Post by: ...has left the building. on April 04, 2006, 02:35:53 PM
By STEVE LeBLANC, Associated Press Writer
BOSTON - Lawmakers overwhelmingly approved a bill Tuesday that would make Massachusetts the first state to require that all its citizens have some form of health insurance.
The plan approved just 24 hours after the final details were released would use a combination of financial incentives and penalties to dramatically expand access to health care over the next three years and extend coverage to the state's estimated 500,000 uninsured.
If all goes as planned, poor people will be offered free or heavily subsidized coverage; those who can afford insurance but refuse to get it will face increasing tax penalties until they obtain coverage; and those already insured will see a modest drop in their premiums.
The measure does not call for new taxes but would require businesses that do not offer insurance to pay a $295 annual fee per employee.
The cost was put at $316 million in the first year, and more than a $1 billion by the third year, with much of that money coming from federal reimbursements and existing state spending, officials said.
The House approved the bill on a 154-2 vote. The Senate endorsed it 37-0.
A final procedural vote is needed in both chambers of the Democratic-controlled legislature before the bill can head to the desk of Gov. Mitt Romney, a potential Republican candidate for president in 2008.
Romney has expressed support for the measure but has not said whether he will sign it.
"It's only fitting that Massachusetts would set forward and produce the most comprehensive, all-encompassing health care reform bill in the country," said House Speaker Salvatore DiMasi, a Democrat. "Do we know whether this is perfect or not? No, because it's never been done before."
The only other state to come close to the Massachusetts plan is Maine, which passed a law in 2003 to dramatically expand health care. That plan relies largely on voluntary compliance.
"What Massachusetts is doing, who they are covering, how they're crafting it, especially the individual requirement, that's all unique," said Laura Tobler, a health policy analyst for the National Conference of State Legislatures.
The plan hinges in part on two key sections: the $295-per-employee business assessment and a so-called "individual mandate," requiring every citizen who can afford it to obtain health insurance or face increasing tax penalties.
Liberals typically support employer mandates, while conservatives generally back individual responsibility.
"The novelty of what's happened in this building is that instead of saying, `Let's do neither,' leaders are saying, `Let's do both,'" said John McDonough of Health Care for All. "This will have a ripple effect across the country."
The state's poorest single adults making $9,500 or less a year will have access to health coverage with no premiums or deductibles.
Those living at up to 300 percent of the federal poverty level, or about $48,000 for a family of three, will be able to get health coverage on a sliding scale, also with no deductibles.
The vast majority of Massachusetts residents who are already insured could see a modest easing of their premiums.
Individuals deemed able but unwilling to purchase health care could face fines of more than $1,000 a year by the state if they don't get insurance.
Romney pushed vigorously for the individual mandate and called the legislation "something historic, truly landmark, a once-in-a-generation opportunity."
One goal of the bill is to protect $385 million pledged by the federal government over each of the next two years if the state can show it is on a path to reducing its number of uninsured.
The U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services has threatened to withhold the money if the state does not have a plan up and running by July 1.
Post by: cosine on April 04, 2006, 03:30:13 PM
Post by: The Rabbi on April 04, 2006, 05:34:52 PM
Post by: matis on April 04, 2006, 05:41:39 PM
Kennesaw Georgia did it. (A "ceremonial" law in reaction to Morton Grove, Illinois law barring ALL weapons.)
That's MY kind of socialism!
matis
Post by: jefnvk on April 04, 2006, 05:55:02 PM
Quote
The measure does not call for new taxes but would require businesses that do not offer insurance to pay a $295 annual fee per employee
Seems cheap to me. I would think it would cost a lot more to insure a person for a year.
Post by: Ben on April 04, 2006, 06:01:26 PM
Post by: Winston Smith on April 04, 2006, 06:15:45 PM
Post by: Standing Wolf on April 04, 2006, 06:31:46 PM
Quote
What if I don't want to have health insurance?
You'll take a tax hit as a "negative incentive" to join the herd.It's difficult to believe the American Revolution was started in Massachussets.
Post by: gunsmith on April 04, 2006, 08:16:38 PM
I can not afford it right now, I am just keeping gas in the tank and the rent paid
Post by: Guest on April 04, 2006, 08:22:45 PM
Quote from: gunsmith
who the heck decides I can afford it?
I can not afford it right now, I am just keeping gas in the tank and the rent paid
Housing assistance, public transportation, welfare. You can afford it, you just have to start sucking at the teet. You see that is the whole point here. Once everyone is on the dole then the government can have total control of you and your whole life.
I can not afford it right now, I am just keeping gas in the tank and the rent paid
Post by: doczinn on April 04, 2006, 09:01:08 PM
Quote
The measure does not call for new taxes but would require businesses that do not offer insurance to pay a $295 annual fee per employee.
Oh, OK, it's a "fee", not a "tax.
Post by: El Tejon on April 05, 2006, 03:11:37 AM
Post by: Art Eatman on April 05, 2006, 04:03:10 AM
Isn't part of the deal of Fascism, "You own the business but we'll tell you how to run it"? "...require businesses that do not offer insurance to pay a $295 annual fee per employee."
"...those who can afford insurance but refuse to get it will face increasing tax penalties until they obtain coverage..."
Anybody wanna bet what the demographic shift in Massachussetts is gonna be over the next decade? Always remember, "If you want more of something, subsidize it." That includes poverty. If you look at all the other shifts in American cities that have resulted from governmental do-good, and, e.g., compare the incomes of those moving into California with the incomes of those leaving...
The changes in taxation oughta be interesting...
Art
Post by: Can'thavenuthingood on April 05, 2006, 07:46:14 AM
There it is right there, a big sack of money cause's the massachusetts potlickers to stumble and drool all over themselves.
Just like recycling, blue containers, yellow baskets, green yard waste receptacles and bundled cardboard. Healthcare membership levels will be denoted by flavors of your documents.
Fees, fines and surcharges will be increased on a regular schedule. Co-pays will creep up monthly as payments are accepted via Visa or Mastercard.
Another bureaucracy is being created and the percentage of "production" workers decreases as the number of government employees increase.
Kingdom enhancment brought to you by your federal bureaucracy writing administrative law.
I can hardly wait for California to get wind of this.
Vick
Post by: Guest on April 05, 2006, 08:23:48 AM
Quote from: fistful
Quote from: El Tejon
History has shown that anytime you collectivize anything it makes it tons better.
That is so true.If, OTOH, it is serious, I fully understand your other comment.
Post by: Perd Hapley on April 05, 2006, 08:52:47 AM
Or perhaps you mean libertarian in a different sense?
Post by: Guest on April 10, 2006, 08:55:41 AM
Quote from: fistful
Merc, I was scoffing at your ludicrous anarchism, not your libertarianism. Speaking of which, how are the two compatible? I thought libertarians believed in having laws and governments, regardless how minimal.
Or perhaps you mean libertarian in a different sense?
In a way. There are "Big-L" and "small-l" libertarians. The former are the Libertarian Party and the latter are non-political, principled persons.Or perhaps you mean libertarian in a different sense?
Market Anarchism is the logical, consistant end-result of libertarianism. In libertarianism, there is a principle called the "Non-Aggression Principle" - the "NAP".
It states that humans don't have the right to initiate force against each other. Big-L Libertarians - the ones that belong to and support the Libertarian Party - only support the NAP to a point; they still advocate taxes, courts and the military.
OTOH, if one takes the NAP seriously to its logical end, one is forced to concede that taxes, and the courts, police and military they support, are violations of the NAP since one is punished (aggression) if one doesn't pay the taxes.
Therefore, if one is a consistant libertarian, one must accept market anarchism.
Post by: Jamisjockey on April 10, 2006, 02:23:27 PM
Quote from: matis
And I want them to pass a law that every household MUST have a shotgun and a handgun and ammo for same -- to protect the citizens who live there.
Kennesaw Georgia did it. (A "ceremonial" law in reaction to Morton Grove, Illinois law barring ALL weapons.)
That's MY kind of socialism!
matis
I don't. The fewer laws, the better. Mandating that everyone own a gun is no better than mandating health insurance.
Kennesaw Georgia did it. (A "ceremonial" law in reaction to Morton Grove, Illinois law barring ALL weapons.)
That's MY kind of socialism!
matis
Post by: Perd Hapley on April 10, 2006, 02:50:38 PM
I use the small-l to denote a person with libertarian principles, but who is not a member or supporter of the party. I am one of those, mostly because I feel that libertarian principles militate strongly for the recriminalization of abortion, while the L party's platform is pro-abortion.
I'm sure there is some flaw in your necessary transition from libertarianism to anarchism, but I haven't studied either formally enough to spell it out clearly. I think you should observe the distinction I outlined between the two philosophies, however, as this makes for more transparent conversation.
Post by: Firethorn on April 10, 2006, 03:35:56 PM
Quote from: fistful
I use the small-l to denote a person with libertarian principles, but who is not a member or supporter of the party. I am one of those, mostly because I feel that libertarian principles militate strongly for the recriminalization of abortion, while the L party's platform is pro-abortion.
I view it as a demarcation between those who want to go straight to the ideal, and the moderates who believe that while ideal, compromises have to be made in our imperfect world. For example, while open borders would be great, the fact is that this country and it's people have enemies, and we can't reach the ideals if we're taken over by China or Mexico. Plus, we have to wean whole generations off of the government support teat, teach them financial responsability, etc...Oh, and it's Pro-CHOICE, unless you want to say that the Libertarian party advocates that pregnant women in certain situations be forced to have an abortion. Of course, I'm one of the 'safe, legal, and rare' crowd. If it must be done, best done as soon as possible.
