| Philosophical argument of Rights
Posted: 10/16/2009 12:32:18 PM | Actually, they weren't constructed by your vaunted socialist programs. PUBLIC roads aren't a socialist invention, as there are all type of infrastructure that has nothing to do with socialism.
My comment stands on the ignorance of the Consititution on the behalf of those who bemoan the lack of similarity from state to state.............. There is no "right" for all states to treat people exactly the same. There are strictures within which states have to stay, but are allowed quite a bit of leeway. And I thought you would be all for the freedom allowed to the states...............
Paul K | |
|
| Philosophical argument of Rights
Posted: 10/16/2009 1:04:07 PM | There are certain laws that should be across the board, Paul. I just gave one example.... a cold blooded murderer is a cold blooded murderer no matter which state he commits his crime.
It has nothing to do with 'socialist' ideals.
Side note : Any project that gathers public funds en masse, falls into the 'social' category.
And I thought you would be all for the freedom allowed to the states.......
Our countries carry a lot less 'freedoms' than we are led to believe. Smoke and mirrors. Democracy went out the window decades ago. We've all been feeding the corporate kitty for quite some time.
There has to be an equilibrium somewhere in the mess..... nobody wants to be dictated as to how much toilet paper they can use, but equality as individual fellow human beings also has to factor in.
The trick is to find the happy medium.
Capitalism in and of itself can't answer that problem.
Nor can socialism in and of itself.
Nor can liberalism in and of itself.
Etc.
Perhaps a little bit of everything ?
And for the record..... I carry no political label. I have likes and dislikes to each and every political/social structure out there, thus you won't catch me dogging one system over the other and 'labeling' people as such. | |
|
| Philosophical argument of Rights
Posted: 10/16/2009 1:09:35 PM | We AREN'T the United States of anything ! - It's a complete illusion , a farce, a fairy tale
....
You're complaining about the different laws that different states are allowed to have, then complain that this isn't the "United States"?
I think you must mean to say this isn't the "United State". Because otherwise you'd be kinda dumb. | |
|
| Philosophical argument of Rights
Posted: 10/16/2009 1:13:48 PM | If someone is adjudged guilty of "cold blooded murder", I assure you the person that did the "murdering" will be brought to justice, according the laws of the state he/she lives in................. Like I said, read the document and find out why.
Thats the way it works in the USA.
Infrastructure has nothing to do with socialism. You might like to think that it does, but it is common sense, which has nothing to do with socialism.........
Paul K | |
|
| Philosophical argument of Rights
Posted: 10/16/2009 1:21:23 PM | but it is common sense, which has nothing to do with socialism.........
Actually there are times and situations where socialism does make for common sense.
...... just sayin' is all......
And that's why I disagree with 'knocking' any one particular system over the other..... they all serve a good purpose in various scenarios. | |
|
| Philosophical argument of Rights
Posted: 10/16/2009 1:59:42 PM | Hey Muse
The most appropriate thing you did was to put a laughing icon after you wrote that there are times when socialism makes sense, because that IS a joke.
I am curious when socialism would make sense............
Paul K | |
|
| |
HO2
|
Joined: 10/11/2008
Msg: 233 | |
| |
| Philosophical argument of Rights
Posted: 10/16/2009 3:13:27 PM | As far as if I have health insurance, yes I do.... and I actually PAY for it myslef. I know that to some, that might seem like an outdated way of doing things, but really is the way it should be.
That will bring out the whiners who will say...... yeah, but.. yeah, but,... yeah, but.... what if they can't???? (snivel, snivel, whine, whine, cry, cry.......) Their families should take up the burden next, and then there are all kinds of private charities, and govt. should be the absolute last resource.
There is no right to health insurance................ I am sure the number of people who think different are legion, but that does not make them right. What right does someone have to pick my pocket? NONE. I think more people need to re-read the fable of the ant and the grasshopper.................
Paul K | |
|
| Philosophical argument of Rights
Posted: 10/16/2009 3:26:46 PM | | Now, I have no particular urge to derail this topic, but I think a good case could be made to say health insurance (regardless of if you're paying for it yourself) is a form of socialism. | |
|
| Philosophical argument of Rights
Posted: 10/16/2009 3:49:17 PM | Lets see now: An insurance company offers to sell to me a policy to pay for certain services that I would receive from a third party. I accept their offer, pay them as per our agreement, and they pay as per our agreement when called upon.
Now, HOW is this socialism? Who is paying for the policy? Why, its ME............ This is not a case of OPM...... (Other Peoples Money), it is a case of MM.... (My Money) being used to access certain benfits for me.
Paul K | |
|
| Philosophical argument of Rights
Posted: 10/16/2009 5:23:26 PM | I thought it was Washington was the only state that allowed hanging as a Capital punishment. Texas I'm pretty sure is lethal injection.
