Ornery.org
  Front Page   |   About Ornery.org   |   World Watch   |   Guest Essays   |   Contact Us

The Ornery American Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Ornery American Forum » General Comments » The Liberty Amendments: Restoring the American Republic (Page 3)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 6 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  6   
Author Topic: The Liberty Amendments: Restoring the American Republic
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
I think Seneca's point was that "progressive" was a multi-headed hyrdra where new heads may have nothing in common with the old -other than a direction towards more government, but I'd let him confirm where he thinks prohibitionists fit in.
In other words, he's not using it in any coherent form, but rather as a catchall label for some subset of "people I don't like"
Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seriati
Member
Member # 2266

 - posted      Profile for Seriati         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
In other words, he's not using it in any coherent form, but rather as a catchall label for some subset of "people I don't like"

He should speak for himself, but it seemed to me to be a catchall for a specific philosophical direction of expanding government without particular regard to the underlying substance, not for "people he doesn't like".
Posts: 2309 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Wayward Son:
Very well put, Pyrtolin. That is what I meant, not what you said, Seriati.

If the Conservatives truly trusted the electorate, they would allow them to see that Obamacare doesn't work and then allow them to vote people into office to remove it, not close down the government to prevent them from ever experiencing it. [Mad]

You could make absurd statements like that about all kinds of things, like ending slavery, ending segregation, expanding women's voting rights, etc.
Really want to do that?

In any case, for those who believe Obamacare will fundamentally harm our medical indsutry, we don't want to "try it out" because its effects will take decades to recover from. Do you know how long it takes to train a surgeon? On top of that add to it a few extra years that it takes to convince young people go into medicine once the industry has been healed after suffering under the ACA, and also allow extra years for entrepreneurs to decide to go back into equipment production and medical facility production after they stayed away from it for so long, and you are talking about decades to undo damage from a law because some want us to "try it out."

Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
On the other hand, he's autocratic (including changing the rules to get a third term), filled with nanny state ideas that take control out of the hands of the citizens and one of the biggest supporters of gun control, so even if he's not left enough for the extreme left, he's still plenty left.
Gun control certainly tends to be a more liberal position, but neither side has a monoply on autocracy such that it can be assigned to them as a characteristic.

If you're going to put a somewhat unifying characteristic to progressives, it's that they believe that, absent community action to prevent them, individual people are prone to abuse power and control of resources in ways that significantly harm and limit overall individual freedom- that it's not more important to protect the freedom to abuse others than it is to create more overall freedom by preventing such abuse.

(Over time this certainly has led people down false paths that seemed to offer a promise of better individual freedom and didn't pan out, but progress is completely impossible without taking the risk of failing any number of times until the right path can be figured out; as opposed to the absurd accusations of political opportunism that Seneca put forward above)

Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
quote:
I think Seneca's point was that "progressive" was a multi-headed hyrdra where new heads may have nothing in common with the old -other than a direction towards more government, but I'd let him confirm where he thinks prohibitionists fit in.
In other words, he's not using it in any coherent form, but rather as a catchall label for some subset of "people I don't like"
You do understand there are many species of animal families right? However they all share common traits.

Progressives come in many different forms, but their commonly-shared trait is that they believe government can and should decide what is best for people rather than letting people do it themselves how they want to. This is a useful identification because it allows us to effectively label those who seek to destroy the liberty that this country was founded on: freedom FROM government.

Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Wayward Son
Member
Member # 210

 - posted      Profile for Wayward Son   Email Wayward Son   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
That's quite a reading considering he spent the entire time talking about their lack of trust, wrote the point as a response to the very concept I expressed and failed to mention that his main point was opposition to a political gimmick.

Flipping that particular example around is pretty much straight up Big Brother style propaganda, up is down, black is white.

I would tear your argument apart, showing how everything I said was completely true and that your analysis is completely faulty, except that I have no idea what you were trying to say in that first sentence. [Embarrassed]

Could you rephrase that so I can respond, because basically I was not trying for Big Brother style propoganda, but simply pointing out that with all the self-righteous indignation of the Right about the Left not wanting to give people choice, the Right is trying to deny people their choice by preventing them from experiencing Obamacare and deciding for themselves. If they truly believed in choice and truly trusted the American people (unlike what those horrible Progressives who don't trust people), they would trust them to elect them into office to undo Obamacare. But they don't trust Americans enough to beleive that would happen.

