Progressive Boink

[Andy]

Hey Andy, who'd you wind up voting for

Well, after much deliberation, research and soul searching I decided to vote for School Sucks.

[Terry Cheesecake]

Hey Greg are you going to respond to any of the points I have posted or do you want to just keep ignoring them? I'll give you a load of privatisation = bad links when I get home. Privatisation doesn't lead to better service at a better price it overwhelmingly leads to worse service at a higher price as companies seek to maximise profits while minimising expenditure. It also leads to job losses in most cases and in some cases actually kills people.

[Greg]

I got everyone piling on me at once and I do do other things during my day, so excuse if I put off the arguements that actually require me to read some things.

[DGMacphee]

Me: "Nice of you to put the word 'modern' in there, what with almost the entire world being statist."
You: "Ha! Got you in my trap! Somalia is an anarchy, and it's a shithole!"
Me: "The initial Somalian civil war was caused by people trying to gain statist power after Siad Barre got kicked out, which the UN then made worse by sticking their noses in. Black Hawk Down and all that. Yeah, it sucked. But then the UN left and the fighting died down and things suddenly got better. Life expectancy increased, vaccinations became more available, infant mortality rate dropped, and telecommunications BOOMED. It's still far from perfect, education is still one of their biggest problems, and I have no desire to move there soon, but people are capable of recognizing their own problems and can work to fix them without governmental control."
You: "have you googled ron paul lately"

wow greg should i reply or did you want to have a conversation with yourself

First of all, I didn't set a trap, because I was buggered if I could think of a successful country that has no government control today.

Secondly, I think you're looking at Somalia's anarcho-capitalism period through rose-coloured glasses for several reasons:

1) Many of the Somalis created clan-based structures to govern locally during this period, with the elders would serve acting as the decision makers. So although there was no monocratic entity, there were still governing bodies.
2) I'll admit that Somalia's completely deregulated private sector helped the country to flourish, but you could only do this in a developing country, or a country damaged from war or poor economy. In Somalia's case, it was basically at point zero after the civil war, so there was only one way to go: up. And sure, the level of attainment that Somalia reached with their infrastructure was better than the rest of Africa, but it pales in comparison to developed nations who compete not just locally but also on a global scale.
3) The seeds for a transitional monocratic government in Somalia started during the anarcho-capitalist period and was formally established in 2004. I mean, if anarchic capitcalism was so good for them, how come they didn't stick with it? Even people of the United States were anarcho-capitalists during the cocksucking Deadwood years, but you guys still formed government. There comes a point where society has to evolve and form government, not just to manage domestic issues but also negotiate on an international level.
4) And worst of all: The most profitable private industry in Somalia today is international piracy. $80 million dollars per year. I'd argue the anarcho-capital system contributed to that. I mean, their fishing industry collapsed because more developed countries stole their fish and polluted their waters, and because they didn't have a government, they had no control over their own waters. The best the Somali fishermen could do was try to shoo away the larger boats, but that was pretty fruitless. Even though Somalia's anarcho-capitalist society improved their society to some degree, it still had a lot of negative consequences. I'm not alone in that assessment.

Yes, because that's when you try to sign up with a health insurance company. As you lay there with a broken leg.

Okay, you subscribe to FireCo before your house catches on fire. But lo and behold, when it does, FireCo doesn't cover the fire engine because there was a pre-existing condition with the electricals. So when you actually need help, they fuck you over and then you have to pay for a fire engine.

Health insurers are only out for one thing: profit. They're not your buddies. As long as you keep paying your premiums and don't need any help, they're happy because they're making money off you. But when you do need a procedure that will cost them, don't think that some companies will try to deny coverage. And with a completely deregulated society, as you propose, who can stop them? No one!

Privatized agencies and courts. How would these be fair? Because the unfair ones wouldn't make money, just like any shitty business.

How would a privatised agency or court work??? What makes their decision legally binding?? It's not like if one company doesn't play ball you can hire your own private police force to arrest them and take them to a private jail, especially since the other could hire their own private police force to defend themselves.

The problem with your plan is that it results in the person having the most money gets the best justice and protection, no matter what kind of fucked up things he or she does. And that's not justice and your plan is certainly not realistic.

For the recrod, I am talking purely hypotheticals here, guys. I believe reducing governmental power will improve our way of living, I have no fucking idea how to get to that point.

And this is the problem. You're criticising without a real alternative (unless you're using Somalia as your example of an alternative, to which I say, "Are you kidding me??"). I mean, John Stuart Mill pretty much wrote the book on free rights for all, but still advocated for the role of government, especially to keep the population safe.

[AudeSapere]

hey guys i'm fairly positive that no one advocated abolishing the fire department

[DGMacphee]

Aude...

Society can exist just fine with limited or even no governmental control, and all of these things, health, education, roads, energy, and so on, CAN work in a privitized, free market run manner.

I'm pretty sure "and so on" includes the fire department, unless Greg wants to say, "No government control over anything except the fire department".

[Patrick]

I am now formally advocating abolishing the fire department.

like we need it anyway

[DGMacphee]

But then we won't have anyone to pose for calendars that hang in offices of lonely, middle-aged women.