Okay why the Consitiution was written the way it was, so people could have flexabity. What works in NY doesn't work in NC. Taking your plowing example. NC in my part save the mountains, you may get one snow storm a season and it melts the next day. No need for plows. In Buffalo, it is snowing now, and won't stop until sometime in April. So do you think that we should have same plowing plan? Because that is what you would get in a Central government or Centeral Planning. Doesn't work. The reason is that you can project demand correctly even something, seemingly simple like plowing roads. Some seasons are harsher then others. As this give you a lot more control of what is happing in your daily life. The further removed the offical is the less he or she cares about your individual problem. The problem that many have with this form of Government is that it requires some effort on the part of the Governed to make it work effectively and address the problems. Don't you think you'll have a better chance of bending the Mayors ear if he has to see you at the bar, lodge hall, etc. Then you do of your US Senator? In the 4 years I lived in the 7th Congressional district of NC I hadn't seen my Congressman once. I've at least seen my 2 US Senators. I'm proud of my role in aiding our junior sentor getting elected. Yeah I dabble in politics. If you want things to become better it requires you to work a bit, and find out how the game is played. Who can help and who can't in which situation. I'm still learning.
For the record we are not and have never been a Democracy. We are a Representive Republic. There is a huge difference. | |
|
| Philosophical argument of Rights
Posted: 10/16/2009 5:28:12 PM | Gadget for Head Piano Player!!!!!!
Anybody that knows the difference between a Democracy and a Representative Republic goes a long way to getting my vote.
Paul K | |
|
| Philosophical argument of Rights
Posted: 10/16/2009 5:44:56 PM | Oh on the infasturture thing. I took a whole course on Public Finance, which when I enrolled was how to get Other peoples Money. Which it is, kinda if you're a government.
So Roads, Bridges, etc fall under public finace. Why do we use tax dollars for these things? To aid in interstate commerce. With out roads the truckers would have no way of delivering goods, then our shelves would like that of the former USSR. Defense, if there is a crisis to move people in and equipment in and out of an area. Katrina, and Rita are Prime examples of this. Some of our support equipment used the Interstate system to get to New Orleans to aid the Displaced Americans. So we were completely operational from Ft. Bragg in a short time. Everone can use it therefore it is a common good. Therefore, it is rational to have the Government expend that money.
Socialism is like OSDI Old Age Surviors, Disablity Insurance more commonly reffered to as Social Security. The Government is taking money form working people and giving it to non-working people, because of Old age, Disablity, and Surviors widows and Orpahans. This is not a common good because not everyone is using it equally or even has a chance to use it equally. Is this a bad program? It needs some serious changes to make it sustainable, and correct outdated measures. The Congress also needs keep that money out of the General fund. I would even support a Admendment to the Consitution that money collected for OSDI can only be used for that purpose only. However, it isn't the Governments responsiblity to handle these problems. This was supposed to be a temporay measure and now it is a third of our Federal Budget. Somthing is Fishy in Denmark, to quote Hamlet. | |
|
| Philosophical argument of Rights
Posted: 10/16/2009 5:56:42 PM |
Now, HOW is this socialism? Who is paying for the policy? Why, its ME............ This is not a case of OPM...... (Other Peoples Money), it is a case of MM.... (My Money) being used to access certain benfits for me.
Sometimes it blows my mind the things people try and argue with me.
If I get health insurance and immediately get hit by a car spending a ton of time in a hospital, you think it's my 2 months worth of health insurance that's paying that bill?
Fraid not...that's going to be a case of...as you put it..."OPM".
Blows my mind. | |
|
| Philosophical argument of Rights
Posted: 10/16/2009 6:33:09 PM | | Ah heres the thing about insurance was it effective? With most insurers your policies aren't effective until they receive their first payment. This is why Life insurance companies don't like taking your money until after the physical. So, if you have health insurance that you're paying for, guess what you've already paid your premium, for the First month. It will remain effective for 31 days after your past due date. So in your two month senerio your good. Still your money. But you better pay that overdue bill quickly. All of which will show up on your Credit report, but you'd take less of a hit then if you had nothing at all, you'd just have the past due to your insurer. FYI I'm a Licensed Agent. | |
|
| Philosophical argument of Rights
Posted: 10/16/2009 7:07:49 PM | So in your two month senerio your good. Still your money.
So if I pay $200 in health premiums for 2 months, and I wrack up $20,000 in medical bills that's covered by my insurance agency, I'm paying that $20,000 with my own money?
