gain power for yourself.
I believe, wholeheartedly, that innovations would still exist to further advance our species
They all deserve the same right to life. The smarter ones don't deserve more of the world because of their genetics.
How so? I have what I need.
Yes, look around. Everyone's fighting for what they don't have.
Or they could just lie about it's value and sell it anyway.
Caring about the welfare of others before the gain of oneself, for one.
Are you argung there are no limited resources in the world that people need to live?
How about the world?
You are part of we and ours.
A world full of poverty, hunger, greed and war.
We all do not need to work to gain more power than our neighbor.
So people wouldn't die.
And by your rules the smart and strong have more of a right to what they wish to take, leaving the rest to suffer, farfromglorified.
My plan is a lot more equal than yours.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
Plans that tinker and halfway measures now belong to yesterday. The President’s latest proposal that does little to bring down cost or guarantee coverage falls into this category. There will be many others offered in the coming campaign, and I am working with experts to develop my own plan as we speak, but let’s make one thing clear right here, right now:
In the 2008 campaign, affordable, universal health care for every single American must not be a question of whether, it must be a question of how. We have the ideas, we have the resources, and we must find the will to pass a plan by the end of the next president’s first term.
I know there’s a cynicism out there about whether this can happen, and there’s reason for it. Every four years, health care plans are offered up in campaigns with great fanfare and promise. But once those campaigns end, the plans collapse under the weight of Washington politics, leaving the rest of America to struggle with skyrocketing costs.
For too long, this debate has been stunted by what I call the smallness of our politics – the idea that there isn’t much we can agree on or do about the major challenges facing our country. And when some try to propose something bold, the interests groups and the partisans treat it like a sporting event, with each side keeping score of who’s up and who’s down, using fear and divisiveness and other cheap tricks to win their argument, even if we lose our solution in the process.
Well we can’t afford another disappointing charade in 2008. It’s not only tiresome, it’s wrong. Wrong when businesses have to layoff one employee because they can’t afford the health care of another. Wrong when a parent cannot take a sick child to the doctor because they cannot afford the bill that comes with it. Wrong when 46 million Americans have no health care at all. In a country that spends more on health care than any other nation on Earth, it’s just wrong.
And yet, in recent years, what’s caught the attention of those who haven’t always been in favor of reform is the realization that this crisis isn’t just morally offensive, it’s economically untenable. For years, the can’t-do crowd has scared the American people into believing that universal health care would mean socialized medicine and burdensome taxes – that we should just stay out of the way and tinker at the margins.
You know the statistics. Family premiums are up by nearly 87% over the last five years, growing five times faster than workers’ wages. Deductibles are up 50%. Co-payments for care and prescriptions are through the roof.
Nearly 11 million Americans who are already insured spent more than a quarter of their salary on health care last year. And over half of all family bankruptcies today are caused by medical bills.
But they say it’s too costly to act.
Almost half of all small businesses no longer offer health care to their workers, and so many others have responded to rising costs by laying off workers or shutting their doors for good. Some of the biggest corporations in America, giants of industry like GM and Ford, are watching foreign competitors based in countries with universal health care run circles around them, with a GM car containing twice as much health care cost as a Japanese car.
But they say it’s too risky to act.
They tell us it’s too expensive to cover the uninsured, but they don’t mention that every time an American without health insurance walks into an emergency room, we pay even more. Our family’s premiums are $922 higher because of the cost of care for the uninsured.
We pay $15 billion more in taxes because of the cost of care for the uninsured. And it’s trapped us in a vicious cycle. As the uninsured cause premiums to rise, more employers drop coverage. As more employers drop coverage, more people become uninsured, and premiums rise even further.
But the skeptics tell us that reform is too costly, too risky, too impossible for America.
Well the skeptics must be living somewhere else. Because when you see what the health care crisis is doing to our families, to our economy, to our country, you realize that caution is what’s costly. Inaction is what’s risky. Doing nothing is what’s impossible when it comes to health care in America.
