The Healthcare Bill

[EZ-E]

 

And this idea that "we", meaning the collective group of people who reside on the North American continent, are somehow responsible for, socially contracted to or in any way owe anything to other individuals just because we happen to be born and live in the same geographical area is the biggest crock of sh@t I've ever heard.

 

 

+1

[knapplc]

 

Whatever side you fall on of political thinking, I beg you to just remember that your opponent is still your brother. He's still an American, no matter what Keith Olbermann or Rush Limbaugh tell you.

 

I don't care if that someone is American, Mexican, Iraqi, Chinese, North Korean, Iranian, Rush Limbaugh or Keith Olberman; if that person believes that it is ok to steal my property, threaten me with violence if I disobey their arbitrary and subjective laws, or in any other way force me to do something that I don't want to do that person doesn't deserve the title of a human being let alone my brother.

 

And this idea that "we", meaning the collective group of people who reside on the North America continent, are somehow responsible for, socially contracted to or in any way owe anything to other individuals just because we happen to be born and live in the same geographical area is the biggest crock of sh@t I've ever heard. It is exactly that type of altruistic propaganda that has f@cked humanity for so long and has left us us enslaved to a coercive monopoly, commonly known as government, instead of prospering and cooperating in a self-respecting, voluntary and free society.

 

What the hell? Are you serious? You really think I'm talking about those kinds of people? I'm talking about the guys who post here on HuskerBoard, Joe and Jane America, not freaking Rush Limbaugh or Keith Olbermann.

 

And if you really think you have zero connection to your fellow man, why do you bother to talk football with other Husker fans? I'm talking about basic human decency and basic kindness. You really have a problem with that? Really?

[SOCALHUSKER]

 

Whatever side you fall on of political thinking, I beg you to just remember that your opponent is still your brother. He's still an American, no matter what Keith Olbermann or Rush Limbaugh tell you.

 

I don't care if that someone is American, Mexican, Iraqi, Chinese, North Korean, Iranian, Rush Limbaugh or Keith Olberman; if that person believes that it is ok to steal my property, threaten me with violence if I disobey their arbitrary and subjective laws, or in any other way force me to do something that I don't want to do that person doesn't deserve the title of a human being let alone my brother.

 

And this idea that "we", meaning the collective group of people who reside on the North America continent, are somehow responsible for, socially contracted to or in any way owe anything to other individuals just because we happen to be born and live in the same geographical area is the biggest crock of sh@t I've ever heard. It is exactly that type of altruistic propaganda that has f@cked humanity for so long and has left us us enslaved to a coercive monopoly, commonly known as government, instead of prospering and cooperating in a self-respecting, voluntary and free society.

 

What the hell? Are you serious? You really think I'm talking about those kinds of people? I'm talking about the guys who post here on HuskerBoard, Joe and Jane America, not freaking Rush Limbaugh or Keith Olbermann.

 

And if you really think you have zero connection to your fellow man, why do you bother to talk football with other Husker fans? I'm talking about basic human decency and basic kindness. You really have a problem with that? Really?

 

No, I don't have a problem with anything as long as it is voluntary. And last time I checked Huskerboard, cheering for Nebraska football, and helping my neighbors still are. However, the very nature of anything undertaken by government, including voting, protection, roads, taxes, education or healthcare, does not include voluntary choice, but instead is based on, funded by and enforced by coercion, violence and theft. Do you not have a problem with that?

[knapplc]

No, I don't have a problem with anything as long as it is voluntary. And last time I checked Huskerboard, cheering for Nebraska football, and helping my neighbors still are. However, the very nature of anything undertaken by government, including voting, protection, roads, taxes, education or healthcare, does not include voluntary choice, but instead is based on, funded by and enforced by coercion, violence and theft. Do you not have a problem with that?

Of course I agree with all of that. I think we're saying the same thing, but you kind of went after my other post and I didn't get why you would disagree. I'm definitely not saying you or anyone else should lock-step with what the government is doing, or talking heads like Glenn Beck et al, or any such thing. I'm talking about you and me and the kinds of people who post here, nothing more.

[SOCALHUSKER]

No, I don't have a problem with anything as long as it is voluntary. And last time I checked Huskerboard, cheering for Nebraska football, and helping my neighbors still are. However, the very nature of anything undertaken by government, including voting, protection, roads, taxes, education or healthcare, does not include voluntary choice, but instead is based on, funded by and enforced by coercion, violence and theft. Do you not have a problem with that?

Of course I agree with all of that. I think we're saying the same thing, but you kind of went after my other post and I didn't get why you would disagree. I'm definitely not saying you or anyone else should lock-step with what the government is doing, or talking heads like Glenn Beck et al, or any such thing. I'm talking about you and me and the kinds of people who post here, nothing more.

Does it really matter if someone posts here or if they sit in Washington, New York or Peking and suggest or supports the same things?

 

And if you agree that theft, coercion and initiating violence against other individuals is wrong; how can you support the existence of government in any sense?

[knapplc]

And if you agree that theft, coercion and initiating violence against other individuals is wrong; how can you support the existence of government in any sense?