Quote
I'm sure there is some flaw in your necessary transition from libertarianism to anarchism, but I haven't studied either formally enough to spell it out clearly. I think you should observe the distinction I outlined between the two philosophies, however, as this makes for more transparent conversation.
It's a social contract thing. NAP means that being the initiator of force is forbidden, but responding to it is fine. Thus police are free to arrest a murderer, the court to convict him, and an executioner to kill him. He violated NAP.You need courts anyways to mediate private party contracts, or you get private resolutions to this that favor the strong and violent. Look at what happens with drug gangs. While not perfect, our court system at least tries to be impartial, and has the ability to force judgements against an unconsenting party, unlike a private mediator which both sides have to agree to use. Though I'd generally try to charge one party or another expenses. This can be difficult if a party doesn't have the financial means, but there are ways to ensure that they can be heard as well.
Post by: The Rabbi on April 10, 2006, 03:48:21 PM
Quote from: JamisJockey
Quote from: matis
And I want them to pass a law that every household MUST have a shotgun and a handgun and ammo for same -- to protect the citizens who live there.
Kennesaw Georgia did it. (A "ceremonial" law in reaction to Morton Grove, Illinois law barring ALL weapons.)
That's MY kind of socialism!
matis
I don't. The fewer laws, the better. Mandating that everyone own a gun is no better than mandating health insurance.Kennesaw Georgia did it. (A "ceremonial" law in reaction to Morton Grove, Illinois law barring ALL weapons.)
That's MY kind of socialism!
matis
Post by: Perd Hapley on April 10, 2006, 07:38:22 PM
Quote from: Firethorn
I view it as a demarcation between those who want to go straight to the ideal, and the moderates who believe that while ideal, compromises have to be made in our imperfect world. For example, while open borders would be great, the fact is that this country and it's people have enemies, and we can't reach the ideals if we're taken over by China or Mexico. Plus, we have to wean whole generations off of the government support teat, teach them financial responsability, etc...
So, you are also an anarchist, or just a hard-core libertarian? Please explain. Do you understand I was responding to an Anarchist/Libertarian, and discussing the difference between the two?Quote
Oh, and it's Pro-CHOICE, unless you want to say that the Libertarian party advocates that pregnant women in certain situations be forced to have an abortion.
"Pro-choice" is a euphemism for "pro-abortion." Both terms indicate a position that abortion should be legal. There is no difference. You are playing, or playing along, with a semantic game developed for PR reasons. Being pro-abortion doesn't imply forced abortion any more than being pro-gun implies that you will chain a pistol around a person's waist. Although, it would be interesting to see what Rosie O'Donnel would do in this situation. "Pro-life" is also a euphemism, even if more appropriate, but I prefer to do without it, as I don't think my position is anything that needs disguising.
Quote
It's a social contract thing. NAP means that being the initiator of force is forbidden, but responding to it is fine. Thus police are free to arrest a murderer, the court to convict him, and an executioner to kill him. He violated NAP.
Agreed, but now you're not sounding like an anarchist, so I am getting more confused.
Post by: Guest on April 11, 2006, 05:23:57 AM
Quote from: fistful
Interesting, Merc,
I use the small-l to denote a person with libertarian principles, but who is not a member or supporter of the party. I am one of those, mostly because I feel that libertarian principles militate strongly for the recriminalization of abortion, while the L party's platform is pro-abortion.
I'm sure there is some flaw in your necessary transition from libertarianism to anarchism, but I haven't studied either formally enough to spell it out clearly. I think you should observe the distinction I outlined between the two philosophies, however, as this makes for more transparent conversation.
O.K.I use the small-l to denote a person with libertarian principles, but who is not a member or supporter of the party. I am one of those, mostly because I feel that libertarian principles militate strongly for the recriminalization of abortion, while the L party's platform is pro-abortion.
I'm sure there is some flaw in your necessary transition from libertarianism to anarchism, but I haven't studied either formally enough to spell it out clearly. I think you should observe the distinction I outlined between the two philosophies, however, as this makes for more transparent conversation.
Here is an article I found today:
The Most Crucial Gap in Politics.
"Nevertheless, I see the anarchist/statist distinction as the most fundamental political divide. Once one accepts the notion that initiating aggression is OK under some circumstances, then the case for human liberty has been abandoned, and all that remains is to argue over what degree of enslavement is acceptable. Having ventured down that road, minarchist libertarians should not be surprised at the difficulties they encounter in resisting the expansion of their night-watchman state."
Post by: roo_ster on April 11, 2006, 10:00:12 AM
Quote from: James Madison, The Federalist No. 51
If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself. A dependence on the people is, no doubt, the primary control on the government; but experience has taught mankind the necessity of auxiliary precautions.
Since men are not angels, we need some form of government, even if merey to enforce the NAP...by breaking it.Most libertarianism has a founding in the reality of man's nature, though it goes off the rails at times, and becomes a utopian creed.
Anarchism is utopian from the get-go.
I think mankind has had enough utopian ideologies grind men up trying to immanentize the eschaton in the last century to last for a millenium.
Post by: Perd Hapley on April 11, 2006, 01:31:23 PM
Quote
immanentize the eschaton
Admit it, you just want to impress us all, don't you ? 
Reminds me of a question my uncle Dennis once asked me, "What are the soteriological ramifications of the hypostatic union?" But we expect that from preachers.
Post by: Perd Hapley on April 11, 2006, 01:37:33 PM
I have never before heard of this NAP, or this focus on the initiation of aggression. Can you give me some examples of governmental activity violating NAP and/or initiating aggression?
Would help me to understand what you mean,
fistful
Post by: Guest on April 11, 2006, 01:42:54 PM
Quote from: jfruser
...Since men are not angels, ...
...let's not put them in charge of a $2.7 trillion budget, millions of obedient soldiers and thousands of nukes. Look, jfruser, market anarchism is fully aware that "men are not angels". Since we agree on that, which will be the most peaceful and prosperous society: one in which a few corrupt and imperfect men command millions of soldiers, trillions of dollars and thousands of deadly weapons perched all over the globe,...or,...one in which each imperfect man governs himself, subject to the mores, economic decisions, judgements and reactions of his fellow area residents?
Quote
...immanentize the eschaton ...
Anarchy isn't a system, plan or scheme; it is the absence of one, defaulting to a natural economic order. I do not claim that it will be heavenly.
Post by: Guest on April 11, 2006, 02:02:24 PM
Quote from: fistful
So, this article you found also observes an anarchist/libertarian distinction?
To the extent that the "libertarian" advocates a state of any size, he is a "statist" and therefore approves of violence to accomplish various political ends.Quote
I have never before heard of this NAP, or this focus on the initiation of aggression. Can you give me some examples of governmental activity violating NAP and/or initiating aggression?
You earn money. The government demands a percentage of it (that they can change at will). If you do not pay the percentage they will take your money, property, liberty or, finally, life. The initiation is the initial demand for part of your money.You enter into a voluntary, peaceful transaction with another adult. He sells you his marijuana for your dollars. The state initiates aggression by prohibiting and punishing this otherwise peaceful transaction.
Maybe you have children. You want them taught those things important to you. The state takes a portion of your money and forces your children to attend their school in which only certain things are taught. If you homeschool or private school, you still have to pay to educate other people's children. If you don't have children, you have to pay to educate others' children, as well. If you don't you will be punished.
You own a restaurant or hotel. You only want certain types of customers. The state tells you that you have to accept any type that wants service and punishes you if you disobey. The initiation is when they interfere with your administration of your private property
Post by: Perd Hapley on April 11, 2006, 06:14:48 PM
Quote from: mercedesrules
which will be the most peaceful and prosperous society: one in which a few corrupt and imperfect men command millions of soldiers, trillions of dollars and thousands of deadly weapons perched all over the globe,...or,...one in which each imperfect man governs himself, subject to the mores, economic decisions, judgements and reactions of his fellow area residents?
But your anarchic world will default to the first option in short order. How else do you explain our current "statist" world, unless you're saying that govt's just dropped down from Heaven to screw up our lives. Quote
Anarchy isn't a system, plan or scheme; it is the absence of one, defaulting to a natural economic order. I do not claim that it will be heavenly.
And a natural order is what we have now. Freedom is not normal or natural; it must be maintained, and it cannot be without some system, plan or scheme which involves govt.
Post by: Perd Hapley on April 11, 2006, 07:44:04 PM
Quote
You earn money. The government demands a percentage of it (that they can change at will). If you do not pay the percentage they will take your money, property, liberty or, finally, life. The initiation is the initial demand for part of your money.
I earn money. My neighbors and I have decided to dedicate a percentage (that we can change at will, through representatives we change at will) of our earnings to the purpose of protecting life, liberty and property. If I do not pay the percentage my neighbors and I have agreed on, they will take my money, property, liberty or, potentially, life. The initiation is my violation of rules duly agreed on, and taking advantage of govt's protection of my life, lib, property, while not paying for my share. My options are to obey the law, suffer the consequences, change the law, move to a different jurisdiction or a combination of the four. I would disagree with any law to prohibit people from taking their life, liberty and property elsewhere if they so choose, and forming an anarchist state with their own property, outside the boundaries of any government.
Quote
You enter into a voluntary, peaceful transaction with another adult. He sells you his marijuana for your dollars. The state initiates aggression by prohibiting and punishing this otherwise peaceful transaction.
I enter into a voluntary, peaceful transaction with another adult. He sells me his marijuana for my dollars. My neighbors initiate aggression by prohibiting and punishing this peaceful transaction which they have deemed a danger to them. I don't know if this really addresses the topic of the validity of government. We can talk of which laws are proper once we conclude whether there should be laws at all. In this case, it has been decided that any use or sale of marijuana is aggression against the community and/or against specific persons. Whether this decision has been rightly made is not something I have made up my mind about. You said earlier that the man living in anarchy would be "subject to the mores, economic decisions, judgements and reactions of his fellow area residents." Well, so is the man living under government, the difference being the force of law.
