How Would You Describe Your Political Views?

[EZ-E]

if doctors were immune from suits

 

I never once eluded to this at all Carlfense. Your links do sound interesting and thank you. I will read them when I get the time as I am in class right now. I have a huge work study block tonight that I should be able to get to it.

 

I know you didn't say that. I was trying to say if we took it to the most cost saving extreme, no suits at all, it would still only save 1.5% of medical costs overall. I'm sorry I didn't clarify that.

 

It's cool. I am actually going to take your word for it on this subject. I just realized that you told me once in a PM that you are a law student; therefore you SHOULD know all of this as it pertains to the profession that you are currently persuing. Thank you for the information. I will say that you are right in saying that the health care issue is extremely complicated with the new information that you presented me, but I still do not believe that universializing it is the way to do you.

[SOCALHUSKER]

Work for what you get, get what you earn and keep the government out of the things that the government shouldnt be involved in.

 

You got it all correct except that the government shouldn't be involved in anything!! And if defense, protection, roads or education are truly a concern, you'd be better off voluntarily giving your money to any business providing the same service but competing for customers in a free market. Currently, all those services are provided, more like shoved down your throat with money stolen from you, by the coercive monopoly known as government. And this only guarantees one thing, that you will get the worst possible service for the highest possible price.

 

I agree with most of what you said. Except I do believe in the system we currently have in place.

If you agree with anything I said, how can you believe in the system, Constitution or not, that we currently have in place? That's akin to saying that you agree that murder, kidnapping and theft are wrong, but believe it's ok for people to kill, enslave and steal. Talk about a contradiction.

[carlfense]

if doctors were immune from suits

 

I never once eluded to this at all Carlfense. Your links do sound interesting and thank you. I will read them when I get the time as I am in class right now. I have a huge work study block tonight that I should be able to get to it.

 

I know you didn't say that. I was trying to say if we took it to the most cost saving extreme, no suits at all, it would still only save 1.5% of medical costs overall. I'm sorry I didn't clarify that.

 

It's cool. I am actually going to take your word for it on this subject. I just realized that you told me once in a PM that you are a law student; therefore you SHOULD know all of this as it pertains to the profession that you are currently persuing. Thank you for the information. I will say that you are right in saying that the health care issue is extremely complicated with the new information that you presented me, but I still do not believe that universializing it is the way to do you.

 

Was that the PM where I apologized for acting like a d@#$ and we talked about school and your first NU game vs. KSU? I think I deleted it. :S

[EZ-E]

if doctors were immune from suits

 

I never once eluded to this at all Carlfense. Your links do sound interesting and thank you. I will read them when I get the time as I am in class right now. I have a huge work study block tonight that I should be able to get to it.

 

I know you didn't say that. I was trying to say if we took it to the most cost saving extreme, no suits at all, it would still only save 1.5% of medical costs overall. I'm sorry I didn't clarify that.

 

It's cool. I am actually going to take your word for it on this subject. I just realized that you told me once in a PM that you are a law student; therefore you SHOULD know all of this as it pertains to the profession that you are currently persuing. Thank you for the information. I will say that you are right in saying that the health care issue is extremely complicated with the new information that you presented me, but I still do not believe that universializing it is the way to do you.

 

Was that the PM where I apologized for acting like a d@#$ and we talked about school and your first NU game vs. KSU? I think I deleted it. :S

 

I believe that it was.

[SOCALHUSKER]

Let's break down your post and see where the problem(s), if any, may lie.

 

I would like to live in an America where the constitution is valued again; where the people on capital hill have the interest of the people at hand and not their own; and I would love for this republic with a socialistic twist on it to end for good.

Meaning: You want to live in a country where other individual's life and property are stolen from and regulated at gunpoint in order to satisfy what the tyranny of the majority's subjective opinion deems necessary for the fictitious "common good." Is that a problem?

 

If this were my economy here is what I would do:

The problem with this statement is that the economy cannot be regulated or planned by any one person, or a group of people, without inducing many unintended and disastrous consequences, no matter how brilliant or knowledegable they may be or think they are. Since the economy consists of an infinite number of decisions made according to the values and preferences of the individual's that make up the market, any attempt to force one's subjective opinion on other's will always produce disastrous results. The key to a stable and productive economy is to not interfere and allow the individual's that make up the market to make free choices according to their own self interest.

