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

Why all dictatorships Left Wing

Page 4 of 5 [ 67 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

Inuyasha
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Jan 2009
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,745

19 Dec 2010, 5:37 pm

Macbeth wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
jamieboy wrote:
"Yes they had to include something that would essentially give government total control of our lives... Rolling Eyes If the individual mandate is allowed to stand, our freedoms are gone. We can be told what to buy, what to eat, how many children to have, etc. Excuse me for using saying something to get everyone's attention. However, can you look beyond your conservatives bad, liberals good song and dance to actually consider the implications of Obamacare's individual mandate? "




Not being from the US i know that the" implications" i.e that all government healthcare leads to extreme repression is a LIE. Ask anyone in the EU 25 member states if they feel repressed by socialised medicine and they will laugh in your face. Ironically you are being lied to by the media and powerful people in the US so they dont have to pay for your healthcare. What they'd rather do instead is to give a massive taxcut to the richest 0.1% of americans.

please find other news source as you are being taken for a fool by yr government and yr media who have their own economic interests which are probably somewhat different from those of the average american.


Okay, first of all I really don't need to use any sources to prove you are wrong on this other than the United States Constitution and simple logic. If the commerce clause can be extended to penalize people for not participating in commerce (yeah Obamacare does state that people have to buy something just for breathing, btw that would be called coercion), then that means they can tell us to do anything they want. Auto insurance and homeowners insurance are not equivalent because you participate in commerce by voluntarily buying a home or voluntarily buying a home. Short of committing suicide, breathing is involuntary, so penalizing someone for choosing to not even participate in commerce extends the commerce clause to unprecidented overreach. In effect, if Obamacare's individual mandate is allowed to stay, Government can tell you what to buy, what to eat, etc. because it "affects interstate commerce."

You want to accuse me of being foolish, when you have absolutely no clue what you are talking about. The United States Constitution was written to specifically limit the power of government.


Hate to be the one to point out the obvious, but the Government already makes people pay for breathing (or at least existing in US territory.) They also tell you what to do all the time, And frankly, the very nature of commercialisation means that you get told what to buy all the time, and what to eat.

And having an "NHS" does not turn your nation into the Reich. Wanting an NHS does not turn the man who wants it into Hitler.


There is a difference between taxes and mandates.



Macbeth
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 27 May 2007
Age: 48
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,984
Location: UK Doncaster

19 Dec 2010, 7:02 pm

Inuyasha wrote:
Macbeth wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
jamieboy wrote:
"Yes they had to include something that would essentially give government total control of our lives... Rolling Eyes If the individual mandate is allowed to stand, our freedoms are gone. We can be told what to buy, what to eat, how many children to have, etc. Excuse me for using saying something to get everyone's attention. However, can you look beyond your conservatives bad, liberals good song and dance to actually consider the implications of Obamacare's individual mandate? "




Not being from the US i know that the" implications" i.e that all government healthcare leads to extreme repression is a LIE. Ask anyone in the EU 25 member states if they feel repressed by socialised medicine and they will laugh in your face. Ironically you are being lied to by the media and powerful people in the US so they dont have to pay for your healthcare. What they'd rather do instead is to give a massive taxcut to the richest 0.1% of americans.

please find other news source as you are being taken for a fool by yr government and yr media who have their own economic interests which are probably somewhat different from those of the average american.


Okay, first of all I really don't need to use any sources to prove you are wrong on this other than the United States Constitution and simple logic. If the commerce clause can be extended to penalize people for not participating in commerce (yeah Obamacare does state that people have to buy something just for breathing, btw that would be called coercion), then that means they can tell us to do anything they want. Auto insurance and homeowners insurance are not equivalent because you participate in commerce by voluntarily buying a home or voluntarily buying a home. Short of committing suicide, breathing is involuntary, so penalizing someone for choosing to not even participate in commerce extends the commerce clause to unprecidented overreach. In effect, if Obamacare's individual mandate is allowed to stay, Government can tell you what to buy, what to eat, etc. because it "affects interstate commerce."

You want to accuse me of being foolish, when you have absolutely no clue what you are talking about. The United States Constitution was written to specifically limit the power of government.


Hate to be the one to point out the obvious, but the Government already makes people pay for breathing (or at least existing in US territory.) They also tell you what to do all the time, And frankly, the very nature of commercialisation means that you get told what to buy all the time, and what to eat.

And having an "NHS" does not turn your nation into the Reich. Wanting an NHS does not turn the man who wants it into Hitler.


There is a difference between taxes and mandates.


Have to pay them, orders from above. pay for services. Not much of one.


_________________
"There is a time when the operation of the machine becomes so odious, makes you so sick at heart,
that you can't take part" [Mario Savo, 1964]


ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 89
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

19 Dec 2010, 7:45 pm

Inuyasha wrote:

There is a difference between taxes and mandates.