Post by: mr.v. on April 11, 2006, 09:29:34 PM
Quote
If you do not pay the percentage they will take your money, property, liberty or, finally, life.
RIIIIGHT, I forgot how many tax evaders we slaughtered last year...Quote
Maybe you have children. You want them taught those things important to you. The state takes a portion of your money and forces your children to attend their school in which only certain things are taught...
I always love this argument because it really highlights how crazy some libertarians can get. You live in a SOCIETY. You don't live in the middle of a desert surrounded by endless uninhabited lands that you survive off of and then some black helicopter comes once a year and steals money from you.You drive on roads not paved by you (unless you work for the MTA), in cars not built by you (unless you work for say GM). You breath air that we all have to share and water that we all have to drink. You eat food not made by you unless you're a farmer, in which case you sell some food to get other types of food and money for whatever else you like.
Our society works because people rely on each other everyday for things. A skilled business person doesn't make money in a vacuum. He relies on workers to manufature his/her ideas, educated employees to help manage and market, farmers to produce food, industry to make the building he/she sits in, potable water so he can drink without disease. People can be as entrepreneurial as they like, if they're hunting deer in hopes of surviving, it's not going to matter if you've figured out the next great IPod accessory.
So yeah, sometimes to make that society function so that people can use it to make money off of and live a life of luxury, we all have to pay taxes to educate someone else's kids so the system can keep on running. That's socialism. It's NOT communism. Most socialists don't argue for communism. That's that little Strawman you like to build up and burn in effigy. Most socialists don't argue that we should all be equal and we should have no wealth stratification, they argue that those at the top have to pay higher taxes because their generation of wealth required a society to build.
Higher taxes don't mean that they aren't wealthier, it just means they have to pay more back into the system off which they made more money.
Equal pay regardless of work is communism and is not an idea supported by most socialists. If socialists supported that, they would be communists now wouldn't they?
Post by: Guest on April 12, 2006, 08:34:08 AM
Quote from: fistful
Quote from: mercedesrules
which will be the most peaceful and prosperous society: one in which a few corrupt and imperfect men command millions of soldiers, trillions of dollars and thousands of deadly weapons perched all over the globe,...or,...one in which each imperfect man governs himself, subject to the mores, economic decisions, judgements and reactions of his fellow area residents?
But your anarchic world will default to the first option in short order. How else do you explain our current "statist" world, unless you're saying that govt's just dropped down from Heaven to screw up our lives.Quote
Quote
Anarchy isn't a system, plan or scheme; it is the absence of one, defaulting to a natural economic order. I do not claim that it will be heavenly.
And a natural order is what we have now. Freedom is not normal or natural; it must be maintained, and it cannot be without some system, plan or scheme which involves govt.Post by: Guest on April 12, 2006, 09:03:43 AM
Quote from: fistful
Thanks, these are interesting examples. The first deals with taxation, which is necessary for government.
For a state. People can govern themselves through the use of mutual promises: "I won't punch you as long as you don't punch me."Quote
Quote
You earn money. The government demands a percentage of it (that they can change at will). If you do not pay the percentage they will take your money, property, liberty or, finally, life. The initiation is the initial demand for part of your money.
I earn money. My neighbors and I have decided to dedicate a percentage (that we can change at will, through representatives we change at will) of our earnings to the purpose of protecting life, liberty and property. If I do not pay the percentage my neighbors and I have agreed on, they will take my money, property, liberty or, potentially, life. The initiation is my violation of rules duly agreed on, and taking advantage of govt's protection of my life, lib, property, while not paying for my share.Majority rule is coercion. Let's say you are walking down the street and two thugs approach you and say, "We vote that you must give us 40% of the money in your wallet."
Quote
My options are to obey the law, suffer the consequences, change the law, move to a different jurisdiction or a combination of the four. I would disagree with any law to prohibit people from taking their life, liberty and property elsewhere if they so choose, and forming an anarchist state with their own property, outside the boundaries of any government.
Even the founders said that an oppressive government could be abolished. Quote
Quote
You enter into a voluntary, peaceful transaction with another adult. He sells you his marijuana for your dollars. The state initiates aggression by prohibiting and punishing this otherwise peaceful transaction.
I enter into a voluntary, peaceful transaction with another adult. He sells me his marijuana for my dollars. My neighbors initiate aggression by prohibiting and punishing this peaceful transaction which they have deemed a danger to them.Quote
I don't know if this really addresses the topic of the validity of government. We can talk of which laws are proper once we conclude whether there should be laws at all. In this case, it has been decided that any use or sale of marijuana is aggression against the community and/or against specific persons. Whether this decision has been rightly made is not something I have made up my mind about. You said earlier that the man living in anarchy would be "subject to the mores, economic decisions, judgements and reactions of his fellow area residents." Well, so is the man living under government, the difference being the force of law.
Eliminating force is my main philisophical goal. It would seem just for there to be a variety of places to live with different mores, etc., all on one continent, at least! I have cyber-pals literally considering Somalia due to the blanket oppression in North America. Jeeze, ol' Randy Weaver couldn't even be allowed to mind his own business in his mountain retreat without jackboot interference!
Post by: RaggedClaws on April 12, 2006, 10:42:03 AM
Quote
Eliminating force is my main philisophical goal.
Are you trying to eliminate force from the real world, or just from your utopian philosophy? The former is impossible, and the latter is logically necessary to your argument that anarchy is somehow preferential to our current state of affairs. I, for one, am mightly pleased not to be living in a state of nature, thank you very much. In my world, "anarchy" does not mean anything good.Quote
I agree that there must be "government". I disagree that there must be a "state".
This is just petty semantics. These words are practically synonyms and if you have substantially different meanings for them, you should share them with us so we all know what we're talking about.
Post by: RaggedClaws on April 12, 2006, 10:47:28 AM
Quote
I have cyber-pals literally considering Somalia due to the blanket oppression in North America.
What a joke! That is the most ridiculous thing I've heard all day! You and your friends are either very young, very naive, or both, to believe that living in Somalia is at all preferential to living in North America.
Post by: griz on April 12, 2006, 12:16:34 PM
Quote
I have cyber-pals literally considering Somalia due to the blanket oppression in North America.
Have they been to Somalia? I haven't either, but I know they have some problems there too. If you really think it's all peaches and cream over there just because there is abundant anarchy, go ahead and go. I think you will find out the dreaded aggresion is still easy to find.
Post by: Perd Hapley on April 12, 2006, 02:18:54 PM
Post by: Guest on April 12, 2006, 05:34:43 PM
Quote from: RaggedClaws
Quote
Eliminating force is my main philisophical goal.
Are you trying to eliminate force from the real world,Quote
I, for one, am mightly pleased not to be living in a state of nature, thank you very much.
Where do you live that isn't "nature"?Quote
In my world, "anarchy" does not mean anything good.
I guess you are a statist, then.Quote
I agree that there must be "government". I disagree that there must be a "state".
Quote
This is just petty semantics. These words are practically synonyms and if you have substantially different meanings for them, you should share them with us so we all know what we're talking about.
"The state is essentially an apparatus of compulsion and coercion. The characteristic feature of its activities is to compel people through the application or the threat of force to behave otherwise than they would like to behave."[/i]"The word "government" can be used in different ways. We can speak of "self-government." The owner of a business imposes a form of government on his employees. In family, school, neighborhood association, and groups of all kinds, there is "government." "
So, a state is the ruling agency that claims a sole right to settle all disputes in a given area...and the power to tax.
Government is merely people agreeing to abide by rules such as, "I won't make noise until 10 am so you can sleep if you promise not to make noise after 10 pm."
Post by: RaggedClaws on April 13, 2006, 04:13:21 AM
Quote
Are you trying to increase it [force]?
Uhhh, no. Is this an argument of some sort?Quote
Where do you live that isn't "nature"?
I was referring to a Hobbesian "state of nature". Surely you know that, and you are turning to petty semantics again.Quote
I guess you are a statist, then.
From my perspective, it's not black and white. If it helps you sleep at night, then feel free to call me a "statist" and I'll call you a "utopian idealist with his/her head in the clouds".Regarding your definitions of "government" and "state", let's decide on a definition from the dictionary, how about that? Instead of one from a libertarian propagandist.
Quote from: "Merriam Webster's Dictionary of Law"
Main Entry: gov·ern·ment
Pronunciation: 'g&-v&r-m&nt, -v&rn-
Function: noun
1 : the act or process of governing; specifically : authoritative direction or control
2 : the office, authority, or function of governing
3 : the continuous exercise of authority over and the performance of functions for a political unit : RULE
4 a : the organization, machinery, or agency through which a political unit exercises authority and performs functions and which is usually classified according to the distribution of power within it b : the complex of political institutions, laws, and customs through which the function of governing is carried out
5 : the body of persons that constitutes the governing authority of a political unit or organization: as a : the officials comprising the governing body of a political unit and constituting the organization as an active agency b cap : the executive branch of the U.S. federal government c : the prosecution in a criminal case in its capacity as agents of the political unit
Main Entry: state
Function: noun
often attrib 1 a : a politically organized body of people usually occupying a definite territory; especially : one that is sovereign b : the political organization that has supreme civil authority and political power and serves as the basis of government see also compelling state interest at INTEREST 3a, SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE c : a government or politically organized society having a particular character
2 : the operations or concerns of the government of a country : the sphere of administration and supreme political power of a country (as in international relations)
3 a : one of the constituent units of a nation having a federal government; specifically : one of the fifty such units comprising the great part of the U.S. see also STATE LAW b : the territory of a state
Quibbling about which is better a "state" or a "government" is just silly semantics. If you want a group of people governed in any way at all (which you don't, I realize that), then there is both a government and a state. The two go hand in hand. Self-government doesn't involve a state, because it's just one person, but when we're talking about large groups of people, then by definition, they are a state if there is a government involved (in the accepted meanings of words).
