You're fucking stupid.
You are so ridiculously naive, it's pathetic.
I understand we aren't going to solve the on-going debate between collectivism and individualism in this thread, or push understanding of the difference between society and government. However, it is enjoyable to debate the details and refine our understanding, until it resorts to this. It resorts to that because that is what is displayed by the forum participant on the receiving end of those observations. How many libertarian dimwits does it take to argue against one person in opposition to libertarian views, anyway? Clearly, a lot, all apparently victims of groupthink, as well. Such independent thinkers you are - not. |
|
|
|
No, it doesn't. However, having that liability settled does.
No. It doesn't. You can't get blood from a stone. You're fucking stupid. You're essentially saying that society is the group that must pay in the event of one person's lack of personal responsibility affecting another person. I disagree. I say that people should acquire insurance on their own free will that would protect them from the lack of personal responsibility of others. A great example of this is called "Uninsured Motorist" coverage. Granted, one could certainly argue that the cost of this insurance would go up quite readily in the absence of a requirement to have motorist insurance, but at least people would have the freedom to choose what risks they want to take in that regard. Also, bankruptcy is a cop out. If you owe someone money, you pay it, even if it takes the rest of your life to do so. Insurance is society paying. Best to make uninsured motorist coverage mandatory if insurance isn't. You're arguing that people should do this and that, without understanding the true meaning and context of 'should'. |
|
|
|
No, it doesn't. However, having that liability settled does.
No. It doesn't. You can't get blood from a stone. You're fucking stupid. You don't understand the meaning of "settled liability" do you? It means "paid off." And just because someone is poor, does not mean they can't pay their debts. They'd have to be dead busted broke, and what good would requiring someone who is that broke pay for insurance do, anyway? As you said, can't get blood from a stone. You're finally starting to see the light. But let me make it really clear for you: Someone with no money and little income is unlikely to ever come close to paying off hospital bills and compensation for permanent maiming, severed limbs, or 3rd degree burns, etc., even in ten, twenty or fifty years. Meanwhile, the victim needs the money now. You are so ridiculously naive, it's pathetic. |
|
|
|
No, it doesn't. However, having that liability settled does.
No. It doesn't. You can't get blood from a stone. You're fucking stupid. |
|
|
|
To paraphrase, saying "That's what everyone else is doing" does not equate to "That's what's right" or "That's what's best."
True. But we moved towards mandating it, not the other way around. The result is the uninsured motorist is now liable for those bills, and probably for the disability. That's both OK, and equal. (Well, equal after the liability is settled.) In your starry eyed view of libertarian views, you completely missed the content of my post. Being liable does not equate to compensation. |
|
|
|
Once you've done that, we can move on to force. As you know, buying automobile insurance is forced. I know you disagree with that concept, but it's reality. Can you think of other ways in which society forces things? I think you can. Please enumerate some.
Saying "That's the way it is" does not equate to "That's what's right" or "That's what's best." We have discussion to determine what is best. Also, forced insurance is not universal. In New Hampshire, for instance, car insurance is not legally required, yet 90% of people have it. If you don't, and you crash and injure someone, you are liable for the damage caused, as you should be. So, most people buy insurance. So 49 states get it right, and one gets it wrong. Or let me guess, 49 states are wrong, and 1 is right? Seems like you are in the minority in your thought processes. So let's see... A non wealthy motorist without insurance hits another non wealthy motorist without insurance and the guy who gets hit incurs huge hospital bills and is maimed for life. By your logic, it's okay to not have insurance, thus it is not forced. Therefore, both motorists were equally 'okay' in their decision making process. Yet the results clearly are not okay, nor equal, are they? |
|
|
|
Now, regarding the forcing, auto insurance is forced as well. A good foundation for discussion would be why insurance is forced in the first place.
A better foundation would be discussing why anything is forced. If it's important and necessary, people will do it themselves. And if they do not, the consequences should be on them, not the rest of us. Old people on the street are consequences on society, not just the individual. I suppose they would block up traffic. Well, that's what street cleaning services are for. You say the consequences should be on them. Note your use of the word 'should'. That word pretty much sounds like a demand. A demand is pretty much the suggestion of force. Now we're back to square one. Forcing. You seem to be in agreement with me actually. In order to put the burden on them, we should force them to pay over their lifetime.
Note your use of the phrase "pretty much." That means "not exactly." In fact, it's actually the opposite. I refuse to force others to accept the burden. That places the burden on the people who failed to plan by default. No force needed. All is actually needed is to refuse force. You were doing so well with regard to comprehension. Now you're regressing. Go back and reread my post(s). I understood what you were saying perfectly. You're just wrong. Refusing to pay for someone else's retirement is not the same as using force against them. Please remember that, as an insurance/Ponzi scheme, one's SSI is not paid for with one's own money. It's paid for with other people's money, which is taken from them by force. If it were my own money coming back to me, that would make it a savings account. If we stop using force, that will shift the burden back to the retirees. Force aside, let's review how insurance works: other people's misfortune is paid for by all insurance subscribers. Do you understand that? I assume you do. If you don't, go study the principles of insurance. Once you've done that, we can move on to force. As you know, buying automobile insurance is forced. I know you disagree with that concept, but it's reality. Can you think of other ways in which society forces things? I think you can. Please enumerate some. |
|
|
|
Now, regarding the forcing, auto insurance is forced as well. A good foundation for discussion would be why insurance is forced in the first place.