This, I believe, is absolutely true. So if you think it happens to be Big Brother black-is-white propoganda, then I'd suggest to look a little more carefully at what you've been told is black, because perhaps you've been misinformed about which color is which. [Wink]

Posts: 8681 | Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Seriati:
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
In other words, he's not using it in any coherent form, but rather as a catchall label for some subset of "people I don't like"

He should speak for himself, but it seemed to me to be a catchall for a specific philosophical direction of expanding government without particular regard to the underlying substance, not for "people he doesn't like".
Sorry- a catchall for something that he doesn't like, such as those he wants to accuse of " expanding government without particular regard to the underlying substance", rather than any meaningful usage based on the general philosophy actually espoused by the people that use that label to identify themselves.
Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Seneca:

Progressives come in many different forms, but their commonly-shared trait is that they believe government can and should decide what is best for people rather than letting people do it themselves how they want to. This is a useful identification because it allows us to effectively label those who seek to destroy the liberty that this country was founded on: freedom FROM government.

No, that's something that you are accusing Progressives of, as well as using the therm "progressive" as in imprecation to make unfounded assertions about. It has nothing to do with any values that self-identified Progressives actually tend to espouse.
Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Wayward Son:
quote:
That's quite a reading considering he spent the entire time talking about their lack of trust, wrote the point as a response to the very concept I expressed and failed to mention that his main point was opposition to a political gimmick.

Flipping that particular example around is pretty much straight up Big Brother style propaganda, up is down, black is white.

I would tear your argument apart, showing how everything I said was completely true and that your analysis is completely faulty, except that I have no idea what you were trying to say in that first sentence. [Embarrassed]

Could you rephrase that so I can respond, because basically I was not trying for Big Brother style propoganda, but simply pointing out that with all the self-righteous indignation of the Right about the Left not wanting to give people choice, the Right is trying to deny people their choice by preventing them from experiencing Obamacare and deciding for themselves. If they truly believed in choice and truly trusted the American people (unlike what those horrible Progressives who don't trust people), they would trust them to elect them into office to undo Obamacare. But they don't trust Americans enough to beleive that would happen.

This, I believe, is absolutely true. So if you think it happens to be Big Brother black-is-white propoganda, then I'd suggest to look a little more carefully at what you've been told is black, because perhaps you've been misinformed about which color is which. [Wink]

The American people demonstrated their choice with the election of 2010. Progressive obfuscation will blame it on gerrymandering but the point is is that after passing the ACA it was so controversial and so unpopular that after passing it the President's party immediately lost control of government and they haven't regained it. Even if gerrymandering was a factor, if the ACA was in any way popular it would overcome the redistricting.

If passing a law causes you to lose seats in both legislative chambers and fully lose control of one, it means the public didn't want the law in the first place.

Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
quote:
Originally posted by Seneca:

Progressives come in many different forms, but their commonly-shared trait is that they believe government can and should decide what is best for people rather than letting people do it themselves how they want to. This is a useful identification because it allows us to effectively label those who seek to destroy the liberty that this country was founded on: freedom FROM government.

No, that's something that you are accusing Progressives of, as well as using the therm "progressive" as in imprecation to make unfounded assertions about. It has nothing to do with any values that self-identified Progressives actually tend to espouse.
Aside from a belief in the expansion of government, there isn't much that people who would call themselves "Progressive" agree on. The views across this group differ wildly and while you may find some coincidences of advocacy, my bet is there are more differences than similarities.
Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
NobleHunter
Member
Member # 2450

 - posted      Profile for NobleHunter   Email NobleHunter   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Even if gerrymandering was a factor, if the ACA was in any way popular it would overcome the redistricting.
What evidence do you have for this assertion?
Posts: 2581 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
]In any case, for those who believe Obamacare will fundamentally harm our medical indsutry, we don't want to "try it out" because its effects will take decades to recover from. Do you know how long it takes to train a surgeon? On top of that add to it a few extra years that it takes to convince young people go into medicine once the industry has been healed after suffering under the ACA, and also allow extra years for entrepreneurs to decide to go back into equipment production and medical facility production after they stayed away from it for so long, and you are talking about decades to undo damage from a law because some want us to "try it out."
There's no evidence to back any of the completely unfounded assertions of what it's effects will be that you're making- in fact, it's completely counterintuitive and in violation of any economic sense to suggest that more people seeking care and creating more demand and profitability for offering service will have any such effect.