Pronunciation: 'g&-v&r-m&nt, -v&rn-
Function: noun
1 : the act or process of governing; specifically : authoritative direction or control
2 : the office, authority, or function of governing
3 : the continuous exercise of authority over and the performance of functions for a political unit : RULE
4 a : the organization, machinery, or agency through which a political unit exercises authority and performs functions and which is usually classified according to the distribution of power within it b : the complex of political institutions, laws, and customs through which the function of governing is carried out
5 : the body of persons that constitutes the governing authority of a political unit or organization: as a : the officials comprising the governing body of a political unit and constituting the organization as an active agency b cap : the executive branch of the U.S. federal government c : the prosecution in a criminal case in its capacity as agents of the political unit
Main Entry: state
Function: noun
often attrib 1 a : a politically organized body of people usually occupying a definite territory; especially : one that is sovereign b : the political organization that has supreme civil authority and political power and serves as the basis of government see also compelling state interest at INTEREST 3a, SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE c : a government or politically organized society having a particular character
2 : the operations or concerns of the government of a country : the sphere of administration and supreme political power of a country (as in international relations)
3 a : one of the constituent units of a nation having a federal government; specifically : one of the fifty such units comprising the great part of the U.S. see also STATE LAW b : the territory of a state
Post by: jefnvk on April 13, 2006, 02:32:50 PM
'We have found a way, collectively, to get all of our citizens insurance without some new government-mandated takeover...'
http://www.cnn.com/2006/HEALTH/04/13/mass.health.ap/index.html
Post by: grampster on April 13, 2006, 06:01:01 PM
Trouble is, there are folks who just don't want to get along for whatever reason. They are bad people; ruthless despots, dictators, tribalists, warlords etc. The weak have forever been used by the strong. History gives us a complete picture of that. America over its life has not been gentle in its progress as well. But at the same time, there has not been a nation that has counterbalanced its bad decisions with sacrifice on behalf of others as America has been. We can argue, but there are few on the planet that have moral equivilance with Americans. We struggle with our history, accept it, and try to make amends. Not many other nations are known for that.
I think the liberal notion that there are no absolutes; no right or wrong; moral nuetrality, has fostered the loss of personal responsibility and as a result we have lost our will to do what is needed to make our Constitutional Republic work. There have always been miscreants in politics. There always will. But because we have instant communication they are more obvious. But that should cause us to be more vigilant and demand more accountability from our elected officials. If we know what they are doing pretty much while they do it, then call them on it. Perhaps the burden on the individual citizen is as least as heavy as it has been in the past, in a different manner. We are to blame mostly for our shortcomings as well as our successes.
Many of us have been pointing to the lack of security on our borders for years and very few in gubmint paid attention. Now we have a problem? Bleh, we have had the problem for decades and now it is basicaly unsolvable. Reagan granted amnesty, but asked for enforcement of the law regarding stomping on employers who hired illegals. It was not done! If it had been enforced we'd not have the situation we have now. Now another law is needed? Hell, it's just like guns; enforce the laws that we have, don't write new ones.
Now rather than a security issue and the ability to control immigration post 9-11, its become poicitcized; who can pander to the Hispanic future voters the most and at the same time reassure them that they don't need to become American; that's ok? Well it's bullcrap in my view.
Also in my view, as the governements south of our borders become more leftist, despotic and pandering to the weathy arristocrats, more and more will head this way. Actually this is not bad because the bulk of those people will be the best of the gene pool of the downtrodden, just like the folks that built our country starting a couple hundred years ago. A man and woman who will walk for weeks through excrutiatingly dangerous terrain to make a better life for themselves certainly are to be not only admired but desired. If they see no future where they are, they come here. That is not a bad thing, necessarily. They have great family values and are people of faith, mostly. They have a history of work. That much cannot be said for a fairly substantial number of natural born Americans.
They need to be convinced that they need to swear allegiance to America, assimilate and understand we are a nation of laws. Part of the problem is that third worlders bring diseases such as mumps, measles, chicken pox, tb, and whatever god awful diseases. It would be better is we set up new and many entry points, took all comers, immunized them against diseases (and start re immunizing our children as well, by the way) gave them a green card and let them carve out a piece of America's pie and work toward citizenship. As for the millions already here, no one is to blame for that but us; we did not demand our "leaders" embrace the problem when Reagan solved it 20 some odd years ago. So, maybe we need to take responsibility for that and try to mitigate our non feasance by making the best of what we have rather than trying to do some new unenforceable law that will be ignored and the politicians will regal themselves with credit. Bleh!
After much thought about it, I think we ought to grant amnesty to all who have a job, will swear allegiance to America, are willing to be immunized against communicable diseases. Hell, they'll learn English in one generation. To forward the lame notion that because they came here illegally they are criminals is ludicrous. If that is so, we should be charged with aiding and abetting that crime. I'd defy any of you to deny that if you found yourself in the conditions that these people are fleeing, that you would not do the same. We do not need this issue to further divide us. That would be worse, in my opinion. We need to see that employers are following labor laws as a side issue.
As for the despots to our south? In a couple of generations they will fall because their best will have left and those who stayed behind will finally get their fill and nature will, again, take its course.
The criminals here will not come forward, understandably. But when they are caught, they should be deported immedietely, no grace. Or maybe they ought to be immpressed into work gangs securing our border. It would create a lot of jobs for Americans to supervise them. That tax would be well spent.
Maybe in the meantime some real patriots will step forward in our two parties and clean house of the fools and pettifoggers and pay attention to the people's business rather than the power scene and sound bites.
Sorry for the thread vear, but I've been getting a little pissed about things lately.
Post by: Perd Hapley on April 13, 2006, 07:44:41 PM
Quote from: grampster
To forward the lame notion that because they came here illegally they are criminals is ludicrous.
grampster, this sort of non sequitur is beneath you. Whether they're here to work or sell drugs, they are knowingly trespassing on our soil, and violating other laws. This makes them criminals. Come on, we're not talking about traffic tickets here. You are too good a contributor to this board to make a fool of yourself like this.Quote
Now another law is needed? Hell, it's just like guns; enforce the laws that we have, don't write new ones.
Actually, we need to repeal a law that contributes to the problem. Namely, the fourteenth amendment which, among other unintended consequences, grants citizenship by birth on American soil. THIS is ludicrous. Quote
Actually this is not bad because the bulk of those people will be the best of the gene pool of the downtrodden, just like the folks that built our country starting a couple hundred years ago. A man and woman who will walk for weeks through excrutiatingly dangerous terrain to make a better life for themselves certainly are to be not only admired but desired. If they see no future where they are, they come here. That is not a bad thing, necessarily. They have great family values and are people of faith, mostly. They have a history of work. That much cannot be said for a fairly substantial number of natural born Americans.
A couple hundred? Try four hundred.I don't claim to know much about illegal aliens, but I know they don't all fit this generalization of yours. They don't necessarily face any hardship or danger in getting here, and they don't all want to work. And no matter how hard-working or honest they may be, we can't take everybody who shows up. For one thing, there is a national culture to be preserved, which involves more than a work ethic. That is part of a bigger problem in that if enough immigrants from any country flow in willy-nilly, we will soon cease to be America.
You want more Americans with a work ethic? Try this. Cut welfare and other entitlements to a mere skeleton of their current obesity, and then see how many Americans will suddenly do those jobs that we supposedly need illegals for. And if we actually do something to stop this flow of illegals, watch how the wages for such jobs increase to draw more legal labor. Prices will go up? Well, then taxes and regulation will have to go down to compensate.
Quote
They need to be convinced that they need to swear allegiance to America, assimilate and understand we are a nation of laws.
And entering legally is a good start.Quote
As for the millions already here, no one is to blame for that but us; we did not demand our "leaders" embrace the problem when Reagan solved it 20 some odd years ago. So, maybe we need to take responsibility for that and try to mitigate our non feasance by making the best of what we have rather than trying to do some new unenforceable law that will be ignored and the politicians will regal themselves with credit.
The people who knowingly trespassed into a foreign country and broke our laws can't be blamed? Sheesh. Reagan solved the problem? How? And regale has two e's.Quote
After much thought about it, I think we ought to grant amnesty to all who have a job, will swear allegiance to America, are willing to be immunized against communicable diseases.
Much thought? Think some more, about this for example. Are you talking about amnesty or citizenship? It would hardly do to ask a foreign national to "swear allegiance to America." Quote
I'd defy any of you to deny that if you found yourself in the conditions that these people are fleeing, that you would not do the same.
I might, but I'd be a criminal and I'd be wrong. What I would do doesn't matter. It doesn't matter if they're being sacrificed by the thousands at Tenochtitlan, they have no right to cross our border. None. I have no right to go there, and they have no right to come here. They can come over here when they are willing to follow our laws. I'm not angry at the people who are here for a better opportunity, but if they break the law, they should pay the price. I know it's hard down there, and I can understand why they come, but we must control our border. Quote
The criminals here will not come forward, understandably. But when they are caught, they should be deported immedietely, no grace. Or maybe they ought to be immpressed into work gangs securing our border. It would create a lot of jobs for Americans to supervise them. That tax would be well spent.