A better foundation would be discussing why anything is forced. If it's important and necessary, people will do it themselves. And if they do not, the consequences should be on them, not the rest of us. Old people on the street are consequences on society, not just the individual. I suppose they would block up traffic. Well, that's what street cleaning services are for. You say the consequences should be on them. Note your use of the word 'should'. That word pretty much sounds like a demand. A demand is pretty much the suggestion of force. Now we're back to square one. Forcing. You seem to be in agreement with me actually. In order to put the burden on them, we should force them to pay over their lifetime.
Note your use of the phrase "pretty much." That means "not exactly." In fact, it's actually the opposite. I refuse to force others to accept the burden. That places the burden on the people who failed to plan by default. No force needed. All is actually needed is to refuse force. You were doing so well with regard to comprehension. Now you're regressing. Go back and reread my post(s). |
|
|
|
Now, regarding the forcing, auto insurance is forced as well. A good foundation for discussion would be why insurance is forced in the first place.
A better foundation would be discussing why anything is forced. If it's important and necessary, people will do it themselves. And if they do not, the consequences should be on them, not the rest of us. Old people on the street are consequences on society, not just the individual. You say the consequences should be on them. Note your use of the word 'should'. That word pretty much sounds like a demand. A demand is pretty much the suggestion of force. Now we're back to square one. Forcing. You seem to be in agreement with me actually. In order to put the burden on them, we should force them to pay over their lifetime. |
|
|
|
At least you're intelligent enough to understand it more closely resembles insurance. It makes more sense to discuss it in that context rather than as savings. Now, regarding the forcing, auto insurance is forced as well. A good foundation for discussion would be why insurance is forced in the first place. |
|
|
|
I guess I like the idea of personal responsibility and the freedom that comes with it. What right even does the government have to take some of your money and "save" it for you? If someone is too stupid not to save part of their paycheck then that's their fault. If people want to develop a form of old people insurance then it should be something that is voluntary. Whoever wants in can get in. But you shouldn't force people.
Your views and opinions are not very well articulated, nor do they factor in a lot of conditions which you, in your zeal, fail to acknowledge, or more likely, simply are too blind to see. Let me summarize how I see you: You: "Drrruhh! Can't force me! Uuuunhhh!" I have news for you. Force is a component of both nature and society. It compels, guides and influences everybody. Now, regarding Social Security: in order for you to discuss it, you first need to understand it. Start with the fact that Social Security is not the equivalent of a savings plan. At the very least, please, understand that. Once you've done that, you can, should, and will stop equating it to you saving money. |
|
|
|
The whole idea of social security appalls me. The idea that they take some of our money to save it for us. And in reality they just go and dip into those funds to spend at will. It's stupid.
Actually, it's not stupid. I'm sure there are some hundred million or so that are thankful that their parents receive a social security check. "thanks govn't for giving me my money back and saving it for me" . Meanwhile the government hopes that you die before you get what you put into it back out. When you hit hard times, and draw upon your savings to get by, and then find your savings depleted, I'm sure you'll sing a different tune. The irony, of course, is despite your claim of not being short-sighted about saving your money, you actually are too short-sighted to anticipate what can really happen. |
|
|
|
The whole idea of social security appalls me. The idea that they take some of our money to save it for us. And in reality they just go and dip into those funds to spend at will. It's stupid.
Actually, it's not stupid. I'm sure there are some hundred million or so that are thankful that their parents receive a social security check. |
|
|
|
If I think Microsoft is competent I can go with them. If not I can go with a competitor.
With the government, I have no choice.
Microsoft doesn't force me to be a customer. They try their best to lock you in once you do, but it's still your choice and you can always opt out. Not so with the government.
The government of course knows this, which is why it generally doesn't bother serving my needs as it's customer. It knows it's got my money regardless so why make much of an effort?
