Commenter Archive

"If a society is to benefit from Liberal virtues and FDR’s Four Freedoms, surely among these are Freedom from Want."

Well, I want quite a bit. I want a BMW and a good job and a big house and four kids with free doctors and free education through college. Should I be free from those Wants?

Or is "Freedom From Want" a fancy-sounding term for "don't let people starve in the street"?

BlaiseP: Improper labor charging for a government contract is a violation of Federal law, and you were guilty of aiding and abetting it.

Kain is presenting the situation as "greedy capitalists want to tear down the library and put a Barnes & Noble there", but it's really more like "government has run out of money and is asking the people what they consider most important".

It really ticks me off when people say "oh, you don't believe (thing), therefore you're not REALLY (member of group)!"

Of course, I can understand why people would do this; it's a lot easier to dehumanize your opponents when you believe that they're all just bundles of reprehensible beliefs, with no individuality or thought among them. It's also fun to pretend that everyone you disagree with would actually agree with you if only they thought about it a bit.

I guess what I'm asking is: If they aren't pro-life, then what are they? Saying that abortion is immoral is considered a pretty strong litmus-test indicator that you aren't pro-choice. Are you instead suggesting that individual opinions regarding abortion aren't important in defining someone as pro-life/pro-choice? That it's solely one's feeling about the legality and availability of the procedure?

That's a remarkably pragmatist view, but I'm not sure that either side of the debate would be comfortable with that definition.

"...the film seemed to belittle the honest Japanese argument that there was nothing wrong with eating dolphins."

There's a difference between "eating meat" and declaring that sport-killing of an endangered species is a part of unique cultural tradition and outsiders haven't got any right to judge. Especially when those traditions are invented from whole cloth as part of a Noble Savage legend.

"Why does everyone assume that particular incidents are always generalizable in the law?"

Because Congress insists that it can redefine the terms "interstate" and "commerce" as it sees fit.

"[Y]ou don’t have to have health insurance."

According to Obamacare, yes you do. Unemployed people get Medicaid, the rest of us have to pay for insurance--maybe through our employer's group coverage, maybe bought on the open market, but if we do not have health insurance then we are charged a fine.

See, the issue is that the groups in question aren't broke. They just don't want to pay as much as the rest of us.

If participation in the plan is so vitally important that citizens will be fined for not participating, then why should anyone get a waiver?

Yes, just like a lot of people resisted what was perfect because they convinced themselves it was impossible.

So then you're saying that the admins don't actually have the power to punish you? That kind of takes away the support behind your argument (which, you are saying, is that "the power to punish is NOT the power to command")

...Actually, no, it is different in principle, because you do not HAVE to own a car.

"Well you pretty much DO have to--" no. You can take the bus, you can ride a bike, you can walk. Yes, these things may be difficult and inconvenient, but where's the equivalent alternative in the health-care debate? The alternative to health is dead. That's not a matter of degree.

I'm poor. I can't pay. What do you do now?

So if I pay the fine then I can get health care when I need it? Whether I actually buy insurance or not?

Congratulations, you have defined the cost of health care. It is $650 a year. The market will now adjust the level of healthcare services provided to the point where providers can stay in business on $650 per patient per year.

Well, I have to admit that if I tried, I'd expect a lot of No True Scot arguments from you; or, rather, a lot of "well that's not REALLY removed" kind of arguments.

It's pretty clear that your definition of "interstate commerce" is "whatever I want it to be to make my argument valid".

I'm sure that the response will be "well the REPUBLICAN plan was just like giving waivers to EVERYBODY so NYAH!"

So it's not actually that great but it's better and that's the important thing?

It seems like this is a case where 'good enough' is the enemy of 'perfect'...

Sort of the healthcare version of "food deserts".

And there's some validity to that. Right now, I'm lucky enough to work for an employer who's happy to let me take an unscheduled, unplanned half-day as "sick time" so I can go to the endocrinologist. If I worked a minimum-wage fast-food service job, I doubt I'd have that kind of freedom; if the doctor weren't open outside of my work hours then I'd never have a chance to go.

Well, the point he was going for is that if it weren't for the mortgage exemption, then our taxes would be lower overall (as we wouldn't have to "pay" for the exemptions.)

Which is true, to some extent, but you could make that argument about any tax at all. As I said, this viewpoint eventually turns into "taxes are a penalty paid for not receiving government benefits", and I don't think that's what Boonton actually wanted to say...

See, I hear this a lot. "Oh, well you can't denigrate something unless you propose something better!" Really? That kind of blows away the entire art-analysis industry, then, because you're denying the validity of value judgements made by laymen.

"By the way, the Democrats bent over backwards to involve Republicans in the health care bill."

"Here's what we're going to pass, you can vote on it if you want" is hardly bending over backwards.

"If I wanted to, I could fill up the comment thread of every single post on this blog with profane anti-reality ravings."

No, you can't. The comment system tracks IP addresses; it can search and delete by IP, and ban IPs from posting. (Don't you remember that whole business a few weeks ago?)

You could be a pain in the ass for a while, but you can't "wreck the blog".

*******

You're correct that you can't be compelled against your actual will to follow the comment policy, or indeed any law at all. You can always say "my behavior is an entirely voluntary decision made in order to avoid punishment" if it makes you feel better to look at it like that.

But all this does is move the goalposts from "can the government compel you to purchase a product from a private seller" to "can the government punish you if you do not purchase a product from a private seller". You don't actually change the problem; you just put a different shirt on it.

...so, yes, you did expect us to take an Argument From Authority seriously.

"Why are we still focused on the idea that health insurance is a pre-paid medical care plan, instead of, well, insurance against catastrophe?"

As well as the notion that it's absolutely impossible to pay for health care without some kind of shared-cost plan. To return to the car analogy, I don't expect State Farm to cut me a check in reimbursement for my oil change and brake inspection.

Or, for an inverse (and more contemporary) example, imagine if "Firefly" had gone on for eight seasons. Would we still remember it as the Best Thing That Ever Happened Ever? Or would we be saying "well it started strong, but ended well past its prime, just like Buffy and Angel"?

So your argument is that taxes are, in reality, a penalty paid for refusing to receive government benefits? :D