Politics, Society etc.

[Nailec]

totally serial

[Variable]

I just re-read some of the first few pages too.  Good times.  There are a few rather comical moments

[alvarezbassist17]

And its kind of hard not to when you're such a dam broken record.  I actually thought Nailec was joking for a min, to be ironic.  But nope, I'm pretty sure he was being serious.

Yeah dude, and especially after the rand paul shit recently, I've just started wondering just wtf these people want, if you could boil liberal "civil rights" or whatever down to an actual philosophy in any capacity.  Because there's so much just double standard, philosophically backwards bullshit.  It's pretty much just seems like if you think a racist thought, God makes somebody commit a hate crime somewhere.  I mean obviously for the political class it's all about nanny state, total regulation of every aspect of life, but I just don't understand how anybody else can really buy into it.  Is it all just white guilt or German guilt and trying to rationalize it in some way?  Because I look at Tiger Woods (obviously aside from recent transgressions), Oprah, Obama (whose election I think truly was a great step forward for minorities because I feel like race was such a non-issue, I mean except in the "positive" sense, I know a few white people who just voted for him because they thought it'd be "cool" or "progressive," but the vast, vast majority of people who had criticisms of him based them on policy), Michael Jordan, and all of the other "black" businesses and media exposure and just think, "isn't this the essential image of what civil rights activists in times past were arguing for?"  Like what more could they want?  Obama wasn't elected by affirmative action (well, probably not anyways ).

[Variable]

I STRONGLY disagree with you on how Obama was elected.  I think race and AA played a HUGE part in him getting elected.  They have been hacking at it so long, that white people actually feel guilty for not sticking up for the black man 100% of the time.  Its pathetic.  It blows my mind how people don't see how classifying people into these collective racial groups is so dam inherently racist.  They are people.  Men and women.  Not black people or Mexican men or Asian women.  People and citizens.  It truly is that simple.  It's a whole lot more complicated and disgusting to group people all in different groups then automatically assume no one can play nice without initiating horrendously racist legal double standards.

But obviously I agree with what you are talking about with the civil rights movement.  Its way time for it to take a new turn.  And honestly, what the hell else could you want?  You have a legalized , racist, double standard.  But if you continue to tell someone that they are a victim, they will continue to believe it. 
Here is what I love though.  The large majority of people are all about racial profiling when it benefits the minority.  EG when a black kid gets into college with a scholarship even though he was highly under qualified compared to his white counterparts.  Everyone thinks its great because "statistically" he had a harder life and less opportunities.  Even though the possibility is there that he grew up rich as shit .
However, if you suggest that we pull over every single black person driving a BMW or Mercedes because "statistically" they stole it, or bought it with drug money, People are up in arms at how disgusting you are.  But as far as I am concerned, you can't have it both ways.  If you want to change a social behavior based off some statistical possibility, it needs to work both ways. 

I'm not for any of that though.  I believe in a truly equal and blind system.  Now, would this said system even be a possibility on the horizon if it were not for AA and positive racial profiling?  I don't know, probably not actually.  But, I think we are there.  Its time to have a little bit of faith in humanity and understand that societies truly can progress if you allow them to.  We are actually holding ourselves back, that's what's really sad to me. 

[Necrocetaceanbeastiality]

Agreed. I believe that a large portion of Obama's votes were people literally voting for him because he is a black man.

And while I think it's great that we can have a black president, I think it's terrible that we as a society look at him and say, "Hey, great! We have a black man as president" as opposed to just "We have a man as president".

And you have no idea how pissed off I get talking politics with friends because most of those idiots voted for him for that very same reason and are pissed about what he's doing. Vote for people based on their policies, not their charisma or the fact that they are brown.

[Variable]

He never led on to any politics though.  He was vague as shit about everything.  In a nut shell he said " I'm going to change shit! The end!" and everyone interpreted that message their own way and cheered for it.  They had no idea what he actually meant by what he was going to change, but they knew what they wanted to change, and for some reason they believed he was going to change those things, even though he never said he would. 
I say that while its important to vote based on politics, lets also demand that they state their actual politics too.  And truthfully at that.

[wheresmysnare]

he's giving you a national health service right?

[Variable]

um, something like that I guess.  He is trying to federalize healthcare.  I think thats a better way of putting it. Believe it or not, the history books should show that there was healthcare in America before Obama. 
So if you're asking if he is going to spend billions on revamping the existing system to replace it with an inferior system that takes away more freedoms and liberties from the people and puts more control into the hands of government.  Then yes, that is what he is trying to do.  That is change, ill give him that much.

