TSA strip searching children

[Calabrio]

However - what you didn't notice is if I didn't eventually have to pay for your stupidity, I wouldn't care what you did.

Only because the government is too big.
If the government was so big, you wouldn't be responsible at all.

But if you haven't noticed - we pay for stupidity in this country - all the time.

That's because statists like to expand the government and create dependence. This reliance also gives them the power to make decisions regarding how I live my life.

Because if we, as a society, felt that it truly was OK that you are responsible for all your actions, then we would be OK with people really paying for the results of those actions.

You're making an argument that is based on an unstated presumption.
That's either intentionally misleading or just lazy.

But let's engage that a little further, we are not responsible for our actions?
So where do we draw the line? Again, what behavior do I not need YOUR permission?

Can I keep a gun? But what if I shot myself by accident.
Or what if I shot someone else and they became crippled?

What if I like salty food? That high blood pressure might result in increased medical costs down the line, you might not like having to pay for that.... so you'd better tell me to drop the french fries.

And if the Obamacare program continues to take root, if we wind up with a single payer system, then, I ask, what behavior will you NOT have the political "right" to dictate to me?

We aren't.
That won't change.

I'm neither a ward or a slave of the State.
And more and more people are seeing through the lie that has been repeated for the past century and rejecting it.

I will be forced to pay with my tax dollars for the continuing care of the idiot that thought Cheerios where a medical marvel.

So you have now established your right to dictate what kind of breakfast cereal I eat.

I will be forced to pay for the motorcyclist that rode without a helmet, crashed, and squished his brains out all over the pavement - but there was enough of his cerebral cortex intact that he can live on a respirator for 30 years.

And what and how I engage in recreational activity.

If we are willing to let that idiot die because he only ate cheerios for every meal, because he decided it could take the place of his heart medicine, and we are willing for the motorcyclist to removed from life support because it was his decision to not wear a helmet, and the accident was his fault, I will be just fine with that. But it won't happen.

You make these presumptions based upon the culture that RESULTS from the government policies YOU advocate. You also fail to realize that things are dynamic and not static, people are apathetic when it comes to their neighbors and communities because they have been taught that it's the responsibility of the government.

The tragedy of the past century is that America has gradually been turning into Europe... but I think people are awakening right now. The sooner the better because things the systems of the last century aren't sustainable.

I am the realist here cal - not you. You have this idea that

You can try to play word games and shift definitions all you'd like, but you're just exposing yourself as a political liar once again.

If you engage in risky behavior, there is a consequence.
And we have support systems in life outside of the federal government. They include family, friends, religious institutions, clubs, and the local and state governments.

When the federal government moves out of our lives, other things will move into that vacuum. Things that don't threaten to enslave us.

Talk about utopian thought - that is some of the most utopian thought I have ever seen. That everyone would be 'responsible'. And those of us who 'are' would be willing to watch those who 'aren't' pay the price. Because, believe me we would. There would be plenty of people who would fall through the cracks - who don't have a family/social/church network to pick up the pieces.

I've never argued that anything is "perfect."
Is the current system where we trade freedom and Independence preventing all people from "slipping through the cracks?" Is the solution just to make government more involved and steal more of our rights? And what does "slipping through the cracks" mean anyway?


As I stated before, using your economic argument to justify government intrusion, and noting your absolute disregard and contempt for the constitution when making such an argument, what activity can I partake in that the you and the power of the government DO NOT have a right to regulate for me??

Where does the power of the federal government end?

If you read the constitution and apply, the limits are pretty clearly established.
Unfortunately, people like you REFUSE to recognize the limits set out by the constitution and the end result of such a system of government is tyranny.

But it's tyranny for our own good, right??

No thanks.
Pass the salt.

 

[fossten]

Talk about utopian thought - that is some of the most utopian thought I have ever seen. That everyone would be 'responsible'. And those of us who 'are' would be willing to watch those who 'aren't' pay the price. Because, believe me we would. There would be plenty of people who would fall through the cracks - who don't have a family/social/church network to pick up the pieces.

As I've already said - good and evil can both exist in a free society, but in a tyranny only evil exists.

Once a society has surrendered its freedom to the government, the society ceases to be worth fighting for.

