Thread: Sally c. Pipes: "The myth of free care"

[QUOTE=scottishjimmy;1761934]

Originally Posted by 9aces

Well it's been ok in Europe since the end of the 2nd world war.

America on the other hand.

Oh yah, things REALLY look like they're working well for Europe aren't they.

Greece...Spain...Italy.

[QUOTE=9aces;1762049]

Originally Posted by scottishjimmy

Oh yah, things REALLY look like they're working well for Europe aren't they.

Greece...Spain...Italy.

Do you even realize where the collapse started? It started in America, America caused this and the countries you mentioned in Europe are paying the price for YOUR mistakes. It's a good thing we have socialism back in Europe though, it looks like they may be ok.

America has been muscling in with oversized conglomerates for some time. It hasn't stopped libertarianism eeeking in though somewhere, your influences have had an impact, why don't you look up 'brownfinger' who just bought all of Europe's chocolate so he could force the price up.

It's all going to start kicking off again in poorer countries, again, and again, when's it going to end?

Originally Posted by dblack

I've read plenty on this topic. I could link to some non-nutshell, in-depth resources if you're looking to learn more.



On your head? heh.. not sure what you're getting at.



Alright. Well, that covers "Freedom is Slavery". What's next "War is Peace" or "Ignorance is Strength"?

Your own ex-president George Bush said "This war in Iraq is about peace".

You have mastered the art of doublespeak now look at the spectrum again, where does it say ignorance? It's in terms of economics and power. If you don't understand what the 'state' is, just say so.

I apologize if I went over your head, you are the type of person that only reads what has been put in front of you and you only like to read the stuff that's put in front of you.

A lot of things have been done in this world just because people want to feel good and confirm their prejudices that are so completely off kilter.

[QUOTE=scottishjimmy;1762054]

Originally Posted by 9aces

Do you even realize where the collapse started? It started in America, America caused this and the countries you mentioned in Europe are paying the price for YOUR mistakes. It's a good thing we have socialism back in Europe though, it looks like they may be ok.

America has been muscling in with oversized conglomerates for some time. It hasn't stopped libertarianism eeeking in though somewhere, your influences have had an impact, why don't you look up 'brownfinger' who just bought all of Europe's chocolate so he could force the price up.

It's all going to start kicking off again in poorer countries, again, and again, when's it going to end?

When those countries...like yours start taking responsibility for their own actions.

Who do you think bailed you out of your last stupidity?

Er... you didn't bail us out, the crash started in Wall Street and spread across Europe.

We already take responsibility for our own actions. It was a huge mistake for Tony Blair to go to war in Iraq when the UN voted against it. The Bush Administration held the UK to ransom over this - in this situation we bailed you out and the consequences have been disastrous.

It's the neo-cons that don't believe in taking responsibility for anything, because they don't really believe in freedom, they just believe in freedom for themselves to do whatever they damn well please, no matter what the cost of it is.

[QUOTE=9aces;1762057]

Originally Posted by scottishjimmy

When those countries...like yours start taking responsibility for their own actions.

Who do you think bailed you out of your last stupidity?

And what stupidity would that be?

Originally Posted by dblack

I've read plenty on this topic. I could link to some non-nutshell, in-depth resources if you're looking to learn more.



On your head? heh.. not sure what you're getting at.



Alright. Well, that covers "Freedom is Slavery". What's next "War is Peace" or "Ignorance is Strength"?

D, you are getting obtuse.

How long can you deliberately ignore the fact that the sort of government you want essentially preserves and protects the tyranny of traditional sources of authority while eliminating any opportunity for the people to decide their own fate?

Liberty is people having the right to decide to use their tax dollars, their government, to create better social conditions; to participate in their fates. Your kind of "liberty" essentially mandates that a person's taxes can only be used for the police and soldiers that shoot at them and protect the people oppressing them.

Originally Posted by Federalitarian

D, you are getting obtuse.

How long can you deliberately ignore the fact that the sort of government you want essentially preserves and protects the tyranny of traditional sources of authority while eliminating any opportunity for the people to decide their own fate?

