Board index › Topical Discussion › Politics, Philosophy, and Religion

Sick Medical Care

Page 12 of 16 [ 244 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

Should the US have universal health care??
Yes it is the right thing to do everyone deserves health care. 71%  71%  [ 22 ]
I don't know I don't have enough information to come up with an informed opinion. 6%  6%  [ 2 ]
No its every man, woman and child for themselves. 23%  23%  [ 7 ]
Total votes : 31

Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

17 Aug 2008, 7:56 pm

sinsboldly wrote:
Keep the discussion on the subject, and do not make personal attacks, Awesomely Glorious.

Merle

I did keep it on topic, and I only highlighted that the opinion was wrong. If it was a personal attack, I'd outright say that the person there was a fool rather than take such an indirect route.

Quote:
2. Personal attacks.
This includes insinuation, ridicule and personal insults, regardless of whether direct or indirect. Attacking an opinion, belief or philosophy is acceptable, but attacking the person making the comments is not

I *did* attack the opinion though. I said that it was an opinion that was so bad that only a fool could hold to it. Trust me, if I wanted to make a personal attack, then I would. Besides, what the heck are you doing on PPR?



claire-333
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 19 Jun 2008
Age: 55
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,658

17 Aug 2008, 7:56 pm

sinsboldly wrote:
philosopherBoi wrote:
Who are the mods this thread is just a fire fight???


we are watching you all handle yourselves like ladies and gentlemen


Merle


Wow. Lost the thread. Thought the mods wiped it out. Took a bit of reading to catch up...you guys must type fast. :D

philosopherboi, you started this thread. Like I stated in one of your other threads...If you do not wish to inspire debate, perhaps you should not post such debatable statements.

I'm going to have to bow out of this one. Woo Hoo...has gotten a bit wild for me. I'll be watching though. I have to say, If I was not taken...a marriage proposal might be in order. :wink:



corroonb
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Oct 2007
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,377
Location: Ireland

17 Aug 2008, 7:57 pm

Awesomelyglorious wrote:
corroonb wrote:
Superiority implies coercion or at least the ability to coerce. If you are superior, it implies someone else has been deprived.

How????? None of the things I gave as examples showed an ability to coerce or deprivation!! ! I am just confused, I think you are jumping into a zero-sum view of the world where I do not accept one as existing. If I am superior in arguing, who have I deprived? If I am a superior thinker, then who have I deprived? If I am a better friend, then who have I deprived? Who am I coercing???
Quote:
What is your alternative to democracy?

Meritocracy?

Aristocracy?

Dictatorship by you?

Well, as a market anarchist, I'd say the market.


I apologise. I edited my post to be more intelligible.


Superiority implies coercion or at least the ability to coerce. If you are superior, it implies someone else has been deprived. Superior is here referring to measurable qualities like health, wealth. Intellect is not a measurable quality.

How can the market moderate people's behaviour? Or enforce the laws?



Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

17 Aug 2008, 8:02 pm

corroonb wrote:
Superiority implies coercion or at least the ability to coerce. If you are superior, it implies someone else has been deprived. Superior is here referring to measurable qualities like health, wealth. Intellect is not a measurable quality.

No it doesn't. Let's even take the example of health. If I have superior health, and I exercise every day and do not smoke, does that mean I am out coercing people? No! it does not. It also does not imply deprivation that I have chosen to exercise daily and not smoke. Also, intellect is measurable. You just are assuming that measurements are perfect, none of the examples given have a perfect means of measurement though. Health assessments can vary from doctor to doctor depending upon what they see, the expected conditions the patient is going to undergo, and so on and so forth. Wealth assessments depends upon the assessments of how much value that assets have, and the value in terms of dollars of anything but a dollar is ultimately subjective so a good salesman or a person under slightly different market conditions might have a different level of wealth despite the same or similar goods to sell.
Quote:
How can the market moderate people's behaviour? Or enforce the laws?

