Social security is the govs way of saying you are too stupid to save your own $$

[wdmw]

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.

[FirstAscent]

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?

[myrkul]

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.

No seatbelt law, either... but people still wear those, don't they?

Saying "That's the way it is" does not equate to "That's what's right" or "That's what's best."

Just wanted to pull this bit of wisdom out to highlight it. I may want to quote it again.

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.

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

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."

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?

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.)

[FirstAscent]

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.

[wdmw]

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?

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.)

Eventually, you could expect that people would be concerned that there is a small chance that an accident, moment of inattention or distraction, or error while operating a large, potentially dangerous machine at high speeds could cause damages that are more than one is willing to risk.  Someone with financial experience could seize this opportunity and offer to cover people's risk for a premium.

I think we all agree that insurance is a good thing.  We disagree that government should force us to use it.

Singling out car insurance mandates as an argument for forced-government purchases looks good on the surface and is more easily defensible since in the United States the State owns the roads and has laws which require doctors to treat people who are injured regardless of their ability to pay.  In the absence of a culture of personal responsibility, its easy to see how these laws exist, and why.

What is unseen are the benefits of a society with individual responsibility which is free from coercion.

[myrkul]

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.

"We"? I don't remember doing anything of the sort. Unless you're trying to equate yourself with the state legislatures? Or are you a lobbyist for the insurance agencies? I don't see how you're including yourself in the group of people who "moved toward mandating [insurance]".

But regardless, especially when government is concerned, rising popularity does not equate to better fitness, either.

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.

No, it doesn't. However, having that liability settled does.

[FirstAscent]

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.

[myrkul]

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.

[SgtSpike]

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.

[FirstAscent]

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.

[FirstAscent]

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'.

[SgtSpike]

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'.

Insurance is society paying BY CHOICE.  Nothing needs to be mandatory.  If a person can't pay their medical bills, they don't get served by the medical community.  They can turn to charity and other help groups if they like, at that point.

[wtfvanity]

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.

The rest of the thread seems to be going OT.

I agree partially with the OP though, but think of it different. It's not just stupid, it's a Ponzi scheme. The first recipients never paid into it. The younger generations pay for the previous workers. That worked great when we had baby boomers in the work force. Now, the ponzi scheme is collapsing.

[myrkul]

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.

Nor are they going to be able to afford the premiums for a policy that would do so. So all mandating that they must does, is make another class of criminal.

[wdmw]

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.

[myrkul]

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.

Yeah, he gets frustrated that we don't immediately bow to his wishes, or the "greater societal good," and so proceeds to drop insults, thereby admitting defeat.

[Mike Christ]

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.

To sum it up, we have several fine thinkers in this thread.

And then this one...

[myrkul]

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.

To sum it up, we have several fine thinkers in this thread.

And then this one...

If he used that as his avatar, it might be worth taking him off ignore.

[Beans]

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.

More like your posting is stupid. A lot of people don't save enough, it's hard to know what is enough. SS is not just retirement anyway, I received it until I turned 18. Hopefully it was the money that came out of your check.

[myrkul]

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.

More like your posting is stupid. A lot of people don't save enough, it's hard to know what is enough. SS is not just retirement anyway, I received it until I turned 18. Hopefully it was the money that came out of your check.

Would you be so proud had the money to raise you come from muggings?