patrick.net

Running low on the meds again I see.

Troy says

Running low on the meds again I see.

I wonder how he allowed that to happen...

elliemae says

Troy says

Running low on the meds again I see.

I wonder how he allowed that to happen…

well, if he's true to his no-government principles he is individually negotiating with the pharmaceutical industry instead of buying through the socialist systems of Canada or our own governmental Medicare if he qualifies for that.

(I assume now that big scary government is mandating individuals carry insurance or take the tax penalty he's cancelled any insurance coverage he had, "live free or die" and all).

AdHom must think we are 10 year olds who don't understand the economic and political history of this country and the larger world.

Libertarianism in a nutshell:

1) http://www.dailynebraskan.com/opinion/derek-kieper-individual-rights-buckle-under-seat-belt-laws-1.998553
vs:
2) http://journalstar.com/news/local/article_d61cc109-3492-54ef-849d-0a5d7f48027a.html

says it all, really

Troy says

Libertarianism in a nutshell:

1) http://www.dailynebraskan.com/opinion/derek-kieper-individual-rights-buckle-under-seat-belt-laws-1.998553
vs:
2) http://journalstar.com/news/local/article_d61cc109-3492-54ef-849d-0a5d7f48027a.html

says it all, really

You should be happy, one less "under medicated" libertarian mucking up the works. He should be happy too, he died doing what he loved. And furthermore society should rejoice in the survival of the fittest. Clearly his ideology was flawed and it resulted in his own death. We are all stronger because of it are we not? He died because he defied the law? No, he died because he was foolish to confuse top down government control such as seatbelt laws with bottom up common sense and that is that seat belts save lives. Cigarettes and alcohol destroy lives, should we ban those?

How liberal are you?

AdHominem says

You should be happy, one less “under medicated” libertarian mucking up the works. He should be happy too, he died doing what he loved. And furthermore society should rejoice in the survival of the fittest. Clearly his ideology was flawed and it resulted in his own death. We are all stronger because of it are we not? He died because he defied the law? No, he died because he was foolish to confuse top down government control such as seatbelt laws with bottom up common sense and that is that seat belts save lives.

Based on the cruel way that you assert that society should rejoice in someone's death, you are a heartless human being. And I thought that my opinion of you couldn't be any lower... once again, you prove me wrong.

And yet so many rejoice at the death of hated enemies of freedom such as Saddam Hussien, Tim McVeigh and Adolf Hitler, and imagine the rejoicing at the death of Bin Laden. There has or will come a day when you rejoice in someone's murder or execution mae dog, proving that you are depraved. Just wait and see what you have become.

BTW, my comments to troy were made in jest and agree that this man's death is trajic, and I could care less of your opinion of me. But you failed to see that it was the man's confusion of common sense with politics that killed him. Go back to wasting your time on other perceived internet enemies. I'm on your side ellie, in a true cause and effect manner, the government killed him. He felt so oppressed that he chose not to wear the seat belt as an act of defiance.

Had there been no seat belt law, being an intelligent young man he probably would have made a rational choice rather than rebelling and forsaking the logical safety of the seat belt. I think the dead man is a victim of both the government and his friends who should have refused to let him in the car without promising to wear the seat belt. It is common sense. Wear the belt. We don't need government to tell us that though, nor to fine us if we don't.

@adhominem

I like the post....maybe you can post the opposing view as well for arch-conservatives like myself.

It would be interesting to see.

...now the tea party view on liberals:

How many **** people would you allow to live in your house?
How many **** people would you support on welfare?
How many **** people would you allow to cross the border illegally?
How many burger joint jobs would you allow **** people to take from our teenagers?
Are you ok with sharing a water fountain with a **** person?
Are you ok with sharing a toilet seat with a **** person?
Would you adopt a **** baby?

Note: These are not my views, but my perceptions of what it seems the tea party stands for...racial seperatism.

4X says

@adhominem
I like the post….maybe you can post the opposing view as well for arch-conservatives like myself.
It would be interesting to see.

That's easy. Supporters of "conservatism" are on the steady march back to where we were before the revolution: Totalitarianism. If you like the idea that top down government control is the only way to solve our problems you are a conservative. Bully!

AdHominem says

4X says

@adhominem
I like the post….maybe you can post the opposing view as well for arch-conservatives like myself.
It would be interesting to see.

That’s easy. Supporters of “conservatism” are on the steady march back to where we were before the revolution: Totalitarianism. If you like the idea that top down government control is the only way to solve our problems you are a conservative.

What would be the questions for conservatism similar to what you posted above?

AdHominem says

I’m on your side ellie, in a true cause and effect manner, the government killed him. He felt so oppressed that he chose not to wear the seat belt as an act of defiance.