What smokest thou, good sir? We've got enough trouble securing the border as it is. grampster, please tell me this is a result of some pain meds.
Post by: grampster on April 15, 2006, 12:16:56 PM
APS is a place where we can exchange thoughts and ideas in a civil fashion. That was what I was doing, putting out a thought to be reflected upon. Will everyone agree? I'm possitive they won't. My thoughts may be simplistic, but at least the idea is workable and, once again, demonstrates the munificence of the American people. In my mind, sneaking across the border with the notion of bettering my family's lot by leaving everything I know behind to work hard in an alien land is a bit different than some goblin that robs a party store. I also understand some come for darker reasons.
It's not the pills and cough, ahem herbs tend to mellow one out. I told you at the end of my piece that I was pissed. I am also not a moral relativist. Please re-read the first half of my comments. It is immutable that action causes reaction. Fortunately we can harness that and it should be made to work for our collective benefit.
I've been preoccupied with this illegal immigration reality since my father started sounding the alarm about it clear back in the 60's and 70's. He was very prescient in that regard, and it rubbed off on me. My father was the grandson of immigrants. There is more wrong with illegal immigration than meets the eye. Not the least of which is the communicable disease problem. Since we have ceased to immunize our children, illegals are bringing on the resurgence of old diseases, to say nothing of new ones we have never seen before in America. No one, of course, is saying anything about that.
Believe me when I say I've been talking about IE with a lot of people, including government for a long time. No one has given a rat's ass till lately. Unfortunately, the horse is out of the barn now. So, what do we do? Actually, the better question is what is realistic? What reflects American values the most.
There are choices, many of which are being bandied about, are not realistic. You are not going to be able to round up and deport X millions of people. You just can't physically do that. The logistics are impossible. And they are not bugs to be swept off the carpet. They are people.
Have they come here by invitation? I think so. Why? Because we've never been serious about stopping them! America is the promised land, Fistful, and our borders are porous. That is an open invitation in my mind. Lot's of folks dont seem to care once they're here, especially those who see the opportunity to exploit them with hard work and niggardly pay. So in the end the exploiters harm all of us. I lump many politicians into this group, by the way. They are a major part of the problem and they are blaming us! They say Americans won't work for the pay. No *expletive deleted*it! It's not the job, it is the pay. How easy it is to blackmail with slave wages to some poor sap that worries every day the police are going to kick down their door and take them away. (None of my comments should be construed to excuse the behavior of some IE's that strip our system for all it's freebies, by the way)
There are only two answers to the invitation: Seal our borders or don't. That is the first thing that needs to be done. Pick one! Then do what is necessary to make it work. Focus on it with a fierce determination. My thoughts are just the other side of the coin of those who want to build a 30 foot wall around America. I just frankly think we need the quality of people that are, for the most part, risking all to come here. They just need to understand the rules. We haven't done much positive in that regard either.
Once we have made a national decision about our borders, then, and only then, should be begin to decide what needs to be done about those that are here. That is important, but a secondary issue in my mind.
More later. Gotta go to another hockey game with the g'kids.
Post by: Perd Hapley on April 15, 2006, 01:22:04 PM
Quote
My dear Clenched Abundance,
Ah, now that is poetic.Quote
APS is a place where we can exchange thoughts and ideas in a civil fashion. That was what I was doing, putting out a thought to be reflected upon. Will everyone agree? I'm possitive they won't.
Yes, yes, we are obviously disagreeing, so I don't know why you bring it up. Was I uncivil? I think I was as complimentary as I could be, as I do find your posts are often very thoughtful. Quote
at least the idea is workable
Workable for what end? That of drowning America in non-Americans until we become Mexico North? We cannot assimilate as many people as would flood in here in far greater numbers if we throw open the gates in the fashion you suggest. And to pretend that crime is OK because the responsible parties are looking the other way is just not tenable. I never suggested you were a moral relativist, so please withdraw the implication. Nor did I say that we can deport all illegals, though I am sure we could clear out most of them, given enough time and proper enforcement, a fence, perhaps, or what-have-you.
Quote
And they are not bugs to be swept off the carpet. They are people.
Can the histrionics, please. I have said nothing that dehumanizes these people in the least. To the contrary, I hold them to the same standard to which I would be held. I might cross the border illegally, were I in their shoes, but I sure wouldn't pretend I had a right to do so. This problem will continue so long as Mexico chooses to remain corrupt and poor. Their plight is not America's fault.
Post by: doczinn on April 15, 2006, 02:08:46 PM
Quote
Quote
My dear Clenched Abundance,
Ah, now that is poetic.Post by: Perd Hapley on April 15, 2006, 02:15:33 PM
Post by: The Rabbi on April 15, 2006, 05:26:59 PM
Quote from: fistful
Quote
at least the idea is workable
Workable for what end? That of drowning America in non-Americans until we become Mexico North? We cannot assimilate as many people as would flood in here in far greater numbers if we throw open the gates in the fashion you suggest. And to pretend that crime is OK because the responsible parties are looking the other way is just not tenable.Tarring people as "criminals" is simply an emotive rhetorical trick. It wont solve the problem. It will only make it worse.
Post by: grampster on April 15, 2006, 06:44:44 PM
I never could figger the quote thingy, so I'll just muddle.
Yes, yes you were civil and I took no umbrage nor was/am I smutting back. I was just explaining why I'm putting out the thoughts that I am having, and I continue to marvel at the opportunity to do so. I love the internet and especially places like APS, THR, TFL and the folks one gets to meet, like yourself, that we can spar about things. I wanted to say that and I was not clear. SWMBO often says that I'm the only person who can talk for long periods of time and no one has a clue what I mean. That's why I was a successful cop and salesman. People cooperated with me just to shut me up so I would go away. Anyhoo....
My bug comment was not directed at you, sir. Just a general comment after listening to people verbalize their emotions on this matter on the radio, tv and in print. I don't frankly think that people who are here illegally have any right to any tax funded benefits like schools, welfare, or food stamps. Neither should free medical care be provided unless there is a life threatening situation. I am as offended as anyone at how illegals drag down the system and I'm particularly displeased to see all the hispanic signs around. I'm also pretty offended that our polititcians are pandering to this group of people who have no legal standing, demanding things and are waiving foreign flags.
But the fact remains that they are here and could be a valuable asset to our American culture. Maybe, as a result, that culture might change just a tad. But that's all it should; just a tad. Hopefully better; remember many of the hispanics are people of faith, are family oriented and they have a culture of work. Perhaps we ought to think about how this group of folks could be a benefit to our country. The danger is not the hispanics but the damn fool liberals and Leftists who's idea it was to promote all the socialist programs and the porous borders that attracts IE's to some extent. (I know, let's deport the the libs) So maybe we need to rather be less bellicose about sending the rascals back, and we should rather be more bellicose about demanding assimilation.
I'm not even sure we could even close our borders effectively. So maybe we need to quadruple the cash flow to the INS and really make them extremely effective at finding out who is coming across and weeding them out. Make them rather subject themselves to scrutiny rather than paying their life savings to be dumped in the desert with no water. Maybe we need an American Peace Corp where high school graduates could elect border security as a volunteer service for 2 or 4 or more years and throw in some trade school edumacation to take up their free time. Lord knows most of them don't know their ass from a hole in the ground when they get out of HS.
The context of my moral relativist comment was intended to indicate that my maunderings are not those of a liberal, who generally are. Not a swipe at you. I surprise myself from time to time that I actually consider solutions to problems that are less than the scortched earth policies that the leftists assign to us on the right.
I sometimes find my closest right wing fanatic friends looking at me with horror on their faces. Ah, well my liberal friends usually spot me to free alcohol when I get wonky like this. I'll take their drinks.
Actually, my preferred solution would be that the folks south of the border would redirect the energy they spend trying to get here into cleaning up their own houses. I did hear a comment the other day that some educated Mexicans are sounding the alarm over America's plan to offer citizenship opportunity to IE's. They see that as the beginning of a potential extreme blow to their economy. Gasp! They won't be Mexicanos anymore...they will turn into gringo's. I heard a guy on the radio today who said we ought to annex Mexico. Their government is so corrupt now that all we'd have to do is pay them off and they'd hand the country over. Hell it would be just like the Old West again only with good weather. Then we baby boomers could all move south and you wouldn't have to listen to us tell you that we're "on a fixed income" anymore.
One of the major things that needs to occur in our country is that we need to remember our motto: E Pluribus Unum. Out of the many, one. We need to stomp out this multicultural dreck that has infected our country and start remembering and celebrating our unity and nationhood. He who wants to come here needs to become an American. That means assimilation and that notion has to be shouted from the rooftops. It ought to be demanded of those who come here. If the Repubican Party had any backbone, they should be shouting the liberal statists down on this point.
Well, I'm not going to solve any of this. Unfortunately we will leave that up to Teddy Kennedy and Hillary. It just feels good to get some of this of my mind.
Post by: Perd Hapley on April 15, 2006, 07:11:48 PM
Quote
Tarring people as "criminals" is simply an emotive rhetorical trick.
How's "nativist" for an emotive rhetorical trick? On the off chance that you are in earnest with this comment, I must reply that those who break the law tar themselves. This is a simple matter of fact. If one breaks the law intentionally and repeatedly, one is a criminal. Is there some other definition of the word? The following was written for grampster, it applies even more so to Rabbi, who's judgement I have come to respect.
Quote
this sort of non sequitur is beneath you. Whether they're here to work or sell drugs, they are knowingly trespassing on our soil, and violating other laws. This makes them criminals. Come on, we're not talking about traffic tickets here. You are too good a contributor to this board to make a fool of yourself like this.
Edited to add: Except that Rabbi's above comment was not a non-sequitur, just obviously, hugely incorrect. But I still hope you're teasing me, Rabbi.
