On Wednesday, January 19th, the house voted 245-189 (all Republicans, and 3 Democrats) to repeal the Healthcare Law. I was curious as to what AG's response would be to this.
First thing I see - the idea of the need for force to direct the minds and wills of the "inferior".
I wont deny it, but I do believe that an improved education system will reduce the need for outside influence; if money is invested into making more people more intelligent I guarantee a freer market would emerge.
I wont deny it, but I do believe that an improved education system will reduce the need for outside influence; if money is invested into making more people more intelligent I guarantee a freer market would emerge.
Right now, my idea of the ideal government is the one that follows the most closely or does not defy the principle of non-aggression. I view the free market as the only system in accordance with this, and the ideal government simultaneously as an extension of the free market - the maximum social "freedom" as well as economic "freedom."
Do not misconstrue this above paragraph as that I have "decided" my ideology, however. I am still open to debate about this if you provide logical evidence that suggests otherwise.
Right now, my idea of the ideal government is the one that follows the most closely or does not defy the principle of non-aggression. I view the free market as the only system in accordance with this, and the ideal government simultaneously as an extension of the free market - the maximum social "freedom" as well as economic "freedom."
Do not misconstrue this above paragraph as that I have "decided" my ideology, however. I am still open to debate about this if you provide logical evidence that suggests otherwise
Oops, went off on a tangent. But all I'm trying to say is that free market and coercion are contradictory to me.
I view the free market as the only system in accordance with this, and the ideal government simultaneously as an extension of the free market - the maximum social "freedom" as well as economic "freedom."
The idea basically comes down to whether freedom creates equality or whether equality creates freedom, I believe that both schools desire to achieve both things the difference being which ideal is believed to better create the other. You're of the mind, I assume, that freedom in the market will create equality in the market while I believe that equality creates freedom (I consider myself to be a social libertarian). If two businesses follow the same set of regulations in their conception equality is guaranteed and through this the freedom for the better product/service to make more money has a good chance of succeeding. Now if the two companies were to start on an unequal field the business with the poorer quality product/service may excess due to more money, investors, etc.
You're of the mind, I assume, that freedom in the market will create equality in the market while I believe that equality creates freedom (I consider myself to be a social libertarian).
PERFECT!!! Hmm...social libertarian...
How can one have freedom with a government that uses coercion for its own means? Coercion is the use of any type of force - and if coercion is necessary for a government to use, then they either:
1. Cannot use any other means. 2. Can use other means, but choose to use coercion.
If 1, then the ideology upon which they are founded must be flawed, because (the great thing about WEPR is that I always find myself having to verbalize what I have only felt in my mind...) they are forced to use force when they cannot make people do what they want by their own choice. Why is choice important? Because people will decide what they believe is the best decision for themselves; thus, any type of force that is necessary thus is in contradiction with this.
If 2, then the government chooses to limit freedom, and cannot be called "free".
Therefore, no government that uses force can be called "free."
I also find social libertarian to be a contradiction. However, I suppose you can be more libertarian when it comes to certain policies and socialist when it comes to others. Out of curiosity, what does it mean to you to be social libertarian?
You're of the mind, I assume, that freedom in the market will create equality in the market while I believe that equality creates freedom
Equality of opportunity is important to me. I believe we should not discriminate under any circumstances. However, I do not believe we should strive for a society where everyone lives as equals. I have no problem with having an upper and lower class, as long as the lower class can still live well.
Each person is born under a different family with different inheritance in different neighborhoods. Each person is also born with their own body with some strengths and weaknesses that are inherited while others come from personal experience. Freedom is the ability to make use of everything around you. I accept that everyone won't be a single class, and I'm perfectly fine with it.
When you force someone to hire a disabled person, an abled person is screwed out of a job. That is not equality. When you have a poor person and you take from a rich person, it is unfair for the rich person. Equality is not necessarily freedom.
I finally understand what you meant by "not having a right to eat your candy bar", but understand that you completely ignored what I had originally said and what you originally quoted. Completely ignored it.
wut i do.
There's a difference between a right and an entitlement. That's what I was saying earlier. What you said about the candy bar had nothing to do with the point I was trying to make.
It doesn't matter if I consider a right or entitlement, I believe people should have it without having to pay large amounts of money.