Seriati was at least standing on rational ground when he suggested that the opposition was to putting a cost on people choosing to rely on guaranteed acceptance of ER's rather than making some provision for coverage, but the catastrophic nonsense that you're putting forth has no foundation at all in anything but pure propaganda.

Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Seneca:
Aside from a belief in the expansion of government, there isn't much that people who would call themselves "Progressive" agree on. The views across this group differ wildly and while you may find some coincidences of advocacy, my bet is there are more differences than similarities.

MAybe you should make some effort to actually inform yourself about what you're talking about instead of blindly repeating nonsense that has no basis in reality.
Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seriati
Member
Member # 2266

 - posted      Profile for Seriati         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Wayward Son:
Could you rephrase that so I can respond, because basically I was not trying for Big Brother style propoganda, but simply pointing out that with all the self-righteous indignation of the Right about the Left not wanting to give people choice, the Right is trying to deny people their choice by preventing them from experiencing Obamacare and deciding for themselves. If they truly believed in choice and truly trusted the American people (unlike what those horrible Progressives who don't trust people), they would trust them to elect them into office to undo Obamacare. But they don't trust Americans enough to beleive that would happen.

They oppose taking away someone's choice now (whether or not to buy insurance).

You can not with intellectual honestly recast that to ignore today's stolen freedom to claim they aren't trusting people down the road to make a new decision to restore that freedom.

Posts: 2309 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"He should speak for himself, but it seemed to me to be a catchall for a specific philosophical direction of expanding government without particular regard to the underlying substance, not for "people he doesn't like"."

That bears no resemblance to any usable definition of "progressive" that I'm aware of.

Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Seriati:
quote:
Originally posted by Wayward Son:
Could you rephrase that so I can respond, because basically I was not trying for Big Brother style propoganda, but simply pointing out that with all the self-righteous indignation of the Right about the Left not wanting to give people choice, the Right is trying to deny people their choice by preventing them from experiencing Obamacare and deciding for themselves. If they truly believed in choice and truly trusted the American people (unlike what those horrible Progressives who don't trust people), they would trust them to elect them into office to undo Obamacare. But they don't trust Americans enough to beleive that would happen.

They oppose taking away someone's choice now (whether or not to buy insurance).


They are still completely free to make that choice. The only difference is that there's now a price for choosing not to do it, instead of letting those that can afford to take responsibility get a free ride by displacing the costs of that choice.

There is nothing that prevents any person, under the ACA, from choosing not to purchase coverage.

Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"Progressives come in many different forms, but their commonly-shared trait is that they believe government can and should decide what is best for people rather than letting people do it themselves how they want to."

That's an insulting pejorative. I count myself as having many things in common with progressive interests. Since you are painting progressives with a broad brush, you are insulting me.

Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
You think coercion offers a true choice? [Roll Eyes]

The UK guarantees all citizens receive medical care, so the demand is very high there, but they are facing a massive doctor shortage. Why is this?

Oh yeah, it has something to do with government regulation distorting free market incentive to get a job in the healthcare industry. If you had ever worked in the medical accounting field you'd know the effect of expanding medicare and government involvement is a major deterrent to doctors.

Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I think you'd be hard pressed to find any self-styled modern progressives who wouldn't state that they believed in the expansion of the government for the "greater good" and cite all kinds of socialist and liberal ideals such as wage control, stepped income tax, expansion of welfare programs, etc.

If you look up the political definition of the word "progressive" it is filled with these things. Hardly a controversial assertion to make.

The only problem with these things? Progressives seek to use government to force these down people's throats. They aren't out their proselytizing door to door to get voluntary cooperation, they get cooperation from the jackboots of the government on people's necks and pocketbooks.

Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Seneca:
The UK guarantees all citizens receive medical care, so the demand is very high there, but they are facing a massive doctor shortage. Why is this?