 

[foxpaws]

But let's engage that a little further, we are not responsible for our actions?
So where do we draw the line? Again, what behavior do I not need YOUR permission?

Can I keep a gun? But what if I shot myself by accident.
Or what if I shot someone else and they became crippled?

What if I like salty food? That high blood pressure might result in increased medical costs down the line, you might not like having to pay for that.... so you'd better tell me to drop the french fries.

And if the Obamacare program continues to take root, if we wind up with a single payer system, then, I ask, what behavior will you NOT have the political "right" to dictate to me?

I won't dictate - if you don't ever ask for funds from the federal government. If you don't sue the government because they didn't protect you from your stupidity. If your 'support system', which won't even come close to be able to come up with the funds that it will take to keep you alive after you do something stupid, won't try to use tax money to keep the electricity turned on for your life support.

And not only do you have to guarantee that you won't do that - you have to guarantee that no one in the entire US will do that. Not one person will sue the local hospital to keep someone on life support who doesn't have the means to do so. That if the local oil refinery poisoned the groundwater - no one will blame the government for not keeping tabs on them.

I'm neither a ward or a slave of the State.
And more and more people are seeing through the lie that has been repeated for the past century and rejecting it.

So you have now established your right to dictate what kind of breakfast cereal I eat.

Nope - I have established my right not to pay for your stupidity in believing that cheerios will correct your heart condition, with my tax dollars not going to pay your health care.

You make these presumptions based upon the culture that RESULTS from the government policies YOU advocate. You also fail to realize that things are dynamic and not static, people are apathetic when it comes to their neighbors and communities because they have been taught that it's the responsibility of the government.

No - government had to take over when the problems got too great for traditional support systems. As people moved from small communities to large cities. As society become apersonal.

If you engage in risky behavior, there is a consequence.
And we have support systems in life outside of the federal government. They include family, friends, religious institutions, clubs, and the local and state governments.

When the federal government moves out of our lives, other things will move into that vacuum. Things that don't threaten to enslave us.

No it won't cal - once again - do you live in a fairy tale. Churches, clubs, family, friends, et al, can't take over the huge amount of charity needs in this country - the amount is staggering.

I've never argued that anything is "perfect."
Is the current system where we trade freedom and Independence preventing all people from "slipping through the cracks?" Is the solution just to make government more involved and steal more of our rights? And what does "slipping through the cracks" mean anyway?

As I stated before, using your economic argument to justify government intrusion, and noting your absolute disregard and contempt for the constitution when making such an argument, what activity can I partake in that the you and the power of the government DO NOT have a right to regulate for me??

And I haven't argued on the perfection side either cal - however, I have argued on the side of realism, we will pay. One way or another we will pay for stupidity. I won't regulate a thing - if I don't have to pay for the consequences for that lack of regulation.

No thanks.
Pass the salt.

And if you run through all your funds, friends good will, church charity, don't look to public assistance to keep your hypertension under control. Please die quietly - and out of sight. No quaint appeals to help you because you made a stupid decision. Take responsibility for your actions.

And we all lived happily ever after...

 

[fossten]

I won't dictate - if you don't ever ask for funds from the federal government. If you don't sue the government because they didn't protect you from your stupidity. If your 'support system', which won't even come close to be able to come up with the funds that it will take to keep you alive after you do something stupid, won't try to use tax money to keep the electricity turned on for your life support.

And not only do you have to guarantee that you won't do that - you have to guarantee that no one in the entire US will do that. Not one person will sue the local hospital to keep someone on life support who doesn't have the means to do so. That if the local oil refinery poisoned the groundwater - no one will blame the government for not keeping tabs on them.

Yeah, clearly you're not dictating.

Self awareness is not your strong suit.

As long as ONE person votes your way, you continue the tyranny. That's oligarchy. Thanks for revealing your true nature to us, fox.

You statists really are sick, disgusting, filthy people.

And if you run through all your funds, friends good will, church charity, don't look to public assistance to keep your hypertension under control. Please die quietly - and out of sight. No quaint appeals to help you because you made a stupid decision. Take responsibility for your actions.

And we all lived happily ever after...

If only you had the power to go away and take the government with you...I promise I wouldn't regret such a decision, no matter what my life turned out like. It can't be any worse.