Post by: The Rabbi on April 16, 2006, 07:34:28 AM
Post by: grampster on April 16, 2006, 11:24:11 AM
Now I'm not saying that illegal immigration is not somehow wrong. Certainly we can recount a myriad of reasons why it is. But for me the question is NOT whether it's wrong, but rather what in the world are we going to do about it and still be able to say that whatever that course of action was, it was the proper thing to do. We need to start thinking about how we can turn this problem into an advantage.
To keep this thread as near the topic as possible, I'd say that the socialists would USE the immigrants to create bigger government and more control. Capitalists would find a way to intigrate the immigrants in order make their businesses run better. Each in its way can be both good or evil. (I've often felt that if one had a choice it's better to be at the mercy of robber barons than the government as one can more eaily avoid the barons. Don't pay your taxes and see what happens. You do not have shop at Wally World.)
Post by: Perd Hapley on April 16, 2006, 02:06:01 PM
Quote from: The Rabbi
By your definition of "criminal" probably everyone on this board is a criminal. Such a definition ceases to have any meaning other than as a rhetorical tool.
Yes, I was really hoping I could whip you all into a frenzy.I looked at several definitions of "criminal" on online dictionaries, and all were far less forgiving than I - they all defined criminal as "one who has broken the law" or "one who has committed a crime," or some such. Obviously, this is a literal definition, not reflected in common usage.
My definition involves a repeated, willful violation of law, which I honestly think is how the term is usually applied. I don't believe I meet that definition, nor do I suppose that most APS'ers do. I have broken speed limits in the past, but I generally try to keep my vehicle at a legal speed. Keeps my insurance costs down. I have broken the law in the past, but do not continue to do so willfully and repeatedly. Or perhaps it is more correct to say that we apply the term to those who live a lifestyle of crime. Again, this fits very well with those who come over once and work illegally for several years, or those who cross over repeatedly to work.
Those who come here illegally, even with the best of intentions, become criminals by their choice, and it is silly for you to pretend that I am slurring them.
Quote from: grampster
To keep this thread as near the topic as possible
Way too late for that. Mercedesrules and I derailed it long ago, but I found his ideas about anarchy more interesting than this goofiness that has lately erupted. Why don't you and Rabbi start your own thread about how illegal immigrants are all great Americans?
Post by: grampster on April 16, 2006, 02:14:49 PM
Post by: The Rabbi on April 16, 2006, 02:29:26 PM
Quote from: grampster
Actually I'd rather talk about the efficacy of the Cadbury creme egg as a calming agent for aging men.
Almost anything would be better than a "them furriners are ruining this great country." I will point out that anyone who orders something off the Internet and then doesnt pay state sales tax on it is a criminal. I am sure that is most of us and even with my pointing it out no one is going to change his practice. I guess that makes us all "willfull repeating criminals."On to more productive topics: Grampster, I always thought that as men reached 40+ they preferred dark chocolate to milk chocolate. I know my tastes have changed in that direction.
Post by: 280plus on April 16, 2006, 03:12:50 PM
How did this thread drift from Taxachussett's new Med Insurance bill to IE's anyways? I read the whole thing and still don't understand where the drift began.
Post by: grampster on April 16, 2006, 04:38:29 PM
Milk chocolate rules. Especially if it surrounds caramel. If you're just a tad over 40 you are still a bit wet behind the ears and subject to wild swings of behaviour. Women call it Hot Flashes.
I do have Sansbelt stock. 280,
It started out about socialism and IE problem smacks a bit about that. The conventional wisdom seem to purport that large groups of newbies can be plucked politically to support a political viewpoint that leans toward socialist statism. My contraryism wonders if the reverse might be true. Most of those folks are running away from class warfare and the socialist state.
Fistful,
c'mon, we're not being "goofy" and we're not attempting to paint everyone with the same brush which to a degree you appear to be doing; they are all lawbreakers. I'd rather prefer to look at the bigger picture. I also really, really did overlook the fact that you called me a fool, not once but twice. I respect your views, sir. I enjoy rambling on about what I think about from time to time. I also enjoy reading your opinions and thoughts. (As a side comment, I am not one for backing every durn thing I say by running to a statistical journal or post supporting threads.)
I rather like to just say what's on my mind. Sometime's the obvious is not quite as clear as it should be and conversation helps sort it out better than dogma. I'd rather believe it's thinking out loud and looking for solutions and other viewpoints. I don't think that's foolish or goofy. I don't really think you do either.
Post by: Perd Hapley on April 16, 2006, 06:56:03 PM
Quote from: The Rabbi
"them furriners are ruining this great country." I will point out that anyone who orders something off the Internet and then doesnt pay state sales tax on it is a criminal. I am sure that is most of us and even with my pointing it out no one is going to change his practice. I guess that makes us all "willfull repeating criminals."
It's the illegals, actually, not the furriners. Then again, they are only one problem. I wonder where you're getting this sales tax bit. Never heard that one before, so the willfull part is out. Never thought about it before. Do you mean items ordered from within the same state?
Post by: Perd Hapley on April 16, 2006, 07:58:05 PM
Quote from: 280plus
"We are ALL immigrants to this country." That applies even to the first "native" tribes. Not all of us got here by means of some paperwork and "proper channels". What gives anyone the right to exclude anyone else from this country? THis country is made UP of the type of stock that you now vilify. The kind that is willing to face hardship and danger in hopes of giving their families a better life.
How did this thread drift from Taxachussett's new Med Insurance bill to IE's anyways? I read the whole thing and still don't understand where the drift began.
Post 43 is where it drifted to illegal immigration.How did this thread drift from Taxachussett's new Med Insurance bill to IE's anyways? I read the whole thing and still don't understand where the drift began.
Most of the world's population has migrated somewhere at some time, or at least some of their ancestors did. What gives us the authority (not the right, for nations do not have rights) is that American citizens constituted this country and make its laws. Citizens have a right to be here, and to decide who can visit us or become citizens. This is part of the concept of sovereignty with regards to the modern nation-state.
Perhaps I have not been clear in stating that I am not talking of legal immigrants but of those who do so illegally. Whether or not they should be called criminals may not much matter. What is important is that we are clearly not controlling who is crossing our border. It may be that visas are too difficult to obtain for some people, and if so we should allow more legal immigrants. Unfortunately, the lazy way to do this, by giving current illegals a pass, only encourages more illegal immigration.
Hoping everyone else is as tired of this discussion as I am,
fistful
Post by: 280plus on April 17, 2006, 01:08:34 AM
Quote
Hoping everyone else is as tired of this discussion as I am,
Waddaya mean? I was just gettin' going... Well I just know this sure ain't the first wave of immigrants legal or otherwise to hit these shores. And I agree with Grampster, I believe the vast majority of those coming here are doing so to escape the situations you fear they will cause in this country.
Quote
Unfortunately, the lazy way to do this, by giving current illegals a pass, only encourages more illegal immigration.
Ah, but if laws were changed to make it much easier to immigrate legally I believe it will in fact eliminate most IF NOT ALL illegal immigration into this country. If it was easier for them to gain entry, legally, and go to work (AND PAY TAXES AND SOCIAL SECURITY) how many of them would bother to go through things like paying extortion to mules and crossing the river and desert at great risk. Or living a life below the poverty level because those that hire them would not have to pay them even the minimum wage? As far as those that are here NOW illegally. How DO you propose to round them up and get them back out? It's the same old story. Make something illegal and the criminals will be more than happy to add it to their black market book of ways to make money. Lot's of money. Do you REALLY want the criminal element to be in charge of who is getting into this country?
Think of all the .gov $ and MANPOWER that would be freed up if we didn't have to worry about keeping millions of people at bay on our borders.
Plus, you worry about terrorists making their way across the border in the same fashion. If people stopped coming across the border in droves illegally then there would be noone for these terrorists to hide in amongst.
FWIW, I lived in San Diego in the mid to late 70's. I could see the Tijuana bullring from my porch and could hear the cheering there every Sunday afternoon. Almost every day the border patrol was pulling illegals out from under bushes, porches and wherever else they could fin to hide throughout my neighborhood. So in my mind, all this talk of illegals crossing the border is nothing new. It was going on long before I got there and continues to this day. I say it's about time we did something substantial about it. Calling it illegal and persecuting, uh, I mean PROSECUTING these people hasn't seemed to work so far.
Those who have entered legally scoff at the idea. They seem to think the illegals haven't paid the dues necessary to remain in this country legally. They're getting a "free pass". I say they payed a large amount of money to one criminal orgqanization or another, they made the trip into this country knowing full well the great risks that were involved and they managed to survive and for the most part are contributing to this country's well being. I say they've paid their dues. Maybe not the same ones the legals paid but they've still paid dues.
Post by: 280plus on April 17, 2006, 02:19:17 AM
Post by: 280plus on April 17, 2006, 02:27:07 AM
Post by: griz on April 17, 2006, 02:31:49 AM
Quote
What gives anyone the right to exclude anyone else from this country?
How far does that go? Should we stop checking passports when someone gets off the plane? Or to be more extreme, if a ship full of soldiers started unloading at the pier, would it be immoral to stop them?
Post by: 280plus on April 17, 2006, 02:37:46 AM
Stepping off soapbox for now. No really...
Post by: 280plus on April 17, 2006, 02:41:42 AM
Quote
How far does that go?
Not at all. Process them in. Check for disease, check for criminal records. Check what they're bringing in with them. We've done it in the past. Do I need to say Ellis Island? Are the soldiers being friendly? I gtg but I'll check back later. I'm really interested in what calm rational people have to say about all this.