How is that relevant here, since all doctors will continue to be privately employed and be paid by their respective employers or practices, as opposed to the UK, which is their direct employer?

Low compensation may be an issue in the UK; but that's completely tangential to the system in the ACA, which doesn't even remotely resemble the UK system.

Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
quote:
Originally posted by Seneca:
The UK guarantees all citizens receive medical care, so the demand is very high there, but they are facing a massive doctor shortage. Why is this?

How is that relevant here, since all doctors will continue to be privately employed and be paid by their respective employers or practices, as opposed to the UK, which is their direct employer?

Low compensation may be an issue in the UK; but that's completely tangential to the system in the ACA, which doesn't even remotely resemble the UK system.

Like I said, if you had any experience with billing in the US you'd know that not all of our doctors are privately employed in any meaningful definition of that phrase. The contamination of medicare dollars and the accounting, tax, percentage of worked hours, and other restrictions that come along with it significantly drop the profitability of doctors here already, which de-incentivises it. Ironically it also makes doctors less able to provide charity care or do many other things, but a medicare dollar vs a private insurance or out of pocket dollar is quite low, and the doctors can't negotiate with the government, they are forced to take it or leave it. And this is causing many doctors to "leave it" in a big way, they are retiring and not being replaced.
Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Seneca:
I think you'd be hard pressed to find any self-styled modern progressives who wouldn't state that they believed in the expansion of the government for the "greater good" and cite all kinds of socialist and liberal ideals such as wage control, stepped income tax, expansion of welfare programs, etc.


And many of those things have worked very well to increase personal freedom at the expense of the "freedom" of plutocrats to abuse other people absent those protections.

Progressives do indeed generally believe in using communal rules (that is, government) to restrict abusive behaviors in various ways- but the goal is to improve overall personal freedom instead of allowing oppressive private behaviors to continue unchecked.

quote:
If you look up the political definition of the word "progressive" it is filled with these things. Hardly a controversial assertion to make.
What's controversial is your attempt to recast public protections from abuse as intentional limitations on personal liberty, rather than methods of increasing personal liberty.

quote:
The only problem with these things? Progressives seek to use government to force these down people's throats. They aren't out their proselytizing door to door to get voluntary cooperation, they get cooperation from the jackboots of the government on people's necks and pocketbooks.
That's nonsensical, since our government is the formalized system that we've adopted to coordinate "going door to door" on the actual scale of our population. A government is nothing more or less than the formalized decision making process of the community that creates it.
Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Wayward Son
Member
Member # 210

 - posted      Profile for Wayward Son   Email Wayward Son   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
In any case, for those who believe Obamacare will fundamentally harm our medical indsutry, we don't want to "try it out" because its effects will take decades to recover from. Do you know how long it takes to train a surgeon? On top of that add to it a few extra years that it takes to convince young people go into medicine once the industry has been healed after suffering under the ACA, and also allow extra years for entrepreneurs to decide to go back into equipment production and medical facility production after they stayed away from it for so long, and you are talking about decades to undo damage from a law because some want us to "try it out."
I see no reason Obamacare would have such a huge effect on the medical establishment. Well over 60 percent of the medical manufacturing companies are quite large and will easily weather the storm, assuming they don't easily adapt to it. There will be a higher demand for doctors and surgeons with more people covered, so there should be no shortage of such.

This sounds like a bunch of fear-mongering to me, much like the "death panels" we heard so much about.

Got anything to back up your claims?

quote:
The American people demonstrated their choice with the election of 2010. Progressive obfuscation will blame it on gerrymandering but the point is is that after passing the ACA it was so controversial and so unpopular that after passing it the President's party immediately lost control of government and they haven't regained it. Even if gerrymandering was a factor, if the ACA was in any way popular it would overcome the redistricting.

If passing a law causes you to lose seats in both legislative chambers and fully lose control of one, it means the public didn't want the law in the first place.

Good. So you believe that if the ACA is not repealed, Republicans will eventually win back the Senate and the Presidency, too. So why shut down the government now? Let the voters decide!