It’s time to act. This isn’t a problem of money, this is a problem of will. A failure of leadership. We already spend $2.2 trillion a year on health care in this country. My colleague, Senator Ron Wyden, who’s recently developed a bold new health care plan of his own, tells it this way:
For the money Americans spent on health care last year, we could have hired a group of skilled physicians, paid each one of them $200,000 to care for just seven families, and guaranteed every single American quality, affordable health care.
So where’s all that money going? We know that a quarter of it – one out of every four health care dollars – is spent on non-medical costs; mostly bills and paperwork. And we also know that this is completely unnecessary. Almost every other industry in the world has saved billions on these administrative costs by doing it all online. Every transaction you make at a bank now costs them less than a penny. Even at the Veterans Administration, where it used to cost nine dollars to pull up your medical record, new technology means you can call up the same record on the internet for next to nothing.
But because we haven't updated technology in the rest of the health care industry, a single transaction still costs up to twenty-five dollars - not one dime of which goes toward improving the quality of our health care.
This is simply inexcusable, and if we brought our entire health care system online, something everyone from Ted Kennedy to Newt Gingrich believes we should do, we’d already be saving over $600 million a year on health care costs.
The federal government should be leading the way here. If you do business with the federal employee health benefits program, you should move to an electronic claims system. If you are a provider who works with Medicare, you should have to report your patient’s health outcomes, so that we can figure out, on a national level, how to improve health care quality. These are all things experts tell us must be done but aren’t being done. And the federal government should lead.
Another, more controversial area we need to look at is how much of our health care spending is going toward the record-breaking profits earned by the drug and health care industry. It’s perfectly understandable for a corporation to try and make a profit, but when those profits are soaring higher and higher each year while millions lose their coverage and premiums skyrocket, we have a responsibility to ask why.
At a time when businesses are facing increased competition and workers rarely stay with one company throughout their lives, we also have to ask if the employer-based system of health care itself is still the best for providing insurance to all Americans. We have to ask what we can do to provide more Americans with preventative care, which would mean fewer doctor’s visits and less cost down the road. We should make sure that every single child who’s eligible is signed up for the children’s health insurance program, and the federal government should make sure that our states have the money to make that happen. And we have to start looking at some of the interesting ideas on comprehensive reform that are coming out of states like Maine and Illinois and California, to see what we can replicate on a national scale and what will move us toward that goal of universal coverage for all.
But regardless of what combination of policies and proposals get us to this goal, we must reach it. We must act. And we must act boldly. As one health care advocate recently said, “The most expensive course is to do nothing.” But it wasn’t a liberal Democrat or union leader who said this.
It was the president of the very health industry association that funded the “Harry and Louise” ads designed to kill the Clinton health care plan in the early nineties.
The debate in this country over health care has shifted. The support for comprehensive reform that organizations like Families USA have worked so hard to build is now widespread, and the diverse group of business and health industry interests that are part of your Health Care Coverage Coalition is a testament to that success. And so Washington no longer has an excuse for caution. Leaders no longer have a reason to be timid. And America can no longer afford inaction. That’s not who we are – and that’s not the story of our nation’s improbable progress.
Half a century ago, America found itself in the midst of another health care crisis. For millions of elderly Americans, the single greatest cause of poverty and hardship was the crippling cost of health care and the lack of affordable insurance. Two out of every three elderly Americans had annual incomes of less than $1,000, and only one in eight had health insurance.
As health care and hospital costs continued to rise, more and more private insurers simply refused to insure our elderly, believing they were too great of a risk to care for.
The resistance to action was fierce. Proponents of health care reform were opposed by well-financed, well-connected interest groups who spared no expense in telling the American people that these efforts were “dangerous” and “un-American,” “revolutionary” and even “deadly.”
