ExRx.net

Meanwhile, the original thread-starter, Bob is still without insurance. Within time the new legislation will help him along with 30million others. Until then, the opponents of the bill will just say "Too bad, you're a socialist."

Tostig, I guess you didn't read my comments.Is Bob going to be better off? When will the preexisting exemptions kick in? How much will he have to pay for a "forced" policy after the insurance companies adjust for it? What's even in the bill? There was absolutely no transparency with this bill, and if YOU know what's in it, you're better off than 99% of usHas nothing to do with solcialism or not. All the majority of the American public knows are the negative suppositions from the right wing pundits, and the positive assumptions from the left wing pundits. My question, is, WTF is actually in this thing. We are painfully finding out bit by bit.
Tim

Most people can read what I have written and know I take a more liberal stance on issues, and I don't see how this bill from I know could appease liberals at all. There is no public option, and doesn't seem to regulate whatsoever what health insurance providers can charge for things (to my knowledge). It's forcing people to buy something which if they could they would already have anyway. It's supposedly providing breaks for those that can't afford it, but from what I read after the bill was passed you have to making an abysmally low wage to qualify. It's forcing employers with more than 50 workers to provide health insurance for their workers, when its usually the smaller ones not providing it (which makes sense logically cause they probably don't have the money to provide). Why not give these smaller companies a break so they can provide it? Most larger companies already have some form of coverage for their employees so this part really has me scratching my head. They are letting kids stay on their parents insurance till they are 26, which I think we clearly need to have a big age debate in this country considering we'll try children as adults when they aren't 18, let kids sign up for the army below 18 as well, yet they can't drink till they are 21 and can get free insurance until 26? How does all that make any sense?

Rucifer, you say you are a liberal, and I'm a conservative leaning libertarian, but you couldn't believe how much we are on the same page on this issue.
Tim

Anarchy is not right-wing. Anarchy, as you seem to agree, is the state in which there is no govt, ie the natural state. Anarchy is like pure libertarianism in a sense. I don't really care what "Nazi" translates to, it doesn't make it the definition of "national socialism".

I don't know about imposing liberty, but liberty is not the default of anything. Liberty does not really make perfect sense unless there is a govt, and all govts are going to restrict liberty of some things, eg murder.

As to your charity/socialism and done by force statements, I want to ask you: What exactly is your reason for socialism being bad compared to charity? You have major logical gaps in your conclusion.

If socialism is not bad because socialism is done by force and all things that are done by force are bad, then why is socialism bad? You just said some things done by force are good, can't socialism be one good thing done by force? You seem to then be saying that charity is done by choice, so it is preferred? Why are things done by choice preferred? Furthermore, although you think socialism affects charity, it wouldn't affect my decision to donate to charity. I want something that is across the board applied or nothing at all (since nothing at all would be across the board applied).

I just don't follow your argument here, most of your statements are "I want X" or "Y is true." You never bother to explain why just because you want X, I should want X also, or why Y is true. It just seems taken as given, unfortunately it is quite obvious that not everyone is taking it as given, so you should feel a bit compelled to explain yourself, otherwise you aren't even trying to engage in an actual conversation, and there is no point in talking.

So, WHY is it necessary to not have socialism, in order to have charity?

The generally accepted popular political definitions of "left" and "right" are that "left" means more government and "right" means less government. Stuward correctly pointed out however their are some alternative more specific definitions that avoid relying on the left/right words. However in the most common definitions it is correct that anarachy is extreme right, and the Nazis, were extreme left, ie socialists.

Your liberty to swing your arm ends at the tip of my nose. Surely this is axiomatic?

As long as we all agree that socialism is essentially the same as charity, except that socialism is imposed by force by the government, then fine. There seemed to be some confusion as to that, which is why I wanted to make it absolutely clear.

As I believe I've already stated, charity benefits the giver and receiver in ways socialism does not.

Like how the giver gets to save on taxes lol ha! It's kind of ironic, people give to charity to pay less tax(not all people donate for this reason) to "help" those less fortunate. When if they paid their taxes it still would have gone to someone less fortunate.

Although the government does spend money paying people to dig holes one day and fill them back up the next day... Maybe we just need to be less frugal as a society eh?