But then again, Obama ran on Obamacare in 2008, and somehow he managed to stay President, so maybe your analysis is faulty. [Wink]

Or maybe Republicans are actually worried that people will like Obamacare, and they will never get enough votes to overturn it once people see what the law actually does, rather than what the fear-mongers tell us it will do. Which is why they have to stop it now. Because they don't trust the People to do what they know is Right. They don't trust the People to listen to them.

quote:
You can not with intellectual honestly recast that to ignore today's stolen freedom to claim they aren't trusting people down the road to make a new decision to restore that freedom.
"Stolen freedom." Pfft. You think people will riot over having to have health care? You think people stay up at night, worrying that next year they'll be covered for medical calamities against their will? Do you sit and shiver, thinking, "My God, what will I do now that I have to have hospital insurance in case I ever get into an accident?" [Eek!]

You think this is what the American people fear?

Yeah, right.

In the Freedom category, this is way below freedom of religion, freedom of the press, and any other freedom enshrined in the Constitution. And guess what? If you really don't want health insurance, you don't have to have it! Just pay a little more in taxes this year. You'll have to pay a bit more next year, and the year after that, but that's all. If you so hate to have your freedom taken away from you, stand up and don't do it. I'll appauld you for it. And I'll be glad that your extra taxes will help pay any hospital bills you might incur during that time. [Smile]

As far as freedoms go, ACA will have a negligable effect on America. A bare blip compared to the financial disaster a default would create.

This isn't the confiscation of guns, the closing of newspapers and TV newsrooms, the burning of churches or the kidnapping of children. This is health care, for crying out loud! A vast majority of Americans all ready have it. A vast majority of those that don't want it! This is not something that people are afraid of.

Being cajoled into getting health care isn't going to destroy this country. So make it out to be.

[ October 15, 2013, 03:55 PM: Message edited by: Wayward Son ]

Posts: 8681 | Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Ironically it also makes doctors less able to provide charity care or do many other things,
In effect, on that particular item,. you'd rather we force doctors to have to give out some portion of their services for free, rather than establishing a common standard of compensation for such care such that no doctor will ever be required to totally eat the cost of giving free service.

I do agree that compensation levels are likely too low, but that's a direct result of moralistic arguments based in deficit nonsense instead of using an objective process that sets such payments at reasonable levels without regard to imaginary limits.

The balance of what you asserted is an unfounded claim based on a few anecdotal asserstions by particularly partisan doctors- it doesn't affect the overall net trend.

IF you want to look at something that is acting as a deterrent, you'd be better off looking to the price of education licensing. It's an outright same that we deter it at all for anyone who is qualified by putting a personal price on it, never mind to the staggering amount that we do inter the current education system. The ACA does provide some funding to help lower those costs a bit, but, if anything those costs are both the primary deterrent and the biggest source of price distortion in our current market.

Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"I think you'd be hard pressed to find any self-styled modern progressives who wouldn't state that they believed in the expansion of the government for the "greater good" and cite all kinds of socialist and liberal ideals such as wage control, stepped income tax, expansion of welfare programs, etc."

Bull****. The dictionary definition is closer to reality:
quote:
pro·gres·sive
prəˈgresiv/

adjective
(of a group, person, or idea) favoring or implementing social reform or new, liberal ideas.

noun
1. a person advocating or implementing social reform or new, liberal ideas.
synonyms: innovator, reformer, reformist, liberal, libertarian

You need to stop making up definitions to deprecate groups of people you don't like.
Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Not only does that definition cover everything I said, but a more specific look at progressivism as a political movement shows this as well:
quote:
Contemporary progressivism emerged as part of a response to the vast social changes brought by industrialization in the Western world in the late 19th century, particularly out of the view that progress was being stifled by vast economic inequality between the rich and the poor, unregulated laissez-faire capitalism with out-of-control monopolistic corporations, intense and often violent conflict between workers and capitalists, and lack of effort by governments to address these problems.

Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Seneca:
Not only does that definition cover everything I said, but a more specific look at progressivism as a political movement shows this as well:
quote:
Contemporary progressivism emerged as part of a response to the vast social changes brought by industrialization in the Western world in the late 19th century, particularly out of the view that progress was being stifled by vast economic inequality between the rich and the poor, unregulated laissez-faire capitalism with out-of-control monopolistic corporations, intense and often violent conflict between workers and capitalists, and lack of effort by governments to address these problems.