And yet the reformers marched on. They testified before Congress and they took their case to the country and they introduced dozens of different proposals but always, always they stood firm on their goal to provide health care for every American senior. And finally, after years of advocacy and negotiation and plenty of setbacks, President Lyndon Johnson signed the Medicare bill into law on July 30th of 1965.
The signing ceremony was held in Missouri, in a town called Independence, with the first man who was bold enough to issue the call for universal health care – President Harry Truman.
And as he stood with Truman by his side and signed what would become the most successful government program in history – a program that had seemed impossible for so long – President Johnson looked out at the crowd and said, “History shapes men, but it is a necessary faith of leadership that men can help shape history.”
Never forget that we have it within our power to shape history in this country. It is not in our character to sit idly by as victims of fate or circumstance, for we are a people of action and innovation, forever pushing the boundaries of what’s possible.
Now is the time to push those boundaries once more. We have come so far in the debate on health care in this country, but now we must finally answer the call first issued by Truman, advanced by Johnson, and fought for by so many leaders and Americans throughout the last century. The time has come for universal health care in America. And I look forward to working with all of you to meet this challenge in the weeks and months to come. Thank you.
from: http://www.tpmcafe.com/blog/electioncentral/2007/jan/25/obama_the_time_has_come_for_universal_health_care_in_america
angels share laughter
*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
http://americanhealthcarereform.org/
angels share laughter
*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
The former makes sense. You need roughly 1000 calories to live, a few cups of water, one outfit of clothing, and a tin roof over your head, and medical attention. Everybody gets that...gotcha.
The latter I don't understand. Why would I use them "gently to sustain them for all"? If no one owns these things, and no one can make any claim to them, what motivation do I have not to simply devour them all? What checks are there on consumption?
What's the difference? Use food as an example.
Ok. How am I "infringing on the ability of the rest of you to live"?
But that's what you're doing. You're claiming everything for "us" in order to give yourself and some others more than they have now. Furthermore, you're making someone or something a final arbiter on all use.
Well, human beings lived on this planet for about 200,000 years living by your prescription. How much did they innovate? More about this below...
But you're not talking about life. You're talking about everything anyone could possibly use or consume.
Hehe...basic evolution tells you otherwise. But "genetics" aren't the only reason people are smart or capable. If we want to boil all human behavior down to "genetics" you can kiss all morality goodbye and it won't matter what you do to anyone.
Do you? I don't know. You seem to be laying claim to everything on this planet and determining how it should be distributed based on your ideals. That fulfills some need for you.
Hehe...yes they are. And, as you correctly indicated earlier, they're not going to find it in possessions. Yet everything you're saying here revolves around possessing everything for your goals.
Assuming they're actually selling it and not just forcing it on people, that's a two way street. Someone has to believe those lies. Someone has to perpetuate them. No one sells snake oil anymore abook because people know it has no value. People actually learn pretty quickly when they're being lied to and duped. However, when the lies they're being told still have value to them, they'll hold onto them for as long as they can.
What? Then why do these "poor" people want healthcare, or their needs fulfilled? Shouldn't they just become witless slaves for me? Wouldn't that be the height of caring about my welfare and not their own gain?
All resources in this world are limited. But the possible ways to fulfill your needs and desires are not as limited as people want you to believe.
Think of transportation, for example. We're taught that transportation takes oil and that oil is becoming more and more limited. That's bad logic. All it taked to get from point A to point B in this world is a finite amount of energy, and energy is nearly limitless since it cannot truly be consumed.
Now, think of a place like Venezuela. Venezuela, as a nation, is adopting much of the thinking you're proposing here, at least on the surface. In Venezuela, gas is now available to all at a price cheaper than water. Not surprisingly, car purchases are now almost doubling on an annual basis in Venezuela. Those cars are running on gas, extracted from oil. And there's no price check on that oil since there's no competition and heavy subsidies for its use.