Plus, it still works like a pool. If 7 people each pay $8 every days the enter a convenience store for health insurance, the insurance company would receive $56 a day. If 4 people pay for a candy bar which costs $8, the insurance company makes a profit of $24. The pool would be large enough for everyone. Either way, it is a pool.
The insurance companies would never make a profit if you pay $80 for them to pay $420 without any reimbursement later on. Have you any idea how insurance works?
Let's look at insurance and determine what it is exactly. When people pay for health insurance, they hope to put in less money than they take out.
Insurance is not supposed to be a guaranteed money saver. Insurance is a "just in case something bad happens" plan. If you already know something bad will happen, or if you already have problems, then the plan turns from a "just in case" to a "you pay us 10 dollars, we pay for the 100 dollar plan".
Let's assume you want to buy a car that needs a new $500 engine. However, you don't want to spend that extra $500. Therefore, you buy the car, then you pay your insurance company $80 to pay for the new engine. That doesn't make sense! That's exactly why it's unfair to have people with pre-existing conditions to benefit off of insurance. Insurance is a plan that covers you for accidents that might happen, and the companies profit off of those who do stay healthy. If they covered everyone who was sick, they couldn't make a profit.
Plus, it still works like a pool. If 7 people each pay $8 every days the enter a convenience store for health insurance, the insurance company would receive $56 a day. If 4 people pay for a candy bar which costs $8, the insurance company makes a profit of $24. The pool would be large enough for everyone. Either way, it is a pool.
The insurance companies would never make a profit if you pay $80 for them to pay $420 without any reimbursement later on. Have you any idea how insurance works?
There's the magic word, profit. Insurance companies work for a profit. So you now expect the state to pay for health care, because you feel they don't need to work for a profit. However, that money comes from somewhere, and it must come from the people.
Either way, it comes from the people. Who will pay for healthcare if it is the people? Fairies? I'm just saying, that by paying for better healthcare that is cheaper and covers everything that could EVER happen to you, seems better. Maybe we should have education insurance companies. Now each parent has to pay insurance companies for their children to go to school.
Non-Profit means you give back what you make. It does not mean you can have a system where you give back more than you make, creating a debt.
The article I linked you, the one you dismissed as moot merely because it came from a blog, sums up what I have to say best.
Either way, it comes from the people. Who will pay for healthcare if it is the people? Fairies? I'm just saying, that by paying for better healthcare that is cheaper and covers everything that could EVER happen to you, seems better.
Neither one of us is denying the fact that people will pay for health care.
Now each parent has to pay insurance companies for their children to go to school.
That's actually one of the worst ideas I have ever heard in my life.
There's a reason why it hasn't been started in the free market: 1. It doesn't turn a profit and this is because 2. Nobody wants it.
I wasn't serious. I was mimicking how I think education and healthcare go hand and hand, and for one to be treated differently than the other is ridiculous.
Also, I am 100% sure it would make a profit if the government didn't fund it through taxes.
I wasn't serious. I was mimicking how I think education and healthcare go hand and hand, and for one to be treated differently than the other is ridiculous.
Not necessarily equivalent.
"Minds, like rivers, can be broad. The broader the river, the shallower it is. Therefore, the broader the mind, the shallower it is." From ... A list of Fallicious Arguments - see the link above
Also, I am 100% sure it would make a profit if the government didn't fund it through taxes.
If this is so, then it is a good entrepreneurial venture. Which would then lead to one asking, why HASN'T anyone thought of something like this before, if it has the potential to make money?
So either 1. Someone has thought of it before, or even tried it before, but it's not in practice because it has failed. OR 2. You're the first person who's thought of it, and you should be the first in the business. You'll be a millionaire. :P
If this is so, then it is a good entrepreneurial venture. Which would then lead to one asking, why HASN'T anyone thought of something like this before, if it has the potential to make money?
Because it is inhuman to have to pay for someone to receive an education and function in society.
So either 1. Someone has thought of it before, or even tried it before, but it's not in practice because it has failed. OR 2. You're the first person who's thought of it, and you should be the first in the business. You'll be a millionaire. :P
It used to happen. Only the sons and daughters of kings or wealthy people. Abigail Adams was one of the few women of her time to receive a proper education since it was so expensive.