[AudeSapere]

Aude...

Society can exist just fine with limited or even no governmental control, and all of these things, health, education, roads, energy, and so on, CAN work in a privitized, free market run manner.

I'm pretty sure "and so on" includes the fire department, unless Greg wants to say, "No government control over anything except the fire department".

I took this as hyperbole in response to pretty much everyone else arguing against him.

Then again, Greg 'n' I are PGAPals too, so maybe I'm just willing to give him the benefit of the doubt because Pierre Kirby is hilarious.

[Just!n]

Privatized agencies and courts. How would these be fair? Because the unfair ones wouldn't make money, just like any shitty business.

hahahaha how many innocent people would have to go to StarbucksJail or whatever before their bottom line startsto suffer, and what's keeping them from changing policies to appease public opinion once it does?

[DGMacphee]

And if the execs of StarbucksJail are found guilty of embezzlement, would they be able to serve their time in their own prisons?

[Just!n]

will constable big mac's authority be limited by jurisdictional district, or will the king's spree of breaking and entering felonies continue to go unimpeded by law enforcement?

[Bismark]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/36020850/ns/politics-capitol_hill/

where do people keep finding all this stupid

[DGMacphee]

It's as if they're getting their opinions from someone who's stark-raving insane, but no one could possibly be tha



oh

[A Link To The Matt]

This isn't an us versus them thing (and I may just be forgetting it entirely) but I don't remember these kinds of violent acts occuring after the patriot act passed, or when the UIEGA passed. It just seems kind of uncivalized. You've provided millions with the ability to not go bankrupt from health care! Ill kill you!

[Spoodles]

i've been laughing for like a year at how people complaining about socialism are also complaining about budgetary cuts made to their SOCIAL SECURITY program.

I'm a Social Security employee and it seems like even the people that work here don't understand the irony in their complaints about socialism.

[Patrick]

I wish someone would tell Glenn Beck to his face that he's crazy. And not in the typical "see, you are not really crazy but i am exaggerating for effect to let you know i don't like what you are doing", but actually pointing out that he is clinically mad, and that if a psychologist were to properly examine him they would find an insanity far bigger than anything they'd seen before.

Basically I want Jon Stewart to say "you so crazy" and then beck to say "no i'm not" and then to have a panel of doctors show up and reveal information they've gathered just from watching his television show and examining his personality and confirming that he has mental health issues, without any sort of joke or irony; as scientific as they can get.

Beck is probably stupid enough to ignore all that, of course, but I feel like it would make a bigger impact than yet-another-parody. Sometimes a person just needs to be told the harsh truth to their fucking faces from all angles from all sorts of people. Because South Park had that episode mocking him and all he thought was "I like the way Cartman combed his hair." It was a cartoon so of course he didn't take it seriously; if God himself shows up on Comedy Central with a parody of Beck that goes off the deep end and into its own thing it won't really have an effect on the man himself or on his fans. It'll be "just another hater" instead of a legitimate claim.

[phil5329]

Rargh, getting in when the discussion is already five pages long and possibly done with. Commenting as I go along.

Andy, if you are trying to get caught up on politics I always reccomend The Economist. It may British but they cover American politics thoruoghly and generally give a backround on whatever issue they are discussing in each article.

As far as doctors go, I would trust the supposed not-giving-a-shit doc as he has a financial interest in keeping you alive.

Terry half the country here views health care as a right and half view gun ownership as a right with some overlap. America is diverse like that I guess.

Aude you are right as far as organizational leadership goes. That is why I get mad at the far left in America that get mad that the bill did not go far enough in their eyes. They think it wasn't worth it at all. But you have to start somewhere and perfect it as you go along. Just being realistic.

The EU is not fuckin' sweet

So is the Daily Mail your guys's NY Post?

As per the private/public debate the answer (as always, I can not stress this enough) lies in the middle. A nice mix of both.

Controversial, sweeping, and over-simplified argument: The people that are opposed to health care for all are not concerned about defeciets or public/private debates but indeed just don't want to spend any of their money to help someone else because they are selfish and often racist.

Also, people, we are all friends on this forum. Attack the points, not the people making them!

[A Link To The Matt]

Your last point is interesting.

One of the ladies who sat in for our normal right wing morning talk show host claims that this entire bill has nothing to do with health care and everything to do with Reparations. I do not know if this means she thinks only black people cannot afford health care or what, but it sounded like the most asinine and racist statement I have ever heard. I love the first amendment for what it is, but I've always questioned how such blatant hate speech can be and should be tolerated. It is a very tough idea to grasp.

[phil5329]

I think some credit should, grudgingly, be given to the Democratic Congressman. They went against their nature and voted for something that was very likely to lead to them losing their coveted jobs. Off the top of my head I can not think of any examples of that happening, at least in my lifetime.

Unless of course Nancy Pelosi just came to each one of them and hypnotized them, which is a possibility.

As far as my previous point, the more I think about it, the more I agree with myself. People are really selfish. It took this much straining to get people to help their fellow countrymen. Sorry Africa, its not gonna happen this century.