However, when one looks at a place like the USA, we're now seeing gas prices rise and with it the sales of more efficient vehicles. As the supply of oil goes down, the prices will go up, encouraging people to seek alternate solutions. With government promises to "share" those resources equally at no cost, that isn't possible.
How about it? In the whole world, the starving don't outnumber the fed. The homeless don't outnumber the sheltered. On one hand, you say "live simply". On the other, you seem to want everyone to live like wealthy Americans. Which is it?
Right. And that's why I'm "getting" everything I can get my hands on. You've effectively sanctioned that behavior by suggesting that no one actually has a right to own anything.
Abook, poverty, hunger, greed and war are not new. The nations who have lived by the socialist principles you're advocating were not free from poverty, hunger, greed or war. In fact, many of them were marked by those things to a much greater extent than their counterparts.
You can't cure poverty with money. You cure poverty with value, and value can only be achieved via some kind of labor.
You can't cure hunger with food. Food spoils and gets consumed and is gone. You cure hunger by ensuring that people have the means to create food and own the food they create.
You can't cure greed by being greedy. You can't declare "ownership" of all the world's resources, including the labor of men, and distribute them as only you see fit. You cure greed by denying people the chance to benefit from their greed. You refuse to exchange with the greedy. You refuse to sanction their actions. And, most importantly, you don't give them your labor.
You can't cure war with violence. You can't point a gun at the world and tell them to behave, shooting anyone who doesn't, and pretend you've ended war. You end war by refusing to reward it. You don't give it the fear it needs to the hate that fuels it.
Agreed. But we all need to work to feed ourselves and ensure our survival, abook. To suggest that you don't need to work and that your neighbor has an obligation to feed you is to declare that you do have power over your neighbor.
Then why didn't you invent that drug? No offense here, but this attitude drives me nuts. The inventor of that drug is the only reason these people potentially won't die. Without him or her, there would be no hope in the first place. Yet you treat his or her work as if it's owed to you. If that's the case, you and everyone who didn't invent that drug is an even bigger violator of the moral code that dictates that each man is owned by his neighbor.
Not at all. The smart and strong have only a right to the things they can earn. "Take", as in theft, has nothing to do with what I'm proposing. The socialist world is more the world of strongman ownership than the truly capitalistic one. Our own nation is proving that. As our own government becomes more and more economically interventionistic, power continues to amass into the hands of only a few.
No, it's not. Tom Robbins once said something very wise:
"Equality is not in regarding different things similarly, equality is in regarding different things differently"
Your plan ignores the differences in efforts, in talents, in abilities, in resources and pretends its all equal. That isn't "equality". If there are two farmers in this world, and one plants candy corn while the other plants seeds, yet you divide the food up between them, you've shown that you have no interest in equality. What you're doing is fundamentally prejudicial.
if you've ever met Tom Robbins you'd know that he's pretty much insane.
angels share laughter
*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
I agree. Its time we put aside ideology and solve problems.
I never said people wouldn't have to work to survive.
People can do things out of compassion for others and to prevent unrest.
People infringe on others abillity to live when people are starving and dying because of illnesses that could be treated while the other group drives around 5 different cars, has 3 homes, and more food than they know what to do with. Reality.
I'm not boiling it ALL down to genetics but it does come into play. Mentally or physically handicapped people don't deserve less than you, neither do dumb people, or weak ones.
And how exactly is holding these greedy people in check working out for us? Reality.
We're supposed to love one another and understand each other. If I had a cure for my friends illness, the last thing I'd be thinking was holding out my hand for compensation. I'd be more than thrilled to have saved her. This isolationist stance of yours is poison...like nothing is worthwhile unless you get paid. We are all connnected to one another and we should start acting like it instead of guarding our piles of crap while looking at the rest as potential threats to it. Uggh!
I guess we can go back and forth like this for days but to be honest I don't find it that enjoyable. In the end both of our plans wouldn't work without compromise from the other. It would involve you having to give when you don't want to and me having to pay for things that I don't think should be for sale.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
well said abook. good post.