Try not paying either and you will see how little different they are.

ruveyn



jamieboy
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Sep 2010
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,619

19 Dec 2010, 10:12 pm

Try removing all social security and then surviving without a job. Is that not coercion by capitalist employers? The problem with libertarians of the right is that they see everything that the government does as coercion but nothing that business does as coercion.



Adrien
Yellow-bellied Woodpecker
Yellow-bellied Woodpecker

User avatar

Joined: 14 Aug 2010
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 58

19 Dec 2010, 10:19 pm

jamieboy wrote:
Try removing all social security and then surviving without a job. Is that not coercion by capitalist employers? The problem with libertarians of the right is that they see everything that the government does as coercion but nothing that business does as coercion.


If you want food to live, you need to make it or buy it. That's how it's been done for thousands of years.

Businesses aren't forcing anyone to get a job. They're just a new place to get a job that's better than before.

The government, however, is forcing people to buy things whether or not we want to, at a price we can't negotiate, and if you try, they put you in jail. That is coercion.



jamieboy
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Sep 2010
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,619

19 Dec 2010, 10:28 pm

Adrien wrote:
jamieboy wrote:
Try removing all social security and then surviving without a job. Is that not coercion by capitalist employers? The problem with libertarians of the right is that they see everything that the government does as coercion but nothing that business does as coercion.


If you want food to live, you need to make it or buy it. That's how it's been done for thousands of years.

Businesses aren't forcing anyone to get a job. They're just a new place to get a job that's better than before.

The government, however, is forcing people to buy things whether or not we want to, at a price we can't negotiate, and if you try, they put you in jail. That is coercion.


If people arent forced to pay taxes than they wont do it and there will be no money for social services. That is a better and more moral society to live in. It is good coercion for the betterment of all. Also if you dont like it you can vote in a new politician who's not in favour of it. Can i vote out my boss if i dont like him? I could try but he'd probably fire me and that would definitely be coercive. That's why we left-libertarians are in favour of economic democracy and not just civil.



Adrien
Yellow-bellied Woodpecker
Yellow-bellied Woodpecker

User avatar

Joined: 14 Aug 2010
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 58

19 Dec 2010, 10:45 pm

jamieboy wrote:
If people arent forced to pay taxes than they wont do it and there will be no money for social services. That is a better and more moral society to live in.


Yes there would, it's called charity. If people weren't already having their money taken for wars and useless things, they'd give it where it is needed. The government is an inefficient charity that absorbs half the money itself, and throws the other half away.

jamieboy wrote:
It is good coercion for the betterment of all.


There is no such thing as good coercion.

jamieboy wrote:
Also if you dont like it you can vote in a new politician who's not in favour of it.


No you can't, because once you give people "free" things they'll keep wanting it. Those paying for it are in the minority.

jamieboy wrote:
Can i vote out my boss if i dont like him? I could try but he'd probably fire me and that would definitely be coercive.


You can quit. You can disobey him. You can change company. You can start your own company. You can go higher up and have your boss fired.

None of this is possible with the government.



marshall
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Apr 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,752
Location: Turkey

19 Dec 2010, 11:03 pm

Adrien wrote:
jamieboy wrote:
Try removing all social security and then surviving without a job. Is that not coercion by capitalist employers? The problem with libertarians of the right is that they see everything that the government does as coercion but nothing that business does as coercion.


If you want food to live, you need to make it or buy it. That's how it's been done for thousands of years.


For thousands of years people lived in agrarian societies with large extended families working together as a unit to produce the necessities for survival and goods to trade. It was essentially socialism, though on a micro-scale tribal level. The nuclear family is an invention of the industrial revolution, as is unemployment and financial insecurity. And old-school 19th century era capitalism was certainly a coercive arrangement for laborers. Why else do you think socialism got it's roots in that era? The industrial producers didn't play nice and improve conditions for workers until they were forced to through growing social unrest in the form of labor strikes and threats of political activism.



Orwell
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Aug 2007
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,518
Location: Room 101

20 Dec 2010, 12:34 am

Adrien wrote:
jamieboy wrote:
Can i vote out my boss if i dont like him? I could try but he'd probably fire me and that would definitely be coercive.


You can quit. You can disobey him. You can change company. You can start your own company. You can go higher up and have your boss fired.

None of this is possible with the government.

You can do all of that with the government. You can renounce your citizenship (quit). You can disobey (civil disobedience). You can emigrate to another country (change company). You can start your own country (be some sort of wilderness survivalist or join one of those silly micronations). You can go higher up and have him fired (either vote him out, or enter politics yourself).

I won't bother addressing your other points in detail. Suffice it to say you have no idea what you're talking about.


_________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH


Adrien
Yellow-bellied Woodpecker
Yellow-bellied Woodpecker

User avatar

Joined: 14 Aug 2010
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 58

20 Dec 2010, 1:31 am

Orwell wrote:
Adrien wrote:
jamieboy wrote:
Can i vote out my boss if i dont like him? I could try but he'd probably fire me and that would definitely be coercive.