But you really aren't sincere in offering such a choice, are you?

 

[Calabrio]

You still haven't answered this very simple question, foxpaws.
What part of my life do you NOT have the right to dictate?

Using your economic and social responsibility argument, I can't think of a single decision I can make that is free from your interferences and intrusion.

Can I drink alcohol?
Drive fast?
Own guns?
Keep dogs?
Sit too close to the TV while watching it?
Ice skate without a helmet?

Where are you going to draw the line.
And since you've also supported socialized medicine in the past (call it what you will), you've expanded your influence and public liability concerning all things in my life.

So tell me, where do you draw the line?
Is it just seatbelts, just table salts, or will you use the power of the federal government to restrict whether I'm allowed to climb a ladder and walk the roof?

This isn't about the cost.
You're not being honest.
Fact is, if it were about cost, you'd want people to NOT wear the seatbelts because they're much more likely to die after being thrown from the vehicle.

It's not about cost, because a guy who has hypertension and dies at 55 is far least costly than someone who lives to 97.

So let's be honest- it's not about cost, you're a liar.
It's about control.

 

[foxpaws]

You still haven't answered this very simple question, foxpaws.
What part of my life do you NOT have the right to dictate?

Using your economic and social responsibility argument, I can't think of a single decision I can make that is free from your interferences and intrusion.

Can I drink alcohol?
Drive fast?
Own guns?
Keep dogs?
Ice skate without a helmet?

Where are you going to draw the line.

It is all about costs. I work hard - I make good money, I save, I am one of those who really are 'responsible'. However Cal - I also know that many people aren't. So - I will end up paying for them, that is the bottom line Cal. That isn't going to go away if suddenly we turn off government funds. There will be a huge outcry - 'no one will help me', and we will end up paying for irresponsibility and stupidity once again.

This isn't about the cost.
You're not being honest.
Fact is, if it were about cost, you'd want people to NOT wear the seatbelts because they're much more likely to die after being thrown from the vehicle.

It's not about cost, because a guy who has hypertension and dies at 55 is far least costly than someone who lives to 97.

Nope - we can now save people who are almost doa... at huge costs - because human life is sacred and we should do everything possible to save everyone - damn the costs. So the guy that used to die when he was thrown from the car has a better chance to survive as a vegetable than he has ever had in the past. The stupid guy who has poured salt over his cheerios will 'live' on because we can give him operation after operation to open his arteries, replace his valves, give him a pig aorta. On my dime.

So let's be honest- it's not about cost, you're a liar.
It's about control.

Once again - make it personal cal - call me a liar - but it isn't about government control. It is about me keeping my money - you understand that when it comes to taxation - how come you seem to have blinders on when it comes to paying for terrible personal decisions. Can't you understand that a whole lot of your tax money has and will continue to be used for irresponsible people (the whole of SS, medicare, medicaid was started because people were irresponsible and didn't save for their retirement and health care costs). And that will never, ever change - the fact that we are surrounded by irresponsible people. So - to some extent we have to force 'responsibility' or pay huge costs.

 

[Calabrio]

It is all about costs.

You have yet to answer the question.
It's not a trick question.
It's not a nuanced question.
But it's one that you deliberately refuse to answer.

I didn't ask you WHY you think you think you have some right to dictate how I live my life, we've established that. You've argued it's because of cost.

Of course, I've also explained how that claim is a lie.
It's not about cost, it's about power.

Furthermore, if it were really about cost, then you wouldn't support more and more government programs that assume greater financial liability and responsibility.

So, where do you draw the line.
What can't you dictate in my life on those grounds.

And, noting that you support a single payer medical system in this country, you'll have cause to limit my ability to ride a motorcycle, own a handgun, or hang my own Christmas light... or should I say "holiday lights" in your utopian tyranny? Can I still have caffeine in my coffee? Is that o.k. with you?

And where does the constitution enter into this?
Never mind, you don't have any regard for that document anyway.

 

[foxpaws]

And, noting that you support a single payer medical system in this country, you'll have cause to limit my ability to ride a motorcycle, own a handgun, or hang my own Christmas light... or should I say "holiday lights" in your utopian tyranny? Can I still have caffeine in my coffee? Is that o.k. with you?