Quite simple. If you have to agree with other people about actions to take in order to get their help, such as employers and so on and so forth, then you have moderating forces. And as for the laws, you can have private police enforcing the laws for private property.



corroonb
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Oct 2007
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,377
Location: Ireland

17 Aug 2008, 8:09 pm

Awesomelyglorious wrote:
corroonb wrote:
Superiority implies coercion or at least the ability to coerce. If you are superior, it implies someone else has been deprived. Superior is here referring to measurable qualities like health, wealth. Intellect is not a measurable quality.

No it doesn't. Let's even take the example of health. If I have superior health, and I exercise every day and do not smoke, does that mean I am out coercing people? No! it does not. It also does not imply deprivation that I have chosen to exercise daily and not smoke. Also, intellect is measurable. You just are assuming that measurements are perfect, none of the examples given have a perfect means of measurement though. Health assessments can vary from doctor to doctor depending upon what they see, the expected conditions the patient is going to undergo, and so on and so forth. Wealth assessments depends upon the assessments of how much value that assets have, and the value in terms of dollars of anything but a dollar is ultimately subjective so a good salesman or a person under slightly different market conditions might have a different level of wealth despite the same or similar goods to sell.


If you are healthy and do not smoke, it means you received better education than others, it does not mean you are inherently superior. It may also mean that you received better healthcare and this is a source of coercion. As long as one man can have more money than another, there will be a source of coercion or power.

The same applies to intellect.

Private wealth is not consistent with a wish to abolish power structures. Since private wealth is the primary source of power in every democratic country including the US.



sinsboldly
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Nov 2006
Gender: Female
Posts: 13,488
Location: Bandon-by-the-Sea, Oregon

17 Aug 2008, 8:11 pm

Awesomelyglorious wrote:
sinsboldly wrote:
Keep the discussion on the subject, and do not make personal attacks, Awesomely Glorious.

Merle

I did keep it on topic, and I only highlighted that the opinion was wrong. If it was a personal attack, I'd outright say that the person there was a fool rather than take such an indirect route.

Quote:
2. Personal attacks.
This includes insinuation, ridicule and personal insults, regardless of whether direct or indirect. Attacking an opinion, belief or philosophy is acceptable, but attacking the person making the comments is not

I *did* attack the opinion though. I said that it was an opinion that was so bad that only a fool could hold to it. Trust me, if I wanted to make a personal attack, then I would. Besides, what the heck are you doing on PPR?


I have omnipresence AG. When you said and you are a fool if you think it can. to someone that has just told you they throught it could that is the personal attack.

surely you are not calling me out?

Merle


_________________
Alis volat propriis
State Motto of Oregon


corroonb
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Oct 2007
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,377
Location: Ireland

17 Aug 2008, 8:13 pm

sinsboldly wrote:
Awesomelyglorious wrote:
sinsboldly wrote:
Keep the discussion on the subject, and do not make personal attacks, Awesomely Glorious.

Merle

I did keep it on topic, and I only highlighted that the opinion was wrong. If it was a personal attack, I'd outright say that the person there was a fool rather than take such an indirect route.

Quote:
2. Personal attacks.
This includes insinuation, ridicule and personal insults, regardless of whether direct or indirect. Attacking an opinion, belief or philosophy is acceptable, but attacking the person making the comments is not

I *did* attack the opinion though. I said that it was an opinion that was so bad that only a fool could hold to it. Trust me, if I wanted to make a personal attack, then I would. Besides, what the heck are you doing on PPR?


I have omnipresence AG. When you said and you are a fool if you think it can. to someone that has just told you they throught it could that is the personal attack.

surely you are not calling me out?

Merle


Merle is correct. That was an ad hominem attack.

I am a fool though so it wasn't inaccurate.

:wink:



sinsboldly
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Nov 2006
Gender: Female
Posts: 13,488
Location: Bandon-by-the-Sea, Oregon

17 Aug 2008, 8:14 pm

corroonb wrote:
sinsboldly wrote:
Awesomelyglorious wrote:
sinsboldly wrote:
Keep the discussion on the subject, and do not make personal attacks, Awesomely Glorious.