What the fuck you talkin' about, Willis? I'm not the one who claims to be a victim - that's you. And I don't take delight in this person's death - rather, I'm saddened that you believe it's cause to rejoice.
But then again, your posts have shown that you have no soul. This one shows you have no heart. Keep going, soon you'll be gone...

elliemae says

AdHominem says

I’m on your side ellie, in a true cause and effect manner, the government killed him. He felt so oppressed that he chose not to wear the seat belt as an act of defiance.

What the fuck you talkin’ about, Willis? I’m not the one who claims to be a victim - that’s you. And I don’t take delight in this person’s death - rather, I’m saddened that you believe it’s cause to rejoice.

But then again, your posts have shown that you have no soul. This one shows you have no heart. Keep going, soon you’ll be gone…

Ad Hominem much? BTW as i said earlier, my comments to troy were made in jest. The death was tragic. But then again you never read it in the first place did you?

AdHominem says

Had there been no seat belt law, being an intelligent young man he probably would have made a rational choice rather than rebelling and forsaking the logical safety of the seat belt. I think the dead man is a victim of both the government and his friends who should have refused to let him in the car without promising to wear the seat belt. It is common sense. Wear the belt. We don’t need government to tell us that though, nor to fine us if we don’t.

If there was some way to make the financial burden of the people who don't wear seat belts born by that person, I'd be all for getting rid of the requirements. Unfortunately, it's difficult to extract money from dead people.

Exactly--many people are confused about the seat belt law. The point is to save money, not lives. (although saving lives is a good thing too)

I'd like to see a post defining/discussingng "compassionate conservative."

I'd like to see a post defining/discussing "compassionate conservative."

Leigh says

I’d like to see a post defining/discussing “compassionate conservative.”

This is that post. You see unless you believe people should be free to make their own choices, then you probably believe in top down government control. See the definition of liberal above and think about what the opposite of liberal is.

AdHominem says

This is that post. You see unless you believe people should be free to make their own choices, then you probably believe in top down government control. See the definition of liberal above and think about what the opposite of liberal is.

So, a conservative believes liberty is unimportant and that people are not born equal? That appears to be the opposite of your definition.

Nothing wrong with liberty as an ideal.

The question is how does that ideal balance against obligations to the society one lives in?

Is one obligated to perform military or other service?
Is one obligated to help out the elderly, poor, and disabled?
Is one obligated to keep ones car from emitting smog?
Is one obligated to help perpetually disadvantaged segments of society through education or other means?

The problem I have with libertarians is that they appear to think they have no obligation whatsoever to others or the society they live in.

MarkInSF says

The problem I have with libertarians is that they appear to think they have no obligation whatsoever to others or the society they live in.

So in other words: the problem you have with liberty is that people do what they want instead of what you want.

Not very liberal of you is it?

tatupu70 says

Exactly–many people are confused about the seat belt law. The point is to save money, not lives. (although saving lives is a good thing too)

I can see the billboards now...

Help us pay down the national debt, Buckle Up.

Seatbelts Make Cents.

Click it or Deficit.

$eatbelts $ave Lives!

Nomograph says

do you think he had money in a special bank account to pay for the cleanup, coroner costs, and all the other expenses related to his death, or do you suppose he left others to pick up the bill for his little rebellion?

This is another reason why the road system should be privately operated and cleanup/maintenance paid for by the owners/operators of the road system through fees paid by the users. That way everyone who benefits from the roadway pays and no one who does not benefit from the roadway is forced to pay for anything.

http://mises.org/store/Privatization-of-Roads-and-Highways-P581.aspx

Nomograph says

4X says

Liberals believe whatever Bill Maher, Chris Rock tell them.

I've made it nearly half a century, not realizing that I've been blindly following these two particular comedians. I actually would prefer to follow other comedians - are comedians interchangeable and is it okay if I switch them with someone else? Can I choose dead comedians (Mitch Hedberg comes to mind) or must I be stuck with live ones?

My neurotic jewish upbringing demands that I dwell on this for awhile. I'll be eagerly standing by for an answer.

AdHominem says

So in other words: the problem you have with liberty is that people do what they want instead of what you want.

Not very liberal of you is it?

Uh, no, that is not at all what I said.

Here, let me make it easy and ask you straight up:

Do you have any obligations to the society you live in?

That's my point, Nomo. So many good comedians, why am I stuck with a couple of the less funny ones?

elliemae says

Nomograph says

4X says

Liberals believe whatever Bill Maher, Chris Rock tell them.