And where does the constitution enter into this?
Never mind, you don't have any regard for that document anyway.

So, since you have lied once again cal - I have never supported single payer healthcare (you can search and search - I know I have never said that, because I am not for single payer) - why should I even bother responding to you. You will ignore anything I say and just say 'she believes in this'...

Oh - it is Christmas lights - complete with Christmas cards, a nativity scene, angels on high, Silent Night, caroling, advent candles and Christmas eve service... good try to once again label me - but talk about getting boring - your continued, purposeful, misrepresentation of me is becoming more boring than reading Alexis de Tocqueville's Democracy in America - which I have.

 

[Calabrio]

So, since you have lied once again cal - I have never supported single payer healthcare (you can search and search - I know I have never said that, because I am not for single payer) - why should I even bother responding to you. You will ignore anything I say and just say 'she believes in this'...

We can play word games all night, infact, that's what you love to do.
You supported Obamacare and you are aware that is designed to bring us to a single payer system. Do you deny that you supported it? You're duplicity and double speak is well-known around here.

And you still refuse to answer my very direct, very simple question.

 

[fossten]

So, since you have lied once again cal - I have never supported single payer healthcare (you can search and search - I know I have never said that, because I am not for single payer) - why should I even bother responding to you. You will ignore anything I say and just say 'she believes in this'...

The preponderance of evidence belies your words. You support government run healthcare. That alone is enough, but you also supported Obama, who stated unequivocally that he is for single payer. Are you so naive as to believe that the current version of Obamacare ISN'T going to lead to single payer AS DESIGNED? If so, I'd love to hear you make that case.

 

[foxpaws]

Cal - if you actually look at the link you provided, I very clearly stated I wasn't for the public option - and I also very clearly stated that yes, there were parts of Obama's health reform plans I was for.

Odd that you couldn't actually say - whoops - foxpaws is right - she never did say she was for single payer. I am not - I have never been.

And no - if you can actually pay for your stupidity, do whatever you want - I think that should go for everyone. The moment I start paying for your stupidity - I draw a line.

You always want to discuss this stuff in some hyperbole. You can't Cal - we are stuck paying for stupidity. I pay for it all the time - I pay for the idiot who decided not to wear a helmet...

It isn't about control - it is about responsibility - something you have harped on for a long, long time. I pay for the irresponsibility of others. I don't want to control their lives - I want to lessen the burden of their bad decisions on my life. In some respect they actually control my life. Their bad decisions create a burden on the health care system, raising costs, raising my taxes. If it really were a capitalist society, that motorcyclist would die if he didn't have the means to pay. His actions would result in only affecting him, not me.

But, that won't happen, his actions do impact me. We won't allow that motorcyclist to die on the side of the road once we see he doesn't have health care insurance, or the means to pay for his treatment. We will scape up the pieces - try to make him whole - all on society's dime. So, if society pays for this - why can't society create laws that lessens their exposure?

It is one of the reasons I was against single payer - I think we should have options...

 

[foxpaws]

Oh - back to TSA -

Airport protest never takes off, few delays seen

 

[Calabrio]

Cal - if you actually look at the link you provided, I very clearly stated I wasn't for the public option - and I also very clearly stated that yes, there were parts of Obama's health reform plans I was for

Yes, you said you for the plan.
We recognize in that post your duplicitous nature on the subject.

And no - if you can actually pay for your stupidity, do whatever you want -

Again, double-speak.
You support legislation and rules that regulate personal decisions.
How do you "pay for your stupidity" if a law is already on the books making it a crime to do it?

Do I need to register with the government before asking a waiter to bring tablesalt to my table? Do I have to have a special license in order to get the grocery store clerk to go to the back of the store and get me the cookies with transfats?

I think that should go for everyone. The moment I start paying for your stupidity - I draw a line.

As is always the case, you seem to think that answer to too much government is always MORE government.

You always want to discuss this stuff in some hyperbole. You can't Cal - we are stuck paying for stupidity. I pay for it all the time - I pay for the idiot who decided not to wear a helmet...

And I'd like to note again-
YOU REFUSE TO ANSWER THE QUESTION I POSED EARLIER.
Using your "logic," there isn't a single decision in my life that you can not eventually make an economic argument for your intervention in. This is made even worse by your perpetual support of more government intervention, such as the Obamacare fiasco.