No, those are not the most common definitions of those terms. In fact I would argue it is exactly the opposite. But then again, I am only truly familiar with explanations based on the chart Stuward posted.

Both "parties" have a social and economic component, each "liberal" on one and "conservative" on the other. This is why I hate the terms liberal and conservative; they ignore the reality of the situation, but most people are stupid so I have come to accept their misuse. The parties are then referred to by their stance on social freedom, not economic freedom. Democrats generally want more social freedoms while Republicans want less. This was more true many decades ago. Now there is a strong religious divide which is my main disdain for the Republicans, although the Democrats are pretty near.



Well for those "liberal" Nazis I don't think liberty stopped at anyone's nose.

We agree on the difference between charity and socialism in that respect. I just don't think charity will get the job done that I want done. Socialism benefits people in ways that that charity does not. It's also more fair.


As for those who dont have insurance right now. The point is, they will save more money with whatever insurance they buy than if they just paid out of pocket. Surely that is better?

(facepalm)

I said the military is socialized not socialism. It is government run. WTF?! Get a dictionary.

Of course that's wrong! That was the whole point! I was trying to show you just how stupid that is, and you thought I was serious. WTF!? You have GOT to be jerking my chain. There is NO WAY you could be that thick.

No the point is there is no socialism here. From what you have said, you clearly have no idea what the word means.

The problem with that is deregulation does not equal economic freedom. That just turns a blind eye to problems and gives all the power to the powerful. You end up with corporations squeezing out people, leaving them with no freedoms, economic or otherwise.

A better analogy is economic anarchy, or "every man for himself" as the far right. The far left isn't any better though, that's communism. It has nothing to do with personal freedom.

There is another axis that goes from anarchy to authoritarianism.

Going by that scale if you take the lower left quadrant and divide that into quadrants (1/16th) I would be close to the middle of that lower left 1/16th, but a leaning a little up and right. I am very close to what some refer to as "left libertarian". I would be on their more conservative edge anyway.

I believe in economic freedom for PEOPLE.

No, that is not how it works.

There is the up down axis. That one is easy. You have authoritarian at the top. The government controls everything and you have no rights. Then it's anarchy at the bottom. There is no rule of law at all. IT has nothing to do with left or right.

The left and right is different. The far left is communism. It can be the authoritarian kind, a communal anarchy or something in between. It just means nobody owns anything. It's all in the pot. On the right, it is everyone for themselves. There are no taxes, no infrastructure, no safety nets. It is total economic anarchy. You can get only what the powerful let you have, or what you can take for yourself. This says nothing of whether it is authoritarian state enforcement, or it's that way because it's an anarchy and that's just how it happened.


In practicality there can never be anything truly close to real anarchy or total economic freedom for all. The power vacuum will ALWAYS be filled by the most powerful entity that can take it. So you can live in a right wing anarchy, and suddenly find yourself living like serfs in an authoritarian state at the whim of whoever happens to be the most powerful.

Irrelevant - in that context it's a ridiculous thing to say for the reasons I've stated.

I was pointing out it was wrong in more important ways than the one you jokingly intended.

Well the new Obama-care thing is socialism, certainly.

I was referring to the "generally accepted popular political definitions of left and right". That's what they are - it's correct - move on. I agree they're vague terms, though, which is I try to use more specific terms normally.

This has broken down to a pointless "yest it is" "not it isn't". You also have decided you are going to use a word contrary to it's dictionary definition, no matter what anyone says.

You seem to mean "not right wing". I agree it's not right wing.

Even by popular American ideas of the meaning it is not quite right. They see extreme right as fascism, and extreme left as communism or socialism. They see it as authoritarian in both cases. They see conservative as smaller government, less taxes, less programs, but a lot of moral enforcement on social issues. They see left as more government, more spending and programs, higher taxes, but but very lenient on social issues.

They see libertarian as some completely separate entity completely separated from this. Or they see it as conservative on fiscal stuff and liberal on social stuff. They also only understand far right libertarianism. They don't even think left libertarianism or libertarian socialism can exist.


That is the American public in general. Now if you mean the understanding right wingers have of it, then yes, that tends to be what they think. Some people on the left have a fairly slanted view as well. I prefer understanding other people's positions with out falling for their propaganda or other people's propaganda about them.