You can quit. You can disobey him. You can change company. You can start your own company. You can go higher up and have your boss fired.

None of this is possible with the government.

You can do all of that with the government. You can renounce your citizenship (quit). You can disobey (civil disobedience). You can emigrate to another country (change company). You can start your own country (be some sort of wilderness survivalist or join one of those silly micronations). You can go higher up and have him fired (either vote him out, or enter politics yourself).

I won't bother addressing your other points in detail. Suffice it to say you have no idea what you're talking about.


I implore you to address my other points, seeing as how you danced around this one.

After all, changing country, getting jailed, and living like a caveman is the same as walking out of an office.



Vexcalibur
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Jan 2008
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,398

20 Dec 2010, 8:31 am

Charity is conservative BS.

Taxes are for investment not charity. Charity does nothing to fix poverty, it actually extends it. Welfare is an investment, so that those people are given actual chances. You will not be able to have your American Dream out of your own work if you die before you turn 10... Or if there is not even a school for you.

War is bad (tm) , but it is also a investment, specially in the US. Moar resources. The thing with taxes is never to even the field between rich and poor but to allow the state to invest the taxpayer money to improve the taxpayer's lives. Of course, some governments are corrupt and decide not to invest all of the money or they are populists and decide to give it a way (in a way similar to charity).


Meanwhile, charities just give free soup to some few people.


_________________
.


ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 89
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

20 Dec 2010, 9:20 am

Vexcalibur wrote:
Charity is conservative BS.

Taxes are for investment not charity. Charity does nothing to fix poverty, it actually extends it. Welfare is an investment, so that those people are given actual chances. You will not be able to have your American Dream out of your own work if you die before you turn 10... Or if there is not even a school for you.

W


Welfare turns otherwise reasonable people into dependents. People who are trained to suck on the government teat. In the U.S. where discultured black folks have received the most personal welfare, tell me what advance and improvement has been made. A disproportionate number of violent criminals come from the very group in which welfare "investment" has been made. Government welfare has solved nothing.

ruveyn



Inuyasha
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Jan 2009
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,745

20 Dec 2010, 12:30 pm

Adrien wrote:
jamieboy wrote:
Try removing all social security and then surviving without a job. Is that not coercion by capitalist employers? The problem with libertarians of the right is that they see everything that the government does as coercion but nothing that business does as coercion.


If you want food to live, you need to make it or buy it. That's how it's been done for thousands of years.

Businesses aren't forcing anyone to get a job. They're just a new place to get a job that's better than before.

The government, however, is forcing people to buy things whether or not we want to, at a price we can't negotiate, and if you try, they put you in jail. That is coercion.


Which if I recall is what the Federal Judge whom ruled the individual mandate as unconstitutional essentially said.

Also, the FCC is trying to now regulate the internet while bypassing congress and ignoring a Court Order.



Master_Pedant
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Mar 2009
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,903

20 Dec 2010, 1:30 pm

I know arguing with Inuyasha is to a large extent useless as you'd make more heedway shouting at a brick wall, but I can't help but wonder why he's perseverating on the "Individual Mandate" so much when arguing against American reform-liberals and the broader left. After all, it was never really supported by the American Left, who regarded the Individual Mandate as an awful, Republican (Dole/Romney) measure stuck into the bill and instead would have preferred a public option. But, oh well, I guess Inuyasha will just continue to grasp a straws.


_________________
http://www.voterocky.org/


Inuyasha
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Jan 2009
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,745

20 Dec 2010, 1:37 pm

@ Master_Pedant

Romneycare is just as stupid as Obamacare. The reason I'm going after the individual mandate is cause it violates the everything the United States stands for and is a blatent power grab.

I'm sorry your lack of understanding on the situation (because you are not exactly familiar with what the Commerce Clause let alone the United States Constitution), leads you to believe that I am grasping at straws, but fact is I'm not grasping at straws, I'm playing connect the dots where a series of datapoints ends up creating a larger picture.



Master_Pedant
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Mar 2009
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,903

20 Dec 2010, 1:50 pm

Inuyasha wrote:
I'm sorry your lack of understanding on the situation (because you are not exactly familiar with what the Commerce Clause let alone the United States Constitution),leads you to believe that I am grasping at straws, but fact is I'm not grasping at straws, I'm playing connect the dots where a series of datapoints ends up creating a larger picture.


Nice to see that in typical Inuyasha fashion you pretty much missed my point. My point isn't about whether complaints over the constitutionality of the Individual mandate are valid or invalid, as I'm not a US constitutional lawyer and the details, precedents, and relevant issues are far to complex for me to make a judgement (if property taxes to pay for Ohio Public Schools can be deemed "unconstitutional", then who knows what else can be read out of existence), the point is that shouting "Individual Mandate" whenever you try to discredit any system of U'niversal healthcare is pretty stupid, especially when arguing against leftists (who, by and large, don't support the Individual Mandate).


_________________
http://www.voterocky.org/