[wheresmysnare]

I think a nation health service is important and a good move for the US, just look at Chi, his family had to finance his treatment, in the UK we pay higher taxes for it but when the shit hits the fan we have a health service in place to look after us. You can still have private health care here if you wish though.

I think a lot of the self proclaimed 'hard working' americans were pissed off that they'd have to fund the treatment of less well off american citizens i.e :

Tea Partiers Mock And Scorn Apparent Parkinson's Victim

So i think Obama has done alright, it's quite a bold socialist move

[Variable]

Well if you're a socialist ( and I'm guessing by that last remark you are ) then sure, its a great move.  But seeing as how I am a Libertarian, I'm not a fan.
I don't think I really need to express my views too in depth.  I think just saying a Libertarian should be good enough in this case.

But to address a couple points you made.
Sure, health care in America was/is fucked.  But not because it wasn't ran by the government.  Health care is a commodity, just like any other business in America.  You purchase a product.  And the Chi example is actually pretty perfect.  1.  he should have had private health care to cover his accident.  He definitely makes enough money to cover health insurance.  So if he didn't ( I don't know the details ) then that was his bad for being irresponsible.  And I don't see why my taxes should go up because people aren't responsible enough to purchase health insurance, even when they can afford it.
Also, the way society is supposed to work, you don't rely on government for everything.  But community can be a powerful thing.  People saw a need for Chi, so they gave.  We saw a fellow brother in need, and tried to provide for him.  Which is what a community is supposed to do.  Not that we get taught that anymore.  Nope, now we are all just taught that the government should help us at every wrong turn we make.  Which is convenient.  It totally takes away a lot of responsibility and accountability from your everyday person.  But in reality it takes away liberties and lowers our quality of life.
I heard a lot of really intelligent ways that we could have reformed health care in the States and still kept it all private.  Most of it boiled down to insurance companies, and the way Americans use their health insurance.  Just imagine using your auto insurance to pay to change the oil in your car....sound ridiculous right?  Thats something you should expect to have to pay for so you save for it.  Well the same goes for medical.  It should sound preposterous that someone would use health insurance for a visit to their primary DR. for a cold, or to get an adjustment from a chiropractor.  Pretty much that you would use insurance for anything but an emergency.  But thats completely how we operate over here.  Which is stupid. 
A lot of health reform could go into the way hospitals are ran and Doctors get paid too.  Lets never forget that humans respond to incentives.  So do you really think putting the majority of Doctors on a salary and telling them that they get paid the same whether they treat patients or not, and they get paid the same whether the patients get better or not, is a good idea?  All courtesy of the American tax payer.  It is an empirical fact that when you socialize a health system, the standard of care goes down.  And I mean way down.  But ill probably pay THE SAME if not MORE for this inferior system.  All because people are too fucking irresponsible to save and plan.....Thats not how its supposed to work in a free society. 

And you say I can still have private insurance if I want right?  True.  But I still have to pay for the federalized health care.  SO why the fuck would I pay for two health care plans?  That is just a cop out political spin because they know these government plans snuff out the private plans except for the super rich who can afford this.  You have to be pretty short sighted,at least a little bit ignorant to the ways of the world ( maybe even slightly stupid ), and pretty fucking fearful that you wont be able to provide for yourself ( EG admitting that you're weak ) in order to support a plan like this.  Darwin would be so proud .

[alvarezbassist17]

I STRONGLY disagree with you on how Obama was elected.  I think race and AA played a HUGE part in him getting elected.  They have been hacking at it so long, that white people actually feel guilty for not sticking up for the black man 100% of the time.  Its pathetic.  It blows my mind how people don't see how classifying people into these collective racial groups is so dam inherently racist.  They are people.  Men and women.  Not black people or Mexican men or Asian women.  People and citizens.  It truly is that simple.  It's a whole lot more complicated and disgusting to group people all in different groups then automatically assume no one can play nice without initiating horrendously racist legal double standards.

Nah, I'm with you there.  I mean yeah, it was the same way for the majority of my friends, they got duped into thinking that because they're white, they're inherently racist and should feel guilty about it.  And I'm sure that played a huge role in his election, if not decided it altogether, but I was just trying to speak to the fact that are (or were anyways) in the closest society has ever been to having a lack of the "negative" racism because his CRITICISM wasn't based on race, at least from what I was hearing.  But yeah the whole positivism aspect of it was truly disgusting, I guess I was just trying to be somewhat PC by saying maybe there was a chance he got elected legitimately, haha shame on me.  