From eating Oreos to owning a gun to riding a motorcycle, with or without a helmet, or just sitting too close to the TV- your justification gives you permission to regulate EVERY decision an individual makes.

I don't want to control their lives - I want to lessen the burden of their bad decisions on my life

So, in order to lessen the burden, you think it's appropriate to expand government and regulate the intricate details of my life.
Because there's too much government, you argue that it's critical to expand government even more in order to reduce the initial burdens.

It is one of the reasons I was against single payer - I think we should have options...

YouTube - The Public Plan Deception - It's Not About Choice

 

[fossten]

And no - if you can actually pay for your stupidity, do whatever you want - I think that should go for everyone. The moment I start paying for your stupidity - I draw a line.

Okay, drama queen, let me call your bluff.

If you really pay for this, how? By taxes instituted by your lefty overlord Democrats?

Read my lips:

It's. Not. Your. Money.

You don't. Get. To Steal. From me.

 

[shagdrum]

As is always the case, you seem to think that answer to too much government is always MORE government.

This is the problem with ideologues and ideology (in the more technical sense; ideal theory). If an approach taken results in unexpected, negative consequences, the answer is that the approach didn't go far enough. If one attempt at equalization didn't work, the solution is a more radical attempt at equalization. It is in this way (as well as many others) that ideal theory inherently insulates itself from feedback from reality.

The appeal of an ideal theory has several noteworthy features. One is that it permits its defenders to ignore facts that appear to be contrary to the theory. That in real life societies are not well-ordered and there is no strict compliance in them is simply written off as precisely those characteristic features of non-ideal conditions that the ideal theory is meant to eliminate. There is, thus, no evidence derivable from the history of a society, the conduct of human beings, or the prevailing political arrangements that could count against the ideal theory. Contrary facts are treated as evidence that the conditions of a society are non-ideal; and facts that conform to the ideal are cited as evidence that the society is progressing toward the ideal.
-John Kekes​

The solution to an overreaching government is not government without limit.

It is by lying dormant a long time, or being at first very rarely exercised, that arbitrary power steals upon a people
-Edmund Burke

That power is absolute, minute, regular, provident and mild. It would be like the authority of a parent if, like that authority, its object was to prepare men for manhood; but it seeks, on the contrary, to keep them in perpetual childhood: it is well content that the people should rejoice, provided they think of nothing but rejoicing. For their happiness such a government willingly labors, but it chooses to be the sole agent and the only arbiter of that happiness; it provides for their security, foresees and supplies their necessities, facilitates their pleasures, manages their principal concerns, directs their industry, regulates the descent of property, and subdivides their inheritances: what remains, but to spare them all the care of thinking and all the trouble of living?
-Alexis de Toqueville​

 

[foxpaws]

Yes, you said you for the plan.
We recognize in that post your duplicitous nature on the subject.

And once again - you can't get over the fact that I am not for single payer - sorry Cal - quit lying about this...

Again, double-speak.
You support legislation and rules that regulate personal decisions.
How do you "pay for your stupidity" if a law is already on the books making it a crime to do it?

Do I need to register with the government before asking a waiter to bring tablesalt to my table? Do I have to have a special license in order to get the grocery store clerk to go to the back of the store and get me the cookies with transfats?

So Cal, you will be happy as you pay for your neighbor's stupid decisions. So, if he buys boats, a house that is too big, a Ferrari, and has no health care provisions - you will be quite content paying for his health care expenses - correct? Your taxes will go up - your costs at the local hospital will go up - and that is OK with you. Or, are you willing to take the real 'next' step - are you willing to let them pay for their decisions with their life?

As a society we have decided that we will not turn out back on those in need. Because how society has changed (not government cal - society) we have moved to cities, removing the small community interactions, and creating large, somewhat impersonal societies in cities. We moved away from small churches to massive congregations - impersonal again. We might not even know our neighbor's name - let alone the trials that they are undergoing. The traditional avenues of 'help' disappeared, and people started to look to government agencies to help them. Government didn't create this society, society created this government. We moved from agrarian to an industrial society. We moved from small, interlinked communities to large, detached cities.