I’ve made it nearly half a century, not realizing that I’ve been blindly following these two particular comedians. I actually would prefer to follow other comedians - are comedians interchangeable and is it okay if I switch them with someone else? Can I choose dead comedians (Mitch Hedberg comes to mind) or must I be stuck with live ones?
My neurotic jewish upbringing demands that I dwell on this for awhile. I’ll be eagerly standing by for an answer.

Choose a comedian, homosexual, abolitionist, civil rights activist or abortionist....apparently, there all the exact opposite of Sean Hannity.

elliemae says

That’s my point, Nomo. So many good comedians, why am I stuck with a couple of the less funny ones?

Chris Rock is the greatest comedian ever, not his fault you like the dry humor of Carlin.

Nomograph says

4X says

Liberals believe whatever Bill Maher, Chris Rock tell them.

When was the last time you saw Chris Rock convince a bunch of people to staple tea bags to their caps and stomp around like lunatics?
Next to the original post, this is the dumbest thing I’ve seen all day.

I haven't, but I have seen Chris Rock, Bill Maher openly support everything from drug use, pornography, profanity. While voicing their political views through their comedy they secretly build their families the way every American should...that is where they conflict comes in. They tell my children its ok to scream out profanity, smoke dope but silently teach their children those same things are wrong/immoral.

4X says

I haven’t, but I have seen Chris Rock, Bill Maher openly support everything from drug use, pornography, profanity. While voicing their political views through their comedy they secretly build their families the way every American should…that is where they conflict comes in. They tell my children its ok to scream out profanity, smoke dope but silently teach their children those same things are wrong/immoral.

Why do you hate freedom? Frankly I don't watch Bill Maher I find him an annoying jerk. So I don't know EXACTLY what you are talking about here. However generally speaking I support Freedom of Speech & drug decriminilization for the general public. This is not inconsistent however with raising your children to be good citizens. Having a few bottles of wine about and occasionally having a drink, is not the same as mixing it in the formula for your baby.

4X says

Nomograph says

4X says

Liberals believe whatever Bill Maher, Chris Rock tell them.

When was the last time you saw Chris Rock convince a bunch of people to staple tea bags to their caps and stomp around like lunatics?

Next to the original post, this is the dumbest thing I’ve seen all day.

I haven’t, but I have seen Chris Rock, Bill Maher openly support everything from drug use, pornography, profanity. While voicing their political views through their comedy they secretly build their families the way every American should…that is where they conflict comes in. They tell my children its ok to scream out profanity, smoke dope but silently teach their children those same things are wrong/immoral.

Chris Rock and Bill Maher don't tell your children anything. You have the responsibility to monitor your kids tv and movie viewing. Right wing paranoia never ceases to amaze me. How do you know what they "secretly" tell their kids? I have never seen or heard of Chris Rock's kids and Bill Maher is a confirmed bachelor with NO KIDS.
You have no idea what you're talking about. Is this what Glenn Beck is feeding you this week?

MarkInSF says

Do you have any obligations to the society you live in?

It is hard to justify an individuals obligation to an abstract conglomeration called society. So no. An individual may have an obligation to another individual but not every individual.

Individuals do have an obligation not to use force against another individual except in self defense or defense of another individual (not that an individual has an obligation to protect another individual unless they so choose).

"The problem I have with libertarians is that they appear to think they have no obligation whatsoever to others or the society they live in."

In other words the problem you have with liberty is that people might use it to do what they want instead of what you think they are obligated to do.

Not very liberal of you is it?

If libertarians want to reclaim the "liberal" label, fine by me. I prefer "progressive" anyway. It's more accurate, what with the progressive/conservative difference of persuasion, and the historical example of the Progressive Party run of 1912 ~ 1916.

Libertarians are perfectly free to imagine they owe nothing to society, and society via its collective mechanisms of agency (AKA government) is perfectly free to attempt to disabuse them of this notion.

It's a stupid debate anyway. Libertarians are maybe 2% of the population; they only have any societal footprint by the fact that among the uberwealthy this percentage gains an order of magnitude.

It is telling that so many people who consider themselves liberals are so unwilling to allow people to do what they want instead of what the "liberals" think they are obligated to do.

NOMO is not a liberal, I'm not sure what to call him, but it he surely has a warped view of freedom. He claims that we are free to build our own roads, make our own money, etc...

Are we also free to sell ice to Eskimos? Wow, that is genius. Hmmn, so freedom means you have the right to compete with the government. How is that freedom? The government is a monopoly. It has a monopoly on roads, it has a monopoly on money, it even has a monopoly on mail. Yeah, we sure are free to compete against Big brother all right. Sorry but your brand of freedom sounds more like serfdom.

So nobody wants to talk about how liberal they are?

