Political Orientation

[BitterTea]

if you purchased and owned the land all your telecommunication equipment used, then yes, it would be your property.

but being as you entered into agreements (in practice with the government, but could also be in theory with each individual landowner and have the same effect) to obtain the use of that land rather than purchasing it, it is not fully your property, and thus subject to certain restrictions and requirements, such as being required to provide service on some terms.

So then it is not a right, it is a contractual obligation?

[1714114900]

1714114900

[1714114900]

1714114900

[1714114900]

1714114900

[1714114900]

1714114900

[1714114900]

1714114900

[1714114900]

1714114900

[compro01]

if you purchased and owned the land all your telecommunication equipment used, then yes, it would be your property.

but being as you entered into agreements (in practice with the government, but could also be in theory with each individual landowner and have the same effect) to obtain the use of that land rather than purchasing it, it is not fully your property, and thus subject to certain restrictions and requirements, such as being required to provide service on some terms.

So then it is not a right, it is a contractual obligation?

exactly.  other guaranteed rights work the same way, and by converse, the granted powers of government, through the concept of social contract.

[Anonymous]

if you purchased and owned the land all your telecommunication equipment used, then yes, it would be your property.

but being as you entered into agreements (in practice with the government, but could also be in theory with each individual landowner and have the same effect) to obtain the use of that land rather than purchasing it, it is not fully your property, and thus subject to certain restrictions and requirements, such as being required to provide service on some terms.

So then it is not a right, it is a contractual obligation?

through the concept of social contract.

[BitterTea]

So then it is not a right, it is a contractual obligation?

exactly.  other guaranteed rights work the same way, and by converse, the granted powers of government, through the concept of social contract.

Let me paraphrase some of the more pertinent parts of the best rebuttal of the social "contract" I have seen.

The social contract is the idea that those citizens who live in a country must obey the state. Remaining in the country, and having the right to vote, constitutes a form of voluntary "contract" between citizen and government. Thus the social contract (SC) is...

Geographical (country)
Unilateral (State-> citizen)
Implicit (Not signed/ formal)

Any methodology which claims validity must itself be subject to its own constraints.
Ex: The scientific method is subject to the scientific method.
Logic and evidence must be subject to logic and evidence.
Atheism cannot claim truth by divine inspiration.

The government proposes itself as the highest and only agency of justice in the land.
The government claims justification based on the SC.
Thus the SC must be the highest and most moral contract in existence, since it is the root of all other contracts enforced by the state.

Thus all contracts which fulfill the requirements of a SC (geographical, unilateral, implicit) must be just contracts!

Suppose I send a letter to every household in a 10 block radius telling the occupants that I have bought a car on their behalf. They can choose whether to receive a Volvo or BMW. If they don't choose, they will receive the car that the majority chooses. It will be delivered to them next week, cannot be returned, and they owe me $30,000 for this service. If they don't want the car, they have to move out of the neighborhood, where they will most likely be forced to choose another car.

Suppose now that I bring this contract to the government for enforcement. Their response will be to laugh at me and call me a deranged fool. If I attempt to use the threat of force or actual force to execute this contract, I will be considered a dangerous criminal and will be imprisoned.

Yet I am perfectly fulfilling the requirements of the social contract.

The SC is considered to be the highest moral good, and the greatest evil simultaneously.

Exactly to the degree that the SC is morally good, the government is morally evil for attacking competing impositions of a universally good moral contract.

Exactly to the degree that the SC is morally evil, the government is morally evil since it uses the ethics of the SC to justify it's own violent power.

Therefore, the SC, invalidates the SC.

[compro01]

Suppose I send a letter to every household in a 10 block radius telling the occupants that I have bought a car on their behalf. They can choose whether to receive a Volvo or BMW. If they don't choose, they will receive the car that the majority chooses. It will be delivered to them next week, cannot be returned, and they owe me $30,000 for this service. If they don't want the car, they have to move out of the neighborhood, where they will most likely be forced to choose another car.

Suppose now that I bring this contract to the government for enforcement. Their response will be to laugh at me and call me a deranged fool. If I attempt to use the threat of force or actual force to execute this contract, I will be considered a dangerous criminal and will be imprisoned.

if mr rebutter had been elected or appointed to some position with the power to purchase vehicles on behalf of the residents of that area, then his argument would make some sense. 

as it is, his argument is a complete non sequitur as there was no act granting him the powers he's assuming himself to have.

[BitterTea]

if mr rebutter had been elected or appointed to some position with the power to purchase vehicles on behalf of the residents of that area, then his argument would make some sense. 

as it is, his argument is a complete non sequitur as there was no act granting him the powers he's assuming himself to have.

Only a tiny fraction of the population voted to authorize the collection of income taxes per the 16th amendment. In what way is it different?

If taking property without the consent of the owner is immoral for an individual, how is it moral for a group to authorize that same act? How big of a group is necessary before such an act is moral?

I'll suggest that it's not a matter of morality at all, it's always immoral to take property without the consent of the owner. It's merely a matter of who has the most guns. In which case, how is that any different from organized crime?

[Findeton]

I'm a leftist.

[marcus_of_augustus]

I'm a leftist.

Yeah .... that doesn't really compute with me ... what ?? ... how ?? ... did you skip the Soviet Russia chapter in your history classes? smoking pot that day? I don't understand.

[Findeton]

I'm a leftist.

Yeah .... that doesn't really compute with me ... what ?? ... how ?? ... did you skip the Soviet Russia chapter in your history classes? smoking pot that day? I don't understand.