 

Because often government is the lesser of all evils, or at the least, it's the most efficacious means to the end result: society. Theft, coercion and initiating violence against other individuals aren't traits of government, they're traits of humans. These evils wouldn't magically disappear if you abolished government, they just wouldn't be done by the government.

 

Non-government individuals steal, they commit violence and they coerce their neighbors every second of every day.

[holvy83]

I have enjoyed everyone's posts on here, it greatly helps appreciate what others believe in and what the views are on this bill, but at the same time think it is time to head back to other more "fun" stuff on this board. Starting to get a little creepy in here

[SOCALHUSKER]

And if you agree that theft, coercion and initiating violence against other individuals is wrong; how can you support the existence of government in any sense?

 

Because often government is the lesser of all evils, or at the least, it's the most efficacious means to the end result: society. Theft, coercion and initiating violence against other individuals aren't traits of government, they're traits of humans. These evils wouldn't magically disappear if you abolished government, they just wouldn't be done by the government.

 

Non-government individuals steal, they commit violence and they coerce their neighbors every second of every day.

 

The lesser of what two evils? A common criminal or a criminal with an unlimited source of weapons and money? One that robs you and disappears or one that continues to rob you everyday for your entire life? One that you might actually have a chance of defending yourself against or one that employs the largest army, police force and armed criminals that you can ever imagine? Do really believe that's necessary for society to exist? And while I'm not disagreeing with you, nor have I ever said, that some individuals don't steal or commit acts of violence, you are 100% wrong when you state that these aren't traits of government. In fact, the very existence of government is based upon theft and violence. A government is by definition an organization with a coercive monopoly on theft and violence. Show me a government that does not steal, coerce or commit acts of violence and I will show you a government that doesn't exist at all or a protection business operating voluntarily in a free market. And since some individuals do steal, coerce and murder; when you advocate for any type of government you are merely advocating for them to do it legitimately and on much larger scale.

[knapplc]

The lesser of what two evils? A common criminal or a criminal with an unlimited source of weapons and money? One that robs you and disappears or one that continues to rob you everyday for your entire life? One that you might actually have a chance of defending yourself against or one that employs the largest army, police force and armed criminals that you can ever imagine? Do really believe that's necessary for society to exist? And while I'm not disagreeing with you, nor have I ever said, that some individuals don't steal or commit acts of violence, you are 100% wrong when you state that these aren't traits of government. In fact, the very existence of government is based upon theft and violence. A government is by definition an organization with a coercive monopoly on theft and violence. Show me a government that does not steal, coerce or commit acts of violence and I will show you a government that doesn't exist at all or a protection business operating voluntarily in a free market. And since some individuals do steal, coerce and murder; when you advocate for any type of government you are merely advocating for them to do it legitimately and on much larger scale.

 

What I'm saying is that the evils in society are the evils in government. Government is a bunch of humans doing human things. If you want a government that isn't avaricious then you have to comprise it of beings which aren't human.

 

I work for the government, and I have never acted criminally toward you or any other citizen. So it's a fallacy that government inherently is a criminal organization, or that government robs or cheats people every day. Just as some humans rob and cheat, so is it true that some governments, or parts of governments, rob and cheat. Some governments enslave their people; most don't. But again, you're confusing human traits with government traits.

 

Because government is comprised of humans, those human traits are concomitant with government. The fact remains that no form of society will ever be free of the very evils you describe, whether they have a formal government or anarchic society. Humans are humans and do human things.

 

The only thing we can do is observe our government and prosecute them when they break the law, the same as we do with individuals.

[SOCALHUSKER]

The lesser of what two evils? A common criminal or a criminal with an unlimited source of weapons and money? One that robs you and disappears or one that continues to rob you everyday for your entire life? One that you might actually have a chance of defending yourself against or one that employs the largest army, police force and armed criminals that you can ever imagine? Do really believe that's necessary for society to exist? And while I'm not disagreeing with you, nor have I ever said, that some individuals don't steal or commit acts of violence, you are 100% wrong when you state that these aren't traits of government. In fact, the very existence of government is based upon theft and violence. A government is by definition an organization with a coercive monopoly on theft and violence. Show me a government that does not steal, coerce or commit acts of violence and I will show you a government that doesn't exist at all or a protection business operating voluntarily in a free market. And since some individuals do steal, coerce and murder; when you advocate for any type of government you are merely advocating for them to do it legitimately and on much larger scale.

 

What I'm saying is that the evils in society are the evils in government. Government is a bunch of humans doing human things. If you want a government that isn't avaricious then you have to comprise it of beings which aren't human.

 

I work for the government, and I have never acted criminally toward you or any other citizen. So it's a fallacy that government inherently is a criminal organization, or that government robs or cheats people every day. Just as some humans rob and cheat, so is it true that some governments, or parts of governments, rob and cheat. Some governments enslave their people; most don't. But again, you're confusing human traits with government traits.

 

Because government is comprised of humans, those human traits are concomitant with government. The fact remains that no form of society will ever be free of the very evils you describe, whether they have a formal government or anarchic society. Humans are humans and do human things.