Post by: Perd Hapley on April 17, 2006, 03:07:07 AM
Quote from: 280plus
I'm really interested in what calm rational people have to say about all this.
It's kind of hard when any rational comments are regarded as "nativism."
Post by: 280plus on April 17, 2006, 03:22:26 AM
When I say rational I think I mean well thought out.
I pose the same question. How are we supposed to both guard our entire border AND round up and expel 11 million people? When, by simply allowing them to come here AND WORK not live off of welfare, the whole problem goes away. I', pretty sure, you tell all the illegals that for $150 they can become citizens and not live in the shadows and more that rougly, just grabbing a number,,,90% of them would line up in a heart beat. By our actions as they are now we are ENCOURAGING all the criminal activity taking place plus paying a pretty penny for it.
Reallly got to go now.
Post by: Perd Hapley on April 17, 2006, 03:46:14 AM
Post by: The Rabbi on April 17, 2006, 04:19:28 AM
Quote from: fistful
Quote from: The Rabbi
"them furriners are ruining this great country." I will point out that anyone who orders something off the Internet and then doesnt pay state sales tax on it is a criminal. I am sure that is most of us and even with my pointing it out no one is going to change his practice. I guess that makes us all "willfull repeating criminals."
It's the illegals, actually, not the furriners. Then again, they are only one problem. I wonder where you're getting this sales tax bit. Never heard that one before, so the willfull part is out. Never thought about it before. Do you mean items ordered from within the same state?Quote
Tennessee, like other states that impose a sales tax, also taxes the use of property that is brought into the state untaxed when purchased. The purpose of the use tax is not only to raise revenue, but also to protect local merchants, who must collect the sales tax, from unfair competition from out-of-state sellers who do not collect Tennessees sales tax.
I would cite MO's code but the state website stinks and I cant get anything.
Post by: doczinn on April 17, 2006, 06:16:53 AM
2. Specify said workers, as well as anyone currently here illegally, are entirely ineligible for any government benefits or services except police services (on either side) and emergency medical care.
The rest will take care of itself.
Post by: richyoung on April 17, 2006, 06:22:15 AM
As you were about the requirement for gold and silver coins in the Constitution, you are, quite simply, wrong. The Federal government is pre-emptively reserved the right and authority to regulate insterstate commerce, as well as to instutute and run the postal system that delivers such purchases. That some states, including my own, try to finagle such tax out of you for out-of-state purchases of any kind does not legalize or legitimise it in any way. I strongly suggest for everyone a thorough reading and study of the Constitution as a whole, particulary since border control is one of the few legitimate duties of hte federal governemnt - a government too busy doing things it should not to do those that it should.
Post by: The Rabbi on April 17, 2006, 06:55:02 AM
Quote from: richyoung
"I will point out that anyone who orders something off the Internet and then doesnt pay state sales tax on it is a criminal. "
As you were about the requirement for gold and silver coins in the Constitution, you are, quite simply, wrong. The Federal government is pre-emptively reserved the right and authority to regulate insterstate commerce, as well as to instutute and run the postal system that delivers such purchases. That some states, including my own, try to finagle such tax out of you for out-of-state purchases of any kind does not legalize or legitimise it in any way. I strongly suggest for everyone a thorough reading and study of the Constitution as a whole, particulary since border control is one of the few legitimate duties of hte federal governemnt - a government too busy doing things it should not to do those that it should.
You could always pay for your sales tax due with your Krugerrands, legal currency in--oops, no they aren't.As you were about the requirement for gold and silver coins in the Constitution, you are, quite simply, wrong. The Federal government is pre-emptively reserved the right and authority to regulate insterstate commerce, as well as to instutute and run the postal system that delivers such purchases. That some states, including my own, try to finagle such tax out of you for out-of-state purchases of any kind does not legalize or legitimise it in any way. I strongly suggest for everyone a thorough reading and study of the Constitution as a whole, particulary since border control is one of the few legitimate duties of hte federal governemnt - a government too busy doing things it should not to do those that it should.
It must be great to make yourself the ultimate arbiter of what the Constitution says, regardless of Supreme Court decisions and other laws.
Post by: richyoung on April 17, 2006, 07:08:19 AM
It must be great to make yourself the ultimate arbiter of what the Constitution says, regardless of Supreme Court decisions and other laws."
Still haven't read it for yourself, I see. Don't take mine, (or especially any 5 out of 9 Supreme's) word for it - READ IT YOURSELF - and if you can find anything in the Constitution itself that points out ANY misstatement of fact, I will be happy to genuflect to your superior intellect. Laws passed by a legislature, executive orders CAN NOT overturn a Constitutional mandate - only an amendmant can. As to Supreme Court decisions, care to guess how many times they have overtuened themselves? They aren't infallible - its OUR job to vigorously defend the Constituion - and that's not possible unless you know exactly what it says and means - otherwise you don't know when its being violated.
Post by: richyoung on April 17, 2006, 07:10:17 AM
Post by: The Rabbi on April 17, 2006, 12:04:11 PM
Quote from: richyoung
"You could always pay for your sales tax due with your Krugerrands, legal currency in--oops, no they aren't.
It must be great to make yourself the ultimate arbiter of what the Constitution says, regardless of Supreme Court decisions and other laws."
Still haven't read it for yourself, I see. Don't take mine, (or especially any 5 out of 9 Supreme's) word for it - READ IT YOURSELF - and if you can find anything in the Constitution itself that points out ANY misstatement of fact, I will be happy to genuflect to your superior intellect. Laws passed by a legislature, executive orders CAN NOT overturn a Constitutional mandate - only an amendmant can. As to Supreme Court decisions, care to guess how many times they have overtuened themselves? They aren't infallible - its OUR job to vigorously defend the Constituion - and that's not possible unless you know exactly what it says and means - otherwise you don't know when its being violated.
Please post your qualification in Constitutional scholarship, listing how many peer-reviewed journals you have been published in. Then we can talk.
It must be great to make yourself the ultimate arbiter of what the Constitution says, regardless of Supreme Court decisions and other laws."
Still haven't read it for yourself, I see. Don't take mine, (or especially any 5 out of 9 Supreme's) word for it - READ IT YOURSELF - and if you can find anything in the Constitution itself that points out ANY misstatement of fact, I will be happy to genuflect to your superior intellect. Laws passed by a legislature, executive orders CAN NOT overturn a Constitutional mandate - only an amendmant can. As to Supreme Court decisions, care to guess how many times they have overtuened themselves? They aren't infallible - its OUR job to vigorously defend the Constituion - and that's not possible unless you know exactly what it says and means - otherwise you don't know when its being violated.
Post by: richyoung on April 17, 2006, 12:57:12 PM
I'm a citizen of the United States, and I can read. The Constitution wasn't meant to be, nor is it, an esoteric document to be interpreted only by scholars and lawyers. Its the fundamental compact between American citizens and their government, as well as being the supreme law of the land. If one is going to exercise the franchise, it behooves one to intimately know his rights and obligations under that compact, as well as the rights, duties, and limitations that compact foists on the government. Only then can one intelligently select representatives to that government, evaluate their performance, or know when said government has over-reached.
" listing how many peer-reviewed journals you have been published in. Then we can talk."
That number would be zero. Its not my job to write constitutional articles - my job is to sysadmin and operate military simulations to train artillery officers, NCOs, and battle staffs. You can bet your bippy I READ a lot of those articles, though,...as should all.
BTW, still waiting for any factual error or misstatement to be pointed out. And how many constitutional articles have YOU published?
Post by: Guest on April 18, 2006, 07:29:43 AM
Quote from: RaggedClaws
Quote
Are you trying to increase it [force]?
Uhhh, no. Is this an argument of some sort?Quote
Quote
Where do you live that isn't "nature"?
I was referring to a Hobbesian "state of nature". Surely you know that, and you are turning to petty semantics again.Quote
Quote
I guess you are a statist, then.
From my perspective, it's not black and white. If it helps you sleep at night, then feel free to call me a "statist" and I'll call you a "utopian idealist with his/her head in the clouds". "Statist" is a proper, neutral definition for someone that advocates a state.Quote
Regarding your definitions of "government" and "state", let's decide on a definition from the dictionary, how about that? Instead of one from a libertarian propagandist.
I choose these:Quote from: "Merriam Webster's Dictionary of Law"
Main Entry: gov·ern·ment
Pronunciation: 'g&-v&r-m&nt, -v&rn-
Function: noun
1 : the act or process of governing; specifically : authoritative direction or control
2 : the office, authority, or function of governing
3 : the continuous exercise of authority over and the performance of functions for a political unit : RULE
4 a : the organization, machinery, or agency through which a political unit exercises authority and performs functions and which is usually classified according to the distribution of power within it b : the complex of political institutions, laws, and customs through which the function of governing is carried out
5 : the body of persons that constitutes the governing authority of a political unit or organization: as a : the officials comprising the governing body of a political unit and constituting the organization as an active agency b cap : the executive branch of the U.S. federal government c : the prosecution in a criminal case in its capacity as agents of the political unit
Main Entry: state
Function: noun
often attrib 1 a : a politically organized body of people usually occupying a definite territory; especially : one that is sovereign b : the political organization that has supreme civil authority and political power and serves as the basis of government see also compelling state interest at INTEREST 3a, SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE c : a government or politically organized society having a particular character
2 : the operations or concerns of the government of a country : the sphere of administration and supreme political power of a country (as in international relations)
3 a : one of the constituent units of a nation having a federal government; specifically : one of the fifty such units comprising the great part of the U.S. see also STATE LAW b : the territory of a state
Pronunciation: 'g&-v&r-m&nt, -v&rn-
Function: noun
1 : the act or process of governing; specifically : authoritative direction or control
2 : the office, authority, or function of governing
3 : the continuous exercise of authority over and the performance of functions for a political unit : RULE
4 a : the organization, machinery, or agency through which a political unit exercises authority and performs functions and which is usually classified according to the distribution of power within it b : the complex of political institutions, laws, and customs through which the function of governing is carried out
5 : the body of persons that constitutes the governing authority of a political unit or organization: as a : the officials comprising the governing body of a political unit and constituting the organization as an active agency b cap : the executive branch of the U.S. federal government c : the prosecution in a criminal case in its capacity as agents of the political unit
Main Entry: state
Function: noun
often attrib 1 a : a politically organized body of people usually occupying a definite territory; especially : one that is sovereign b : the political organization that has supreme civil authority and political power and serves as the basis of government see also compelling state interest at INTEREST 3a, SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE c : a government or politically organized society having a particular character
2 : the operations or concerns of the government of a country : the sphere of administration and supreme political power of a country (as in international relations)
3 a : one of the constituent units of a nation having a federal government; specifically : one of the fifty such units comprising the great part of the U.S. see also STATE LAW b : the territory of a state
(government) 1 : the act or process of governing; specifically : authoritative direction or control.