If I have cancer in the states, I'll go broke. If I have cancer in Spain... I won't pay a dime for the best treatment. And we pay a minor percetage for our health care than people working in USA.

We pay less, we get more. Socialized health care is more efficient (for the people, not for corportations) than privatized health care.

[marcus_of_augustus]

I'm a leftist.

Yeah .... that doesn't really compute with me ... what ?? ... how ?? ... did you skip the Soviet Russia chapter in your history classes? smoking pot that day? I don't understand.

If I have cancer in the states, I'll go broke. If I have cancer in Spain... I won't pay a dime for the best treatment. And we pay a minor percetage for our health care than people working in USA.

We pay less, we get more. Socialized health care is more efficient (for the people, not for corportations) than privatized health care.

Yeah, but your country is busted ass broke. How does that work?

[Findeton]

Yeah, but your country is busted ass broke. How does that work?

Socialized/Universal Health Care are in place in every 1st world country except for USA. Germany ain't broke, neither is UK, and both have a Socialized Health Care that costs way less and delivers way more to the average person than in the US.

BTW Spain is not broke, it's just that we have 20% unployment rate 

[SgtSpike]

The only reason healthcare is so expensive in the US is because everyone's so dang sue-happy.  If we didn't have absurd judgments awarding hundreds of millions for a mistake in the surgery room, healthcare costs would be much more reasonable.

[compro01]

The only reason healthcare is so expensive in the US is because everyone's so dang sue-happy.  If we didn't have absurd judgments awarding hundreds of millions for a mistake in the surgery room, healthcare costs would be much more reasonable.

your explanation does not appear to be grounded in reality.

the state of texas passed tort reform measures in 2003.  it has not improved the situation and by most measures (average cost of health insurance, percentage of uninsured people, cost of medical procedures), has made it worse.

doctor's malpractice premiums have dropped by 27% and malpractice payouts have dropped by 67%, yet the cost of health insurance and medical procedures has doubled in 6 years.

[BitterTea]

The only reason healthcare is so expensive in the US is because everyone's so dang sue-happy.  If we didn't have absurd judgments awarding hundreds of millions for a mistake in the surgery room, healthcare costs would be much more reasonable.

There are many reasons for the price of health care in the United States. I will list some...

• Health insurance tied to employment
• State mandated coverage
• Unable to purchase insurance across state lines
• Medical licensure laws
• Widespread use of insurance for routine visits

Those are just the few I can think of off the top of my head.

[Findeton]

The only reason healthcare is so expensive in the US is because everyone's so dang sue-happy.  If we didn't have absurd judgments awarding hundreds of millions for a mistake in the surgery room, healthcare costs would be much more reasonable.

There are many reasons for the price of health care in the United States. I will list some...

• Health insurance tied to employment
• State mandated coverage
• Unable to purchase insurance across state lines
• Medical licensure laws
• Widespread use of insurance for routine visits

Those are just the few I can think of off the top of my head.

THe only reason is that it's not socialized/universal. Health care, roads, prisons, public education, army, police, firemen... all of them must be run by the State and paid with our taxes. Because maybe it won't make many millionaires, but it's the most efficient way for most of the people.

[Anonymous]

The only reason healthcare is so expensive in the US is because everyone's so dang sue-happy.  If we didn't have absurd judgments awarding hundreds of millions for a mistake in the surgery room, healthcare costs would be much more reasonable.

There are many reasons for the price of health care in the United States. I will list some...

• Health insurance tied to employment
• State mandated coverage
• Unable to purchase insurance across state lines
• Medical licensure laws
• Widespread use of insurance for routine visits

Those are just the few I can think of off the top of my head.

all of them must be run by the State and paid with our taxes.

Prove it.

[JohnDoe]

BTW Spain is not broke, it's just that we have 20% unployment rate  

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

Spain

External debt in US dollars: 2,166,000,000,000    
Date: 30 June 2010
Per capita US dollars: 52,588
% of GDP: 157%

Btw, UK and Germany are broke too.

[Findeton]

The only reason healthcare is so expensive in the US is because everyone's so dang sue-happy.  If we didn't have absurd judgments awarding hundreds of millions for a mistake in the surgery room, healthcare costs would be much more reasonable.

There are many reasons for the price of health care in the United States. I will list some...

• Health insurance tied to employment
• State mandated coverage
• Unable to purchase insurance across state lines
• Medical licensure laws
• Widespread use of insurance for routine visits

Those are just the few I can think of off the top of my head.

all of them must be run by the State and paid with our taxes.

Prove it.

I've already proved my point for health care, setting USA as an example.

I can prove the same with prisons with the same example: USA has privatized (but paid with taxes)  prisons... and they have the world highest incarcelation index.

As for private military forces... Blackwater. What a freakin' dangerous thing man. States should have the legal monopoly of force/violence (that affirmation also applies to prisons).

I mean, some serious people even consider monopoly of violence as the definition of state.

[Findeton]

BTW Spain is not broke, it's just that we have 20% unployment rate  

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

Spain

External debt in US dollars: 2,166,000,000,000    
Date: 30 June 2010
Per capita US dollars: 52,588
% of GDP: 157%

Btw, UK and Germany are broke too.

You can't consider that being broke. Being broke is not being able to pay your debts. I mean, that percentage is 398% for UK, 143% for Germany, 4636% (yeah, that's right) for Luxembourg, 188% for France.

[Anonymous]

Private and subsidized =/= Private