In general, you can opt out of the government and choose a competitor. Try harder. Enough of everyone's excuses. You don't even have to have a computer if you don't want to. You are forced to choose a government. When you are born you are automatically locked into a government. You can move, but that is much harder to do than simply buying a new computer. And most countries lock you out anyway. Try again. That is not the fault of any government, and therein lies the fault of your argument. It is not any government's fault that no land is left for you to go play rebellious anti-government dreamer. It's like you complaining that all the homes in a neighborhood are already owned by someone else and you can't move into a home in that neighborhood yourself without playing by the house rules. You are wrong. Try harder. Find a government you like, and get on with life. I can simply buy a house from someone in that neighborhood. Even when you buy land, governments take a dim view of trying to set up your own rules on it. Even when you buy land from the government, they still think it's theirs. You can simply buy a house in that neighborhood? Really? Yes, really. Somebody will sell, if I offer enough money. It all depends on how much I want to live in that neighborhood. Perhaps you should try harder. We can't assume that you have enough money. |
|
|
|
This is the supplementary thread to the thread found here entitled Post a comment or question about the movie above, and then post a movie you like: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=155743.0The purpose of this thread is to encourage discussion about the films posted in the other thread, without disrupting the flow of the other thread. |
|
|
|
This thread has a companion thread entitled Supplementary to the thread "Post a comment or question about the movie...". Use that thread to carry out additional discussions about a movie commented about or in which a question is asked in this thread which forms here. That thread may be found here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=155744.0In this thread, follow these instructions:Step 1: Look at the post preceding the one you wish to make, and then post a comment about the film posted at the bottom of the post. Step 2: Start a new paragraph, and then proceed to share a film yourself, presumably one you enjoyed. At the very least, share the title of the film, and optionally more information, possibly including a picture, the director, who stars in it, a link to a trailer, etc. Regarding the post above the one you make: the person who made the post above yours should try and answer or discuss the comments or questions posed to him or her in the companion thread, found here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=155744.0Since there is no post above this one, there is no comment or question for me to make about a film posted in a post above me. Therefore, I will start by simply posting a movie. In subsequent posts, follow the instructions above. 2001: A Space Odyssey: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e-QFj59PON4 |
|
|
|
If I think Microsoft is competent I can go with them. If not I can go with a competitor.
With the government, I have no choice.
Microsoft doesn't force me to be a customer. They try their best to lock you in once you do, but it's still your choice and you can always opt out. Not so with the government.
The government of course knows this, which is why it generally doesn't bother serving my needs as it's customer. It knows it's got my money regardless so why make much of an effort?
In general, you can opt out of the government and choose a competitor. Try harder. Enough of everyone's excuses. You don't even have to have a computer if you don't want to. You are forced to choose a government. When you are born you are automatically locked into a government. You can move, but that is much harder to do than simply buying a new computer. And most countries lock you out anyway. Try again. That is not the fault of any government, and therein lies the fault of your argument. It is not any government's fault that no land is left for you to go play rebellious anti-government dreamer. It's like you complaining that all the homes in a neighborhood are already owned by someone else and you can't move into a home in that neighborhood yourself without playing by the house rules. You are wrong. Try harder. Find a government you like, and get on with life. I can simply buy a house from someone in that neighborhood. Even when you buy land, governments take a dim view of trying to set up your own rules on it. Even when you buy land from the government, they still think it's theirs. You can simply buy a house in that neighborhood? Really? And conflation of analogies does not work. Let's assume that we're talking about a neighborhood in your fabled AnCap world. Now try again. |
|
|
|
If I think Microsoft is competent I can go with them. If not I can go with a competitor.
With the government, I have no choice.
Microsoft doesn't force me to be a customer. They try their best to lock you in once you do, but it's still your choice and you can always opt out. Not so with the government.
The government of course knows this, which is why it generally doesn't bother serving my needs as it's customer. It knows it's got my money regardless so why make much of an effort?
In general, you can opt out of the government and choose a competitor. Try harder. Enough of everyone's excuses. You don't even have to have a computer if you don't want to. You are forced to choose a government. When you are born you are automatically locked into a government. You can move, but that is much harder to do than simply buying a new computer. And most countries lock you out anyway. Try again. That is not the fault of any government, and therein lies the fault of your argument. It is not any government's fault that no land is left for you to go play rebellious anti-government dreamer. It's like you complaining that all the homes in a neighborhood are already owned by someone else and you can't move into a home in that neighborhood yourself without playing by the house rules. You are wrong. Try harder. Find a government you like, and get on with life. |
|
|
|
If I think Microsoft is competent I can go with them. If not I can go with a competitor.
With the government, I have no choice.
Microsoft doesn't force me to be a customer. They try their best to lock you in once you do, but it's still your choice and you can always opt out. Not so with the government.
The government of course knows this, which is why it generally doesn't bother serving my needs as it's customer. It knows it's got my money regardless so why make much of an effort?
In general, you can opt out of the government and choose a competitor. Try harder. Enough of everyone's excuses. |
|
|
|
Well again no, value of something has always been how someone is prepaird to pay. You can value your car to 50k $$$ but its worth how much is someone willing to pay. Also no, i'm richer on paper but in fact i lost 99billion and my country lost even also, while company and that country is getting richer. Also when you are occupied you cant say no, even if that occupation is not military. Thus you have Giffen goods such as Oil where price is rising and demand is rising also. And who has oil, well satellite states owned by USA.
If you consider that every time you sell something and someone is able to sell it for more that you lost something, you are calculating things wrong and in for a disappointing life. Why would anyone wish to purchase your labor if they were not able to profit off of it somehow? We are not talking about selling something. If you have a problem to understand then well... Im talking about exploiting country rich in reasurces and without cash to start production by the country with large pockets. Who is talking about use of labor and making money that way. Large companies are only interested in making cash/money and thats the reason why are they moving entire facotries to a country that has low wages, we are talking about a company that wants to earn 10$ for every 1$ invested. Profit is Ok, but profit made by exploting other countries is not. Thats the reason why globalization is bad. EU market is a prof of that. Small countries cant compete with big countries I think you'd like what Herman Daly says: http://www.theoildrum.com/node/3941 |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