 

1. Crack down on illegal immigration

Using as a scapegoat those deemed "illegal," because they didn't happen to be born in-between imaginary lines in a particular geographical area, is to ignore the root of the problem, which is that it is not ok and completely unproductive to steal people's rightfully earned money and property, no matter how noble the cause maybe.

 

2. Start drilling off-shore for oil

Might be a productive venture as long as it is undertaken by voluntary businesses adhering to property rights and competing for customers in a free market.

 

3. Tort Reform

As carlfense has pointed out this has very little to do with the astronomical cost of healthcare and is merely another scapegoat in which to place the blame on the market, while ignoring the disastrous consequences that government interference has caused on healthcare and nearly every other industry. With every piece of legislation, license, subsidy, favor, tariff, price fix, tax, tax break or unfair regulation that government imposes; the cost of doing business rises dramatically. When this happens, the consumer and other productive individuals always lose.

 

4. Make it legal for people to buy insurance policies across state lines

Insurance should not only be legal across state lines but also legal to purchase whenever and wherever an individual is voluntarily willing to pay for it.

 

1 & 2 would both create jobs and 2 would also lessen our dependency on foriegn oil.

However, the fallacy of this is that when government supposedly "creates" jobs it not only steals capital from other productive ventures to do so, therefore negating other jobs that might have existed, but it also leads to a large sector of unproductivity that arises from the individuals who waste time attempting to circumvent or avoid the system altogther. Hence the term, the seen and the unseen.

 

3 would lower the cost of Health Care because you wouldnt be able to sue a doctor for cutting a toe nail wrong, etc. So malpractice insurance premiums would fall drastically; thus lowering the cost of Health Care.

Has already been discussed.

 

4 would open up the competition and make the best insurance packages available come out.

Which is a great idea but must be extended to everyone, everywhere.

 

The above probably wouldnt cost as much as we are currently spending.

The solution I suggest, of allowing individual's to make their own choices and voluntarily conducting their own business, doesn't cost a thing. In fact, the benefits and productivity that arise from a free society far outweigh any supposed "benefit" that more government can bring to anyone.

[knapplc]

The solution I suggest, of allowing individual's to make their own choices and voluntarily conducting their own business, doesn't cost a thing. In fact, the benefits and productivity that arise from a free society far outweigh any supposed "benefit" that more government can bring to anyone.

 

Do you have a real-world example of the kind of society you're describing here? Like a region and an era where this happened?

[CornHOLIO]

The solution I suggest, of allowing individual's to make their own choices and voluntarily conducting their own business, doesn't cost a thing. In fact, the benefits and productivity that arise from a free society far outweigh any supposed "benefit" that more government can bring to anyone.

 

Do you have a real-world example of the kind of society you're describing here? Like a region and an era where this happened?

 

Adam and Eve..Eden

 

Before God told them what they could and could not eat.

[carlfense]

The solution I suggest, of allowing individual's to make their own choices and voluntarily conducting their own business, doesn't cost a thing. In fact, the benefits and productivity that arise from a free society far outweigh any supposed "benefit" that more government can bring to anyone.

 

Do you have a real-world example of the kind of society you're describing here? Like a region and an era where this happened?

 

Adam and Eve..Eden

 

Before God told them what they could and could not eat.

I laughed.

[SOCALHUSKER]

The solution I suggest, of allowing individual's to make their own choices and voluntarily conducting their own business, doesn't cost a thing. In fact, the benefits and productivity that arise from a free society far outweigh any supposed "benefit" that more government can bring to anyone.

 

Do you have a real-world example of the kind of society you're describing here? Like a region and an era where this happened?

Does the fact that a truly free market society has not existed yet somehow take away from the fact that a government run society is completely immoral, inefficient and contradictory? Does the fact that something has not happened yet somehow prove that it cannot ever exist? Or better yet, do you have any real-world examples of a government that has done what it was supposed to do? Besides these fact, there are some examples, though not all are comparable due to population or technological advancement, that we can learn from and prove that freedom and choice do lead to more prosperity and less violence. A few examples are early America from the revolution until the ratification of the Constitution, Iceland from the 900's-1200's, Ireland, the Old West, and Somolia. Check out this link for more info about these examples.