I'm pretty sure you don't "get" the kind of government I want, or have any conception of the kind of liberty I want. Near as I can tell, your entire worldview, and thus your conception of "freedom", is circumscribed by the collective. That's not how I see things, and it's not how I live my life.

Community is a valuable thing, but it's not a supreme value for me the way it apparently is for you.

Liberty is people having the right to decide to use their tax dollars, their government, to create better social conditions; to participate in their fates. Your kind of "liberty" essentially mandates that a person's taxes can only be used for the police and soldiers that shoot at them and protect the people oppressing them.

Not true... you can use your "tax dollars" however you like. The principle that you refuse to even acknowledge is the basic notion of self-direction, of the basic human need to think for ourselves and act in our own best interests. A broad view, and a mature mind, understands that our own personal interests are often served better by sharing efforts and risks with others. And sometimes they are not. If you take away a person's right to decide when to work with others and when to go their own way, you take away their humanity.

Originally Posted by dblack

I'm pretty sure you don't "get" the kind of government I want, or have any conception of the kind of liberty I want. Near as I can tell, your entire worldview, and thus your conception of "freedom", is circumscribed by the collective. That's not how I see things, and it's not how I live my life.

Community is a valuable thing, but it's not a supreme value for me the way it apparently is for you.

You're pretty damn vague here. Firstly if you look at the countries in Europe you will see that they have successful businesses and enterprise. 'freedom is circumscribed by the collective' - I'll get back to you on this at the end of this post.




Not true... you can use your "tax dollars" however you like. The principle that you refuse to even acknowledge is the basic notion of self-direction, of the basic human need to think for ourselves and act in our own best interests. A broad view, and a mature mind, understands that our own personal interests are often served better by sharing efforts and risks with others. And sometimes they are not. If you take away a person's right to decide when to work with others and when to go their own way, you take away their humanity.

No this isn't true either - you aren't acknowledging self direction. You live in this cloud cuckoo fantasy land that people that want socialism are lazy scroungers who just want to rely on the state - you want to think that way not only to satisfy your prejudices but to maintain the status quo. The principle behind socialism is so that people can determine their own fates and have their own direction so it that their lives isn't affected drastically simply by a corporate CEO who decides that he'd like to take over a whole industry one day, or try to own a piece of a country, or keep people in a fenceless work camp by holding the fact that workers have only labour to sell for ransom, or be devastated by the consequences of the inevitability of conglomerate competitive takeover that turns whole cities into ghost towns - if there are people on state welfare who believe in socialism, you will be damn sure that the vast vast majority of the unemployment would have been caused by some greedy rich bastard in Wall Street, far from them being lazy, they are the victims of corporate crime that goes unchecked with your ideology. Socialism is people determining their own futures in a nutshell, because it means everyone can decide - not just people with money.

Yup, in europe you can also decide when to work with others, how to run your business - but only in acceptable humane means that treats others with some modicum of respect. If you believe that this is an infringement on your freedoms for not being able to exploit then you are a particularly selfish person, and not in a good way (I'm not quoting Adam Smith here).

Do you want to know where the concept of capitalism came from - tobacco and the slave trade of jamaica. Honest. There is nothing wrong with making money, but this is an example of the mindset of things back then, and how some capitilists see it today, and if you do your reading then you will find it disturbing, I know i do.

"Political tags — such as royalist, communist, democrat, populist, fascist, liberal, conservative, and so forth — are never basic criteria. The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire."
— Robert A. Heinlein
Reply With Quote Multi-Quote This Message

Freedom is through the collective, is what you said I believe in - you just want people to be controlled - by you. You just believe in yourself.

Individualism is a good thing but society is made up of individuals. You just don't believe in society - so you don't believe in other individuals, only you. In other words you don't give a monkeys - and you think you are someone that is concerned about the country and how things are run hence you being on a political discussion forum. Give me a break?

To be honest, I don't think you're as bad as all that, just confused as to what this all means. Can I ask how right wing are you?

Originally Posted by dblack

I'm pretty sure you don't "get" the kind of government I want, or have any conception of the kind of liberty I want. Near as I can tell, your entire worldview, and thus your conception of "freedom", is circumscribed by the collective. That's not how I see things, and it's not how I live my life.