And I'd like to note again-
YOU REFUSE TO ANSWER THE QUESTION I POSED EARLIER.
Using your "logic," there isn't a single decision in my life that you can not eventually make an economic argument for your intervention in. This is made even worse by your perpetual support of more government intervention, such as the Obamacare fiasco.

From eating Oreos to owning a gun to riding a motorcycle, with or without a helmet, or just sitting too close to the TV- your justification gives you permission to regulate EVERY decision an individual makes.

So - where do you draw the line Cal - Most traffic laws are very controlling. Would you remove those - and if not - why not? I know that I can usually safely drive well over the speed limit on most roads - but the government regulates that decision for me.

So, in order to lessen the burden, you think it's appropriate to expand government and regulate the intricate details of my life.
Because there's too much government, you argue that it's critical to expand government even more in order to reduce the initial burdens.

Cal-where and where do you draw a line - because you do. How much are you willing to pay? Are you happy to be paying for lung cancer treatment for someone who has smoked, knowing the risks, but not responsible enough to have health care insurance. Are you happy to give up your freedom for their bad decision. Your freedom that allows you to spend your money as you see fit.

Private charities cannot pick up the slack - there is no way - even the private charities know this - so, we are left with government, and our money. And none of this - 'the private charities would just step in if the government wasn't footing the bill'. There is a reason the government starting footing the bill - because the problems got too big, and the society dynamic changed so dramatically.

Cal - we won't be going back to a small town society - call it evolution or whatever - but this is the way it is going to be - big cities - only a small amount of interaction - and very little charity giving. If you know anything about charity donations - there are 8 reasons why people give (or mechanisms), and the top of the list is awareness of need. In our isolation in large cities we no longer are 'aware' of the need - so we won't give. Charity will no longer work because our society has changed. Just as we have become really removed from things like how does milk end up in a bottle in your fridge - we also have removed the 'awareness of need' when it comes to our fellow man.

So - how do you now decide how your 'need' dollars are spent, and do you decide that some behaviors are too risky? Remember now it is society paying for the 'need' dollars with taxes, something that really won't be changing because of society's new dynamics.

 

[shagdrum]

Again, foxy you are implicitly rejecting the notion of less government. The only reason we have to "pay for lung cancer treatment for someone who has smoked, knowing the risks" is because they are on medicare, or medicaid or due to some other government regulation or program. The obvious answer would be to do away with those programs because they inherently make the market less efficient, but you keep IGNORING that reality.

Your argument assumes that government can be more efficient then the free market on it's own. THE WHOLE OF HISTORY DISPROVES THAT NOTION. The colossal failure of the command and control economy in the USSR alone should dissuade you of that foolish agenda.

If government cannot be more efficient then the free markets, then there is NO justification for giving government MORE control of how services are distributed...unless you are IGNORING economic reality in favor of some absurd and dangerous ideal of an egalitarian utopia. Considering your recent statements, that is the ONLY thing that makes sense, in which case you need to reread my previous post (#40).

If you are going to continue on this line of reasoning, you have to confront economic reality and justify that economic assumption inherent in your argument. Otherwise, you are simply spouting platitudes and wasting everyone's time here.

If you can't provide that necessary justification for your argument to stand, then stop using it as a dodge and answer Cal's question:

What part of my life do you NOT have the right to dictate?

That doesn't mean 5 paragraph on why you "can't" give a concrete answer to that question. To continue to dodge is to show a contempt for both the Natural Rights enshrined in the founding documents as well as the Rule Of Law that is designed to protect those rights from the arbitrary power of the state.

 

[fossten]

She won't answer you, Shag. She ignores the reality that HER left in power has created this problem. She's just propagating falsehoods and refusing to debate - literally talking past everybody. She's afraid to confront our arguments. Notice how she answers questions with questions? Deliberately sidestepping the points we make.

 

[fossten]

Cal-where and where do you draw a line - because you do. How much are you willing to pay? Are you happy to be paying for lung cancer treatment for someone who has smoked, knowing the risks, but not responsible enough to have health care insurance. Are you happy to give up your freedom for their bad decision. Your freedom that allows you to spend your money as you see fit.