But yeah, I agree with you on the rest of that too.  I think it's just a basic misunderstanding of human rights with the affirmative action thing: that my rights end where your rights begin.  And for the rest of it, I just can't think of anything besides the Democrats race-baiting and the Republicans capitulating, or just not calling them out on their bullshit.  I mean obviously there's Republicans that engage in race-baiting too, it's just become so pervasive in society.

This is completely off-topic, but Trey, have you heard of Peter Schiff?  He's definitely my new favorite economics guy, and I have a whole lot of faith he'll take that Senate seat in Connecticut.

I think a nation health service is important and a good move for the US, just look at Chi, his family had to finance his treatment, in the UK we pay higher taxes for it but when the shit hits the fan we have a health service in place to look after us. You can still have private health care here if you wish though.

I think a lot of the self proclaimed 'hard working' americans were pissed off that they'd have to fund the treatment of less well off american citizens i.e :

Your analysis is faulty on many, many accounts that I don't have time to address at the moment, but firstly, I want to talk about Chi.  You do realize that it wasn't just his family that had to pay for it, right?  Like I could state the obvious, but I'm pretty sure you've been exposed to at least a little bit of all of the charity that's been going on.  That's not his family paying, that's the self proclaimed hard-working Americans that funded the treatment of a less well-off American citizen.  The thing you're missing here is that people are extremely charitable when they have more than they need, but when they aren't FORCED to give it away.  That's why it's better, morally, ethically, and practically, to have a system that encourages, rather than discourages charity.

On the rest of it, I don't have time right now, but I'll just call you a retard as a placeholder until Trey or I can set you straight.

EDIT: Damn, Trey.  Just be way too quick for me, why don't you?

[Variable]

It's what we do

[wheresmysnare]

I STRONGLY disagree with you on how Obama was elected.  I think race and AA played a HUGE part in him getting elected.  They have been hacking at it so long, that white people actually feel guilty for not sticking up for the black man 100% of the time.  Its pathetic.  It blows my mind how people don't see how classifying people into these collective racial groups is so dam inherently racist.  They are people.  Men and women.  Not black people or Mexican men or Asian women.  People and citizens.  It truly is that simple.  It's a whole lot more complicated and disgusting to group people all in different groups then automatically assume no one can play nice without initiating horrendously racist legal double standards.

Nah, I'm with you there.  I mean yeah, it was the same way for the majority of my friends, they got duped into thinking that because they're white, they're inherently racist and should feel guilty about it.  And I'm sure that played a huge role in his election, if not decided it altogether, but I was just trying to speak to the fact that are (or were anyways) in the closest society has ever been to having a lack of the "negative" racism because his CRITICISM wasn't based on race, at least from what I was hearing.  But yeah the whole positivism aspect of it was truly disgusting, I guess I was just trying to be somewhat PC by saying maybe there was a chance he got elected legitimately, haha shame on me. 

But yeah, I agree with you on the rest of that too.  I think it's just a basic misunderstanding of human rights with the affirmative action thing: that my rights end where your rights begin.  And for the rest of it, I just can't think of anything besides the Democrats race-baiting and the Republicans capitulating, or just not calling them out on their bullshit.  I mean obviously there's Republicans that engage in race-baiting too, it's just become so pervasive in society.

This is completely off-topic, but Trey, have you heard of Peter Schiff?  He's definitely my new favorite economics guy, and I have a whole lot of faith he'll take that Senate seat in Connecticut.

I think a nation health service is important and a good move for the US, just look at Chi, his family had to finance his treatment, in the UK we pay higher taxes for it but when the shit hits the fan we have a health service in place to look after us. You can still have private health care here if you wish though.

I think a lot of the self proclaimed 'hard working' americans were pissed off that they'd have to fund the treatment of less well off american citizens i.e :

Your analysis is faulty on many, many accounts that I don't have time to address at the moment, but firstly, I want to talk about Chi.  You do realize that it wasn't just his family that had to pay for it, right?  Like I could state the obvious, but I'm pretty sure you've been exposed to at least a little bit of all of the charity that's been going on.  That's not his family paying, that's the self proclaimed hard-working Americans that funded the treatment of a less well-off American citizen.  The thing you're missing here is that people are extremely charitable when they have more than they need, but when they aren't FORCED to give it away.  That's why it's better, morally, ethically, and practically, to have a system that encourages, rather than discourages charity.