Merle

I did keep it on topic, and I only highlighted that the opinion was wrong. If it was a personal attack, I'd outright say that the person there was a fool rather than take such an indirect route.

Quote:
2. Personal attacks.
This includes insinuation, ridicule and personal insults, regardless of whether direct or indirect. Attacking an opinion, belief or philosophy is acceptable, but attacking the person making the comments is not

I *did* attack the opinion though. I said that it was an opinion that was so bad that only a fool could hold to it. Trust me, if I wanted to make a personal attack, then I would. Besides, what the heck are you doing on PPR?


I have omnipresence AG. When you said and you are a fool if you think it can. to someone that has just told you they throught it could that is the personal attack.

surely you are not calling me out?

Merle


Merle is correct. That was an ad hominem attack.

I am a fool though so it wasn't inaccurate.

:wink:


I am a fool on my good days, and a real dork on my bad ones, C.
thanks for the laugh! :lol:

Merle


_________________
Alis volat propriis
State Motto of Oregon


Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

17 Aug 2008, 8:18 pm

sinsboldly wrote:
I have omnipresence AG. When you said and you are a fool if you think it can. to someone that has just told you they throught it could that is the personal attack.

No you don't. Frankly, the mods usually leave this forum alone and have done so for years. Surely there is not a crackdown upon a system that works alright. Also, I was just stating the facts. Given all of the times I have been attacked as evil scum for holding to a position in this thread, it certainly would not be surprising that I would not be bitter about another attempt to reduce me down to evil scum.
Quote:
surely you are not calling me out?

Merle

Ok, let's just get hypothetical, what if I were calling you out?



Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

17 Aug 2008, 8:22 pm

corroonb wrote:
Merle is correct. That was an ad hominem attack.

I am a fool though so it wasn't inaccurate.

:wink:

Nope, not an ad hominem attack. Rude at worst, and perhaps I should have gone into a deeper overview over what the discussion had held to that point, however, to take a complex issue and reduce it down to a single difference despite debating the complexity of the issue for a number of pages seems foolish to me. Perhaps I was simply snappy because after being told my positions are those of scum for a few pages by now, and accused of holding to evil ideologies and all of that, I get a bit snappy. Still, I do hold to the position that the view of simplicity in this debate is foolish.



Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

17 Aug 2008, 8:23 pm

corroonb wrote:
If you are healthy and do not smoke, it means you received better education than others, it does not mean you are inherently superior. It may also mean that you received better healthcare and this is a source of coercion. As long as one man can have more money than another, there will be a source of coercion or power.

No, it means you made the choice not to smoke. It does not mean anything about education or healthcare necessarily. Not only that, but wealth is not coercive power.
Quote:
Private wealth is not consistent with a wish to abolish power structures. Since private wealth is the primary source of power in every democratic country including the US.

Private wealth is consistent with the wish to eliminate coercive structures though. Private wealth is a major source of the ability to enact change, but government is the primary source of coercive power.



corroonb
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Oct 2007
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,377
Location: Ireland

17 Aug 2008, 8:30 pm

Awesomelyglorious wrote:
corroonb wrote:
If you are healthy and do not smoke, it means you received better education than others, it does not mean you are inherently superior. It may also mean that you received better healthcare and this is a source of coercion. As long as one man can have more money than another, there will be a source of coercion or power.

No, it means you made the choice not to smoke. It does not mean anything about education or healthcare necessarily. Not only that, but wealth is not coercive power.
Quote:
Private wealth is not consistent with a wish to abolish power structures. Since private wealth is the primary source of power in every democratic country including the US.

Private wealth is consistent with the wish to eliminate coercive structures though. Private wealth is a major source of the ability to enact change, but government is the primary source of coercive power.