Without the lefties putting Medicaid in place, nobody pays for anybody, whereas your Obamacare death panels decide who lives and who dies.

I'll take my system over yours, thanks.

 

[foxpaws]

Again, foxy you are implicitly rejecting the notion of less government. The only reason we have to "pay for lung cancer treatment for someone who has smoked, knowing the risks" is because they are on medicare, or medicaid or due to some other government regulation or program. The obvious answer would be to do away with those programs because they inherently make the market less efficient, but you keep IGNORING that reality.

So, do away with the programs, and they will die. That is what you are ignoring. Once again private charity will not be able to handle this shag - we have changed dramatically from what were were 100 years ago to where we are today. We do not see the need, we do not understand the magnitude of the problem. We will not give.

Do you know why, as a percentage, the poor/lower income parts of the population give more to charities, even though they are the least likely to be able to afford it? Because they are closest to the need - they know people who depend on assistance - and so they give more. "Awareness of need" in action.

Your argument assumes that government can be more efficient then the free market on it's own. THE WHOLE OF HISTORY DISPROVES THAT NOTION. The colossal failure of the command and control economy in the USSR alone should dissuade you of that foolish agenda.

If government cannot be more efficient then the free markets, then there is NO justification for giving government MORE control of how services are distributed...unless you are IGNORING economic reality in favor of some absurd and dangerous ideal of an egalitarian utopia. Considering your recent statements, that is the ONLY thing that makes sense, in which case you need to reread my previous post (#40).

The government cannot be more efficient than free markets - I am not arguing that shag - I am arguing, that in the case of charity, we really have no choice. We will not let people die. There are many that cannot pay. It is foolish to believe that private charity will be able to take the huge costs involved. Why do you think government stepped in to begin with - because society voted in people that would solve the problem, because society looked to government to deal with it.

Once again shag - government did not create society - society creates the government it wants - you keep ignoring that - We still live in a republic - we still vote in who we want to represent us. If you actually didn't know that Obama was going to push health care reform, and the type of reforms that he was aiming for, than why did people vote for him? It wasn't a secret - it was right up front. All those reps and senators that voted for it - they too had it in their campaign promises - this wasn't a case of the American people being blindsided - it was right up front shag.

If you are going to continue on this line of reasoning, you have to confront economic reality and justify that economic assumption inherent in your argument. Otherwise, you are simply spouting platitudes and wasting everyone's time here.

The line of reasoning that says that there is no way we will be removing government from dealing with the poor, the needy? That is the reasoning here shag.

If you can't provide that necessary justification for your argument to stand, then stop using it as a dodge and answer Cal's question:

What part of my life do you NOT have the right to dictate?

When your freedoms encroach on mine. When your choices dictate what my choices then become.

I understand the entirety of the problem - you see a surface glossing over of the question. You want to frame this within an old world context, not within modern-day realities. You don't want to go down the road of 'your actions have consequences that affect others'.

That doesn't mean 5 paragraph on why you "can't" give a concrete answer to that question. To continue to dodge is to show a contempt for both the Natural Rights enshrined in the founding documents as well as the Rule Of Law that is designed to protect those rights from the arbitrary power of the state.

And our founding documents protect me from your stupid decisions. Your rights stop at my rights shag - and because how society has evolved, and what responsibilities society has given government, the playing field has changed greatly from 1776. Oh - by the way - that power isn't 'arbitrary' it is very obvious that the people allowed government that power, we handed it to it on a silver platter, saying - 'please fix this'.

 

[PetesSweets86]

Thank you Cal - It is the problem with videos like this - there isn't a reporter who actually then stops and asks questions of the father, TSA agent, etc. Getting a whole story, instead of just a snippet. It isn't reporting the news - however it is now being accepted as a complete story.

remember the story I posted of the Seattle cop hitting/arresting 2 black girls in Seattle but seeing the full video the women were resisting arrest then tried assaulting/interrupting a police officer on duty. Then the camera man/others antagonize the officer as well

 

[shagdrum]

So, do away with the programs, and they will die. That is what you are ignoring. Once again private charity will not be able to handle this shag - we have changed dramatically from what were were 100 years ago to where we are today. We do not see the need, we do not understand the magnitude of the problem.