On the rest of it, I don't have time right now, but I'll just call you a retard as a placeholder until Trey or I can set you straight.

EDIT: Damn, Trey.  Just be way too quick for me, why don't you?

Ok, my whole point of bringing up the NHS was to use it as an example of how Obama has introduced change, as he said he would.

Saying that American society can rely solely on the charitable nature of 'hard working' American people is wishful thinking.  I'm fully aware that Chi was an exception to the rule, he had a fan base thanks to his line of work.

In summary, from a moral point of view an NHS is much more inclusive, you're putting your health care money into a communal 'pot' rather than into the hands of a private money making scheme/insurers hand. Having a singular health service, is something that 'you' the paying public will care about and you'll make sure it's up to scratch and if it isn't you kick up a fuss.

People, through no fault of their own can find themselves requiring health care. It's all well saying you are a liberalist but that's purely because it suits you to be and you couldn't give a fuck about anyone else who's fallen on hard times i.e. the elderly and the only reason you would help out someone is to massage your ego.

I live in the UK and have a steady job, I am happy and proud to pay for an NHS, it keeps not only me but my family, friends, colleagues looked after.

[alvarezbassist17]

Now see, you really are missing the central point.  If you were to have a free market for health care, far lower taxes on both the general population and their businesses and the insurance companies, and far less regulation on both the insurance companies and the medical profession, you would not need the communal pot to steal (and you may not consider taxation theft, but #1 some other people might who are then forced to pay into a system that they don't agree with and #2 it is.  But why the fuck can't you just be given the money in your paycheck to give to a charity that quite probably funds a far more effective and ethical organization?) from one person to give to another in order to take care of these people that are down on their luck.  You have to understand that the natural charity safety net is bled dry when it's taxed to death, regulated to death, and when people stop donating because they themselves are taxed to death and can then just assume because the government is taking care of these people, they don't have to donate to charity for them to get care.  Do you think maybe that insurance companies might deny a few less claims if they got to keep more than 50-60 cents on every dollar they make?

A couple main points:

You really come off like a douchebag when you try to make it sound like it's ethical to force other people into charity when you only prefer out of convenience to get it taken out of your paycheck rather than get up off your ass and find a charity that would do the job far better than any bureaucrat-laden government hospital.

You absolutely do not understand that there has not been a true free market in health care ever, aside from early American history, and that was with obviously far more primitive technology.  You have no idea the kind of mass, cheap, high quality, global care that would come about with today's technology if it were actually allowed to flourish.  Like look at how far medicine has come in recent history despite, NOT because of, government intervention (all of which I, in principle, and Trey, in principle and especially practice, could explain).  If the government would just get the fuck out of the way, we wouldn't even be having this discussion right now.

And you're right, Obama did change things, but the way in which he changed them is the saaaaaaame old shit.  You watch and see if it works, you just watch.  First thing to happen: don't be surprised when insurance premiums go up, and all of the people that the administration thought were too rich to need the subsidies will then not be too rich to need the subsidies, and there will be massive cost overruns.  Tell you what they'll blame, the doctors and the insurance companies.  But hopefully by then you'll have figured out how bogus that is.

[Variable]

Bah I haven't had the energy to reply to things like this lately bro.  I feel like a broken record because we are always just explaining the same basic shit to people.  Its really simple to understand too.  But it just goes to show how much effort people have taken to go out and truly understand the world around them.  Because these concepts seem so alien to them. 
But I guess I could go to the store, buy some caffeine, and then come back and share a little bit about what I know about medicine and government intervention.  after all, this is my 5th day being stuck at a government ran hospital( and it will be at least 8 day total ) for something a person with private insurance in a free market medical community would get done in 2 days.

[Nailec]

we can afford to keep you here for 8 days

[alvarezbassist17]

Bah I haven't had the energy to reply to things like this lately bro.  I feel like a broken record because we are always just explaining the same basic shit to people.  Its really simple to understand too.  But it just goes to show how much effort people have taken to go out and truly understand the world around them.  Because these concepts seem so alien to them. 
But I guess I could go to the store, buy some caffeine, and then come back and share a little bit about what I know about medicine and government intervention.  after all, this is my 5th day being stuck at a government ran hospital( and it will be at least 8 day total ) for something a person with private insurance in a free market medical community would get done in 2 days.