For me wealth is synonymous with power. The reason people like George Bush and Silvio Berlusconi are elected is because they are wealthy and can afford a campaign. Remove private wealth and all men are functionally equal. Some my be more intelligent or persuasive but they are not more intelligent or persuasive because of their education or wealth.

Maybe private wealth is a good means to achieve aims but it inevitably needs to be abolished once those changes have been made. Otherwise the "bosses" (wealthy people) will have power over you, me and everyone else unless of course you're lucky enough to become a "boss".

The "boss" is a coercive figure and is made coercive by his wealth and power. He can use this power to coerce his employees.

I don't consider anarchy to be consistent with a free market. Anarchy means absence from rule. Exchange politicians for "bosses" and you exchange one form of enslavement for another.

All men are equal because everywhere they are in chains.



Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

17 Aug 2008, 8:36 pm

corroonb wrote:
For me wealth is synonymous with power. The reason people like George Bush and Silvio Berlusconi are elected is because they are wealthy and can afford a campaign. Remove private wealth and all men are functionally equal. Some my be more intelligent or persuasive but they are not more intelligent or persuasive because of their education or wealth.

Well, they will still be more intelligent or persuasive due to their education. To be honest, there is a lot more to education than schooling, and different people have different demands for schooling. Not only that, but I am not a fan of democracy.

Quote:
Maybe private wealth is a good means to achieve aims but it inevitably needs to be abolished once those changes have been made. Otherwise the "bosses" (wealthy people) will have power over you, me and everyone else unless of course you're lucky enough to become a "boss".

Well, the issue is that anybody can be a boss if they can get people to support their actions. The entire reason why there are bosses is because other people select these bosses for promoting their own interests. The market has a circular flow and all.

Quote:
The "boss" is a coercive figure and is made coercive by his wealth and power. He can use this power to coerce his employees.

That is where I disagree. Employees are noted for agreeing to work for the boss, and can enter or leave the relation somewhat freely without any loss of personal possessions.

Quote:
I don't consider anarchy to be consistent with a free market. Anarchy means absence from rule. Exchange politicians for "bosses" and you exchange one form of enslavement for another.

The issue is that I do not think that freedom from rule, can exist the way you want it to, as I think that you seek an abolition of power, and power cannot be abolished. At least with bosses they are servants along explicit lines and only have as much power as other bosses motivated by their own competing self-interest will allow.
Quote:
All men are equal because everywhere they are in chains.

And I am not a fan of Rousseau.



sinsboldly
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Nov 2006
Gender: Female
Posts: 13,488
Location: Bandon-by-the-Sea, Oregon

17 Aug 2008, 8:37 pm

Awesomelyglorious wrote:
sinsboldly wrote:
I have omnipresence AG. When you said and you are a fool if you think it can. to someone that has just told you they throught it could that is the personal attack.

No you don't. Frankly, the mods usually leave this forum alone and have done so for years. Surely there is not a crackdown upon a system that works alright. Also, I was just stating the facts. Given all of the times I have been attacked as evil scum for holding to a position in this thread, it certainly would not be surprising that I would not be bitter about another attempt to reduce me down to evil scum.
Quote:
surely you are not calling me out?

Merle

Ok, let's just get hypothetical, what if I were calling you out?


ah. . but I wasn't being hypothetical, AwesomelyGlorious.


_________________
Alis volat propriis
State Motto of Oregon


Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

17 Aug 2008, 8:38 pm

sinsboldly wrote:
ah. . but I wasn't being hypothetical, AwesomelyGlorious.

I was asking hypothetically though, and without regard to whether or not you were being hypothetical.



corroonb
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Oct 2007
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,377
Location: Ireland

17 Aug 2008, 8:45 pm

That wasn't from directly from Rousseau. It was inspired by him however.

I disagree fundamentally with your position on the free market. Left to their own devices, businesses behave like sociopaths. Without a central government, there would be no controlling large companies.

There would be a corporate aristocracy where the laws are decided by the wealthy for the benefit of the wealthy. And everyone else is a slave essentially.



cron