Community is a valuable thing, but it's not a supreme value for me the way it apparently is for you.



Not true... you can use your "tax dollars" however you like. The principle that you refuse to even acknowledge is the basic notion of self-direction, of the basic human need to think for ourselves and act in our own best interests. A broad view, and a mature mind, understands that our own personal interests are often served better by sharing efforts and risks with others. And sometimes they are not. If you take away a person's right to decide when to work with others and when to go their own way, you take away their humanity.

I'm proposing we preserve people's choice. They must have the option to improve social conditions through government, or else all government exists for is to perpetuate in stasis the conditions that oppress, the conditions that prevent meaningful choice.

I'm for an individual mattering, whereas you seem to think that the natural order of the world is more important. I'm sorry but I don't find rule by aristocrats, priests, or family patriarchs to be a "natural state of freedom", no matter how much the Romantics might have desired a return to such "simpler" times of patriarchal obligation. The same is true with rule of merchants, landowners, bankers, and the like today.

If you have government but don't have social and economic reforms as an option, then you have the worst of both worlds. Either government should have room for participation in decisionmaking that matters for the individual or it shouldn't exist at all.

If people can't vote in reform, their tax dollars are just going to the perpetuation of their oppressors.

What is the point of paying for a protection racket if it can't protect you from being ruthlessly exploited by powerful groups? I wouldn't pay taxes to government that couldn't defend from foreign invasion, so I wouldn't ask someone to pay taxes to a government that is not allowed to institute social reforms to try to counteract exploitation.

All this time I've been arguing that individual choice is more important natural order, than some great chain of being or other such nonsense.

I can't see any room for the individual or for free will in your creative redefinition of liberty.

Originally Posted by scottishjimmy

you aren't acknowledging self direction. You live in this cloud cuckoo fantasy land that people that want socialism are lazy scroungers who just want to rely on the state - you want to think that way not only to satisfy your prejudices but to maintain the status quo.

Neither of these accusations is true at all. You might try reading what I post before making such ignorant claims.

The principle behind socialism is so that people can determine their own fates and have their own direction so it that their lives isn't affected drastically simply by a corporate CEO who decides that he'd like to take over a whole industry one day, or try to own a piece of a country ...

This is a fascinating way to put it in a thread defending a law which mandates that everyone buy corporate health insurance. Do you see the contradiction in that?

Can I ask how right wing are you?

I don't buy the left/right dichotomy. It's a distraction and a false choice.

Originally Posted by Federalitarian

I'm proposing we preserve people's choice. They must have the option to improve social conditions through government, or else all government exists for is to perpetuate in stasis the conditions that oppress, the conditions that prevent meaningful choice.

Seems reasonable enough, though I suspect we disagree on the details.

Either government should have room for participation in decisionmaking that matters for the individual or it shouldn't exist at all.

In majoritarian government, which seems to be what you're advocating, only those in the majority participate in decision making. The decisions of the minority are overidden. And given that you won't recognize any limits on the power of the majority, it leaves the minority completely at their mercy.

All this time you've been trying to frame the social dynamic as a choice between enslaving ourselves to corporations or government, and I reject that dichotomy. You've observed several times that corporate abuses are imposed upon us by government. We, as voters, can alter the rules by which the corporations dominate us to change the equation. There are fundamental structural imbalances in corporate law that need to be changed. But merely replacing overbearing corporate influence with overbearing government is no solution.

dblack -

I was going to follow up on my last post and its responses, but I don't have time to pound my head against a wall. I do appreciate your attempts to get Fed to think outside the incredibly tiny box he's put himself in and to pull jimmy from the depths of his ignorance.

- Best of luck, I'm off to other threads...

Originally Posted by Evil_inKarlate

dblack -

I was going to follow up on my last post and its responses, but I don't have time to pound my head against a wall. I do appreciate your attempts to get Fed to think outside the incredibly tiny box he's put himself in and to pull jimmy from the depths of his ignorance.

- Best of luck, I'm off to other threads...

Thank you for you incredibly useful post.