Would you allow government to quit funding public roads?
Would you allow federal government to quit funding public schools?
Would you allow government to quit running the drug war?
Would you allow the government to quit all foreign wars except those declared by congress?

And for that matter where is the "left" now with their war protests, their anti-globalization demonstrations, etc... seems like since the Dems got on power they turned off their righteous indignation and are turning a blind eye to the fact that it is business as usual with the powers that be.

AdHom, it's a stupid direction of debate.

I'm more interested in outcomes than ideology.

I think everyone on this planet should have access to that which is necessary to become and remain a productive member of society.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positive_liberty

I don't care how this is realized, through state action or through Randian science fiction. In the real world, examples of the Eurosocialists show that state intervention leads to better real-world examples than laissez faire.

The central problem with laissez faire is that wealth attracts power which attracts wealth in closed-loop feedback. The 2002-2007 economic experience was a textbook example of the destructive, centrifugal nature of unregulated feedback on economy and society.

We are not a rational, well-ordered people. We are conniving, thieving, back-stabbing assholes, on our good day. When the founding fathers got together they did not attempt to create the ideal libertarian utopia, the attempted to create a Government that would exists above and beyond commercial society, working in partnership but ultimately its final regulator via democratic oversight and intervention.

And for that matter where is the “left” now with their war protests, their anti-globalization demonstrations, etc… seems like since the Dems got on power they turned off their righteous indignation and are turning a blind eye to the fact that it is business as usual with the powers that be.

The educated "left" is not particularly happy with the current admin wrt war policy. We wanted change, but change is coming slow.

Obama actually ran on expanding the war in Afghanistan and that's what he's done. It's above my pay grade to know if this is the correct long-term strategy, and above yours too I would add.

The bugout is fully underway in Iraq -- we've lost 176 KIA in Iraq 2009-now. This is half the 2008 loss, one-sixth the 2007 loss, and 6% of the losses 2003-2006. There really isn't much left to protest, and if you were a resident of the reality-based community you'd already know this.

Troy says

Eurosocialists show that state intervention leads to better real-world examples than laissez faire.

Wait, are you talking about the same eurosocialists who are now on the brink of bankrupting the european union? Yeah, I wish the world was more like them. Not.

Troy says

We wanted change, but change is coming slow.

aka there is no change

Troy says

There really isn’t much left to protest, and if you were a resident of the reality-based community you’d already know this.

Tell that to the Iraqis, if you talked to them you would already know that it is you who does not live in reality.

roughly 100,000 civilians dead and counting. and this doesn't include insurgents defending their homeland.

http://www.iraqbodycount.org/

AdHominem says

Troy says

Eurosocialists show that state intervention leads to better real-world examples than laissez faire.

Wait, are you talking about the same eurosocialists who are now on the brink of bankrupting the european union? Yeah, I wish the world was more like them. Not.

Actually the kleptocracy happened under conservative watch, in Greece at least. The whole "drown the government in the bathtub" strategy of committing to public spending without the concomitant taxation.

Norway, Germany, Sweden, Denmark -- that's more my speed.

See this chart:

Socialist, socialist, semi-socialist, socialist, socialist, socialist, semi-socialist, semi-socialist.

Empiricism, look into it sometime.

AdHominem says

Troy says

We wanted change, but change is coming slow.

aka there is no change

The AG deciding not to enforce Federal law over State law WRT access to marijuana was pretty progressive in the change department.

The recent events with the Time Square bombing underscore the present threat that requires the PATRIOT act BS, so going forward into the 2010s doesn't require radical change, just measured change. Rome wasn't rebuilt in a day.

AdHominem says

Troy says

There really isn’t much left to protest, and if you were a resident of the reality-based community you’d already know this.

Tell that to the Iraqis, if you talked to them you would already know that it is you who does not live in reality.
roughly 100,000 civilians dead and counting. and this doesn’t include insurgents defending their homeland.
http://www.iraqbodycount.org/

Damage's been done. The Dems let the Republicans f--- over Iraq 2003-2007, to their shame. Plus of course the 90s sanction regime that was no picnic for ordinary Iraqis, either. Thing is, we don't have a system where I get to put into power the people I think who would do the best job, I've got to pick the least worst. This is a pretty easy bar to clear with the present Republicans power structure that's in play.

I voted for Campbell in 2000 and don't regret that vote, since Feinstein has done precious little in the Progressive department. But the constitutional system we have now requires more opposition to the Republican wrecking crew than ardent support of the Dems, so going forward I've really got to reexamine who I vote for at the DC level.

I'd love to boot the Dems out for the Free Ice Cream and a Pony party. Thing is, in the real world, it's the electorate who puts the people into government, and our electorate is none too wise.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/religion/2010-05-05-prayer05_ST_N.htm