Much better. Note how none of this supports your accusations of autocratic intent that you bundled into earlier assertions.
Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TCB
Member
Member # 1677

 - posted      Profile for TCB         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Paladine said:
quote:
No, the practical reason is the government has made a promise to people for decades and can't pull the rug out from under their feet. If you tell someone for their whole working life that a program is going to be there for them in their old age, then there are immense practical difficulties inherent in getting rid of it that have nothing to do with whether people think the promise was a good idea in the first place.
I disagree. There's more to the enduring popularity of New Deal programs than a simple desire for long-term financial planning.

Bush II's plan to privatize Social Security 100% guaranteed payments for older people and was explicitly optional for everyone else. The proposal was still very unpopular because Americans like SS the way it is.

Similarly, Paul Ryan's plan to privatize Medicare made no changes to people close to retirement (people 55 and over were exempt, I believe), and he strenuously argued that people would still receive the same level of care that they do under the existing system. Again, the plan was very unpopular because people like Medicare the way it is.

quote:
Yeah, the point of the amendment process to the Constitution is that the people shouldn't always have to rely on the political class doing what they should do; sometimes we need to take power into our own hands in a civil, peaceful way in order to set things right when they've been done badly wrong for a long time, or when our needs and challenges as a people change in such a way as to require it.
Well, if you can't pass legislation without support from the "political class," I doubt you'll be able to amend the Constitution without it either.
Posts: 824 | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
LetterRip
Member
Member # 310

 - posted      Profile for LetterRip   Email LetterRip   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Seneca,

UK doctor shortage is primarily due to immigration reforms and new regulations that limit hours a doctor can work.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10202803

Also any doctor shortage in the US is trivial to rectify - just allow PAs and NPs to practice independently as primary care physicians and allow non doctors to do the roles that doctors in the US have made exclusiveto doctors (ie in most other countries a doctor isn't needed for many anesthetics that US doctors have lobbied only doctors be allowed to do). Some states allow this already - doctors want an artificial scarcity since it increases doctors pay. Also most of the 'ROAD' doctors could be replaced with far cheaper programs - radiology, opthamology, anaesthesiology, and dermatology don't require a full med school degree to learn, a one year program would be adequate.

[ October 15, 2013, 05:20 PM: Message edited by: LetterRip ]

Posts: 8287 | Registered: Jan 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
NobleHunter
Member
Member # 2450

 - posted      Profile for NobleHunter   Email NobleHunter   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Also any doctor shortage in the US is trivial to rectify - just allow PAs and NPs to practice independently as primary care physicians and allow non doctors to do the roles that doctors in the US have made exclusiveto doctors (ie in most other countries a doctor isn't needed for many anesthetics that US doctors have lobbied only doctors be allowed to do). Some states allow this already - doctors want an artificial scarcity since it increases doctors pay.
This strikes me as the worst of both worlds: too few doctors and inflated prices. We might bollocks up the supply of doctors for political reasons, but at least we aren't paying through the nose for the privilege.
Posts: 2581 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
LetterRip
Member
Member # 310

 - posted      Profile for LetterRip   Email LetterRip   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
NobleHunter - if you switch to one year programs for 'ROAD' specialities - the price would drop through the floor while maintaining quality. And PAs and NPs are just as able to do a physical exam and diagnose and treat the common cold as MDs and refer anything more difficult to specialists. You'd see similar quality of outcomes and much cheaper prices. Also supply isn''t low for political reasons, it is low because doctors had the AMA drastically restrict supply (via not openning schools to keep up with training demand and shutting down a number of preexisiting schools, restricting number of doctors who graduate from existing schools, and lobbying to limit the number of funded residencies, and via lobbying to require doctors for services that are provided by non MDs in other countries).

[ October 15, 2013, 05:31 PM: Message edited by: LetterRip ]

Posts: 8287 | Registered: Jan 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Seneca:
Not only does that definition cover everything I said, but a more specific look at progressivism as a political movement shows this as well:
quote:
Contemporary progressivism emerged as part of a response to the vast social changes brought by industrialization in the Western world in the late 19th century, particularly out of the view that progress was being stifled by vast economic inequality between the rich and the poor, unregulated laissez-faire capitalism with out-of-control monopolistic corporations, intense and often violent conflict between workers and capitalists, and lack of effort by governments to address these problems.