 

The only thing we can do is observe our government and prosecute them when they break the law, the same as we do with individuals.

Exactly, so how then do your propose that society, one in which all the evil and immature thinkers also belong, go about selecting this government that is supposed to protect us from the evil and immature? Since it will always include, and is proven to attract, the evil and immature, how can you believe it wise and/or moral to give it monopoly powers and force other's to comply? Isn’t that completely contradictory to the stated purpose? You state that we need to observe and prosecute, but is that even possible when due to it’s monopolistic nature those in government not only make the law, but enforce and prosecute it too? Why would individuals not be better off protecting themselves or at least be given the choice to pay someone else for protection? You state that not all government's enslave but can you show me a government that does not require participation, whether an individuals wants to or not? If that's not the textbook definition of slavery then I don't know what is.

 

You also state that government is humans doing human things, but how many people do you know that base their entire existence on theft and violence? Sure, some people do but last time I checked most of those people are dead, wanted or in jail. And yes, contrary to your opinion government does those things every single day. Have you ever tried to buy something without paying an extortion tax, driven on a road without a license or registration, started a business without a permit, seen a doctor who isn't approved, smoked or taken pills without a proper label, paid for sex, or withheld your earnings because they are rightfully yours? I'm not saying that I've done any or all of those things, but chances are they happen every single day, and if caught, those individuals are either forced, at gunpoint, to pay money or are kidnapped and thrown in a cage for harming nobody. Do those things not constitute theft or violence in your eyes?

 

And this is not meant as a personal attack on you, for I am positive that you are not a bad person, but have you ever thought about where your paycheck comes from? Since the government has no money except that which is stolen from the productive members of society or printed from thin air, which also harms productive people, how do you suppose it is that you get paid? If that money isn’t stolen would you still get paid? Just because you aren’t personally stealing or harming people doesn’t mean that you aren’t responsible for the continuance and severity of it. And if you believe it's ok to take things that don't belong to you, as long as the cause is noble or you benefit, why is it that only the government can decide what’s noble and then kill or throw people in cages if they disagree or decide to take from others when they believe the cause is noble or they benefit?

 

I’m well aware that the scourge of the earth will never be eliminated, for humans all have the ability to act irrational, but unlike those who advocate a system that promotes irresponsibility and allows the scourge to grow and prosper, I support a system that makes it harder for those types of people to survive, harder for them to gain power and harder for them to hurt other’s without suffering the consequences for their actions. Anarchy is not a system without laws, but a system without rulers. It’s about allowing individuals the ability to make choices and either benefitting or suffering for them. It is through choice that individuals can begin to understand responsibility and it is only through responsibility that people can learn and truly become prosperous.

[knapplc]

Again, without evidence to support your claim that the sole purpose of government is to enslave, rob, coerce and/or anything else you accuse it of, we cannot have a rational conversation. Please cite real-world examples of these things, and be sure that these examples are not isolated, but so pervasive that it's clear for the common man to see that what you're alleging is all that government is.

 

What most folks here are going to tell you is that they don't feel coerced into paying taxes. We're all going to say we don't want to pay taxes, but the majority of us pay them because we like having a military to protect us from enemies, and we like having representatives who advocate for us in business dealings with other nations, and we like having roads and police and other amenities that disorganized communities don't have. It's voluntary, not coerced.

[RockyMountainOySker]

Don't want to dismiss the Knapp-SOCAL debate but the healthcare bill was sent back to the House for another vote. A couple issues appeared at 2:45am in regards to budget reconciliation rules. This will probably not effect the adoption of the bill other than delay it a few days.....

 

The issues:

 

Senator Kent Conrad, Democrat of North Dakota and chairman of the Budget Committee, said that one problem with the bill was the formula for determining the maximum Pell grant awards. The second issue was a technical matter that Mr. Conrad described as mostly insignificant.

 

A third issue is being looked at.

[knapplc]

I don't think anyone is surprised with this, since it was passed in such an odd way.

[SOCALHUSKER]

Again, without evidence to support your claim that the sole purpose of government is to enslave, rob, coerce and/or anything else you accuse it of, we cannot have a rational conversation. Please cite real-world examples of these things, and be sure that these examples are not isolated, but so pervasive that it's clear for the common man to see that what you're alleging is all that government is.

 

What most folks here are going to tell you is that they don't feel coerced into paying taxes. We're all going to say we don't want to pay taxes, but the majority of us pay them because we like having a military to protect us from enemies, and we like having representatives who advocate for us in business dealings with other nations, and we like having roads and police and other amenities that disorganized communities don't have. It's voluntary, not coerced.

What happens when you don't pay taxes? Or is going to jail, having your property confiscated, or being shot in the head because you refuse or defend yourself what you would consider voluntary also? How much of a real-world and pervasive example is that?

 

Is to be against that what you consider irrational? Or is the person who ignores, supports, and advocates for the aggression against innocent, non-right's violating individuals irrational?

[SOCALHUSKER]

The second issue was a technical matter that Mr. Conrad described as mostly insignificant.

 

Like how they plan to repeal the economic laws of supply and demand? Or maybe how they can muster up some more inflation or another term to describe theft?