Mind blowing. | |
|
| Philosophical argument of Rights
Posted: 10/16/2009 7:32:46 PM | | Yep that's why people get insurance to prevent the catisrophic. Not the routine. That is also, why there is a cap on some of your treatments and so on. There is a Face Value, maximum value that the insurance will pay. That is the total amount of insurance that you are buying over the coverage period. Then after the appropirate underwriting, looking at risk factors, age, general health, occupation, your premium is determined. The company is gambling that you're not going to use as much insurance as your taking out. This goes into the theory of adverse selection which means getting insurance just before you know something bad is going to occur. | |
|
| Philosophical argument of Rights
Posted: 10/16/2009 7:42:13 PM | Hey DC
Obviously you have no clue how insurance companies work. So you think that the insurance companies somehow forced all of its clients to give it money? Once you have a contract with them, can they change the terms?
To answer your question, no you are not paying the $20,000 with your money. The INSURANCE CO. is paying with THEIR MONEY, because that is the contract you have with them. Here is a quick little explanation of how insurance works. Since you hate it when those who know less than you argue with you, I will keep it as simple as possible, and not argue with you.
The Insurance company collects money from A LOT OF PEOPLE just like you. Some of the have been paying into the insurance companies coffers for a long time. The insurance company takes this money and invests it to make more money. They have people working for them who do this thing called an actuarial study. Basically they have folks who look at little things like, what are the odds of you getting sick at your age, about how much would it cost them, etc., and they come up with a rate that is competitive with other insurance companies, and try to get your business.
If all they did was pay out money, they would go out of business very quickly. The difference between socialism and the insurance business is that your deal with the insurance company is VOLUNTARY; that means you don't have to do it. When you live in a socialist country, YOU DON'T HAVE A CHOICE in whether or not you participate.
Don't worry as you get older, and mature more, and actually live life, you will come to understand things like insurance, etc......
Paul K | |
|
| Philosophical argument of Rights
Posted: 10/16/2009 7:57:11 PM | To answer your question, no you are not paying the $20,000 with your money. The INSURANCE CO. is paying with THEIR MONEY
...which they collected from all subscribers, just as a socialist government pays for services with "their money" they collect from tax payers.
Do me a favor and do a google search for "insurance is socialism". Maybe the 10 trillion links you get will be more convincing than I am. | |
|
| Philosophical argument of Rights
Posted: 10/16/2009 8:14:23 PM | First off, when you send a check in to the insurance company, and they cash it, it REALLY IS THEIR MONEY. Try to forcefully take it back, and see how far you get. Govts. are supposed to work on the best interest of the governed. Unfortunately it doesn't always work that way.
You can show me as many links to sites as you want, what you seem to fail to comprehend is that your participation with the insurance sompany is VOLUNTARY; when you live in a socialist chithole, your participation is MANDATORY...............
You should look up "voluntary'' and "mandatory". Big difference.
Paul K | |
|
| Philosophical argument of Rights
Posted: 10/16/2009 8:21:27 PM |
when you live in a socialist chithole, your participation is MANDATORY...............
So, if I'm understanding you correctly, the basis for your argument is that citizens of socialist countries can't move?
Just want to make sure I'm clear. | |
|
HO2
|
Joined: 10/11/2008
Msg: 248 | |
| Philosophical argument of Rights
Posted: 10/16/2009 9:39:06 PM | Socialism - an economic system where each person can pursue whatever field of study
and work they want, and no matter what their choice is, they can live, eat, travel, etc.
without having to worry too much . It’s a system where the government is there
to back you up if you need help getting where you’re going, but once you get there,
you are expected to in turn help others out.
It would appear the Netherlands, Denmark, Sweden , Germany and France
along with the Scandinavians seem to have this mix locked down.
Socialism is an attitude that some basic human needs should be ensured for each individual.
Having a third or fourth political party in the USA would do us all a world of good.
A party of 2 is a bit like like s.h.i.t , either it's sticky or it's crusty and few want either one shoved down their throat. | |
|
| Philosophical argument of Rights
Posted: 10/16/2009 9:55:54 PM | canada is having a bit of a struggle with the amount of taxes going into the cradle to the grave mentality.
I heard some where that a huge part of the money [disproportionate] is spent on the last few years of a persons life, prolonging the inevitable.
I was going to say, sorry for off topic, but, right to live at ALL costs, I guess. | |
|
| Philosophical argument of Rights
Posted: 10/17/2009 5:37:20 AM | I've had German's in Germany complain about the amount of taxes in which they have to pay. The standard of living while good, is nowhere close to what it is here in the states. Even a poor American, has transportation, tv, individual comode, a one bedroom with a living space. Taxing discourages behavior. The higher the tax the less economic activity.
First rule in economics There are limitless wants (desires) and limited resources. There for a balance must be between our desires, and resources.
I vote to establish an American Party. One the reconizes individal rights. I have an idea of what I'd like a platform to be, but, I can't be a party of one. After all its no fun having a drink talking to the wall lol. Where do individal rights end, and a counties Ethos, begin? In other words when should we begin to regulate behavior?
For those that like Marxist economic theory. I would recommend reading both Marx and Adam Smith "Wealth of Nations" is a good start. This might give you some balance to your philosophy. | |
|
Home
login 