Not too bad. As Pyrtolin pointed out, this is totally different than your earlier pejorative mischaracterizations.

[ October 15, 2013, 06:02 PM: Message edited by: AI Wessex ]

Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Both definitions show the method of their preferred social policy transformation, government mandate. They aren't making compliance with their views optional or voluntary. That is fascist.
Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
OathKeepers are extremists. If they ever carry out the plans they are setting up they will be terrorists. People who believe in democracy should be rightly afraid of what they would do if they decided to act.

Respond to my scenarios, Seneca. You're a fearless warrior who has insulted progressives repeatedly (from a distance, of course), so I can't imagine you are hiding from my questions.

Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
NobleHunter
Member
Member # 2450

 - posted      Profile for NobleHunter   Email NobleHunter   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
LR, I'm referring Ontario cutting costs by reducing funds for educating doctors in the 80s or 90s (I think, I haven't actually double-checked the narrative). It took us awhile to get over the shortfall, and I'm pretty sure we could still use more.

The role the AMA plays is why I'm saying you have the worst of both worlds. Both socialized and "free market" medicine can result in artificially low numbers of doctors. The free market just has to pay more for it.

Posts: 2581 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
They aren't making compliance with their views optional or voluntary. That is fascist.
I'm curious: what do you think the word "fascist" means?

But please respond to Al first.

Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Seneca:
Both definitions show the method of their preferred social policy transformation, government mandate. They aren't making compliance with their views optional or voluntary. That is fascist.

Fascism involves using nationalism to justify granting government sponsored monopoies (or at least favorable market advantages) to a small subset of private industries and similarly granting favored social and econmic status to people based on national identity. The misplaced accusation your are makins is of authoritarianism, not fascism. (In fact your position on border security fits far better to any coherent definitino of fascism than suggesting that rule of law equates to fascism.

As for your propsal that, instead of using laws to prevent prevent abusive behaviors that we've identified, we should just ask people really nice to not hurt other and hope they play nicely from that point on, is pretty absurd. The reason that Progressives look to using community rulemaking to prevent abusive practices that limit the freedom of others is specifically because people with the power to perpetrate such abuse demonstrably do not refrain from it left up to their own devices (and, specifically, in the case of market related behaviors, are actively driven to it by the natural race to the bottom that occurs absent such minimum standards to prevent such dishonest or abusive behaviors)

Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I find it strange that progressives feel like they need laws to protect people from being abused by private economics, since any method of being harmed that way is purely voluntary. No one forces you to buy anything (except for Obama) and no one forces you to walk into a store.

You cannot equivocate laws that punish people who murder and strike others to laws that regulate a free society where no one is forced into an economic relationship with someone else. A far better method of regulating the free market is to let people vote with their pocketbooks and shop elsewhere if they are dissatisfied with a service or product, not to use the iron first of the government to mandate things. That inevitably leads to government-sponsored crony capitalism in the short term and socialism and destruction of incentive to be productive in the long run.

Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
LetterRip
Member
Member # 310

 - posted      Profile for LetterRip   Email LetterRip   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Seneca,

quote:
I find it strange that progressives feel like they need laws to protect people from being abused by private economics, since any method of being harmed that way is purely voluntary.
There are negative externalities that are uncompensated - so if you provide a good that has negative externalities, then it imposes cost on those who don't purchase the product. Also monopolies can be used to destroy competitors or in other ways prevent freedom of contract. There are also cartels and oligopolies.
Posts: 8287 | Registered: Jan 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by LetterRip:
Seneca,

quote:
I find it strange that progressives feel like they need laws to protect people from being abused by private economics, since any method of being harmed that way is purely voluntary.
There are negative externalities that are uncompensated - so if you provide a good that has negative externalities, then it imposes cost on those who don't purchase the product. Also monopolies can be used to destroy competitors or in other ways prevent freedom of contract. There are also cartels and oligopolies.
What is a good that has no alternative that harms people who don't buy it and that is only sold or could only be acquired by one source?
Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 6 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  6   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Ornery.org Front Page

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1