[knapplc]

It depends on whether you want to build a real-world, sustaining and lasting community, or if you want to live in a sociological experiment. If you just want to live in an experimental compound that espouses this kind of self-governing that's OK, but you can't expect a broad spectrum of society to embrace these tenets. The natural enemy of such a society is avarice, which is a universal trait found in every society. It is extremely rare in an advanced society that undercurrents of avarice don't alter the tenor of the self-governed to such an extent that strife tears that society apart.

 

All things considered, I'd love to live in a society of people enlightened enough to not need a government of any kind. The reality is that not all people are capable of the mature decisions necessary to live that way, and in the presence of such people and an absence of authority you inevitably have anarchic strife.

[SOCALHUSKER]

It depends on whether you want to build a real-world, sustaining and lasting community, or if you want to live in a sociological experiment. If you just want to live in an experimental compound that espouses this kind of self-governing that's OK, but you can't expect a broad spectrum of society to embrace these tenets. The natural enemy of such a society is avarice, which is a universal trait found in every society. It is extremely rare in an advanced society that undercurrents of avarice don't alter the tenor of the self-governed to such an extent that strife tears that society apart.

 

All things considered, I'd love to live in a society of people enlightened enough to not need a government of any kind. The reality is that not all people are capable of the mature decisions necessary to live that way, and in the presence of such people and an absence of authority you inevitably have anarchic strife.

A sustaining and lasting community, is that what you call all the societies that have crumbled under government? Or is that not a sociological, not to mention violently oppressive, experiment too?

 

And while I do not deny avarice, for as you mentioned that is human nature, I believe there are more just and logical ways of dealing with that problem instead of as you would suggest, empowering those same greedy individual's with a coercive monopoly on theft and violence? How does that make any sense? Besides, if individuals are not capable of the making mature decisions required to live freely, how do you expect them to make mature decisions when it comes to voting for rulers or voting on laws that not only effect a few, but effect everyone.

[SOCALHUSKER]

Also, does a broad spectrum of society not already espouse the tenents of non-aggression and self-ownership? Everybody except for government that is.

[knapplc]

A sustaining and lasting community, is that what you call all the societies that have crumbled under government? Or is that not a sociological, not to mention violently oppressive experiment too?

 

And while I do not dispute your mention of avarice, for as you mentioned that is human nature, I believe there are more just and logical ways of dealing with that problem instead of as you would suggest, empowering those same greedy individual's with a coercive monopoly on theft and violence? How does that make any sense? Besides, if individuals are not capable of the making mature decisions required to live freely, how do you expect them to make mature decisions when it comes to voting for rulers or voting on laws that not only effect a few, but effect everyone.

 

So if you agree that humans alone cannot be trusted to govern themselves due to inherent human failures, and governments comprised of those humans can't be trusted, what do you have left? You have to make a choice between two evils, and government of some kind is inevitably the choice, simply because together we can pool our resources to create a better society than each can individually.

[knapplc]

Also, does a broad spectrum of society not already espouse the tenents of non-aggression and self-ownership? Everybody except for government that is.

 

Sure they do. But by using the phrase "a broad spectrum of society" you acknowledge inherently that a segment of society does not espouse non-aggression. Who protects those of us who choose to follow the law?

[SOCALHUSKER]

Also, does a broad spectrum of society not already espouse the tenents of non-aggression and self-ownership? Everybody except for government that is.

 

Sure they do. But by using the phrase "a broad spectrum of society" you acknowledge inherently that a segment of society does not espouse non-aggression. Who protects those of us who choose to follow the law?

Your question falsely presupposes that the means employed today protect us from those who break the "law." However, we both know, with countless victims and dead as proof, that this is completely untrue. Besides, there are numerous ways, other than employing a coercive monopoly on violence, to ensure that individuals do not aggress or violate the rights of other individuals. The limits are the extent of the human mind and could include simply ostracizing individuals, arming oneself or voluntarily employing a fully armed and well trained protection business. Not only could an individual find any amount or flavor of protection/defense in a free market, but he could pay for it as he sees fit and not be aggressed against to pay extortion fees for something that he may or may not want.