Actually, the magnitude of the problem has been GREATLY overexaggerated to promote a political agenda. Only through an exceedingly flawed stats analysis can one conclude, even today that poverty is a problem so large that private charity has no hope of coping with it and necessitating intervention at the level of the federal government.

This is something that has been discussed numerous times on this forum, BTW.

Do you know why, as a percentage, the poor/lower income parts of the population give more to charities, even though they are the least likely to be able to afford it?

Proof? As a percentage of what? The way you state that is awful vague.

The government cannot be more efficient than free markets - I am not arguing that shag

Yet your argument opperationally assumes the exact opposite. If the free market is more efficient then government directed markets then all this talk about how "unfair" or "unjust" it is to make someone pay for another's "stupidity" is purely academic; whining about nothing.

If government were to intervene, it would only make the "injustice" even worse (as history has shown).

The ONLY way your argument has ANY validity is if it assumes that government direction is more efficient then the markets.

Your claim that "government cannot be more efficient then free markets" contradicts and undermines your argument.

Once again shag - government did not create society - society creates the government it wants

So...the German people WANTED the Holocaust?

Have you ever thought about the possibility of politicians lying to people? Maybe you should look beyond the basic theoretical mechanics to see reality.

The line of reasoning that says that there is no way we will be removing government from dealing with the poor, the needy? That is the reasoning here shag.

You are going well beyond that to inferring that more government action is called for.

Don't try and redefine your argument now.

When your freedoms encroach on mine. When your choices dictate what my choices then become.

So you redefine "encroach" to be any infringement on your "choices"; on your autonomy. Even if that "infringement" is so slight as to not be an infringement on your actual RIGHTS (another concept you conveniently ignore).

So, you take the concept of one's rights ending where another's begins, switch the wording to more vague and ill defined terms and then redefine them as necessary to support the exact OPPOSITE of what they mean.

The standard you have given is not a standard at all. It is just as vague as if you have not answered the question.

We live in a world of scarce resources and one person using those resources is ALWAYS going to effect how others use those resources. Therefore, the justification you have given is a justification for tyranny.

You don't want to go down the road of 'your actions have consequences that affect others'.

No, I just realize what an absurdly broad and all-encompassing standard that is as you are using it.

To look to move beyond the very limitations of reality (scarce resources) and the consequences of those limitation is to look to change nature itself. It is the fatal flaw of hubris in thought that turns Utopian ideals into dystopian reality.

Again, it is nothing short of a justification for tyranny.

And our founding documents protect me from your stupid decisions.

No they don't.

But no one really expects you to understand and honestly represent the founding documents, the ideas behind them or the people who wrote them.

 

[Lincoln Jealous]

remember the story I posted of the Seattle cop hitting/arresting 2 black girls in Seattle but seeing the full video the women were resisting arrest then tried assaulting/interrupting a police officer on duty. Then the camera man/others antagonize the officer as well

was it the mom and daughter? lol no i remember

 

[fossten]

The government cannot be more efficient than free markets - I am not arguing that shag - I am arguing, that in the case of charity, we really have no choice. We will not let people die. There are many that cannot pay. It is foolish to believe that private charity will be able to take the huge costs involved. Why do you think government stepped in to begin with - because society voted in people that would solve the problem, because society looked to government to deal with it.

EPIC logic and reality fail.

People do what works. If people die as a result of not saving their money, others see that and they learn to save their money. Sorry - but life isn't fair, and government coercion is NOT fairness. It's better to be free than to have equality of outcome - and that's PRECISELY what you're advocating.

On the other hand, if people learn that they will be bailed out of their bad decisions by the government, they have no incentive to make good decisions.

Let's be honest, foxpaws - you and your fellow travelers don't give a RAT'S HIND END about poor, sick, hungry people. You only want CONTROL over people, so your lefty government tries to 'take advantage of every crisis' to expand its power. And all this money you purport to set aside for the poor, hungry, and sick - it goes to UNIONS and/or is set aside as BRIBES for Senators to get their votes.

Government interference is the WORST way to solve anything, be it hunger, disease, or poverty. Government cannot grow without these things.

Government is the disease masquerading as its own cure.

 

[Aquabrit]

Government is the disease masquerading as its own cure.

Couldn't agree more!