(state) 1 a : a politically organized body of people usually occupying a definite territory;
Quote
Quibbling about which is better a "state" or a "government" is just silly semantics. If you want a group of people governed in any way at all (which you don't, I realize that)
Yes, I do.Quote
, then there is both a government and a state. The two go hand in hand. Self-government doesn't involve a state, because it's just one person, but when we're talking about large groups of people, then by definition, they are a state if there is a government involved (in the accepted meanings of words).
Let's say you go to church on Easter. Everyone files in quietly, takes a seat, listens attentively and sings when asked. If they don't, no police arrest them, no one takes them to jail or kills them in a shootout. If they don't give to the collection plate, no one takes their wallet. At most, they will be asked to leave the group. I don't see why a society couldn't operate like that.When I argue the difference between "state" and "government" this is the distinction about which I speak. After all, the two words exist.
Post by: RaggedClaws on April 18, 2006, 07:59:03 AM
Quote
Let's say you go to church on Easter. Everyone files in quietly, takes a seat, listens attentively and sings when asked. If they don't, no police arrest them, no one takes them to jail or kills them in a shootout. If they don't give to the collection plate, no one takes their wallet. At most, they will be asked to leave the group. I don't see why a society couldn't operate like that.
We'll probably just have to agree to disagree, because I see government as a necessary evil. I believe that government needs to be very seriously limited, as power begets power, and that no limited government will stay limited for long, so revolutions must occur at regular intervals (such revolutions don't necessarily have to be violent). I think the framers of the US Constitution are in my camp on this point.It is my contention that in the absence of government, power will be consolidated and wielded by some group. This has proven to be the case throughout history, which is why all of the great nations of the world currently have and always have had governments/states in place. Because of this, it seems a good idea to create a formal apparatus of government that is as self-limiting as possible. I do believe that smaller tribal-based societies can survive in seeming anarchy, but only if they stay isolated from other societies and they stay small.
Post by: griz on April 18, 2006, 10:08:57 AM
Post by: Guest on April 18, 2006, 11:12:05 AM
Quote from: RaggedClaws
mercedes, I apologize if I seemed a bit hostile, but things are, well, a bit tense around here. I hope no offense was taken by my tone, I meant no disrespect.
O.K. I hope "things" get more relaxed for you.Quote
Quote
Let's say you go to church on Easter. Everyone files in quietly, takes a seat, listens attentively and sings when asked. If they don't, no police arrest them, no one takes them to jail or kills them in a shootout. If they don't give to the collection plate, no one takes their wallet. At most, they will be asked to leave the group. I don't see why a society couldn't operate like that.
We'll probably just have to agree to disagree, because I see government as a necessary evil. I believe that government needs to be very seriously limited, as power begets power, and that no limited government will stay limited for long, so revolutions must occur at regular intervals (such revolutions don't necessarily have to be violent). I think the framers of the US Constitution are in my camp on this point.Quote
It is my contention that in the absence of government, power will be consolidated and wielded by some group. This has proven to be the case throughout history, which is why all of the great nations of the world currently have and always have had governments/states in place. Because of this, it seems a good idea to create a formal apparatus of government that is as self-limiting as possible. I do believe that smaller tribal-based societies can survive in seeming anarchy, but only if they stay isolated from other societies and they stay small.
To me, "great nation" is an oxymoron but you're right, whenever some area tries to split off, the current nations traipse there to squash it.
Post by: Guest on April 18, 2006, 11:26:53 AM
Quote from: griz
By your own definition, a state being "a politically organized body of people"; wouldn't being politically organized consitute a government? I know this sounds like picking nits, but I see no practical distinction and I'm trying to understand what you see as a difference.
I only chose that dictionary definition from the ones offered to please RaggedClaws. I prefer this one:State: an organization that taxes and engages in regularized and institutionalized aggressive coercion.
That would distinguish it from the officers of a Book Club, for instance.
In the church example, the church group neither taxes nor aggresses. You see the difference between the collection plate and taxes, don't you? Also, a state claims ownership of all of the territory in its grasp. I prefer total private property. A good friend of mine likes to say, "If there is something that only a state can do, that thing should not be done."
Post by: griz on April 18, 2006, 02:34:10 PM
Post by: Perd Hapley on April 18, 2006, 02:43:57 PM
Post by: wheelgunkid on April 18, 2006, 09:49:50 PM
Post by: Guest on April 19, 2006, 06:25:27 AM
Quote from: griz
Actually in the church example there is a hidden, or at least outsourced, aggression. You mention that the most that would happen to an individual who made themselves unwelcome is they would be asked to leave. True enough, unless they would not leave voluntarily. Then the church would call the police to be aggressive for them.
That is a basis for my beef. I think they should have to defend it themselves without forced subsidy. They could hire a private guard or bouncer.Quote
I am sure you will argue that the church would only be defending their own property from someone who "started it" by refusing to behave as the group wished, and you would be right. But that is the way governments start, as a collection of people who are looking out for their own best interest and enforcing those interest against the ones who don't play well with others.
Yes, I agree that the whole "state/government" issue gets murky when reduced to the private property level. I see no problem defending one's legitimately-owned property. I would much rather deal with that than deal with persons whose enforcers and weapons are bought with tax funds, though. I guess I, as a property owner, am the "state" when defending it. But I don't claim to have these powers over others' property or lives. For instance, I might not want heroin use on my land but don't bother enforcing that preference elsewhere. I would prefer that all property be private.
Post by: Guest on April 19, 2006, 06:30:46 AM
Quote from: wheelgunkid
I've got a very dear friend who is unemployed and cannot find work. She has no health coverage. If anything happens to her, I'll try to help as best I can, but I don't make much money. Personally, I wish that someone did have to provide her with health care. She's trying to find work, and is not trying to avoid it. I don't have a problem with the health care measure, even if it does mean I'll pay some more tax. Just my opinion.
At least you are honest about being a socialist. If the health measure passes, what do you think should happen to someone that refuses to participate? Should they be arrested? Jailed? Assets frozen or confiscated?
Post by: RaggedClaws on April 19, 2006, 06:52:17 AM
Quote
At least you are honest about being a socialist.
There is a whole spectrum of choices between "anarchy" and "socialism" ya know
Post by: Guest on April 19, 2006, 08:20:06 AM
Quote from: RaggedClaws
Quote
At least you are honest about being a socialist.
There is a whole spectrum of choices between "anarchy" and "socialism" ya know This is unequivocal.
It means, "I want the state to use force, or the threat of it, to take money from 'A' and give it to 'B' for health care.
Post by: griz on April 19, 2006, 01:29:03 PM
Post by: wheelgunkid on April 19, 2006, 01:54:49 PM
For example, I hate sports, esepcially pro. Just a bunch of spoiled millionaires bashing each other. Why then should I have to pay taxes for a pro football team to build a stadium?
Yet it was voted in, so I have to pay it. I think health care is 100,000 times more important for taxes than any stupid sport. If it gets voted in, we'll have to pay for it.
So, if you're one who doesn't want to participate, don't pay your taxes. We're the ones allowing taxation in the first place.
Post by: Guest on April 19, 2006, 02:18:36 PM
Quote from: griz
For what it's worth Mercedes, it sounds as if we aren't that far apart. I think a society should err on the side of individual freedom. I just think might makes right is not enough structure for the only societal rule. I suspect we could be fine neighbors under the rule of anarchy (if you will excuse the oxymoron), but I am NOT moving to Somalia.
Haha! Me neither; too old.
Post by: Guest on April 19, 2006, 03:13:55 PM
Quote from: Blackburn
Yeah. I'd consider cutting other things off from the public purse before health care. Healthcare/welfare is just more of a target because we see it more.
... because they're 65% of the budget. I included Social Security; income security; Medicare; health; ed., training, employment and social services and veterans.
Post by: grampster on April 19, 2006, 05:12:52 PM
Post by: Guest on April 20, 2006, 09:02:55 AM
Quote from: grampster
As I'm 62 and just retired, I can see the Social Security piece of the pie needs to be expanded a bit.
Thief! BTW, speaking of "expanded", are you overweight? If so, maybe you can work that lower income into a diet aid of sorts.
Post by: grampster on April 20, 2006, 11:02:14 AM
*Anybody wanna go bird huntin'. huh huh do ya huh huh huh?
Post by: Guest on April 20, 2006, 11:12:26 AM
Quote from: grampster
Anybody wanna go bird huntin'?
Haha!
Post by: grampster on April 20, 2006, 05:27:46 PM