Yeah dude, I feel like we've gone on about this ad nauseum too, but being a filthy Liberal just sounds way too nice these days for people to think twice about it.  God, could you imagine if Hazlitt, Rothbard and Mises were taught at every school across the globe?  How much farther would we have come, and how much smarter would the population be?  That's the kind of stuff that I think about all the time, if we actually had sound money and obeyed free market principles everywhere, what would the world today be like?  Real crazy to ponder.

But answer my question, biznatch.  Have you heard of Peter Schiff?

we can afford to keep you here for 8 days

Let us begin with the simplest illustration possible: let us, emulating Bastiat, choose a broken pane of glass.

A young hoodlum, say, heaves a brick through the window of a baker's shop. The shopkeeper runs out furious, but the boy is gone. A crowd gathers, and begins to stare with quiet satisfaction at the gaping hole in the window and the shattered glass over the bread and pies. After a while the crowd feels the need for philosophic reflection. And several of its members are almost certain to remind each other or the baker that, after all, the misfortune has its bright side. It will make business for some glazier. As they begin to think of this they elaborate upon it. How much does a new plate glass window cost? Two hundred and fifty dollars? That will be quite a sum. After all, if windows were never broken, what would happen to the glass business? Then, of course, the thing is endless. The glazier will have $250 more to spend with other merchants, and these in turn will have $250 more to spend with still other merchants, and so ad infinitum. The smashed window will go on providing money and employment in ever-widening circles. The logical conclusion from all this would be, if the crowd drew it, that the little hoodlum who threw the brick, far from being a public menace, was a public benefactor.

Now let us take another look. The crowd is at least right in its first conclusion. This little act of vandalism will in the first instance mean more business for some glazier. The glazier will be no more unhappy to learn of the incident than an undertaker to learn of a death. But the shopkeeper will be out $250 that he was planning to spend for a new suit. Because he has had to replace a window, he will have to go without the suit (or some equivalent need or luxury). Instead of having a window and $250 he now has merely a window. Or, as he was planning to buy the suit that very afternoon, instead of having both a window and a suit he must be content with the window and no suit. If we think of him as a part of the community, the community has lost a new suit that might otherwise have come into being, and is just that much poorer.

The glazier's gain of business, in short, is merely the tailor's loss of business. No new "employment" has been added. The people in the crowd were thinking only of two parties to the transaction, the baker and the glazier. They had forgotten the potential third party involved, the tailor. They forgot him precisely because he will not now enter the scene. They will see the new window in the next day or two. They will never see the extra suit, precisely because it will never be made. They see only what is immediately visible to the eye.

http://jim.com/econ/contents.html

Read it.  I have faith you can be turned away from the dark side.  You're still young, right?

[Nailec]

i dont know what else i have to be ironic. i posted that smiley (  ) for a reason!

im not that much of a cynic to find its a good thing keeping someone in hospital for 8 days when he could be cured in 2. though i am not sure if variable`s doctor probablly has good reasons for doing so...

ill still read your text though

[Nailec]

ok read it. cool story, bro!

no now srsly:

1.) what exactly do you want me to learn from this? (i should probablly read the link you provided but i havent that much time right now)

2.) when the first reaction this crowd has is a reflection of the economic side of a crime while not thinking that the act itself (not just the outcome) was an unmoral act, that is not a moral philosophy i would share. similar examples can be found everywhere in the economics where companies provide nice products, but for a very high price or with unmorally means (like having children to do all the work etc.)

3.) the baker is an idiot when he hasnt an insurance that pays him for vandalism against him. that way he would share the cost of the window with many other members of that same insurance company and wouldnt have such a big harm.

3a) probablly an intersting discussion would be, whether or not a shopowneror every employer should the legally forced to be in some kind of insurance. why? if for instance his shop burns down he would probablly have costs that he wouldnt ever be able to pay back and lots of marketeers related to him would sit on their bills.


i just want to make clear to understand your analogy correctly

[Variable]

But answer my question, biznatch.  Have you heard of Peter Schiff?

Yeah I think I was actually introduced to him through you when you told me to watch "freedom watch" I havn't read anything of his, just heard him talk.  But I remember really enjoying what he had to say.  He is a very intelligent man.  You say he is running for the senate?